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 Objections
Claims 3-12, 14-17, and 19-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each appear to fail to depend from the independent claims 2, 13, and 18. For purposes of examination claims 3-12 will be examined as depending from claim 2, claims 14-17 from claim 13, and claims 19-21 from claim 18. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-3, 6-11, 13-14 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12.436.620 as shown in the chart below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are covering essentially the same subject matter. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application (19/239.748) claim
US Patent 12.436.620 claim
2
1
3
8
6
2
7
14
8
1
9
17
10
18
11
1
13
1
14
8
17
14
18
1
19
8
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly claims 13 and18), the recitation of “in accordance with a determination that no hand gesture is detected within the predefined threshold amount of time after activating the user interface, causing deactivation of the user interface” renders the claim ambiguous. How does this “no hand gesture is detect” occur? An removal of the hand entirely? gesture or a continuation of the initial gesture (which would in turn be detected)? Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 3-12, 14-17, and 19-21, each are rejected here based on dependency.
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.
(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) 2-3, 6, 8-10, 12-14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (11/150.730).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson disclose:
A method of using hand gestures detected at a wrist-wearable device to activate a user interface, the method comprising: receiving, via one or more sensors of a wrist-wearable device worn by a user, data generated from performance of a hand gesture by the user (see Fig. 1, 3, 10; col. 5, ln. 29-col. 6, ln. 2; wrist wrong device 102 to activate user interface based on receiving data generated from user’s hand gestures);
in accordance with a determination that the hand gesture corresponds to a wake command, causing a user interface of a head-wearable device worn by the user to be activated (see Fig. 3, 10a,e; col. 21, ln. 17-37; col. 17, ln. 54 – col. 18, ln. 5; first pose (gesture) 1002 causes interface 1000 to be activated (e.g., prior to pose 100 may be hidden from view) on head wearable device 322)
in accordance with a determination that an additional hand gesture corresponds to a control command and a determination that the additional hand gesture is received within a predefined threshold amount of time after causing activation of the user interface, causing the control command to be executed (see col. 21, ln. 26-58; additional hand gesture 1004 corresponding to control command in combination with first gesture 1002 received after activation of menu 1000 to cause control command (e.g., movement of visual indicator 1020) which requires such gesture to be held for a predetermined time in order for movement to be extended)
in accordance with a determination that no hand gesture is detected within the predefined threshold amount of time after activating the user interface, causing deactivation of the user interface (see Fig. 10d; col. 21, ln. 26-58; col. 22, ln. 22-41; where the hand gesture 1002/1004 are no longer detected after activating 1000 thus deactivation of menu 1000 occurs).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Anderson further disclose:
causing the user interface of the head-wearable device worn by the user to be activated comprises causing a menu to be displayed on a display of the head-wearable device (see Fig. 3; col. 17, ln. 54- col. 18, ln. 5)
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Anderson further disclose:
causing the user interface of the head-wearable device worn by the user to be activated comprises causing a plurality of user interface elements to be displayed within the user interface (see Fig. 10e)
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Anderson further disclose:
the hand gesture comprises an in-air hand gesture (see Fig. 10a,b)
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Anderson further disclose:
in accordance with a determination that another hand gesture corresponds to a navigation command and a determination that the other hand gesture is received within the predefined threshold amount of time after causing activation of the user interface, causing the navigation command to be executed (see Fig. see Fig. 10b; navigation of 1020)
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Anderson further disclose:
the one or more sensors of the wrist-wearable device include one or more of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor and an electromyography sensor (see col. 6, ln. 22-32)
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Anderson further disclose:
causing the control command to be executed extends an amount of time the user interface is activated (see Fig. 10b; where movement of 1020 is within ‘extended’ time)
Regarding claims 13-14 and 18-19, claims 13-14 and 18-19 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-3 and 2-3, respectively. With regard to claim 13, Anderson further provides: (see Fig. 1; col. 6, ln. 47 – col. 7, ln. 10; processor 106; memory 108).
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) 4-5, 15-16, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Ito (US 2017.0308118).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Anderson is not explicit as to, but Ito disclose:
causing the user interface of the head-wearable device worn by the user to be activated comprises transitioning a display of the head-wearable device from a sleep state to an active state (see [0112]; transition display from sleep to active state; see Anderson for HMD)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the known techniques of Ito to that of Anderson to provide power conservation by allowing the display to be in a sleep state until activated.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Anderson is not explicit as to, but Ito disclose:
causing the user interface of the head-wearable device worn by the user to be activated comprises causing additional power to be consumed by a display of the head-wearable device (see [0112]; transition display from sleep to active state requires additional power to drive display as intended; see Anderson for HMD)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the known techniques of Ito to that of Anderson to provide power conservation by allowing the display to be in a sleep state until activated, further obvious that an increase in power consumption would occur in the active state.
Regarding claim 15-16 and 20-21, claims 15-16 and 20-21 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 4-5 and 4-5, respectively.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. While Anderson further describes various input gestures and combinations thereof, it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of col. 12, ln. 17-31 that the tap/pinch of fingers in succession (e.g., combination of the same) would comprise a double tap gesture, since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to be pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Anderson is not explicit as to a determination that the hand gesture corresponds to the wake command, activating one or more additional sensors of the wrist-wearable device, wherein the additional hand gesture is detected using the one or more additional sensors, however, in light of col. 27, ln. 37-45 and col. 19, ln. 63-67, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that each gesture having different and/or additional signals detected, such that one of the ‘wake’ command is executed additional sensors would readily be activated in order to receive and interpret additional hand gestures of input, predictably increasing the device versality and accuracy of inputs.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as 7.
Conclusion
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