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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-7, 10-13, and 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5-12-2026. Claim 9 is rejoined as amended by applicant to be dependent on elected claim 8.
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) 1, 2, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan et al. (US App. 20150040040) in view of Shaffer et al. (US App. 20130241847 hereinafter referred to as “Shaf”).
In regard to claim 1, Balan teaches a computer system configured to communicate with one or more input devices and a display generation component, the computer system (see at least Abstract and Fig. 6) comprising: one or more processors (see Para. 57, processors); and memory (see Para. 59, memory) storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices (see Para. 64, camera), a first hand gesture performed by a first hand (see Para. 46-48 and Figs. 5-6 move hand 604 to different depth plane to invoke cursor and moving cursor by tracking hand as well as make a selection); in response to detecting the first hand gesture performed by the first hand, displaying, via the display generation component, a cursor (t2 in Fig. 6); while displaying the cursor, detecting, via the one or more input devices, movement of a respective hand (t3 in Fig. 6); and in response to detecting movement of the respective hand: in accordance with a determination that the respective hand is the first hand, moving, via the display generation component, the cursor based on the movement of the first hand (see Fig. 6).
Balan is not relied upon to teach and in accordance with a determination that the respective hand is a second hand that is different from the first hand, forgoing moving, via the display generation component, the cursor based on the movement of the second hand.
However, Shaf teaches and in accordance with a determination that the respective hand is a second hand that is different from the first hand, forgoing moving, via the display generation component, the cursor based on the movement of the second hand (see Fig. 43 where additional commands are assigned to moving gestures for non-cursor controlling hand such as sliding up to undo).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input device of Balan with assigned gesture events of the other hand in Shaf for multipoint sensing using gestures (See Para. 28). Examiner also notes Balan discloses the base product/process of two hand gesture input while Shaf teaches the known technique of moving gestures exclusive to the non-cursor moving hand so as to yield predictable results of not moving the cursor using the hand not assigned to the cursor hand in the device of Balan.
Regarding claim 2, Balan in view of Shaf teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Balan further teaches wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a second hand gesture performed by the first hand, wherein the second hand gesture is different from the first hand gesture (see Fig. 6, T2); and in response to detecting the second hand gesture performed by the first hand, making a selection (Fig. 6, T4).
Regarding claim 18, Balan in view of Shaf teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Balan further teaches wherein moving the cursor based on the movement of the first hand includes: in response to detecting movement of the respective hand: in accordance with the determination that the respective hand is the first hand, displaying a mark, via the display generation component, on a portion of a document based on the movement of the first hand (see Fig. 4).
In regard to claim 19, Balan teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with one or more input devices and a display generation component, the one or more programs including instructions (see at least Abstract, Para. 59, Fig. 6) for: detecting, via the one or more input devices (see Para. 64 camera), a first hand gesture performed by a first hand (see Fig. 6); in response to detecting the first hand gesture performed by the first hand, displaying, via the display generation component, a cursor (see Para. 46-48 and Figs. 5-6 move hand 604 to different depth plane to invoke cursor and moving cursor by tracking hand as well as make a selection); while displaying the cursor, detecting, via the one or more input devices, movement of a respective hand (t2 in Fig. 6); and in response to detecting movement of the respective hand: in accordance with a determination that the respective hand is the first hand, moving, via the display generation component, the cursor based on the movement of the first hand (t3 in Fig. 6).
Balan is not relied upon to teach and in accordance with a determination that the respective hand is a second hand that is different from the first hand, forgoing moving, via the display generation component, the cursor based on the movement of the second hand.
However, Shaf teaches and in accordance with a determination that the respective hand is a second hand that is different from the first hand, forgoing moving, via the display generation component, the cursor based on the movement of the second hand (see Fig. 43 where additional commands are assigned to moving gestures for non-cursor controlling hand such as sliding up to undo).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input device of Balan with assigned gesture events of the other hand in Shaf for multipoint sensing using gestures (See Para. 28). Examiner also notes Balan discloses the base product/process of two hand gesture input while Shaf teaches the known technique of moving gestures exclusive to the non-cursor moving hand so as to yield predictable results of not moving the cursor using the hand not assigned to the cursor hand in the device of Balan.
In regard to claim 20, Balan teaches a method, comprising: at a computer system that is in communication with one or more input devices and a display generation component (see at least Abstract and Fig. 6 and Para. 57): detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first hand gesture performed by a first hand (see Para. 64, camera); in response to detecting the first hand gesture performed by the first hand, displaying, via the display generation component, a cursor (see Para. 46-48 and Figs. 5-6 move hand 604 to different depth plane to invoke cursor and moving cursor by tracking hand as well as make a selection); while displaying the cursor, detecting, via the one or more input devices, movement of a respective hand (t2 in Fig. 6); and in response to detecting movement of the respective hand: in accordance with a determination that the respective hand is the first hand, moving, via the display generation component, the cursor based on the movement of the first hand (t3 in Fig. 6). Balan is not relied upon to teach and in accordance with a determination that the respective hand is a second hand that is different from the first hand, forgoing moving, via the display generation component, the cursor based on the movement of the second hand.
However, Shaf teaches and in accordance with a determination that the respective hand is a second hand that is different from the first hand, forgoing moving, via the display generation component, the cursor based on the movement of the second hand (see Fig. 43 where additional commands are assigned to moving gestures for non-cursor controlling hand such as sliding up to undo).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input device of Balan with assigned gesture events of the other hand in Shaf for multipoint sensing using gestures (See Para. 28). Examiner also notes Balan discloses the base product/process of two hand gesture input while Shaf teaches the known technique of moving gestures exclusive to the non-cursor moving hand so as to yield predictable results of not moving the cursor using the hand not assigned to the cursor hand in the device of Balan.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan et al. (US App. 20150040040) in view of Shaffer et al. (US App. 20130241847 hereinafter referred to as “Shaf”) in further view of Plagemann et al. (US App. 20150220149 hereinafter referred to as “Plag”).
Regarding claim 3, Balan in view of Shaf teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Balan and Shaf are not relied upon to teach wherein the first hand gesture performed by the first hand is a double-pinch gesture.
However, Plag teaches wherein the first hand gesture performed by the first hand is a double-pinch gesture (See at least Figs. 6-9 and Para. 56-58 drag by pinching fingers and drop by releasing fingers).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hand input of Balan and Shaf to have pinch to drag and release of Plag to reduce user movement between regions (See Para. 3). Examiner also notes Balan and Shaf discloses the base product/process of moving a cursor to select an item while Plag teaches the known technique of pinching to move an item so as to yield predictable results of pinching for the cursor in the device of Balan as modified by Shaf.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan et al. (US App. 20150040040) in view of Shaffer et al. (US App. 20130241847 hereinafter referred to as “Shaf”) in further view of Jholjhaal (“Hide Mouse Cursor on Windows with Mouse Pointer Scheme”; “https://web.archive.org/web/20210928003544/http://www.jholjhaal.com/hide-mouse-cursor-on-windows-with-mouse-pointer-scheme/” September 2021; hereinafter referred to as “Jho”)
Regarding claim 8, Balan in view of Shaf teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Balan further teaches wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: in response to detecting the first hand gesture performed by the first hand, displaying, via the display generation component (see Fig. 6).
Balan and Shaf are not relied upon to teach a second selectable option for ceasing to display the cursor.
However, Jho teaches a second selectable option for ceasing to display the cursor (see Page 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hand input of Balan and Shaf to have the hidden cursor of Jho for user preferences (see Page 2). Examiner also notes Balan and Shaf discloses the base product/process of moving a cursor to select an item while Jho teaches the known technique of selecting to hide a cursor as to yield predictable results of user customized cursor hiding in the device of Balan as modified by Shaf.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan et al. (US App. 20150040040) in view of Shaffer et al. (US App. 20130241847 hereinafter referred to as “Shaf”) in further view of Schwesinger et al. (US App. 20150193124 hereinafter referred to as “Schwe”)
Regarding claim 14, Balan in view of Shaf teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Balan further teaches wherein moving the cursor based on the movement of the first hand includes: moving the cursor based on a location of the first hand (see Fig. 6); and the first hand (see Fig. 6); and moving the cursor (see Fig. 6).
Balan is not relied upon to teach in accordance with a determination that the first hand is within a threshold distance of a canvas, moving the cursor based on a location of a palm; and in accordance with a determination that the hand is not within the threshold distance of the canvas, based on a location of one or more fingertips of the hand.
However, Schwe teaches with a determination that the first hand is within a threshold distance of a canvas, moving the cursor based on a location of a palm; and in accordance with a determination that the hand is not within the threshold distance of the canvas, based on a location of one or more fingertips of the hand (see Abstract, Fig. 4C and Para. 28 describing the concept of tracking gradual input of fingertips to palm to full hand as means of cursor control).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hand input of Balan and Shaf to have the palm and fingertip input of Schwe for visual feedback of gesture of a cursor and accuracy (See Para. 10 and 15). Examiner also notes Balan and Shaf discloses the base product/process of moving a cursor to select an item while Schwe teaches the known technique of tracking fingertips and palm distances so as to yield predictable results of more accurate input in the device of Balan as modified by Shaf.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Ikuta et al. (US App. 20190146578) describing hand tracking to change values and Walkin et al. (US App. 20210240332) describing time thresholds to cease cursor display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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.
/MATTHEW YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights