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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The claim 1 recites the limitation " the engagement gesture..”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim 1 recites the limitation " modifying contents of a display in accordance with the engagement gesture." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Contingent Limitations
Section MPEP 2111.04(II) sets forth, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” The following are contingent limitations which are not required to be found in the prior art under broadest reasonable interpretation. This does not necessarily include contingent limitations which are required to be found in the prior art.
Claim 1 recites the following contingent limitations “comparing the one or more primitives to one or more engagement gesture templates” through “..modifying contents of a display in accordance with the engagement gesture” are contingent on a positive determination that the motion corresponds to an engagement gesture, those steps are not required when the condition is not met. Therefore, the BRI of the claim 1 only requires limitation is treated as requiring only the sensing step and the “determining whether step”. The contingent limitations is for compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-43 of U.S. Patent No. 9,459,697 in view of Bedikian et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0201666). The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are compared in the table below.
Instant Application No. 18/988,746.
Claim 1. A method of controlling a machine, comprising:
sensing a variation of position of a control object using an imaging system;
determining, from the variation, whether motion of the control object corresponds to an engagement gesture;
determining, from the variation, one or more primitives describing a motion made by the control object, and
comparing the one or more primitives to one or more engagement gesture templates in a library of gesture templates.
selecting, based on a result of the comparing, one or more engagement gesture templates corresponding to the one or more primitives.
providing, responsive to the variation, at least one engagement gesture template of the selected one or more engagement gesture templates as an indication of a command to issue to a machine under control; modifying contents of a display in accordance with the engagement gesture.
US Patent No. 9,459,697.
Claim 1. A method of controlling a machine, comprising:
sensing a variation of position of at least one control object using an imaging system;
determining from the variation one or more primitives describing at least one of motion made in space by the control object and character of the control object;
comparing the one or more primitives to one or more templates in a library of gesture templates;
selecting from a result of the comparing a set of templates of possible gestures corresponding to the one or more primitives; and providing at least one of the set of templates of possible gestures as an indication of a command to issue to a machine under control responsive to the variation.
Claim 1 of the reference patent recites all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except “providing, responsive to the variation, at least one engagement gesture template of the selected one or more engagement gesture templates as an indication of a command to issue to a machine under control; modifying contents of a display in accordance with the engagement gesture...” However, Bedikian teaches the method includes sensing a variation of position of at least one control object using an imaging system; determining from the variation one or more primitives describing at least one of a motion made by the control object and the character of the control object; comparing the primitive(s) to one or more templates in a library of gesture templates; selecting from a result of the comparing a set of templates of possible gestures corresponding to the one or more primitives; and providing at least one of the set of templates of possible gestures as an indication of a command to issue to a machine under control responsive to the variation; [Bedikian, para. 0012, 0014].
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the method includes sensing a variation of position of at least one control object using an imaging system; determining from the variation one or more primitives describing at least one of a motion made by the control object and the character of the control object; comparing the primitive(s) to one or more templates in a library of gesture templates; selecting from a result of the comparing a set of templates of possible gestures corresponding to the one or more primitives; and providing at least one of the set of templates of possible gestures as an indication of a command to issue to a machine under control responsive to the variation; as disclosed in Bedikian, within the method of claim 1 of the reference patent, to providing, responsive to the variation, at least one engagement gesture template of the selected one or more engagement gesture templates as an indication of a command to issue to a machine under control; modifying contents of a display in accordance with the engagement gesture.
Allowable Subject Matter
After a thorough search, and in light of the prior art of record, claims 1 and 16-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The best prior art, Bychkov et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0321265) and Li (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0066984) combination fail to disclose or suggest one or more of the features of the independent claims 1 and 16-17.
In summary, Bychkov discloses computer respond to a Point-Select gesture, if the finger motion gesture is "significant" (i.e., having at least a first specified difference) and if target point is at least a second specified distance from the interactive item presented in the direction of the gaze. For example, if the user is looking at a first interactive item presented on a left side of display, and performs a Point-Select gesture to a second interactive item presented on an right side of the display, computer configured to engage the second interactive item.
Li teaches perform operations including receiving first data indicating a gesture template; modifying the first data to form a first vector representation; saving the first vector representation; receiving second data indicating a gesture input in a user interface; modifying the second data to form a second vector representation; calculating an adjustment angle using both the first and second vector representations as input; and generating a score of similarity between the first and second vector representations, taking the adjustment angle into account, to assess whether the gesture input matches the gesture template.
None of the prior arts of record alone or in any reasonable combination, disclose the claimed invention as recites in independent claim 1 similarly recited in claim independent claims 16 and 17.
Specifically, the prior arts fail to teach a method of controlling a machine, comprising: sensing a variation of position of a control object using an imaging system; determining, from the variation, whether motion of the control object corresponds to an engagement gesture; determining, from the variation, one or more primitives describing a motion made by the control object, and comparing the one or more primitives to one or more engagement gesture templates in a library of gesture templates; selecting, based on a result of the comparing, one or more engagement gesture templates corresponding to the one or more primitives; providing, responsive to the variation, at least one engagement gesture template of the selected one or more engagement gesture templates as an indication of a command to issue to a machine under control; modifying contents of a display in accordance with the engagement gesture.
The recited limitations, in conjunction with all the features of the independent and dependent claims are not taught nor suggested by the prior arts of record.
Claims 2-15 are also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent claims.
Accordingly, the scope of the invention has been sufficiently narrowed to bring the claims into compliance with novelty and non-obviousness requirement of the Patent Act.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAO H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4053. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 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, Kieu Vu can be reached on 571-272-4057. 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.
/CAO H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
