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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on December 8, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-22 are currently pending. Claims 21-22 are new. Applicant’s newly added and amended claims are addressed herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, “a reference position is determined based on a predetermined relationship between a head position and a portion of a body of the user” is not described in the originally filed specification. The specification also does not describe how the reference position is determined based on a predetermined relationship between a head position and a portion of a body of the user.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracton et al. (US 20130028489) in view of Lacey et al. (US 20190362557) and in further view of Baba (US 10,564,801).
As to claim 1, Tracton discloses a method comprising:
at an electronic device (Fig. 1(107): head mounted display, [0051]) having a processor and one or more sensors (Fig. 1, [0051]: head mounted display with sensors, [0107]):
tracking a hand movement characteristic corresponding to a hand, the hand tracked based on first sensor data obtained via the one or more sensors ([0039], [0051]: user can wear a device to determine the position, orientation and movement of user’s hand in a 3D space);
determining a head movement characteristic corresponding to a head, the head tracked based on second sensor data obtained via the one or more sensors, wherein a reference position is determined based on a head position ([0038], [0051]: user can wear a head mounted display with sensors to determine the position, orientation and movement of user’s head, [0117]: gyroscope reads angular velocity of rotation to capture quick head rotations); and
repositioning a user interface element displayed by the device based on a three-dimensional (3D) position of the hand and a 3D position of the reference position (Figs. 5A-5B, [0051]: movement of user’s hand in a 3D space, [0052]: graphical user interface (GUI), [0126] – [0127]: a triangle marker 521 and a square marker 523 within the user interface 520 move in parallel to a position 525 and a position 527 respectively along the arrow/vector 529 due to physical movement of the user's hand. The health and wellness engine 119 can remove the normal physiologic tremor (involuntary quivering movement) of FIG. 5A and the physical movements of the markers from the tremor in FIG. 5B).
Tracton does not explicitly teach determining a stabilization property based on the hand movement characteristic and the head movement characteristic; and repositioning a user interface element displayed by the device based on the stabilization property.
Lacey teaches determining a stabilization property based on the hand movement characteristic and the head movement characteristic ([0414]: detection and classification of various phases of a modal interaction such as union or the initial formation of a bimodal or trimodal “bond” (e.g., where the difference between the input vectors or different user input modes falls below some given threshold), settling or the stabilization of the bimodal or trimodal “bond” (e.g., where the difference between the input vectors stabilizes below the threshold), and divergence (e.g., where the difference between the input vectors increases beyond the threshold). Bimodal inputs can converge and stabilize is a short period of time, e.g. 200ms, [0397]: multimodal user interactions, [0426]: system can determine which of the potential inputs (e.g., one of the potential interpretations of hand gesture) are converged with inputs of another mode (e.g., the head pose inputs). System then assumes that the potential interpretation that results in modal convergence is the intended input, [0430]: head pose H converge with Hand gesture Ha); and
repositioning a user interface element displayed by the device based on a three-dimensional (3D) position of the hand, a 3D position of the reference position, and the stabilization property (Figs. 46-48, [0295], [0397]: multimodal user interactions, [0518]: user interface, Figs. 52-54: reference position, [0426], [0414]: stabilization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tracton’s electronic device by incorporating Lacey’s idea of determining a stabilization property based on bimodal interaction (e.g. the hand movement characteristic and the head movement characteristic, see Lacey: [0426], [0430]) in order to reposition user interface element displayed by the device accurately.
Tracton (as modified by Lacey) do not expressly teach a reference position is determined based on a predetermined relationship between a head position and a portion of a body of the user.
Baba teaches a reference position is determined based on a predetermined relationship between a head position and a portion of a body of the user (Figs. 15A-15F, Fig. 20, col. 23, line 56 – col. 24, line 3: reference distance is a measured distance at a time when the head and body of the user 5 are facing in the same direction (when user 5 is facing in front direction). The measured distance DB 1435 stores the measured distance in a predetermined period (e.g., 1 second) in association with the user ID. (Note: originally filed specification does not teach a reference position is determined based on a predetermined relationship between a head position and a portion of a body of the user)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Tracton (as modified by Lacey) by adapting Baba’s idea of measuring reference distance (position) based on a predetermined relationship between the head and body of the user in order to define a virtual space to be associated with a first user.
As to claim 2, Tracton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein tracking the head movement characteristic and the hand movement characteristic ([0051]: user can wear a device to determine the position, orientation and movement of user’s hand, [0117]: gyroscope reads angular velocity of rotation to capture quick head rotations).
Tracton does not specifically teach the stabilization property is determined based on a relationship between the head movement characteristic and the hand movement characteristic.
Lacey teaches the stabilization property is determined based on a relationship between the head movement characteristic and the hand movement characteristic ([0414]: stabilization of the bimodal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tracton’s electronic device by incorporating Lacey’s idea of determining a stabilization property based on bimodal interaction (e.g. the hand movement characteristic and the head movement characteristic, see Lacey: [0426], [0430]) in order to reposition user interface element displayed by the device more accurately.
As to claim 3, Tracton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting an amount of head rotation that is independent of hand motion ([0117]: gyroscope reads angular velocity of rotation to capture quick head rotations).
Tracton does not specifically teach the stabilization property is determined based on detecting an amount of head rotation that is independent of hand motion.
Lacey teaches the stabilization property is determined based on detecting an amount of head rotation that is independent of hand motion ([0414]: stabilization of the bimodal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tracton’s electronic device by incorporating Lacey’s idea of determining a stabilization property based on bimodal interaction (e.g. the hand movement characteristic and the head movement characteristic, see Lacey: [0426], [0430]) in order to reposition user interface element displayed by the device more accurately.
As to claim 11, Tracton (as modified by Lacey and Baba) teach the method of claim 1, wherein the reference position is separate from the head (Tracton: [0040]: reference marker, [0126] – [0127]: a triangle marker 521 and a square marker 523 within the user interface 520).
As to claim 18, Tracton (as modified by Lacey and Baba) teach the method of claim 1, wherein the device is a head-mounted device (HMD) (Tracton: [0051]: head mounted display).
As to claim 19, it is a system comprising: memory (Tracton: [0107]) and one or more processors (Tracton: [0107]) coupled to the memory that performs the operation of claim 1, wherein the memory comprises program instructions. Please see claim 1 for detail analysis.
As to claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions to perform the functions of claim 1. Please see claim 1 for detail analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The cited references have failed to teach
“A method comprising: at an electronic device having a processor and one or more sensors: … wherein the reference position is associated with a shoulder joint” in combination with other limitations of claim 12, and
“A method comprising: at an electronic device having a processor and one or more sensors: … wherein the reference position corresponds to a position on or within a torso of the user, wherein sensor data directly observing the torso is unavailable for at least a period of time” in combination with other limitations of claim 14.
Claims 4-10, 15-17 and 21-22 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 11 and 18-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 AFROZA Y CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-1543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Nitin Patel can be reached at (571)272-7677. 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.
/AFROZA CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628