DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Applicant’s submission filed on 07/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, and 19-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 3-4, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazra et al. (US 2017/0123487) in view of Iliffe-Moon (US 2022/0397975) and Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0336008).
Regarding claim 1, Hazra teaches/suggests: A method comprising:
displaying, by an AR device (Hazra [0135] “an augmented reality display system”), a plurality of AR objects on a display region that overlaps a first real-world object, a first AR object of the plurality of AR objects being associated with a first object selection region (Hazra [0081] “FIGS. 15A-C Illustrate a modality of gesture interaction where a finger of a user's arm is used to interact with the display projected on a surface of the opposite arm” [The finger and opposite arm meet the second and first real-world objects, respectively.] [0190] “five icon menus on the forearm surface” [0194] “FIGS. 12A-B show a selection action or a button press action” [The first object selection region is an inherent and/or implicit feature of the selection/press action.]);
Hazra does not teach/suggest:
computing a first spatial relationship factor for the first AR object based on a position of the first AR object relative to a position of a second real-world object;
Iliffe-Moon, however, teaches/suggests:
computing a first spatial relationship factor for the first AR object based on a position of the first AR object relative to a position of a second real-world object (Iliffe-Moon [0008] “an active area may be highlighted as the user's finger approaches the element” [The finger (the second real-world object) approaching the element meets the spatial relationship factor.]);
Iliffe-Moon further discloses in [0004]: “Other objectives include increasing touch accuracy and success … The size increase of the target zone may be invisible or visible to the user.” Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the selection region of Hazra to be adjusted as taught/suggested by Iliffe-Moon to increase touch accuracy and success.
Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon does not teach/suggest:
drawing a first line from a
the first AR object and the second real-world object being concurrently viewable through the AR device together with a real-world environment;
computing a vector representing directional velocity of the point on the second real-world object; and
generating a spatial relationship factor as a function of the first line and the vector.
Nakagawa, however, teaches/suggests:
drawing a first line (Nakagawa [0129] “in the case in which the distance d0 between the hand U11 and the object V11 has become a predetermined distance d1 or less, the information processing apparatus 10 predicts that an operation will be performed on the object V11 by the hand U11”),
computing a vector representing directional velocity (Nakagawa [0133] “the information processing apparatus 10 computes a velocity vector V1 on the basis of the movement direction of the hand U11 and the movement speed of the hand U11”); and
generating a spatial relationship factor as a function of the first line and the vector (Nakagawa [0147] “the information processing apparatus 10, by utilizing a computation result of the distance d0 between the hand U11 and the object V11 and a computation result of the velocity vector V1 of the hand U11, may improve the accuracy of predicting whether or not the hand U11 will move to the position of the object V11”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the AR display system of Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon to include the distance (the first line) and velocity vector of Nakagawa to predict the selection/press action. As such, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa teaches/suggests:
drawing a first line from a predicts that an operation will be performed on the object V11 by the hand U11”),
computing a vector representing directional velocity of the point on the second real-world object (Hazra [0081] “FIGS. 15A-C Illustrate a modality of gesture interaction where a finger of a user's arm is used to interact with the display projected on a surface of the opposite arm” Nakagawa [0133] “the information processing apparatus 10 computes a velocity vector V1 on the basis of the movement direction of the hand U11 and the movement speed of the hand U11”);
Nor does Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon teach/suggest:
the first AR object and the second real-world object being concurrently viewable through the AR device together with a real-world environment;
Nakagawa further teaches/suggests:
the first AR object and the second real-world object being concurrently viewable through the AR device together with a real-world environment (Nakagawa [0063] “on the basis of what is called augmented reality (AR) technology, the content control apparatus 30 may also present a virtually generated object (that is, a virtual object) to the user through the input/output apparatus 20 so that the virtual object is superimposed onto an object in real space” [0048] “Note that the type of head-mounted display (HMD) applicable as the input/output apparatus 20 includes what is called an immersive HMD, a see-through HMD, a video see-through HMD, and a retinal projection HMD”);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the substitution of one known element (the HMD of Nakagawa) for another (the AR display system of Hazra) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such substitutions would have yielded predictable results, namely, for the augmented reality.
Nakagawa is silent regarding a center of the first AR object. However, official notice is taken that the concept and advantages of such a center are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious for the distance of Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa to be from the center of the AR object as a reference.
Regarding claim 3, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting, by the AR device, the first and second real-world objects within a real-world environment by applying one or more machine learning models to an image of the real-world environment captured by a camera of the AR device (Hazra [0195] “multiple finger gestures system 1 can distinguish” [0268] “It may receive inputs from the controller and sensors of system 1 in the form of the posture of the body part 258, estimate of the user's eye location 256, the posture and orientation of the full body or hand configuration 254, and sensor data, such as those from cameras or color ambient light sensors 252” Iliffe-Moon [0021] “Machine learning may increase this accuracy further, as the model of gaze (action) and touch (input) provides data to train the machine learning model”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
computing a second spatial relationship factor for the second AR object based on a position of the second AR object relative to the second real-world object (Hazra [0081] “FIGS. 15A-C Illustrate a modality of gesture interaction where a finger of a user's arm is used to interact with the display projected on a surface of the opposite arm” [0190] “five icon menus on the forearm surface” Iliffe-Moon [0008] “an active area may be highlighted as the user's finger approaches the element”); and
adjusting a second object selection region of the second AR object based on the second spatial relationship factor (Iliffe-Moon [0018] “Adjusting the active areas may include adjusting the size of the active areas, moving the active areas, or visually highlighting the active areas”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of AR objects comprises a virtual keypad or keyboard (Hazra [0299] “Virtual Keyboard”).
Regarding claim 17, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
continuously adjusting the first object selection region as the first real-world object moves about a real-world environment (Hazra [0081] “FIGS. 15A-C Illustrate a modality of gesture interaction where a finger of a user's arm is used to interact with the display projected on a surface of the opposite arm” [0190] “five icon menus on the forearm surface” Iliffe-Moon [0008] “an active area may be highlighted as the user's finger approaches the element” [0018] “Adjusting the active areas may include adjusting the size of the active areas, moving the active areas, or visually highlighting the active areas”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing one or more operations in response to activating the first AR object (Hazra [0194] “a camera interface is shown where the thenar pitch gesture instructs system 1 to take a photograph”).
Claim 19 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa further teaches/suggests a storage device of an augmented reality (AR) device; and at least one processor coupled to the storage device (Hazra [0136] “The example subsystems depicted in FIG. 4 may further comprise of one or more processors, graphics processors, application-specific processors, memory”).
Claim 20 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa further teaches/suggests a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions (Hazra [0136] “The example subsystems depicted in FIG. 4 may further comprise of one or more processors, graphics processors, application-specific processors, memory”).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazra et al. (US 2017/0123487) in view of Iliffe-Moon (US 2022/0397975) and Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0336008) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gardenfors et al. (US 2011/0234543).
Regarding claim 5, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the first object selection region comprises a first The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa does not teach/suggest first and second 3D heights. Gardenfors, however, teaches/suggests 3D heights (Gardenfors [0029] “FIG. 8 shows various examples of gesture activation zones: a) 3d volumes”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the selection regions of Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa to include the 3D volumes of Gardenfors for 3D effects.
Regarding claim 6, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon, Nakagawa, and Gardenfors teaches/suggests: The method of claim 5, further comprising configuring the first 3D height and size to be larger than the second 3D height and size in response to determining that the second real-world object is physically closer to selecting the first AR object than the second AR object (Hazra [0081] “FIGS. 15A-C Illustrate a modality of gesture interaction where a finger of a user's arm is used to interact with the display projected on a surface of the opposite arm” [0190] “five icon menus on the forearm surface” Iliffe-Moon [0008] “an active area may be highlighted as the user's finger approaches the element” [0018] “Adjusting the active areas may include adjusting the size of the active areas, moving the active areas, or visually highlighting the active areas” Gardenfors [0029] “FIG. 8 shows various examples of gesture activation zones: a) 3d volumes”). The same rationales to combine as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazra et al. (US 2017/0123487) in view of Iliffe-Moon (US 2022/0397975) and Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0336008) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2018/0052518).
Regarding claim 7, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
associating a larger dimension with the first object selection region of the first AR object than a second object selection region of the second AR object in response to determining that a first alignment factor is better aligned than a second alignment factor.
Zhu, however, teaches/suggests an alignment factor (Zhu [0035] “Analyzed gesture input that may include a speed of the gesture, the height of the gesture (distance away from mobile device 100), the sequence of the gestures, the direction of the gesture, the shape of the gesture, the alignment (position) of the gesture over a displayed image”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gestures of Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa to include the alignment factor of Zhu for analysis. As such, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon, Nakagawa, and Zhu teaches/suggests:
associating a larger dimension with the first object selection region of the first AR object than a second object selection region of the second AR object in response to determining that a first alignment factor is better aligned than a second alignment factor (Iliffe-Moon [0008] “an active area may be highlighted as the user's finger approaches the element” [0018] “Adjusting the active areas may include adjusting the size of the active areas, moving the active areas, or visually highlighting the active areas” Zhu [0035] “Analyzed gesture input that may include a speed of the gesture, the height of the gesture (distance away from mobile device 100), the sequence of the gestures, the direction of the gesture, the shape of the gesture, the alignment (position) of the gesture over a displayed image” [In view of Iliffe-Moon and Zhu, the finger approaching one AR object would have a better alignment factor than that of another AR object.]).
Regarding claim 8, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa teaches/suggests: The method of claim 7, further comprising:
determining a first alignment factor between the first line and the vector based on the first spatial relationship factor (Iliffe-Moon [0008] “an active area may be highlighted as the user's finger approaches the element” Nakagawa [0147] “the information processing apparatus 10, by utilizing a computation result of the distance d0 between the hand U11 and the object V11 and a computation result of the velocity vector V1 of the hand U11, may improve the accuracy of predicting whether or not the hand U11 will move to the position of the object V11” Zhu [0035] “Analyzed gesture input that may include a speed of the gesture, the height of the gesture (distance away from mobile device 100), the sequence of the gestures, the direction of the gesture, the shape of the gesture, the alignment (position) of the gesture over a displayed image”).
The same rationales to combine as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 8 are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazra et al. (US 2017/0123487) in view of Iliffe-Moon (US 2022/0397975), Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0336008), and Zhu et al. (US 2018/0052518) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ouyang et al. (US 2014/0327622).
Regarding claim 9, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon, Nakagawa, and Zhu teaches/suggests: The method of claim 8, further comprising:
determining a second alignment factor between a second line drawn from a second center of a second AR object to the point on the second real-world object (Hazra [0081] “FIGS. 15A-C Illustrate a modality of gesture interaction where a finger of a user's arm is used to interact with the display projected on a surface of the opposite arm” [0190] “five icon menus on the forearm surface” Iliffe-Moon [0008] “an active area may be highlighted as the user's finger approaches the element” Nakagawa [0147] “the information processing apparatus 10, by utilizing a computation result of the distance d0 between the hand U11 and the object V11 and a computation result of the velocity vector V1 of the hand U11, may improve the accuracy of predicting whether or not the hand U11 will move to the position of the object V11” Zhu [0035] “Analyzed gesture input that may include a speed of the gesture, the height of the gesture (distance away from mobile device 100), the sequence of the gestures, the direction of the gesture, the shape of the gesture, the alignment (position) of the gesture over a displayed image”);
The same rationales to combine as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 7 are incorporated herein.
Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon, Nakagawa, and Zhu does not teach/suggest:
comparing the first alignment factor with the second alignment factor.
Ouyang, however, teaches/suggests:
comparing the first alignment factor with the second alignment factor (Ouyang [0035] “the alignment points may be compared to spatial models that correspond to keys in proximity to the alignment points. In this way, keyboard module 22 may determine higher probabilities for keys that are closer to the alignment points”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the alignment factors of Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon, Nakagawa, and Zhu to be compared as taught/suggested by Ouyang to determine which AR object is closer to the gesture.
Regarding claim 10, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon, Nakagawa, Zhu, and Ouyang teaches/suggests: The method of claim 9, further comprising:
determining, based on the comparing, that the first alignment factor is better aligned than the second alignment factor (Zhu [0035] “Analyzed gesture input that may include a speed of the gesture, the height of the gesture (distance away from mobile device 100), the sequence of the gestures, the direction of the gesture, the shape of the gesture, the alignment (position) of the gesture over a displayed image” Ouyang [0035] “the alignment points may be compared to spatial models that correspond to keys in proximity to the alignment points. In this way, keyboard module 22 may determine higher probabilities for keys that are closer to the alignment points”).
The same rationales to combine as set forth in the rejection of claims 7 and 9 are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon, Nakagawa, Zhu, and Ouyang teaches/suggests: The method of claim 9, wherein the first real-world object comprises a first real-world hand (Hazra [0081] “FIGS. 15A-C Illustrate a modality of gesture interaction where a finger of a user's arm is used to interact with the display projected on a surface of the opposite arm”).
Regarding claim 13, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon, Nakagawa, Zhu, and Ouyang teaches/suggests: The method of claim 12, wherein the second real-world object comprises a real-world stylus or a portion or finger of a second real-world hand (Hazra [0081] “FIGS. 15A-C Illustrate a modality of gesture interaction where a finger of a user's arm is used to interact with the display projected on a surface of the opposite arm”).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazra et al. (US 2017/0123487) in view of Iliffe-Moon (US 2022/0397975), Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0336008), and Zhu et al. (US 2018/0052518) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sankar (US 2014/0129553).
Regarding claim 14, Hazra, Iliffe-Moon, Nakagawa, and Zhu are silent regarding: The method of claim 8, wherein the function comprises a dot product of the first line and the vector. Sankar, however, teaches/suggests a dot product of the first line and the vector (Sankar [0036] “({right arrow over (d)}{right arrow over (v)}) is the dot product of the vectors”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the distance (the first line) and velocity vector of Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon, Nakagawa, and Zhu to be a dot product as taught/suggested by Sankar to combine them for the prediction.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazra et al. (US 2017/0123487) in view of Iliffe-Moon (US 2022/0397975) and Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0336008) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor et al. (US 2020/0301553).
Regarding claim 16, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
scaling a size of each of the plurality of AR objects based on a size of the first real-world object.
Taylor, however, teaches/suggests:
scaling a size of each of the plurality of AR objects (Taylor [0044] “The auto scaling feature can be used to automatically make many different types, shapes, and size virtual UIs and other virtual features fit onto the surfaces of many different types, shapes, and size tangible objects”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the AR objects of Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon and Nakagawa to be scaled as taught/suggested by Taylor for fitting. As such, Hazra as modified by Iliffe-Moon, Nakagawa, and Taylor teaches/suggests:
scaling a size of each of the plurality of AR objects based on a size of the first real-world object (Hazra [0081] “FIGS. 15A-C Illustrate a modality of gesture interaction where a finger of a user's arm is used to interact with the display projected on a surface of the opposite arm” [0190] “five icon menus on the forearm surface” Taylor [0044] “The auto scaling feature can be used to automatically make many different types, shapes, and size virtual UIs and other virtual features fit onto the surfaces of many different types, shapes, and size tangible objects”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The limitations “adjusting the first object selection region of the first AR object based on the first spatial relationship factor, the adjusting comprising rotating the first object selection region by a first number of degrees relative to a second object selection region in response to determining that the second real-world object is physically closer to the first AR object than the second AR object” of claim 2 and “associating a larger dimension with the first object selection region of the first AR object than a second object selection region of the second AR object in response to determining that the first alignment factor is better aligned than the second alignment factor” of claim 11, taken as a whole, render the respective claims patentably distinct over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2017/0212589 – distance and velocity vector
US 2023/0092874 – distance from center of UI object
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. 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.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights