CTNF 19/113,129 CTNF 85815 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 6-7 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 discloses “performed, the unintended performance indicating the other gesture and the” (see line 9) and “gesture, the determining… the other gesture to the second” (see line 12). It seems “the unintended performance” and “the other gesture” are typographical errors (e.g. line 9 should be “performed indicating the another gesture and the”, and line 12 should be “ gesture, the determining effective to correlate the another gesture to the second command”. Claim 20 discloses “responsive to determining that the other gesture is similar or identical to the” (see line 4), “performed, the unintended performance indicating the other gesture and the” (see line 7), and “gesture, the determining effective to correlate the other gesture to the second” (see line 10). It seems “the unintended performance” and “the other gesture” are typographical errors (e.g. line 4 should be “responsive to determining that the another gesture is similar or identical to the”, line 7 should be “ performed indicating the another gesture and the”, and line 10 should be “gesture, the determining effective to correlate the another gesture to the second” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 8-9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0205888 A1 to Nicholson et al. (Nicholson) in view of US 2020/0073482 A1 to Levesque . As to claim 1, Nicholson discloses a method comprising: detecting, at a computing device (105) (Figs. 1-2, Pars. 44-45) , an ambiguous gesture performed by a user (Figs. 1-2, Pars. 52, 56-57), the ambiguous gesture associated with a signal characteristic (e.g. gesture characteristics such as size, confidence levels, etc.) (Figs. 12, Pars. 57, 59); comparing the signal characteristic to one or more stored signal characteristics (Figs. 12, Pars. 57, 59), the comparing effective to correlate the ambiguous gesture to a first gesture and a second gesture (Figs. 1-2, Pars. 52, 56-57), the first gesture and the second gesture associated with a first command and a second command, respectively (Figs. 1-2, 4, Pars. 106-107); and responsive to the determining, directing the computing device, an application associated with the computing device, or another device associated with the computing device to perform the first command (Figs. 1-2, 4, Pars. 106-107). Nicholson does not expressly disclose using a radar system and the signal characteristic is a radar-signal characteristic; and determining that the first command will be less destructive than the second command. Levesque discloses using a radar system (Par. 84) and the signal characteristic is a radar-signal characteristic (Par. 84); and determining that the first command will be less destructive than the second command (Par. 52, see also Fig. 6, Par. 82, e.g. If the classified gesture matches a retrieved predefined gesture, the associated program action associated with the matched gesture may be performed). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nicholson with the teaching of Levesque to prevent mistakes which may result in serious action thereby provide an improved inputting method as suggested by Levesque (Par. 52). As to claim 14, see claim 1 rejection and motivation above. Nicholson as modified further discloses a computing device (Nicholson’s , Levesque’s 102) comprising: at least one antenna (Levesque’s 122) (Fig. 7, Pars. 113-115); a radar system (Par. 84) configured to transmit a radar-transmit signal and receive a radar- receive signal (Par. 84) using the at least one antenna (Fig. 7, Pars. 113-115); at least one processor (Levesque’s 118) (Fig. 7, Par. 114); and a computer-readable storage media (130, 132) comprising instructions that, responsive to execution by the processor (118) (Levesque’s Fig. 7, Pars. 11, 118, see also Pars. 110-111, 118) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0205888 A1 to Nicholson et al. (Nicholson) and US 2020/0073482 A1 to Levesque; in view of US 2020/0285377 A1 to Hoefs et al. (Hoefs) . As to claim 2, Nicholson as modified determining that the first command will be less destructive determines: that the first command is an interim command and the second command is a final command. Hoefs discloses determining that the first command will be less destructive determines: that the first command is an interim command (e.g. temporary such as e.g. snooze alarm clock notification) and the second command is a final command (e.g. permanent such as stop alarm clock notification) (Pars. 87, 89). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nicholson with the teaching of Hoefs to enable faster user input and to provide an improved inputting experience as suggested by Hoefs (Par. 90). As to claim 11, Nicholson as modified does not expressly disclose the single application is a notification application; the first command is to mute, pause, or delay a notification; and the second command is to disable the notification. Hoefs discloses the single application is a notification application (Pars. 87, 89, e.g. alarm clock); the first command is to mute, pause, or delay a notification (Pars. 87, 89, e.g. snooze alarm clock notification); and the second command is to disable the notification (Pars. 87, 89, e.g. stop alarm clock notification). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nicholson with the teaching of Hoefs to enable faster user input and to provide an improved inputting experience as suggested by Hoefs (Par. 90). As to claim 16, Nicholson in view of Levesque teaches the computing device of claim 1 above. The limitation of claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected based on same analysis as claim 2 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0205888 A1 to Nicholson et al. (Nicholson) and US 2020/0073482 A1 to Levesque; in view of US 2022/0399014 A1 to Tan et al. (Tan) . As to claim 3, Nicholson does not expressly disclose determining that the first command will be less destructive determines that the first command can be reversed and that the second command cannot be reversed. Tan discloses determining that the first command will be less destructive determines that the first command can be reversed and that the second command cannot be reversed (see 335-365 of Fig. 3, Pars. 14-15). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nicholson with the teaching of Tan to provide an improved command input without adverse effects as suggested by Tan (Par. 18). As to claim 17, Nicholson in view of Levesque teaches the computing device of claim 3 above. The limitation of claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected based on same analysis as claim 3 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0205888 A1 to Nicholson et al. (Nicholson) and US 2020/0073482 A1 to Levesque; in view of US 2018/0210543 A1 to Chennamsetty et al. (Chennamsetty) . As to claim 10, Nicholson as modified does not expressly disclose the single application is a phone application; the first command is to mute a phone call; and the second command is to end the phone call. Chennamsetty discloses the single application is a phone application (Par. 32); the first command is to mute a phone call (Par. 32); and the second command is to end the phone call (Par. 32). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nicholson with the teaching of Chennamsetty to provide a customizable and variety of gesture functions as suggested by Chennamsetty (Par. 32) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4-7, 13, and 18-21 are 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. The allowable subject matter is: determining that the first command is less destructive than the second command is further based on a prior action taken by the user within a period of time after a prior performance of the first or the second command of claims 4 and 18, respectively, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The allowable subject matter is: responsive to performance of the first command, detecting, at the computing device or the other device associated with the computing device, a user input directing the computing device to perform a third command to undo the first command, the user input not including another gesture performance; responsive to detecting the user input command, determining the ambiguous gesture is the not the first gesture; and storing the determination of the ambiguous gesture to improve detection of the first gesture at the future time of claims 5 and 19, respectively, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The allowable subject matter is: responsive to performance of the first command, detecting, at the computing device or the other device associated with the computing device, another gesture being performed by the user; and responsive to determining that the other gesture is similar or identical to the ambiguous gesture: determining the user did not intend for the first command to be performed, the unintended performance indicating the other gesture and the ambiguous gesture are not the first gesture; and determining the other gesture and the ambiguous gesture are the second gesture, the determining effective to correlate the other gesture to the second command of claims 6 and 20, respectively, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The allowable subject matter is: determining that the first command will be less destructive than the second command includes utilizing a machine-learned model that performs unsupervised learning of commands performed by the computing device, the unsupervised learning usable to determine a destructiveness of the commands without utilizing predetermined conditions or algorithms of claims 13 and 21, respectively, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : US 2018/0046255 A1 to Rothera et al. teaches a gestural interface in vehicles uses radar to enable user interaction and control of a mobile phone or other in-vehicle processing system through gestures.. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA whose telephone number is (571)270-7361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 8:30AM to 4:00PM, 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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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. /JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA/Examiner, Art Unit 2623 /CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/113,129 Page 2 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/113,129 Page 3 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/113,129 Page 4 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/113,129 Page 5 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/113,129 Page 6 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/113,129 Page 7 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/113,129 Page 8 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/113,129 Page 9 Art Unit: 2623
Prosecution Insights