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) 1-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (US 2020/0356178 A1, hereinafter “Qiu”) in view of Nicholson et al. (US 2017/0205888 A1, hereinafter “Nicholson”).
As to claim 14, Qiu (Fig. 2) discloses a computing device (200) comprising:
at least one antenna (210; Para. 0048);
a radar system (270) configured to transmit a radar-transmit signal and receive a radar- receive signal using the at least one antenna (Para. 0057-0058);
at least one processor (240); and
a computer-readable storage media (260) comprising instructions that, responsive to execution by the processor, are configured to direct the computing device to perform operations including:
detecting an ambiguous gesture (Fig. 4) performed by a user, the ambiguous gesture associated with a radar-signal characteristic (Para. 0080);
comparing the radar-signal characteristic to one or more stored radar- signal characteristics, the comparing effective to associate the ambiguous gesture to one or more known gestures, the one or more known gestures each having a corresponding command (Para. 0167, 0178),
receiving, after detecting the ambiguous gesture, an indication of performance or requested performance of a command (Para. 0168, 0182);
determining that the indicated command is a first command of the corresponding commands associated with a first known gesture of the one or more known gestures with which the comparing was effective to associate the ambiguous gesture (Para. 0182).
Qiu does not disclose the association to the one or more known gestures below recognition threshold criteria sufficient to recognize the ambiguous gesture as one of the one or more known gestures;
storing the radar-signal characteristic with the first known gesture to enable recognition of the first gesture at a future time.
However, Nicholson (Fig. 5) teaches the association to the one or more known gestures below recognition threshold criteria sufficient to recognize the ambiguous gesture as one of the one or more known gestures (step 510; Para. 0112-0113);
storing the radar-signal characteristic with the first known gesture to enable recognition of the first gesture at a future time (Para. 0062, 0086, 0103, updating gesture recognition algorithm based on user selection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Nicholson to update the gesture recognition algorithm in the device disclosed by Qiu. The motivation would have been to provide better gesture recognition (Nicholson; Para. 0013).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 1.
As to claim 16, Qiu discloses the computing device of claim 14, wherein receiving the indication is not responsive to performance or requested performance of the command based on recognition of a gesture by the radar system (Para. 0182).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 2.
As to claim 17, Qiu does not disclose the computing device of claim 14, wherein receiving the indication is responsive to selection, by the user, of the command through non-radar input.
However, Nicholson teaches wherein receiving the indication is responsive to selection, by the user, of the command through non-radar input (Fig. 5 step 545; Para. 0122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of including a user selection for an ambiguous gesture in the device disclosed by Qiu. The motivation would have been to resolve the ambiguous gesture based on user input (Nicholson; Para. 0006).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 3.
As to claim 18, Qiu in view of Nicholson disclosed the computing device of claim 14. Nicholson further teaches further comprising: receiving an input from the user that confirms that the ambiguous gesture was intended to be the first known gesture, wherein storing the radar-signal characteristic is responsive to receiving the input from the user (Fig. 5 step 545; Para. 0062, 0121-0122).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 5.
As to claim 6, Qiu discloses the method claim 1, wherein detecting the ambiguous gesture is performed in absence of a gesture- training event (Para. 0127), the gesture-training event comprising segmented teaching, for the user, of one or more gestures (Para. 0128).
As to claim 7, Qiu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the indication of performance or requested performance of the command comprises determining the performance or requested performance based on one or more changes to an operational state of the computing device (Fig. 7A steps 704-710; Para. 0145-0148).
As to claim 8, Qiu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the ambiguous gesture utilizes a machine-learned model to improve the detection of the ambiguous gesture (Fig. 5H; Para. 0103), the machine learning-learned model associated with one or more convolutional neural network (Para. 0093).
As to claim 9, Qiu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein storing the radar-signal characteristic is further responsive to or based on a period of time between detecting the ambiguous gesture and receiving the indication of the performance or requested performance of the command (Fig. 5G; Para. 0138).
As to claim 10, Qiu discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising weighting the radar-signal characteristic relative to the one or more stored radar-signal characteristics based on the period of time (Para. 0110-0111, threshold, 0138).
As to claim 19, Qiu in view of Nicholson disclose the computing device of claim 14. Nicholson further teaches wherein storing the radar- signal characteristic is further responsive to or based on whether or not an indication of performance or requested performance of another command is indicated prior to receiving the indication (Fig. 5 steps 535-540; Para. 0086, 0118-0119, updating gesture based on user feedback).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 11.
As to claim 20, Qiu in view of Nicholson disclosed the computing device of claim 14. Nicholson further teaches wherein storing the radar- signal characteristic is responsive to determining that no indication of performance or requested performance of the other command is indicated prior to receiving the indication of performance or requested performance of the command (Para. 0086).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 12.
As to claim 21, Qiu in view of Nicholson disclosed the computing device of claim 14. Nicholson further teaches wherein responsive to the determining, associating the radar-signal characteristic of the ambiguous gesture to a first stored radar-signal characteristic of the one or more stored radar-signal characteristics, the first stored radar-signal characteristic associated with the first known gesture (Fig. 5 step 540; Para. 0119).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
White et al. (US 2010/0083373 A1) discloses a gesture training (Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 PM.
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, Will 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
