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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1,4-5,9,11,14-15,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US 2016/0259402) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2022/0334670).
As to Claim 1, Masuda et al. discloses An electronic device comprising: a projector configured to project a screen (fig.2, projector 11; para.0044); a light emitter (fig.2-3, para.0044-projector 11 includes light emitter; para.0046-distance measurer 13 includes light emitter 131); a camera (fig.2-3- para.0046-distance measurer 13 includes imager 132); and
at least one processor (fig.2-3-processor 15, para.0045) configured to: while the screen is projected by the projector, obtain, through the camera, an image of an area formed by light emitted by the light emitter (para.0096- the imager 132 that includes the imaging optical system 132b and the imaging element 132a and images at least one of the projection image 320 and the input operator 700, and the calculator 133 that acquires the depth map from the imaging result of the imager 132).
Matsuda et al. discloses wherein based on the obtained depth map image a plurality of fingertip candidates are determined and a fingertip contact with the screen is then determined based on fingertip candidates (para.0077, 0083, 0085-0086).
Matsuda et al. does not expressly disclose, but Hwang et al. discloses:
based on the obtained image (para.0131, electronic device obtains an image frame of preset size including area 500 in which the touch input of the user is received), obtain probabilities that a touch on the area corresponds to a touch by a finger of a user by using a plurality of methods that each perform a different type of analysis on the touch on the area (fig.6-8, 10-11,23; para.0073, 0077, 0084-0086, 0145, 0150-0151, 0154, 0158, 0170-0172, 0189-0191, 0335; each of the plurality of touch recognition models determine a type of touch based on touch dataset of a partial time period, where the partial time periods and touch data sets are different from each other), wherein each of the probabilities is obtained for the touch based on performing a respective one of the plurality of methods (fig.6-8, 10-11,23; para. 0145, 0150-0151, 0154, 0158, 0170-0172, 0189-0191, 0205-0208), and
based on the obtained probabilities, determine whether the touch on the area is the touch by the finger of the user (fig.8,10-11,23; 0150-0151, 0154, 0158, 0170-0172, 0189-0191, 0346-0347).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Matsuda et al. with the teachings of Hwang et al., such that the fingertip contact is determined using a plurality of touch recognition models as disclosed by Hwang et al., the motivation being to identify touch types of a touch input of a user based on touch type probability values.
As to Claim 4, Matsuda et al. in view of Hwang et al. disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on determining that the touch on the area is the touch by the finger, perform, based on the touch on the area, a function of the electronic device (Masuda-fig.7, s419-s421, para.0086), and based on determining that the touch on the area is not the touch by the finger, disregard the touch on the area (Masuda-fig.7,s415, para.0088).
As to Claim 5, Masuda et al. in view of Hwang et al. disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to: using a result of whether the touch on the area is the touch by the user's finger as a ground truth (Hwang-fig.23; para.0200-202; Masuda-fig.7, determination of fingertip comes into contact with the screen {read as “ground truth”}), update weights related to at least a portion of the plurality of methods (Hwang-para. 0227, 0231-0234, 0227, 0231-0235, 0288, 0290).
As to Claim 9, Matsuda et al. in view of Hwang et al. disclose the at least one processor is configured to: based on a distance between an object included in the screen and an area of the touch on the area, obtain a probability that the touch on the area corresponds to the touch by the finger (Masuda-fig.7, para.0081, finger candidate determined based on a predetermined distance from the contact target surface; Hwang- fig.2,6-9, para.0145-0146).
As to Claims 11, 14-15, 19 are method claims drawn to the apparatus of Claims 1, 4-5, 9 and are rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US 2016/0259402) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2022/0334670), further in view of Kulbida (US 10,747,371).
As to Claim 2, Masuda et al. in view of Hwang et al., disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify whether a value, obtained based on the obtained probabilities and weights respectively set for the plurality of methods, is equal to or larger than a threshold, based on identifying that the value is equal to or larger than the threshold, determine that the touch on the area is the touch by the finger (Hwang-0085-0086, 0196-0202, 0211-0213).
Masuda et al. in view of Hwang et al., do not expressly disclose based on identifying that the value is less than the threshold, determine that the touch on the area is not the touch by the finger.
Kibulda discloses where a confidence score (a weighted sum value), is calculated for each fingertip candidate, and if the confidence score exceeds a preset threshold, the finger candidate is added to the list and if the confidence score is less than the preset threshold, the finger candidate is disregarded and process proceeds step s239 (fig.2D, col.10, lines 15-25; col.11-lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of disclosed by Masuda et al. in view of Hwang et al., with the teachings of Kibulda, the motivation being to reduce false hand detection due to presence of other objects in the region.
As to Claim 12, is a method claim drawn to the apparatus of Claim 2 and is rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US 2016/0259402) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2022/0334670), further in view Guarneri et al. (US 2014/0085260).
As to Claim 7, Masuda et al. in view of Hwang et al. do not expressly disclose, but Guarneri et al. discloses: wherein the at least one processor is configured to: by obtaining a maximum pixel value and a position of a row corresponding to the maximum pixel value for each of columns of pixels of the obtained image, obtain a plurality of maximum pixel values and positions of rows corresponding to the plurality of maximum pixel values, and based on the plurality of maximum pixel values and the positions of the rows corresponding to the plurality of maximum pixel values, obtain a probability that the touch on the area corresponds to the touch by the finger (para.0043,0046, 0050,0138- a finger touch data map, based on maximum intensity values for each row and column may be used to detect position and orientation of a finger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of disclosed by Masuda et al. in view of Hwang et al, with the teachings of Guarneri et al., the motivation being to provide a finger touch data map that allows for the detection of position and orientation of a finger.
As to Claim 17 is a method claim drawn to the apparatus of Claim 7 and is rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US 2016/0259402) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2022/0334670), further in view of Akatsuka (US 2022/0197412).
As to Claim 8, Masuda et al. in view of Hwang et al do not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to: obtain a moving speed of a trajectory of the touch on the area and a number of direction changes of the touch on the area, and based on the moving speed and the number of direction changes, obtain a probability that the touch on the area corresponds to the touch by the finger.
Akatsuka discloses a microcontroller receives contact information and assigns output values corresponding to touch inputs, where the output values include output values of movement amounts, movement speeds, movement directions of a finger of the user, the number and the positions of the finger that is in contact or moving (para.0034,0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of disclosed by Masuda et al. in view of Hwang et al, with the teachings of Akatsuka, the motivation being to control the touch input device based on contact information corresponding to the touch inputs.
As to Claim 18, is a method claim drawn to the apparatus of Claim 8 and is rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US 2016/0259402) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2022/0334670), further in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0034117).
As to Claim 10, Masuda et al. in view of Hwang et al. disclose obtain a probability that the touch on the area corresponds to the touch by the finger. Masuda et al. in view of Kulundzija et al. do not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on a touch shape, touch intensity, touch speed, and touch trajectory of the user's touches previously detected for the area, obtain a probability that the touch on the area corresponds to the touch by the finger (para.0130,0132).
Kim et al. discloses where a processor may determine whether the user input is a shape or gesture stored at the memory, based at least on one or more of a position, a time, a pressure, a contact area, and the number of touched fingers on the touch down, a position and a time on the touch release, a trajectory, a movement time, and a movement speed on the touch movement, or a stop time during the touch movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of disclosed by Masuda et al. in view of Hwang et al. with the teachings of Kim et al., the motivation being determine a user input based on history information and control operation device based on the user input.
As to Claim 20, is a method claim drawn to the apparatus of Claim 10 and is rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 13,16 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As noted in office action 04/08/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection applied as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DISMERY E. MERCEDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/DISMERY MERCEDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
