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
This action is responsive to applicant amendments/remarks received 06/24/2026. Claims 1, 10 and 19 amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 1-2, 6-11 & 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 14-15 & 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10368378. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming the same invention with little change to the claim language. Patent claims are narrower and thus teach all the limitations of the instant claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Schepper (US Patent No. 20140320274 A1), in view of Baker (US Patent No. 20160224036 A1) and further in view of Sugden (US Patent No. 8963805 B2).
In re claim 1, De Schepper teaches A method comprising:
[determining], an intent to control an object via interaction with a virtual object (Para [0019]: “Accordingly, when a video camera device identifies an object corresponding to the remotely controllable device, it provides this information so the gesture server device, which monitors the movement of this device.”);
[identifying], the object to be controlled (Para [0019]: “The object can be of any kind, especially a self-identifying object. An example for such a generic gesture is moving a remotely controllable device towards a printer, e.g. towards the physical location of a printer or any kind of virtual representation of the printer.”);
[determining], a command to control the object identified (Para [0019]: “By combining this generic printing gesture with information regarding the dimensions of this remotely controllable device as object, a particular gesture for printing on this remotely controllable device can be defined.”); and
transmitting wirelessly a command value corresponding to the command to control the object (Para [0019]: “The gesture server device identifies the printing gesture and controls the remotely controllable device to print a current screen or document.”),
[wherein the virtual object is associated with a physical location that is separate from the object] (Para [0040]: “In step S11, the printer 12 registers to the gesture recognition device 3. Accordingly, the gesture recognition device 3 receives information for recognizing the printer 12, i.e. information regarding the dimensions of the printer 12, i.e. an object definition of the printer 12. This information is provided from the gesture recognition device 3 to all connected devices 9, 11, 12, 13. The printer 12 is not remotely controllable in this embodiment, but a self-identifying object 12. In an alternative embodiment, the printer 12 provides information regarding its dimensions as broadcast to all connected devices 9, 11, 12, 13.”).
De Schepper fails to teach by a wireless device:
[determining], via interpreting first sensor data of the wireless device
[identifying], via a wireless ranging operation performed between the wireless device and the virtual object,
[determining], via interpreting second sensor data of the wireless device,
[wherein the virtual object is associated with a physical location that is separate from the object] and from the wireless device and is specified by the object or via a training process using the wireless device.
However, Baker teaches by a wireless device (-Para [0012]: “The user may engage the wearable control device, or another device in the load control system, for enabling load control based on gestures performed by the user.”):
[determining], via interpreting first sensor data of the wireless device (-Para [0038]: “The orientation of the wearable control device 228 may be used to identify a control-target device and/or load control instructions for controlling an electrical load via the control-target device.”)
[determining], via interpreting second sensor data of the wireless device (Para [0038]: “The wearable control device 228 may detect the rotation of the arm of the user 222 or the wrist of the user 222 and/or an amount of the rotation, which may indicate an amount of change to a dimming level of a lighting load. The wearable control device 228 may sense sudden movements by the user 222, such as a twitch left or right, to control a control-target device. The wearable control device 228 may detect when the user 222 changes the orientation of the wearable control device 228 by a predetermined distance. For example, the wearable control device may identify when the user 222 rotates the wearable control device 228 a predetermined distance. A change in the orientation of the wearable control device 228 by a predetermined distance may identify a control-target device and/or load control instructions.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Schepper to incorporate the teachings of Baker to provide by a wireless device: [determining], via interpreting first sensor data of the wireless device, [determining], via interpreting second sensor data of the wireless device with the METHOD FOR GESTURE CONTROL, GESTURE SERVER DEVICE AND SENSOR INPUT DEVICE of De Schepper. Doing so enables load control based on gestures performed by the user, as recognized by Baker (Para [0012]).
The combination fails to teach [identifying], via a wireless ranging operation performed between the wireless device and the virtual object,
[wherein the virtual object is associated with a physical location that is separate from the object] and from the wireless device and is specified by the object or via a training process using the wireless device.
However, Sugden teaches [identifying], via a wireless ranging operation performed between the wireless device and the virtual object (Col 5, lines 11-20: “Additionally, in some embodiments when a user enters a location within a threshold range of one or more virtual objects, such as within ten feet, thirty feet, etc., the information regarding the virtual objects within range may be sent to the user's device, regardless of whether the real object associated with the virtual object is within the user's field of view. Such preloading of the virtual object may allow the virtual object to be launched more quickly if the user chooses to interact with it. Such proximity also may trigger notification to the user of the virtual object.”),
[wherein the virtual object is associated with a physical location that is separate from the object] and from the wireless device and is specified by the object or via a training process using the wireless device (Col 6, lines 26-38: “In other instances, the association of a virtual object with a real object may be performed when the user is not physically located at the real object. For example, a user may associate a virtual object with a global coordinate on a map via a map service, via previously acquired image data capturing an image of the object, or in any other suitable manner. In one example, this may include a user “sending” an invitation to a party to a friend. The user may associate the virtual object, in this example the invitation, with a selected real object (e.g., the friend's front door) via a map on the user's personal home computing device, such that when the friend is in proximity to the real object, the friend may launch the virtual object to receive the invitation.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of De Schepper and Baker to further incorporate the teachings of Sugden to provide [identifying], via a wireless ranging operation performed between the wireless device and the virtual object, [wherein the virtual object is associated with a physical location that is separate from the object] and from the wireless device and is specified by the object or via a training process using the wireless device with the METHOD FOR GESTURE CONTROL, GESTURE SERVER DEVICE AND SENSOR INPUT DEVICE of De Schepper as modified by Baker. Doing so allows the virtual object to be launched more quickly if the user chooses to interact with it, as recognized by Sugden (Col 5, lines 11-20).
Device claim 10 and computer-readable medium claim 19 are rejected for the same reasons as method claim 1 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 2, De Schepper, Baker and Sugden teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where De Schepper further teaches further comprising:
specifying the physical location associated with the virtual object by at least:
positioning the wireless device proximate to or touching the physical location (Para [0019]: “An example for such a generic gesture is moving a remotely controllable device towards a printer, e.g. towards the physical location of a printer or any kind of virtual representation of the printer.”); and
activating a virtual icon command via the wireless device (Para [0024]: “In one example, a relative geographic position of different remotely controllable devices can be detected by a sensor input device, e.g. a video camera device, and displayed on a touch screen by icons to enable drag and drop of content between the different remotely controllable devices. The content can then be transferred from the one to the other device by any kind of communication connection, either an existing or an explicitly established communication connection.”).
Device claim 11 and computer-readable medium claim 20 are rejected for the same reasons as method claim 2 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 3, De Schepper, Baker and Sugden teach all of the limitations of claim 2 stated above where De Schepper further teaches wherein activation of the virtual icon command comprises receiving a tactile input via a user interface of the wireless device (Para [0024]: “In one example, a relative geographic position of different remotely controllable devices can be detected by a sensor input device, e.g. a video camera device, and displayed on a touch screen by icons to enable drag and drop of content between the different remotely controllable devices. The content can then be transferred from the one to the other device by any kind of communication connection, either an existing or an explicitly established communication connection.”).
Device claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 3 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 4, De Schepper, Baker and Sugden teach all of the limitations of claim 2 stated above where Baker further teaches wherein activation of the virtual icon command comprises interpreting a voice input received via a microphone of the wireless device (Para [0045]: “The control-target device may be identified using another device. For example, the user 222 may select one or more control-target devices or zones on the wireless communication device 232… For example, the user 222 may select the lamp 206 and/or lighting control device 204 on the wireless communication device 232 and may raise the arm on which the wearable control device 228 is being worn to increase the intensity of the lamp 206.” and para [0053]: “The audio commands may also be used to identify the device. The user 222 may say “kitchen lights” to identify the lamps in the kitchen and may raise an arm to increase the dimming level of the identified kitchen lamps. The voice command may identify a location, zone, and/or lighting load for being controlled by the wearable control device 228. The audio commands may also be stored in the gesture datastore and may be accessed at different locations.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of De Schepper and Baker to further incorporate the teachings of Baker to provide wherein activation of the virtual icon command comprises interpreting a voice input received via a microphone of the wireless device with the METHOD FOR GESTURE CONTROL, GESTURE SERVER DEVICE AND SENSOR INPUT DEVICE of De Schepper as modified by Baker. Doing so enables voice commands to identify a location, zone, and/or lighting load for being controlled by the wearable control device 228, as recognized by Baker (Para [0053]).
Device claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 4 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 5, De Schepper, Baker and Sugden teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where De Schepper further teaches wherein the virtual object comprises a virtual representation of a controller for controlling the object (Para [0019]: “The gesture server device identifies the printing gesture and controls the remotely controllable device to print a current screen or document.” and para [0025]: “Gesture recognition can imply virtual objects, which are e.g. displayed on a screen or another visualization device. These virtual, objects can be used for gestures as specified above.”).
Device claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 5 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 6, De Schepper, Baker and Sugden teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Baker further teaches wherein determination of the intent to control the object comprises:
detecting an intent gesture by measuring an orientation of the wireless device relative to the virtual object (Para [0041]: “The orientation of the wearable control device 228 may be used to determine an angle of the arm of the user 222 when raised or lowered (e.g., from an initial starting point of zero). The different angles at which the user 222 positions an arm may indicate different control-target devices and/or control instructions. For example, the user 222 may position an arm at different angles to identify different zones or scenes for performing load control.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of De Schepper and Baker to further incorporate the teachings of Baker to provide wherein determination of the intent to control the object comprises: detecting an intent gesture by measuring an orientation of the wireless device relative to the virtual object with the METHOD FOR GESTURE CONTROL, GESTURE SERVER DEVICE AND SENSOR INPUT DEVICE of De Schepper as modified by Baker. Doing so enables indicating different control-target devices and/or control instructions, as recognized by Baker (Para [0041]).
Device claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 6 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 7, De Schepper, Baker and Sugden teach all of the limitations of claim 6 stated above where Baker further teaches wherein determination of the command to control the object comprises:
detecting an action gesture separate from the intent gesture, the action gesture including movement of the wireless device relative to the virtual object (Para [0041]: “The distance the user 222 raises or lowers an arm may also, or alternatively, be used to indicate different control-target devices and/or control instructions.”).
Device claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 7 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 8, De Schepper, Baker and Sugden teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where De Schepper further teaches wherein the virtual object comprises a virtual control defined by the object to be controlled (Para [0019]: “The gesture server device identifies the printing gesture and controls the remotely controllable device to print a current screen or document.”).
Device claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 8 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 9, De Schepper, Baker and Sugden teach all of the limitations of claim 8 stated above where De Schepper further teaches wherein the object to be controlled wirelessly advertises (Para [0040]: “In step S11, the printer 12 registers to the gesture recognition device 3. Accordingly, the gesture recognition device 3 receives information for recognizing the printer 12, i.e. information regarding the dimensions of the printer 12, i.e. an object definition of the printer 12. This information is provided from the gesture recognition device 3 to all connected devices 9, 11, 12, 13. The printer 12 is not remotely controllable in this embodiment, but a self-identifying object 12. In an alternative embodiment, the printer 12 provides information regarding its dimensions as broadcast to all connected devices 9, 11, 12, 13.”) the physical location associated with the virtual object (Para [0024]: “In one example, a relative geographic position of different remotely controllable devices can be detected by a sensor input device…” and para [0025]: “Furthermore, the gesture server device can control the remotely controllable device so facilitate identification and registration of this device or an instance thereof. Preferably, the gesture server device contacts the remotely controllable device, i.e. a single instance of this device, and controls it to generate a visually recognizable signal, e.g. to flash a light, to switch on a display, to show a particular display screen, to light an LED, to provide an infrared or ultraviolet LED signal, preferably with a specific sequence. These signals can be recognized by a video camera device, which can thereby detect the location of an instance of a remotely controllable device.”).
Device claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 9 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments received 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of applicant remarks, applicant mentioned filing a terminal disclaimer along with current remarks to cure the double patenting issues. However, examiner notes said terminal disclaimer has not been received, therefore the double patenting rejection still stands.
On pages 7-8 of applicant remarks, applicant argues the applied references of De Schepper and Baker do not teach the amended limitations of the independent claims. Examiner notes Baker provides teaching of ‘the wireless device’ and its associated sensing capabilities, as mapped to above, and further notes newly found art Sugden teaches the amended limitations mapped to in the rejection above. Therefore, the arguments against De Schepper are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by applicant amendments.
Conclusion
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 JAMES EDWARD MUNION whose telephone number is (571)270-0437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/JAMES E MUNION/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 09/01/2026
Prosecution Insights