Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/043,944

User Interface Control of Responsive Devices

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 03, 2025
Examiner
LU, WILLIAM
Art Unit
2624
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Pison Technology Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
425 granted / 595 resolved
+9.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
626
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
68.4%
+28.4% vs TC avg
§102
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 595 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 2-21 filed April 25th 2025 are pending in the current 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 § 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. Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US2016/0313801) in view of Jain (US2016/0085397) Consider claim 2 where Wagner teaches a system for gesture-based control, the system comprising: a wearable device configured to be worn at a wrist of a user, (See Wagner Fig. 12B) the wearable device comprising: one or more sensors configured to be disposed adjacent to an external surface of a skin portion of the user, wherein the skin portion is disposed at a body portion comprising peripheral nerve tissue that is biologically coupled to a central nervous system of the user; (See Wagner ¶164-166, 69 where the wrist mounted device comprises a plurality of bio-potential sensors 12 placed at the body of the user, wherein the bio-potential sensors include at least one surface nerve conduction sensor for detecting a surface nerve conduction signal from the three main nerves: the Median nerve, the Ulnar nerve, and the Radial nerve, as performed in standard medical diagnostic nerve conduction studies.) and one or more processors; wherein the system is configured to: obtain, using the one or more sensors, physiological data relating to nerve and/or muscle activations generated at least in part by the peripheral nerve tissue; detect, based on the physiological data, a first gesture performed by at least a first finger of a hand of the user; (See Wagner Figs. 14A-D, 17 and ¶159-162, 178-179 a gesture of tapping 220 two fingers together identified by smart watch 160, in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention. Tapping 220 at least two fingers together may select items on screen 162 of smart watch 160, for example.) Wagner teaches a gesture for selecting icons (See Wagner ¶151) however, Wagner does not explicitly teach detect, based on the physiological data, a second gesture performed by at least the first finger of the hand, wherein the second gesture occurs after the first gesture and wherein the first gesture and the second gesture comprise the same gesture; perform an action in response to detecting the first and second gesture. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Jain teaches detect, based on the physiological data, a second gesture performed by at least the first finger of the hand, wherein the second gesture occurs after the first gesture and wherein the first gesture and the second gesture comprise the same gesture; perform an action in response to detecting the first and second gesture. (See Jain ¶18 where Inputs that the computing device may receive to manage notifications include a user tapping (i.e., a tap) or a user tapping twice (i.e., a double tap) within a period of time. The computing device may also include one or more sensors capable of detecting one or more bionic inputs based on signals produced by a user's body, such as muscle or tendon flexures, nerve-related electrical signals, brain wave patterns, changes in galvanic skin response, and thermal emissions.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the tap gesture of Wagner could be repeated as a double tap gesture as taught by Jain for a different control command. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of implementing other widely known gestures in addition to the gestures shown in Wagner Figs. 14A-D for other user-friendly inputs. Consider claim 3, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the first finger is an index finger. (See Wagner Figs. 14C, 17 and ¶161-162, 178) Consider claim 4, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the first gesture and the second gesture comprise moving the first finger towards a thumb of the hand. (See Wagner Figs. 14C, 17 and ¶161-162, 178) Consider claim 5, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the first gesture and the second gesture are performed by the first finger and a second finger of the hand, and wherein the first finger is an index finger and the second finger is a thumb. (See Wagner Figs. 14C, 17 and ¶161-162, 178) Consider claim 6, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the first gesture and the second gesture comprise movement of the first finger and the second finger towards each other. (See Wagner Figs. 14C, 17 and ¶161-162, 178) Consider claim 7, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the first gesture and the second gesture each involve a first movement by the first finger and a second movement by the second finger, wherein the first movement and the second movement are different. (See Wagner Figs. 14C, 17 and ¶161-162, 178 where the index finger moves towards the thumb and the thumb moves towards the index finger) Consider claim 8, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the system of claim 2, wherein a tapping gesture is performed (See Wagner ¶164-166, 69 where the wrist mounted device comprises a plurality of bio-potential sensors 12 placed at the body of the user, wherein the bio-potential sensors include at least one surface nerve conduction sensor for detecting a surface nerve conduction signal from the three main nerves: the Median nerve, the Ulnar nerve, and the Radial nerve, as performed in standard medical diagnostic nerve conduction studies.) however, Wagner does not explicitly teach wherein the action is not performed in response to detecting the first gesture without detection of the second gesture. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Jain teaches wherein the action is not performed in response to detecting the first gesture without detection of the second gesture. (See Jain Fig. 12 and ¶41-48 where a single tap will bring up the notification screen and a second tap will permanently dismissed display notification/launch application, thus the launch application action is not performed without the detection of the second tap) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the tap gesture of Wagner could be repeated as a double tap gesture as taught by Jain for a different control command. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of implementing other widely known gestures in addition to the gestures shown in Wagner Figs. 14A-D for other user friendly inputs. Consider claim 9, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the action comprises selecting an indicated graphical element on a display. (See Wagner Figs. 14A-D, 17 and ¶159-162, 178-179 a gesture of tapping 220 two fingers together identified by smart watch 160, in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention. Tapping 220 at least two fingers together may select items on screen 162 of smart watch 160, for example.) Consider claim 10, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the action comprises opening an incoming message. (See Jain Fig. 12 and ¶41-48 where a single tap will bring up the notification screen and a second tap will permanently dismissed display notification/launch application, thus the launch application action is not performed without the detection of the second tap) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the tap gesture of Wagner could be repeated as a double tap gesture as taught by Jain for a different control command. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of implementing other widely known gestures in addition to the gestures shown in Wagner Figs. 14A-D for other user-friendly inputs. Consider claim 11, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the one or more sensors comprise an inertial measurement unit (IMU). (See Wagner ¶154 where Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) may be used to measure rough movements of hand 150.) Consider claim 12, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a biopotential sensor configured to detect biopotentials. (See Wagner ¶164-166, 69 where the wrist mounted device comprises a plurality of bio-potential sensors 12 placed at the body of the user, wherein the bio-potential sensors include at least one surface nerve conduction sensor for detecting a surface nerve conduction signal from the three main nerves: the Median nerve, the Ulnar nerve, and the Radial nerve, as performed in standard medical diagnostic nerve conduction studies.) Consider claim 13, where Wagner teaches a method for gesture-based control, the method comprising: obtaining, using one or more sensors of a wearable device configured to be worn at a wrist of a user, (See Wagner Fig. 12B) physiological data relating to nerve and/or muscle activations generated at least in part by peripheral nerve tissue, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to be disposed adjacent to an external surface of a skin portion of the user, and wherein the skin portion is disposed at a body portion comprising the peripheral nerve tissue that is biologically coupled to a central nervous system of the user; (See Wagner ¶164-166, 69 where the wrist mounted device comprises a plurality of bio-potential sensors 12 placed at the body of the user, wherein the bio-potential sensors include at least one surface nerve conduction sensor for detecting a surface nerve conduction signal from the three main nerves: the Median nerve, the Ulnar nerve, and the Radial nerve, as performed in standard medical diagnostic nerve conduction studies.) detecting, based on the physiological data, a first gesture performed by at least a first finger of a hand of the user; (See Wagner Figs. 14A-D, 17 and ¶159-162, 178-179 a gesture of tapping 220 two fingers together identified by smart watch 160, in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention. Tapping 220 at least two fingers together may select items on screen 162 of smart watch 160, for example.) Wagner teaches a gesture for selecting icons (See Wagner ¶151) however, Wagner does not explicitly teach detect, based on the physiological data, a second gesture performed by at least the first finger of the hand, wherein the second gesture occurs after the first gesture and wherein the first gesture and the second gesture comprise the same gesture; perform an action in response to detecting the first and second gesture. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Jain teaches detect, based on the physiological data, a second gesture performed by at least the first finger of the hand, wherein the second gesture occurs after the first gesture and wherein the first gesture and the second gesture comprise the same gesture; perform an action in response to detecting the first and second gesture. (See Jain ¶18 where Inputs that the computing device may receive to manage notifications include a user tapping (i.e., a tap) or a user tapping twice (i.e., a double tap) within a period of time. The computing device may also include one or more sensors capable of detecting one or more bionic inputs based on signals produced by a user's body, such as muscle or tendon flexures, nerve-related electrical signals, brain wave patterns, changes in galvanic skin response, and thermal emissions.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the tap gesture of Wagner could be repeated as a double tap gesture as taught by Jain for a different control command. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of implementing other widely known gestures in addition to the gestures shown in Wagner Figs. 14A-D for other user-friendly inputs. Consider claim 14, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the first finger is an index finger. (See Wagner Figs. 14C, 17 and ¶161-162, 178) Consider claim 15, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the first gesture and the second gesture comprise moving the first finger towards a thumb of the hand. (See Wagner Figs. 14C, 17 and ¶161-162, 178) Consider claim 16, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the first gesture and the second gesture are performed by the first finger and a second finger of the hand, and wherein the first finger is an index finger and the second finger is a thumb. (See Wagner Figs. 14C, 17 and ¶161-162, 178) Consider claim 17, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the first gesture and the second gesture comprise movement of the first finger and the second finger towards each other. (See Wagner Figs. 14C, 17 and ¶161-162, 178 where the index finger moves towards the thumb and the thumb moves towards the index finger) Consider claim 18, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the first gesture and the second gesture each involve a first movement by the first finger and a second movement by the second finger, wherein the first movement and the second movement are different. (See Wagner Figs. 14C, 17 and ¶161-162, 178 where the index finger moves towards the thumb and the thumb moves towards the index finger) Consider claim 19, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the method of claim 13, wherein a tapping gesture is performed (See Wagner ¶164-166, 69 where the wrist mounted device comprises a plurality of bio-potential sensors 12 placed at the body of the user, wherein the bio-potential sensors include at least one surface nerve conduction sensor for detecting a surface nerve conduction signal from the three main nerves: the Median nerve, the Ulnar nerve, and the Radial nerve, as performed in standard medical diagnostic nerve conduction studies.) however, Wagner does not explicitly teach wherein the action is not performed in response to detecting the first gesture without detection of the second gesture. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Jain teaches wherein the action is not performed in response to detecting the first gesture without detection of the second gesture. (See Jain Fig. 12 and ¶41-48 where a single tap will bring up the notification screen and a second tap will permanently dismissed display notification/launch application, thus the launch application action is not performed without the detection of the second tap) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the tap gesture of Wagner could be repeated as a double tap gesture as taught by Jain for a different control command. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of implementing other widely known gestures in addition to the gestures shown in Wagner Figs. 14A-D for other user-friendly inputs. Consider claim 20, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the action comprises selecting an indicated graphical element on a display. (See Wagner Figs. 14A-D, 17 and ¶159-162, 178-179 a gesture of tapping 220 two fingers together identified by smart watch 160, in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention. Tapping 220 at least two fingers together may select items on screen 162 of smart watch 160, for example.) Consider claim 21, where Wagner in view of Jain teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the action comprises opening an incoming message. (See Jain Fig. 12 and ¶41-48 where a single tap will bring up the notification screen and a second tap will permanently dismissed display notification/launch application, thus the launch application action is not performed without the detection of the second tap) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the tap gesture of Wagner could be repeated as a double tap gesture as taught by Jain for a different control command. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of implementing other widely known gestures in addition to the gestures shown in Wagner Figs. 14A-D for other user-friendly inputs. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1809. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm. 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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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. WILLIAM LU Primary Examiner Art Unit 2624 /WILLIAM LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 03, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592191
PIXEL DRIVING CIRCUIT AND DRIVING METHOD THEREFOR, AND DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591307
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING AN INTENT OF A USER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585054
SUNROOF SYSTEM FOR PERFORMING PASSIVE RADIATIVE COOLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12566328
OPTICAL SCANNING DEVICE AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566502
Methods and Systems for Controlling and Interacting with Objects Based on Non-Sensory Information Rendering
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+6.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 595 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month