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
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges Andersen does not teach or disclose the limitations of the claimed invention. Specifically, Applicant argues Andersen does not teach “‘a continuous gesture’ since it is interrupted by the virtual object (whereas a continuous gesture causes contact between two portions of the real hand, for example).” Examiner respectfully disagrees with this limited interpretation of Andersen.
As properly addressed below, Examiner respectfully submits Andersen clearly discloses detecting a continuous gesture of the real hand (tracking module 360 and gesture ID module at FIG. 3 and [0051]-[0060] detects and determines the gestures; FIG. 3 and [0041]-[0042] NED 305 having a DCA 340 capable of detecting and a imaging device 315 capable of detecting with continuous recognition at [0051] and [0061] and FIG. 9 [0066]-[0069] detecting the gesture; and FIGS. 6A-6B and 8A-8B at [0091] and [0105] detection of the gesture performed), the detection of the continuous gesture triggering gripping of the virtual object by the virtual hand (generally [0075] describing pinching and grabbing gesture for virtual object by the virtual hand of the user, further at FIGS. 5-8B and [0089]-[0092] and [0105]-[0106]).
As such, Examiner respectfully submits this limitation is clearly taught by the reference; therefore, claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom stand rejected and properly addressed below.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andersen et al., US 2020/0005026 A1 (hereinafter “Andersen”).
Regarding claim 1, Andersen discloses an interaction method (FIGS. 5 and 7 generally at [0082]-[0087] and [0098]-[0101]), for interacting with a virtual object (FIGS. 6A-6B and 8A-8B and virtual object 610 at [0088]-[0092] virtual object 810 and [0102]-[0105]) reproduced by an immersive reality device (FIGS. 1-3 and eyeware device 100, 200 at [0020]-[0024] and near-eye display 305 at [0030]-[0032] describing the display therein), the method being performed by the immersive reality device (FIGS. 5 and 7 referencing NED 300 generally at [0082]-[0087] and [0098]-[0101]) and comprising:
in response to a virtual hand ([0076] virtual representation of user’s hand) associated with a real hand ([0076] virtual representation of user’s hand) of a user ([0076] virtual representation of user’s real hand) of the immersive reality device (FIGS. 1-3 and eyeware device 100, 200 at [0020]-[0024] and near-eye display 305 at [0030]-[0032]) being in proximity of the virtual object (FIGS. 6A-6B and [0091] user moves their hand near the displayed virtual object 610), detecting a continuous gesture of the real hand (tracking module 360 and gesture ID module at FIG. 3 and [0051]-[0060] detects and determines the gestures; FIG. 3 and [0041]-[0042] NED 305 having a DCA 340 capable of detecting and a imaging device 315 capable of detecting with continuous recognition at [0051] and [0061] and FIG. 9, [0066]-[0069] detecting the gesture; and FIGS. 6A-6B and 8A-8B at [0091] and [0105] detection of the gesture performed), the detection of the continuous gesture triggering gripping of the virtual object by the virtual hand (generally [0075] describing pinching and grabbing gesture for virtual object by the virtual hand of the user, further at FIGS. 5-8B and [0089]-[0092] and [0105]-[0106]).
Regarding claim 2, Andersen discloses the interaction method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the interaction method comprises: taking the virtual object with the virtual hand as soon as the continuous gesture of the real hand is detected (FIGS. 8A-8B and hold of virtual object once the gesture is performed at [0102]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 3, Andersen discloses the interaction method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the interaction method comprises: when the virtual hand is holding the virtual object (FIGS. 6A-6B and 8A-8B hold of virtual object once the gesture is performed at [0088]-[0097] and [0102]-[0105]), detecting an interruption of the continuous gesture of the real hand (FIGS. 6A-6B and dartboard gesture at [0088]-[0094] and second motion 635 with releasing and letting go), the detection of the interruption of the continuous gesture triggering an end of the gripping of the virtual object by the virtual hand (FIGS. 6A-6B and dartboard gesture at [0088]-[0094] and second motion 635 with releasing and letting go).
Regarding claim 4, Andersen discloses the interaction method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the interaction method comprises: letting go of the virtual object held by the virtual hand as soon as interruption of the continuous gesture of the real hand is detected (FIGS. 6A-6B and gesture at [0088]-[0094] second motion 635 with releasing and letting go) .
Regarding claim 5, Andersen discloses the interaction method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the virtual object is gripped by the virtual hand depending on an orientation of the palm of the virtual hand with respect to the virtual object when the continuous gesture is detected (FIGS. 6A-6B and [0089] and [0094] palm up gesture ends hold).
Regarding claim 7, Andersen discloses the interaction method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the detected continuous gesture is contact of the thumb and the index finger of the real hand (Andersen at [0058], [0070], [0081], [0091], [0102]).
Regarding claim 11, Andersen discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium ([0116]-[0118]) comprising a program stored thereon ([0116]-[0118]) and comprising program code instructions ([0116]-[0118]) for executing the interaction method according to claim 1 (see above) when said program is executed by processor of the immersive reality device ([0116]-[0118]).
Regarding claim 12, Andersen discloses an immersive reality device (FIGS. 1-3 and eyeware device 100, 200 at [0020]-[0024] and near-eye display 305 at [0030]-[0032]) comprising:
a reproduction device (FIGS. 1-3 display assembly of NED at [0019]-[0022] and [0062]-[0071]) for reproducing a virtual object (FIGS. 6A-6B and 8A-8B and virtual object 610 at [0088]-[0092] virtual object 810 and [0102]-[0105] produced by the display of NED 305 called the optical assembly 320 at FIG. 3 and [0030]-[0032]);
a camera (FIG. 3 and [0032] depth camera array 340, [0041]-[0042] NED 305 having a DCA 340 capable of detecting and a imaging device 315 capable of detecting with continuous recognition at [0051] and [0061] and [0066]-[0069] detecting the gesture; and FIGS. 6A-6B and 8A-8B at [0091] and [0105] detection of the gesture performed) able to capture a real hand of a user of the immersive reality device (FIG. 3 and [0041]-[0042]; and
a gesture detector able to detect a continuous gesture of the real hand (tracking module 360 and gesture ID module at FIG. 3 and [0051]-[0060] detects and determines the gestures; additionally, [0032] depth camera array 340, [0041]-[0042] NED 305 having a DCA 340 capable of detecting and a imaging device 315 capable of detecting with continuous recognition at [0051] and [0061] and [0066]-[0069] detecting the gesture), the detection of the continuous gesture triggering gripping of the virtual object by a virtual hand (generally [0075] describing pinching and grabbing gesture for virtual object by the virtual hand of the user, further at FIGS. 5-8B and [0089]-[0092] and [0105]-[0106]) when the virtual hand ([0076] virtual representation of user’s hand) associated with the real hand ([0076] virtual representation of user’s hand) of the user ([0076] virtual representation of user’s real hand) of the immersive reality device (FIGS. 1-3 and eyeware device 100, 200 at [0020]-[0024] and near-eye display 305 at [0030]-[0032]) is in proximity of the virtual object (FIGS. 6A-6B and [0091] user moves their hand near the displayed virtual object 610).
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 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen in view of Stafford et al., US 2016/0306431 A1 (hereinafter “Stafford”).
Regarding claim 6, Andersen discloses the interaction method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the interaction method comprises: when the virtual hand is holding the virtual object (Andersen at FIGS. 8A-8B and [0102]-[0105] describing holding with one hand 805), detecting a complementary gesture of the real hand complementary to the detected continuous gesture, wherein detecting the complementary gesture (Andersen at FIGS. 8A-8B and [0102]-[0105] describing holding with one hand 805 and interaction with other hand 810 or other inputs by the same hand such as casting at FIGS. 6A-6B at [0088]-[0095]).
However, Andersen does not explicitly disclose triggers a rotation of the virtual object in the virtual hand.
In the same field of endeavor, Stafford discloses a virtual reality interactive using pinch gestures to interact with virtual objects, where two pinch gestures are capable of triggers a rotation of the virtual object in the virtual hand (FIG. 2A and two handed pinch hold causing rotation of the object for elements E, F, G, H and alternatively rotations with only one hand at I generally at [0062]-[0068] and [0073] and [0080]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gesture inputs within a virtual reality environment of Andersen to incorporate the rotational gesture input as disclosed by Stafford because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, virtual reality gesture inputs and methods. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve interaction with the environment without the need for a physical controller (see Stafford at least at [0003]-[0004] and [0010]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen in view of Goodrich et al., US 2022/0197393 A1 (hereinafter “Goodrich”).
Regarding claim 8, Andersen discloses the interaction method according to claim 7 (see above), wherein the interaction method comprises: when the virtual hand is holding the virtual object (Andersen at FIGS. 8A-8B and [0102]-[0105] describing holding with one hand 805), detecting a complementary gesture of the real hand complementary to the detected continuous gesture.
However, Andersen does not explicitly disclose wherein the complementary gesture that is detected is sliding of the thumb against the index finger of the real hand.
In the same field of endeavor, Goodrich discloses an gesture control of various objects in a virtual reality environment (Abstract) wherein the complementary gesture that is detected is sliding of the thumb against the index finger of the real hand (FIGS. 6-9 and [0031]-[0032] and [0110] [0118]-[0120] and [0123]-[0126] describing rotational function of the sliding of thumb against finger).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotational input gesture in a virtual reality environment of Andersen to incorporate the thumb and index finger sliding gesture as disclosed by Goodrich because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, gesture inputs for a virtual reality environment. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve the efficiency of using the devices through intuitive gestures (see Goodrich at least at [0017]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen in view of Lansdale et al., US 2012/0276995 A1 (hereinafter “Lansdale”).
Regarding claim 9, Andersen discloses the interaction method according to claim 1 (see above).
However, Andersen does not explicitly disclose wherein the interaction method comprises: lengthening a virtual arm attached to the virtual hand associated with the real hand moving toward a distant virtual object.
In the same field of endeavor, Lansdale discloses wherein the interaction method comprises: lengthening a virtual arm attached to the virtual hand associated with the real hand moving toward a distant virtual object (FIGS. 5-7 and [0044]-[0049] and [0052] describing the nonlinear extension of the arm 508 of the user’s avatar is extended toward the distant object).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotational input gesture in a virtual reality environment of Andersen in to incorporate the extension of the virtual arm to reach an object as disclosed by Lansdale because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, gesture inputs for a virtual reality environment. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve and enable fine grained control of a games and manipulate virtual objects with fine grained control in a robust easy to use manner, thereby enhancing the user experience (see Lansdale [0021]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Andersen in view of Lansdale discloses the interaction method according to claim 9 (see above), wherein the interaction method comprises:
using a non-linear mapping between the movement of the real hand as captured in a real environment and the movement of the virtual hand (Lansdale at FIGS. 5-7 and [0044]-[0049] and [0052] describing the exaggerated depiction therein) in an immersive environment (Andersen at FIGS. 6A-8B and at [0088]-[0094] and [0102]-[0104]), the movement of the virtual hand depending on the captured movement of the real hand (Lansdale at FIGS. 5-7 and [0044]-[0049] and [0052] describing the exaggerated depiction therein based on the real hand).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marcolina et al., US 12,032,746 B2: Abstract and FIGS. 4-10 describing interaction with 3D objects with free-form gestures of the control object;
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 SARVESH J. NADKARNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7562. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM M-F.
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, Benjamin C. Lee can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/SARVESH J NADKARNI/Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights