Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 9, 11-12, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0097083 A1 to Mao, US 2018/0153430 to Ang et al. (Ang); and US 2013/0159939 Krishnamurthi.
As to claim 2, Mao discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a wrist-wearable device (802) (Par. 50) including and one or more sensors (neuromuscular sensors) configured to detect roll values for the wrist-wearable device (Figs. 8A-8B, 10-11C, Pars. 193-195, see also Pars. 166-167), cause the wrist-wearable device to:
obtain an indication that the wrist-wearable device is within a threshold distance of a target device (e.g. smartphone 1103)(Figs. 8A-8B, Pars. 166-167);
while the target device is performing operations of a first application (Figs. 8A-8B, Pars. 166-167):
obtain roll value data from the one or more sensors indicating that the wrist- wearable device is at a first roll value (Figs. 8A-8B, 10-11C, Pars. 193-195, Pars. 166-167, 199-200); while the wrist-wearable device is maintained at the first roll value (Figs. 11B-11C, Pars. 199-200, e.g. while the wrist-wearable device is maintained at a first (e.g. roll value when the user stops rolling), a pinch is detected. For example, the user can roll their wrist back to select the time until the next notification (roll value is maintained), and a pinch may be used to set the desired time for the alarm):
obtain data from the one or more sensors indicating that a user of the wrist- wearable device is performing a digit-to-digit gesture (e.g. pinch) (Figs. 8A-8B, 10-11C, Pars. 166-167, 193-195, see also Pars. 199-200, e.g. while the wrist-wearable device is maintained at a first (e.g. roll value when the user stops rolling), a pinch is detected); and
in accordance with obtaining the data, cause an input command to be performed via the first application at the target device (1103) Figs. 8A-8B, 10-11C, Pars. 166-167, 193-195); and
while the wrist-wearable device remains within the threshold distance of the target device (1103), and the target device is performing operations of a second application, distinct from the first application (Figs. 8A-8B, 10-11C, Pars. 166-167, 193-195).
Mao does not expressly disclose one or more sensors configured to detect yaw and pitch; obtain additional roll value data from the one or more sensors indicating that the wrist-wearable device is at the first roll value; while the wrist-wearable device is maintained at the first roll value:
obtain additional data from the one or more sensors indicating that the user is performing the digit-to-digit; and in accordance with obtaining the additional data, cause another input command to be performed by the second application at the target device, wherein the other input command causes a different type of operation at the target device than was caused by the input command caused while the target device was performing the operations of the first application.
Ang discloses obtain roll value data from the one or more sensors (sensors in 950) (Fig. 18, Pars. 22, 186-187) indicating that the wrist-wearable device is at a first roll value (e.g. first magnitude) (Fig. 18, Pars. 22, 186-187); while the wrist-wearable device is maintained at the first roll value (Fig. 18, Pars. 22, 186-187, 189):
one or more sensors (sensors in 950) (Fig. 18, Pars. 22, 186-187) configured to detect yaw, pitch, and roll (Fig. 18, Pars. 22, 187); and obtain data from the one or more sensors indicating that a user of the wrist-wearable device is performing a digit-to-digit gesture (see Pars. 51, 78, 202, see also Pars. 22, 189).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mao with the teaching of Ang to provide an intuitive inputting process as suggested by Ang (Par. 187).
Krishnamurthi discloses a same gesture may execute a different command in different application (Par. 35).
Mao as modified discloses obtain additional roll value data from the one or more sensors indicating that the wrist-wearable device is at the first roll value (Mao’s Figs. 11B-11C, Pars. 199-200, Ang’s see Pars. 22, 189, see also Pars. 51, 78, 202); while the wrist-wearable device is maintained at the first roll value (Mao’s Figs. 11B-11C, Pars. 199-200, Ang’s see Pars. 22, 189, see also Pars. 51, 78, 202): obtain additional data from the one or more sensors indicating that the user is performing the digit-to-digit gesture (Ang’s see Pars. 22, 189, see also Pars. 51, 78, 202); and
in accordance with obtaining the additional data, cause another input command to be performed by the second application at the target device (Krishnamurthi’s Par. 35), wherein the other input command causes a different type of operation at the target device than was caused by the input command caused while the target device was performing the operations of the first application Krishnamurthi’s (Par. 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mao with the teaching of Krishnamurthi to provide an intuitive inputting process (Par. 187).
As to claims 12 and 19, claims 12 and 19 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claims 12 and 19 are rejected based on same analysis as claim 2.
As to claim 7, Mao’s discloses the first application is one of a photo-viewing or video-playback application (Mao’s Table1: display video control, see Page 18), and the second application is a gaming application (Mao’s Par. 150).
As to claims 17, Mao in view of Ang and Krishnamurthi teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 7 above. The limitation of claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected based on same analysis as claim 7.
As to claim 18, Mao discloses the input command causes operations corresponding to navigation through a media-viewing interface of the video-playback application (Mao’s Table1: display video control, see Page 18), and the other input command causes operations corresponding to a control command within the gaming application (Mao’s Pars. 150, 155).
As to claim 9, Mao’s discloses at least one of the input command or the other input command is personalized based on the user of the wrist-wearable device (Mao’s Pars. 168-169), and the user is determined based on a biometric signal detected while the user is performing the digit-to-digit gesture (Mao’s Pars. 168-169, 190).
As to claim 11, Mao’s discloses before obtaining the data from the one or more sensors indicating that the user is performing the digit-to-digit gesture: establishing a communication channel (806) with the target device (803), without requiring any input from the user (Figs. 8A-8B, Par. 166).
Claim(s) 3-5, 13-15, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0097083 A1 to Mao, US 2018/0153430 to Ang et al. (Ang) and US 2013/0159939 Krishnamurthi; in view of US 2017/0308118 A1 to Ito.
As to claim 3, Mao does not expressly disclose the wrist-wearable device further includes a display, and the instructions further cause the wrist-wearable device to: in conjunction with the performance of the input command and the other input command, cause display of different respective UI elements at the display of the wrist-wearable device.
Ito discloses the wrist-wearable device further includes a display (20)(Figs. 12A-12B, Pars. 182-183), and the instructions further cause the wrist-wearable device (1) to: in conjunction with the performance of the input command and the other input command, cause display of different respective UI elements at the display of the wrist-wearable device (1)(Figs. 12A-12B, Pars. 182-183).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mao with the teaching of Ito to perform a predetermined display operation in response to the detected bodily motion as suggested by Ito (Par. 7).
As to claims 13 and 20, Mao in view of Ang and Krishnamurthi teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 3 above. The limitation of claims 13 and 20 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claims 13 and 20 are rejected based on same analysis as claim 3.
As to claim 4, Mao as modified discloses the different respective UI elements include a respective UI element indicating a zoom level corresponding to a visual zoom of content being presented at the target device (Ito’s Figs. 12A-12B, Pars. 182-183, Ang’s Fig. 18, Pars. 22, 187, see also Pars. 162, 163, 186, 188). See claim 3 motivation above.
As to claims 14 and 21, Mao in view of Ang and Krishnamurthi teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 4 above. The limitation of claims 14-21 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claims 14 and 21 are rejected based on same analysis as claim 4.
As to claim 5, Mao as modified discloses the zoom level is determined based on a yaw value detected by the one or more sensors of the wrist-wearable device (Ito’s Figs. 12A-12B, Pars. 182-183, Ang’s Fig. 18, Pars. 22, 187, see also Pars. 162, 163, 186, 188). See claim 3 motivation above.
As to claims 15 and 22, Mao in view of Ang and Krishnamurthi teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 5 above. The limitation of claims 15 and 22 is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly, claims 15 and 22 are rejected based on same analysis as claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 16, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0097083 A1 to Mao, US 2018/0153430 to Ang et al. (Ang); and US 2013/0159939 Krishnamurthi; in view of US 2017/0308118 A1 to Ito and US 2005/0210417 to Marvit et al. (Marvit).
As to claim 6, Mao as modified does not expressly disclose the zoom level is based on a proximity between the wrist-wearable device and a head of the user.
Marvit discloses the zoom level is based on a proximity between the wrist-wearable device and a head of the user (Par. 81).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mao with the teaching of Marvit to provide a motion user interface easier to learn and use as suggested by Marvit (Par. 81).
As to claims 16 and 22, Mao in view of Ang and Krishnamurthi teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 6 above. The limitation of claims 16 and 22 is substantially similar to claim 6. Accordingly, claims 16 and 22 are rejected based on same analysis as claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-7, 9, and 11-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
On pages 10-11 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that Mao in view of Ang and Krishnamurthi does not teach the amended limitation of “obtain data from the one or more sensors indicating that a user of the wrist-wearable device is performing a digit-to-digit gesture while the wrist-wearable device is maintained at a first roll value”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Mao teaches the limitation obtain roll value data from the one or more sensors indicating that the wrist- wearable device is at a first roll value (Figs. 8A-8B, 10-11C, Pars. 193-195, Pars. 166-167, 199-200); while the wrist-wearable device is maintained at the first roll value (Figs. 11B-11C, Pars. 199-200, e.g. while the wrist-wearable device is maintained at a first (e.g. roll value when the user stops rolling), performing digit-to-digit gesture (a pinch is detected). For example, the user can roll their wrist back to select the time until the next notification (roll value is maintained), and a pinch may be used to set the desired time for the alarm):
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2012/0157263 A1 to Sivak et al. teaches a smart glove system with an input device for tracking arm, hand, and finger movement.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA whose telephone number is (571)270-7361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 8:30AM to 4:00PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights