DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 20 are currently subject to statutory double patent rejections, but are otherwise not subject to any prior art rejections under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103. Assuming that the foregoing shortcomings of these claims were rectified by the timely filing of a terminal disclaimer, these claims would be allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1, 19, 20, recite the same features as were found allowable in parent application no. 17/984,964, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660 on 24 September 2024.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 1
A method for defining interface modalities in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, the method including:
A method for defining interface modalities in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, the method including:
detecting a control gesture made by a control object moving in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, wherein the control gesture includes at least one portion having a sweep that defines a collection of points in the 3D sensor space;
detecting a control gesture made by a control object moving in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, wherein the control gesture includes at least one portion having a sweep that defines a collection of points within a distance to a point in the 3D sensor space;
obtaining at least one gesture parameter for the control gesture; and
obtaining at least one gesture parameter for the control gesture; and
defining spatial attributes for an interaction modality in the 3D sensor space responsive to the at least one gesture parameter of the control gesture.
defining spatial attributes for an interaction modality in the 3D sensor space responsive to the at least one gesture parameter of the control gesture.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 2
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one gesture parameter includes at least one of a length and a width of the control gesture.
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one gesture parameter includes at least one of a length and a width of the control gesture.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 3
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 3
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one gesture parameter includes at least one of a structure, a scale, an orientation, or a density of the control object.
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one gesture parameter includes at least one of a structure, a scale, an orientation, or a density of the control object.
(Continued on next page)
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 4
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein the spatial attributes include at least one of a height and a width of an interaction space.
The method of claim 1, wherein the spatial attributes include at least one of a height and a width of an interaction space.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 5
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 5
The method of claim 1, wherein the spatial attributes include at least numerosity of elements in the interaction modality.
The method of claim 1, wherein the spatial attributes include at least numerosity of elements in the interaction modality.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 6
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 6
The method of claim 1, further including detecting a context-setting control gesture that identifies a context for interpreting a subsequent control gesture that defines spatial attributes of the interaction modality.
The method of claim 1, further including detecting a context-setting control gesture that identifies a context for interpreting a subsequent control gesture that defines spatial attributes of the interaction modality.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 7
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 7
The method of claim 6, wherein the context-setting control gesture is a voice, visual, or device command.
The method of claim 6, wherein the context-setting control gesture is a voice, visual, or device command.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 8
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 8
The method of claim 6, wherein the subsequent control gesture applies to an entire interaction space.
The method of claim 6, wherein the subsequent control gesture applies to an entire interaction space.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 9
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 9
The method of claim 6, wherein the subsequent control gesture applies to an element of virtual interaction space.
The method of claim 6, wherein the subsequent control gesture applies to an element of virtual interaction space.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 10
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 10
The method of claim 6, further including creating context-aware elements of the interaction modality that automatically interpret the context-setting control gesture and the subsequent control gesture to define spatial attributes of the interaction modality.
The method of claim 6, further including creating context-aware elements of the interaction modality that automatically interpret the context-setting control gesture and the subsequent control gesture to define spatial attributes of the interaction modality.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 11
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 11
The method of claim 1, wherein the control gesture is a stroke of a user appendage.
The method of claim 1, wherein the control gesture is a stroke of a user appendage.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 12
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 12
The method of claim 1, wherein the control object is a detectable object and the control gesture defines a set of points that have at least one parameter in common within a threshold deviation.
The method of claim 1, wherein the control object is a detectable object and the control gesture defines a set of points that have at least one parameter in common within a threshold deviation.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 13
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 13
The method of claim 12, wherein the threshold deviation is determined by a variation in angle along velocity vectors over time.
The method of claim 1, wherein a threshold deviation is determined by a variation in angle along velocity vectors over time.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 14
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 14
The method of claim 1, the method further including:
The method of claim 1, the method further including:
defining a vertical extent of a virtual interaction space in proportion to length of vertical portion of the sweep made by the control object;
defining a vertical extent of a virtual interaction space in proportion to length of vertical portion of the sweep made by the control object;
defining a horizontal extent of the virtual interaction space in proportion to width of horizontal portion of the sweep made by the control object; and
defining a horizontal extent of the virtual interaction space in proportion to width of horizontal portion of the sweep made by the control object; and
manipulating controls in a physical interaction space by superimposing the virtual interaction space on the physical interaction space responsive to the vertical extent and horizontal extent.
manipulating controls in a physical interaction space by superimposing the virtual interaction space on the physical interaction space responsive to the vertical extent and horizontal extent.
(Continued on next page)
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 15
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 15
The method of claim 1, the method further including:
The method of claim 1, the method further including:
defining a vertical extent of a virtual interaction space in proportion to length of vertical portion of the sweep made by the control object;
defining a vertical extent of a virtual interaction space in proportion to length of vertical portion of the sweep made by the control object;
defining a horizontal extent of the virtual interaction space in proportion to width of horizontal portion of the sweep made by the control object; and
defining a horizontal extent of the virtual interaction space in proportion to width of horizontal portion of the sweep made by the control object; and
manipulating controls in a synthetic interaction space by linking the virtual interaction space to an image responsive to the vertical extent and horizontal extent.
manipulating controls in a synthetic interaction space by linking the virtual interaction space to an image responsive to the vertical extent and horizontal extent.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 16
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 16
The method of claim 1, the method further including:
The method of claim 1, the method further including:
detecting a circular sweep of a control object responsive to a control gesture in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space;
detecting a circular sweep of a control object responsive to a control gesture in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space;
calculating a radius for the circular sweep based on a found point that is equidistant to a plurality of points defined on contour of the control gesture;
calculating a radius for the circular sweep based on a found point that is equidistant to a plurality of points defined on contour of the control gesture;
constructing a radial-based virtual interaction modality in the 3D sensor space that is in proportion to the radius of the circular sweep; and
constructing a radial-based virtual interaction modality in the 3D sensor space that is in proportion to the radius of the circular sweep; and
manipulating controls in a physical interaction space by superimposing the radial-based virtual interaction modality on the physical interaction space responsive to the circular sweep.
manipulating controls in a physical interaction space by superimposing the radial-based virtual interaction modality on the physical interaction space responsive to the circular sweep.
(Continued on next page)
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 17
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 17
The method of claim 1, the method further including:
The method of claim 1, the method further including:
identifying a pair of starting points in respective centers of control points of one or more control objects that are detected in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, wherein the pair of starting points are fixed distance apart;
identifying a pair of starting points in respective centers of control points of one or more control objects that are detected in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, wherein the pair of starting points are fixed distance apart;
detecting an outward expanding movement of control points of one or more control objects in the 3D sensor space;
detecting an outward expanding movement of control points of one or more control objects in the 3D sensor space;
identifying a pair of resting points in respective centers of control points of one or more control objects when control points of one or more control objects come to rest;
identifying a pair of resting points in respective centers of control points of one or more control objects when control points of one or more control objects come to rest;
defining a horizontal extent of a virtual interaction space in proportion to a distance between starting points and resting points;
defining a horizontal extent of a virtual interaction space in proportion to a distance between starting points and resting points;
defining a vertical extent of the virtual interaction space in proportion to width of one or more control objects; and
defining a vertical extent of the virtual interaction space in proportion to width of one or more control objects; and
presenting the virtual interaction space responsive to the vertical extent and horizontal extent
presenting the virtual interaction space responsive to the vertical extent and horizontal extent.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 18
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 18
The method of claim 17, wherein control objects are hands and control points are finger tips.
The method of claim 17, wherein control objects are hands and control points are finger tips.
(Continued on next page)
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 19
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 19
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructs for defining interface modalities in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, which instructions, when executed by one or more processors perform actions including:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructs for defining interface modalities in a three dimensional (3D)sensor space, which instructions, when executed by one or more processors perform actions including:
detecting a control gesture made by a control object moving in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, wherein the control gesture includes at least one portion having a sweep that defines a collection of points in the 3D sensor space;
detecting a control gesture made by a control object moving in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, wherein the control gesture includes at least one portion having a sweep that defines a collection of points within a distance to a point in the 3D sensor space;
obtaining at least one gesture parameter for the control gesture; and
obtaining at least one gesture parameter for the control gesture; and
defining spatial attributes for an interaction modality in the 3D sensor space responsive to the at least one gesture parameter of the control gesture.
defining spatial attributes for an interaction modality in the 3D sensor space responsive to the at least one gesture parameter of the control gesture.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No.12,099,660 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Present Application
Claim 20
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,660
Claim 20
A system, for controlling a machine, including:
A system, for controlling a machine, including:
at least one camera; one or more processors coupled to the at least one camera to process image information;
at least one camera; one or more processors coupled to the at least one camera to process image information;
a computer readable medium storing instructions or defining interface modalities in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, which instructions, when executed by one or more processors perform actions including:
a computer readable medium storing instructions or defining interface modalities in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, which instructions, when executed by one or more processors perform actions including:
detecting a control gesture made by a control object moving in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, wherein the control gesture includes at least one portion having a sweep that defines a collection of points in the 3D sensor space;
detecting a control gesture made by a control object moving in a three dimensional (3D) sensor space, wherein the control gesture includes at least one portion having a sweep that defines a collection of points within a distance to a point in the 3D sensor space;
obtaining at least one gesture parameter for the control gesture; and
obtaining at least one gesture parameter for the control gesture; and
defining spatial attributes for an interaction modality in the 3D sensor space responsive to the at least one gesture parameter of the control gesture.
defining spatial attributes for an interaction modality in the 3Dsensor space responsive to the at least one gesture parameter of the control gesture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID F DUNPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1230. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached on (571) 272-9752. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID F DUNPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights