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 Arguments
Arguments filed 17 June 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. It remains the position of the Office that Tanaka continues to read upon the breadth of the claim. Claim 1 for instance, requires that a determination is made on whether or not the hand is self-occluded. Tanaka satisfies this requirement at S12. After which, S13, S14, and S15 occur in response to the determination of ‘yes; at S12. The claims do not require occlusion to be concurrent with the action invoked by the gesture, nor is it required to be directly in response to the determination (with no intervening steps). As such, the rejection stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (US 2013.0290092).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka disclose:
A method comprising: obtaining hand tracking data from one or more cameras of a hand in a pose corresponding to an input gesture; and in response to a determination that at least part of the hand is occluded: determining, based on the hand tracking data, whether the hand is self- occluded (see Fig. 3-5, 10; [0047, 0060, 0135-0139, 0159]; cameras 201 to track hand pose of user corresponding to an input gesture; at S12 self-occlusion of user hand is determine based on tracking data)
in response to a determination that the hand is self-occluded, providing a gesture signal for the input gesture to invoke an action corresponding to the input gesture (see Fig. 3-5, 10; [0047, 0060, 0135-0139, 0159]; in response to determination of self-occlusion (e.g., S13, S14, S15 are all based on self-occlusion determination S12) in put action (S15 being yes) device is back in normal operation mode M1 to receive hand gesture input actions)
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Tanaka further disclose:
determining whether the hand is self-occluded comprises: obtaining occlusion scores for each of a plurality of portions of the hand; and determining, based on relative locations of the plurality of portions of the hand, whether the hand is self-occluded (see [0140]; occlusion scores (e.g., reliability threshold to determine self-occlusion) of joint portions of hands)
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. Tanaka further disclose:
determining whether the hand is self-occluded comprises: obtaining an occlusion value for a first portion of the hand; and determining whether a second portion of the hand is in front of the first portion of the hand (see Fig. 8-9; [0123-0128]; where occlusion values are the depth measurement of joints, where the first portion is the index finger and is determined to be behind the second portion (thumb)).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. Tanaka further disclose:
the determination whether the hand is self-occluded is performed in response to a determination that a valid gesture criteria is satisfied based on the hand tracking data (see Fig. 10; S11 – normal operation mode for satisfying valued gestures; S12 is determination is performed in response to S11’s permitted state).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. Tanaka further disclose:
determining whether the hand is self-occluded comprises: obtaining a maximum occlusion score among the occlusion scores for the plurality of portions of the hand (see [0140]; second reliability threshold (max) to determine self-occlusion).
Regarding claims 8, 10-12 and 14, claims 8, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 3-5 and 7, respectively.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, where Tanaka further disclose:
one or more processors; and one or more computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by the one or more processors (see [0217-0219] processor; memory to store computer readable code).
Regarding claims 17-19, claims 17-19 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 3-5, respectively.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Schwesinger (US 2015.0123901).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Tanaka is not explicit as to, but Schwesinger disclose:
obtaining additional hand tracking data from the one or more cameras; in response to a determination that at least part of the hand is occluded based on the additional hand tracking data: determining, based on the additional hand tracking data, that the hand is occluded by a physical object; and in response to determining that the hand is occluded by the physical object, rejecting the input gesture (see Fig. 14; [0065]; where it is determined hand is occluded by physical object and input gesture is rejected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Schwesinger to that of Tanaka to predictably prevent unintended gesture inputs ([0065]).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, claims 9 and 16 are each rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13 and 20 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday // 0730-1530.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571.272.7764. 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.
/kenneth bukowski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights