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 § 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, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pryor (US 2013/0249791 A1).
Instant Claim 1: A contact-type input device (“FIG. 1a illustrates a simple single camera based embodiment of the invention.” (Pryor, paragraph 90) Referring to fig 1a of Pryor, the system of hardware elements corresponds to the contact-type input device of the claim.)
including a non-contact input module, (“He accomplishes this using a single TV camera 10 (fig 1a) located typically on top of the screen as shown or alternatively to the side (such as 11) to determine the position of his fingertip 12 in space, and/or the pointing direction of his finger 13.” (Pryor, paragraph 90) The TV camera 10 of Pryor corresponds to the non-contact input module of the claim.)
comprising: a contact-type first input module; (“The user can also point or signal with an object such as 15 (fig 1a) having datum 16 on it, such as a retroreflective dot 16 or line target 17.” (Pryor, paragraph 99) The object 15 of Pryor corresponds to the contact-type first input module of the claim.)
a non-contact-type second input module; (“He accomplishes this using a single TV camera 10 (fig 1a) located typically on top of the screen as shown or alternatively to the side (such as 11) to determine the position of his fingertip 12 in space, and/or the pointing direction of his finger 13.” (Pryor, paragraph 90) The TV camera 10 of Pryor corresponds to the non-contact-type second input module of the claim.)
and a processor configured to analyze a first input signal generated by the first input module and a second input signal generated by the second input module in different manners, and to transmit at least one of results of the analysis to a computer. (“In this case, a user 5 (fig 1a), desires to point at an object 6 represented electronically on the screen 7 and cause the pointing action to register in the software contained in computer 8 with respect to that object (a virtual object), in order to cause a signal to be generated to the display 7 to cause the object to activate or allow it to be moved, (e.g. with a subsequent finger motion or otherwise).” (Pryor, paragraph 90) The system of Pryor inherently contains a processor for receiving the input signals from the user and subsequently generating the signals to cause the execution of the user’s desired actions in the computer 8.)
Instant Claim 2: The device of claim 1, wherein, when the first input module is in a form of a keyboard, the second input module is configured as a printed circuit board (PCB) and is disposed under a key switch included in the first input module. (The system illustrated in fig 1a of Pryor does not teach a keyboard.)
Instant Claim 3: The device of claim 1, wherein the second input signal is an operation signal according to a change in an electric field or infrared light, (“Light as used herein includes all electro-magnetic wavelengths from ultraviolet to near infrared.” (Pryor, paragraph 717))
and wherein the processor is configured to analyze the second input signal based on positional changes along x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis of the electric field. (“He accomplishes this using a single TV camera 10 (fig 1a) located typically on top of the screen as shown or alternatively to the side (such as 11) to determine the position of his fingertip 12 in space, and/or the pointing direction of his finger 13.” (Pryor, paragraph 90))
Instant Claim 4: The device of claim 3, wherein the second input signal includes at least one of: a second-1 input signal replacing a function of a mouse; and a second-2 input signal replacing a key function of a keyboard. (“He accomplishes this using a single TV camera 10 (fig 1a) located typically on top of the screen as shown or alternatively to the side (such as 11) to determine the position of his fingertip 12 in space, and/or the pointing direction of his finger 13.” (Pryor, paragraph 90) The non-contact input signal generated by the user’s finger in Pryor can be said to replace the signal which would otherwise be generated by a mouse or a keyboard.)
Instant Claim 5: The device of claim 4, wherein the second-1 input signal is generated according to movement of a user's finger in a first area of the first input module, wherein the second-2 input signal is generated according to a gesture of a user's hand in a second area of the first input module, (“He accomplishes this using a single TV camera 10 (fig 1a) located typically on top of the screen as shown or alternatively to the side (such as 11) to determine the position of his fingertip 12 in space, and/or the pointing direction of his finger 13.” (Pryor, paragraph 90))
and wherein the gesture is set to have different motions for respective key functions. (The system illustrated in fig 1a of Pryor does not teach a keyboard.)
Instant Claim 7: The device of claim 1, wherein, when the first input module is in a form of a mouse, the second input module is configured as a printed circuit board (PCB) and is disposed under a button and a wheel included in the first input module. (The system illustrated in fig 1a of Pryor does not teach a mouse.)
Instant Claim 9: (Method claim 9 and apparatus claim 1 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 9 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to apparatus claim 1.)
Instant Claim 10: A computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing a computer program that, when combined with a hardware computer, executes the method of claim 9. (“In this case, a user 5 (fig 1a), desires to point at an object 6 represented electronically on the screen 7 and cause the pointing action to register in the software contained in computer 8 with respect to that object (a virtual object), in order to cause a signal to be generated to the display 7 to cause the object to activate or allow it to be moved, (e.g. with a subsequent finger motion or otherwise).” (Pryor, paragraph 90) The software of Pryor corresponds to the computer program of the claim. The software is stored in memory (“computer-readable non-transitory recording medium”).)
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.
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.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor.
Instant Claim 6: The device of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to: maintain an operation mode of the second input module in an ON state, (“He accomplishes this using a single TV camera 10 (fig 1a) located typically on top of the screen as shown or alternatively to the side (such as 11) to determine the position of his fingertip 12 in space, and/or the pointing direction of his finger 13.” (Pryor, paragraph 90) The TV camera 10 of Pryor is in the on state.)
and not perform analysis of the second input signal generated when a z-axis position value of a user's hand is smaller than a preset z-axis reference value. (Although Pryor does not explicitly teach how far the user may be from the screen 7 while still being able to use his finger 12 to non-contact control the screen 7, if the user’s hand is so far away from TV camera 10 so as to not be detectable, then obviously no analysis of the input can be done.)
Instant Claim 8: The device of claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to change an operation mode of the second input module to an ON state or an OFF state according to a distance between a user's hand and the first input module. (If the user’s hand in Pryor is so far away from the object 15 – meaning the user is not holding object 15 – then the TV camera 10 would obviously be in operation to allow the user to non-contact control the screen 7 using his finger 12.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yaron Cohen whose telephone number is (571)270-7995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/YARON COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights