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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Powderly et. al. [2018/0307303].
Regarding claim 1, Powderly teaches:
A method comprising: detecting, based on image data captured by a device, movement data for a hand of a user in relation to a physical input device at a first location on the physical input device [§0238, note user touch input upon totem touchpad];
detecting gaze information associated with the movement data [§0238, note user eye-gaze detection];
in response to determining that the movement is associated with a tracking movement, initiating a tracking mode [§0238, combination of touch input and eye tracking results in browser window being tracked across physical space];
and providing a first user input based on the movement data and the gaze information in accordance with the tracking mode [§0238, combination of touch input and eye tracking results in browser window being tracked across physical space];
Regarding claim 2, Powderly further teaches:
determining a gaze direction from the gaze information, wherein the first user input is associated with a portion of a user interface corresponding to the gaze direction [§0238, note detection of gaze direction to determine which wall the user is looking]
Claims 9 and 16 are substantially similar to claim 2 and are rejected using the same citations.
Regarding claim 3, Powderly teaches:
wherein determining the movement data is associated with the tracking movement comprises: determining a confidence value associated with the determination that the movement data is associated with a tracking movement; and determining that the confidence value satisfies a confidence threshold [§0288, note confidence value based upon how long user gaze is in a particular area]
Claims 10 and 17 are substantially similar to claim 3 and are rejected using the same citations.
Regarding claim 4, Powderly teaches:
wherein the confidence value is determined in part based on a gaze direction of the user [§0288, note confidence value based upon how long user gaze is in a particular area]
Claims 11 and 18 are substantially similar to claim 4 and are rejected using the same citations.
Regarding claim 6, Powderly teaches:
wherein the movement data is further detected based on contact data captured by a contact sensor and separate from the image data [§0238, note user touch input upon totem touchpad];
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 6 and are rejected using the same citations.
Regarding claim 7, Powderly teaches:
determining a portion of the hand of the user making contact with the physical input device; and determining that the movement is associated with the tracking movement based on the portion of the hand of the user. [§0088, note user touch input determining the difference between full hand or independent finger gestures];
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected using the same citations.
Regarding claim 8, Powderly teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors [§0416, note non-transitory medium for storing code to execute the following operation] to:
detect, based on image data captured by a device, movement data for a hand of a user in relation to a physical input device at a first location on the physical input device [§0238, note user touch input upon totem touchpad];
detect gaze information associated with the movement data [§0238, note user eye-gaze detection];
in response to determining that the movement is associated with a tracking movement, initiate a tracking mode; and provide a first user input based on the movement data and the gaze information in accordance with the tracking mode [§0238, combination of touch input and eye tracking results in browser window being tracked across physical space];
Regarding claim 15, Powderly further teaches:
A system comprising: one or more processors [§0414];
and one or more computer readable media comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors [§0416, note non-transitory medium for storing code to execute the following operation] to:
detect, based on image data captured by a device, movement data for a hand of a user in relation to a physical input device at a first location on the physical input device [§0238, note user touch input upon totem touchpad];
detect gaze information associated with the movement data [§0238, note user eye-gaze detection];
in response to determining that the movement is associated with a tracking movement, initiate a tracking mode; and provide a first user input based on the movement data and the gaze information in accordance with the tracking mode [§0238, combination of touch input and eye tracking results in browser window being tracked across physical space];
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powderly in view of Nelson [2019/0094957].
Regarding claim 5, Powderly does not specifically teach “…causing input via the physical input device to be ignored during the tracking mode.” Nelson does teach disregarding physical input based upon the user gaze tracking [§0110, note touch input being ignored depending upon user gaze direction].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the method taught by Powderly with the step of disregarding touch input taught by Nelson because doing so allows for accidental user inputs to be safely ignored in favor of more likely intended inputs.
Claims 2 and 19 are substantially similar to claim 5 and are rejected using the same citations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SASINOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5883. The examiner can normally be reached 7am - 4pm, Mon.-Fri. 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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/ANDREW SASINOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625