DETAILED 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 .
Claims 21-38 are pending in the instant application. Claims 1-20 are canceled and claims 21-38 are added (Note: Misnumbered claims 25-36 have been renumbered 26-38, respectively. See claim objections below).
Claim Objections
Claims 22-23, 25, renumbered claims 26-38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Two claims are number as “25”. The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 25-36 have been renumbered 26-38, respectively.
Renumbered claims 28-32 are substantial duplicate of claims 22-26, respectively. Applicant is advised that should claims 22-26 be found allowable, renumbered claims 28-32, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 22, recites “the speed of the suer in performing the gesture”. To correct antecedent issues and clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “speed of movement of a body part of the user when performing the gesture”.
Claim 23, recites “the amount of space occupied by the user in performing the gesture”. To correct antecedent issues and clarify the claim language, examiner suggests “an amount of space occupied by the user when performing the gesture” (see specification, para. [0043]).
Claim 25 includes the term “AI” instead of “artificial intelligence (AI)”. The acronym should be spelled out in the first time it is used in a claim.
Renumbered Claim 27, recites “cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising: identifying …; obtaining …; validating …; generating …; and providing …”. Claim 26 is directed to a system claim, but the claim uses method language. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest amending as follows “cause the one or more computer processors to: identify …; obtain …; validate …; generate …; and provide …”.
Renumbered Claim 28, recites “the speed of the suer in performing the gesture”. To correct antecedent issues and clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “speed of movement of a body part of the user when performing the gesture” (see specification, para. [0043]).
Renumbered Claim 29, recites “the amount of space occupied by the user in performing the gesture”. To correct antecedent issues and clarify the claim language, examiner suggests “an amount of space occupied by the user when performing the gesture”.
Renumbered Claim 31 includes the term “AI” instead of “artificial intelligence (AI)”. The acronym should be spelled out in the first time it is used in a claim.
Renumbered Claim 34, recites “the speed of the suer in performing the gesture”. To correct antecedent issues and clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “speed of movement of a body part of the user when performing the gesture” (see specification, para. [0043]).
Renumbered Claim 35, recites “the amount of space occupied by the user in performing the gesture”. To correct antecedent issues and clarify the claim language, examiner suggests “an amount of space occupied by the user when performing the gesture”.
Renumbered Claim 37 includes the term “AI” instead of “artificial intelligence (AI)”. The acronym should be spelled out in the first time it is used in a claim.
Renumbered claim 26 depend directly or indirectly from an objected claim, therefore is also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-25 and renumbered claims 26-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21, renumbered claim 27 and renumbered claim 33 recite “identifying an intent of a gesture that was performed by a user; obtaining gesture magnitude data associated with the user performing the gesture; validating the intent of the gesture based at least on the obtained gesture magnitude data; generating a command that corresponds to the intent of the gesture”. The specification is silent with respect to “intent of a gesture”.
Applicant’s specification only describes “expressed intentions” which corresponds to mood of a user or urgency or importance that the user wants to convey (see para. [0047]). The specification discloses “identify the expressed intentions of the user providing the gestures”… The identified output of the AI model defines their expressed intention of the user, wherein the expressed intentions of the user can include their mood, the urgency or importance that they want to convey in the metaverse, etc”. However, the “expressed intentions” are not “intent of a gesture”. Broadest reasonable interpretation of “intent of a gesture” includes whether a gesture was intentional or unintentional. It can also include purpose or aim of the gesture.
In addition, applicant’s specification is silent with respect to “validating the intent of the gesture based at least on the obtained gesture magnitude data”. The specification discloses “[t]he user’s expressions can be used to further validate the gesture magnitude” (see para. [0008]), “the images of facial features are used to validate the gestures” (see para. [0016]), “the images of facial features to validate the user expressing a different emotion” (para. [0017), “the audio produced by the user can be selectively filtered and used to validate the gestures (para. [0032]), “[t]he facial features of the user are used to validate the finger gestures” (para. [0033]), “validate the finger gestures and the gesture magnitude using details from the facial features” (para. [0036]), “the facial gestures are used to further validate the attributes of the finger and hand gestures” (para. [0039]), and “validate the interpreted gestures against other input clues, such as facial features providing expressions, voice providing sounds (representing emotions), speed of gestures, etc” (para. [0057]). Based on applicant’s disclosure the gesture magnitude is validated based on the user’s expressions. In addition, applicant’s specification provides support for validating gestures based on facial features or voice sounds or speed of gestures. However, the disclosure does not provide support for the intent of the gesture being validated based on gesture magnitude.
Moreover, applicant’s disclosure does not provide support for generating a command that corresponds to the intent of the gesture. Applicant’s specification discloses “the input derived from the gestures provided by the user can be used to adjust corresponding gestures and expressions of an avatar used to represent the user in the metaverse” and “generate an output corresponding to current gestures provided by the user” (see para. [0047]). In addition, the specification discloses that “gesture interpretation engine 260 interprets the gesture attributes and the gesture magnitude in the context of the interaction to generate an input for applying to the interaction in the metaverse. The input generated by the gesture interpretation engine 260 is forwarded to an input application engine 270” (para. [0048]).
Applicant’s specification, as well as the parent case disclosure, fails to describe the above claimed features . Therefore, claim 21, renumbered claim 27 and renumbered claim 33 fail to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 22-25, renumbered claims 28-32 and renumbered claims 34-38 depend directly or indirectly from a rejected claim, therefore are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
Claim 24, renumbered claim 30 and renumbered claim 36 recites “the gesture magnitude data comprises a facial expression made by the user when performing the gesture”. Applicant’s specification discloses that “[i]n addition to capturing the gestures to define the attributes of the gestures and the gesture magnitude, the system also captures the facial features of the user as the user is providing the gestures. The facial features are used to determine the user’s expressions. The user’s expressions can be used to further validate the gesture magnitude” (para. [0008]). Based on applicant’s disclosure the facial expressions are different from the gesture magnitude. Moreover, the facial features are used to validate the gesture magnitude. Therefore, claim 24, renumbered claim 30 and renumbered claim 36 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Renumbered claims 26, 31 and 37 recite “the intent of the gesture is identified using an AI model”. Applicant’s disclosure provides support for “machine learning algorithm builds and trains an artificial intelligence (AI) model using the context, the content, the environment, and gesture features identified for the media content and generates outputs that identify the expressed intentions of the user providing the gestures… wherein the expressed intentions of the user can include their mood, the urgency or importance that they want to convey in the metaverse, etc”. The “expressed intentions” are not “intent of a gesture”. Broadest reasonable interpretation of “intent of a gesture” includes whether a gesture was intentional or unintentional. It can also include purpose or aim of the gesture. Therefore, renumbered claims 26, 31 and 37 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Renumbered claims 26, 32 and 38 recite “wherein validating the intent of the gesture comprises altering the intent of the gesture to match the gesture magnitude data”. Applicant’s disclosure provides support for “the gesture attributes and the gesture magnitude of the user are verified against the user’s own prior gestures to determine if the current gestures provided by the user are exaggerated or are muted or match with their own prior gestures” (para. [0045]), and “gestures are deemed to be appropriate if the gesture attributes and the gesture magnitude of the user’s current gestures match the corresponding gesture attributes and the gesture magnitude of the other users who are present and with whom the user is interacting with in the metaverse” (para. [0046]), “the gesture attributes and gesture magnitude of the gestures are compared against the user’s own prior gestures for same or similar context of the interaction to determine if there is a substantial match or are exaggerated” (para. [0052]), and “[w]hen the comparison results in the gesture attributes and gesture magnitude of the current gestures being exaggerated in comparison to the other users present in the video game (e.g., the user being loud in their gestures (i.e., waving their hands broadly)), the gesture attributes and gesture magnitude associated with the current gestures are scaled down (430’) so that the resulting magnitude and scale of the gestures of the user match the magnitude and scale of that of the other users” (para. [0053]). Based on applicant’s disclosure gesture attributes and gesture magnitudes of a current gesture are altered to match gesture magnitude of other users interacting a metaverse. Therefore, renumbered claims 26, 32 and 38 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 22-23, renumbered claims 28-29 and renumbered claims 34-35 depend directly or indirectly from a rejected claim, therefore are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220374078 A1 – Parshionikar – Gesture based interface that uses facial expressions, eye tracking, head tracking and hand tracking. Primary Control Expressions (PCEs), such as facial expressions, and Primary Control Motion (PCM), such as pose/position/orientations body parts, are used to convey user intent of interpreting certain designated body motions as user gestures meant to communicate with/control an electronic device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVELISSE MARTINEZ QUILES whose telephone number is (571)270-7618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM 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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/IM/Examiner, Art Unit 2626
/TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626 2/23/26