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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-9 and 12-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,554,334 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the currently examined application are anticipated by the claims of the issued Patent as clearly illustrated in the chart below:
Currently Examined Application: 19/452,608
US Patent: 12,554,334 B2
1. A method of calibrating a user interface (UI) of an eyewear device, comprising:
placing all UI elements locked to a position of a user in a UI view of the eyewear device;
detecting, within captured images from a camera, a predetermined calibration gesture formed by at least one appendage of a user;
determining, using arm tracking landmarks of the user, a maximum distance that the user can reach;
determining, using hand tracking landmarks of the user, hand size parameters of the user;
storing the maximum distance that the user can reach and the hand size parameters in a parameter memory;
adjusting, using a set position instruction and the stored maximum distance, a position of elements of the UI relative to a camera position of the eyewear device to place the UI elements within the user's reach; and
adjusting, using a set scale instruction and the user's hand size parameters, sizes and positions of the UI elements relative to each other.
1. A method of calibrating a user interface (UI) of an eyewear device, comprising:
placing all user interface elements locked to a position of a user in a user interface view of the eyewear device;
detecting, within captured images from a camera, a predetermined calibration gesture formed by at least one appendage of a user;
initiating a calibration timer in response to detection of the predetermined calibration gesture;
while the calibration gesture is detected in the captured images and the calibration timer has not expired, performing a calibration process responsive to the calibration gesture including determining a maximum distance that the user can reach as well as the user's hand size from a distance between hand tracking landmarks of the user's hand;
upon expiration of the calibration timer, storing maximum distance and hand size calibration parameters in a parameter memory;
determining whether a summonable user interface element is at a position a distance from the user's hand that exceeds a maximum distance parameter stored in the parameter memory; and when the summonable user interface element is at the position that exceeds the maximum distance parameter stored in the parameter memory, shifting the summonable user interface element to a position that is within the maximum distance that the user can reach.
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 1
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 4 or similarly claim 5;
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 6
Claim 9
Claim 8
10. An eyewear device, comprising:
a display that presents a user interface (UI);
a camera that captures images;
a memory that stores instructions;
a parameter memory; and
a processor coupled to the display, the camera, and the memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions to configure the eyewear device to:
place all UI elements locked to a position of a user in a UI view of the eyewear device;
detect, within the captured images from the camera, a predetermined calibration gesture formed by at least one appendage of a user;
determine, using arm tracking landmarks of the user, a maximum distance that the user can reach; determine, using hand tracking landmarks of the user, hand size parameters of the user;
store the maximum distance that the user can reach and the hand size parameters in the parameter memory;
adjust, using a set position instruction and the stored maximum distance, a position of elements of the UI relative to a camera position of the eyewear device to place the UI elements within the user's reach; and
adjust, using a set scale instruction and the user's hand size parameters, sizes and positions of the UI elements relative to each other.
9. An eyewear device, comprising:
a display that presents a user interface;
a camera that captures images;
a memory that stores instructions;
a parameter memory; and
a processor coupled to the display, the camera, and the memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions to configure the eyewear device to:
place all user interface elements locked to a position of a user in a user interface view of the eyewear device;
capture images with the camera;
detect, within captured images from the camera, predetermined calibration gesture formed by at least one appendage of a user;
initiate a calibration timer in response to detection of the predetermined calibration gesture; while the calibration gesture is detected in the captured images and the calibration timer has not expired, perform a calibration process responsive to the calibration gesture including determining a maximum distance that the user can reach as well as the user's hand size from a distance between hand tracking landmarks of the user's hand;
upon expiration of the calibration timer, store maximum distance and hand size calibration parameters in the parameter memory;
determine whether a summonable user interface element is at a position a distance from the user's hand that exceeds a maximum distance parameter stored in the parameter memory; and
when the summonable user interface element is at the position that exceeds the maximum distance parameter stored in the parameter memory, shift the summonable user interface element to a position that is within the maximum distance that the user can reach.
Claim 11
Claim 9
Claim 12
Claim 15
Claim 13
Claim 12
Claim 14
Claim 13
Claim 15
Claim 12
Claim 16
Claim 14
Claim 17
Claim 14
Claim 18
Claim 16
Claim 19
Claim 17
Claim 20
Claim 17
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 10, 13-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarria, Jr. et al., US 2022/0314120 A1 (hereinafter “Sarria”) in view of Lee et al., US 2018/0275764 A1 (hereinafter “Lee”) further in view of Erivantcev et al., US 2019/0187784 A1 (hereinafter “Erivantcev”).
Regarding claim 1, Sarria discloses a method (Abstract, [0007]-[0009] and FIG. 7, [0078]-[0081], generally) of calibrating a user interface (UI) ([0006] virtual menu in a virtual reality scene) of an eyewear device (HMD 102, Abstract and [0007]-[0009] describing adjusting the virtual menus in accordance with a user’s reach when using a head-mounted display or HMD 102 at FIGS. 2A-1 through 3, [0037]-[0052], method at FIG. 7, [0078]-[0081]), comprising:
placing all UI elements locked to a position (FIG. 2A-1, at [0048] stereo panel 200 with virtual menu 202a, located at an initial virtual position is stationary) of a user (FIGS 1A-3, user 100 at [0037]-[0052]) in a UI view (FIGS. 2A-1 through 3, [0046] describing view of virtual environment to a user of the eyewear device (HMD 102, at FIGS. 2A-1 through 3 illustrating the position of the virtual environment being stationary in the user interface for the virtual race car environment and illustrating the stationary object 200, 202a, 202b, 306b as disclosed at [0046]-[0052] and [0056]; and describing the stationary nature of the virtual environment at least at FIG. 1A and [0036], i.e. rendering the virtual environment as the user turns their head);
detecting, within captured images from a camera (FIGS. 1A-2B-2 and camera 108 and at [0040]-[0048] and FIGS. 7-8 and [0079] and [0086]), a predetermined calibration gesture formed by at least one appendage of a user (FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrating predetermined calibration gestures in the form of multiple input sites A-F and user input gestures according to the expected and measured inputs as disclosed at [0076]-[0077], the pattern itself being predetermined, the user 100 extending their right and/or left hand and touching the various points);
determining, a maximum distance that the user can reach (range of motion determination at least [0075]-[0078] and FIGS. 5-7 describing physical limitation at [0050] and [0077] which would be the maximum distance of a user’s reach, describing the calibration process at FIGS. 6A-6B and [0022] and [0076]-[0079]);
adjusting, using a set position instruction (position determined based on model of interactivity of the user at [0007] and [0050] and [0064]-[0066]) and the stored maximum distance (storage at FIGS. 5A-5B and [0065]-[0067] and [0074]-[0075]), a position of elements of the UI relative to a camera position (e.g., 202a’, 202b’ and 306b’) of the eyewear device to place the UI elements within the user's reach (FIGS. 2A-1 through 3 illustrating determining the object is outside of reach and moving accordingly at [0046]-[0052] and [0055]-[0056] (e.g., 202a’, 202b’ and 306b’) describing determination and repositioning the virtual object to be within reach at FIG. 7 and steps 704 and 706 at [0079]-[0082]; storage at FIGS. 5A-5B and [0065]-[0067] and [0074]-[0075]); and
adjusting, using a set scale instruction (size determined based on model of interactivity of the user at [0007] and [0050] and [0064]-[0066]) and the user's hand size parameters, sizes and positions of the UI elements relative to each other (FIGS. 2A-1 through 3 illustrating determining the object is outside of reach and moving accordingly at [0046]-[0052] and [0055]-[0056] (e.g., 202a’, 202b’ and 306b’) describing determination and repositioning the virtual object to be within reach at FIG. 7 and steps 704 and 706 at [0079]-[0082]; storage at FIGS. 5A-5B and [0065]-[0067] and [0074]-[0075]).
However, Sarria does not explicitly disclose determining user reach using arm tracking landmarks of the user, and determining, using hand tracking landmarks of the user, hand size parameters of the user; and storing the maximum distance that the user can reach and the hand size parameters in a parameter memory.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses determining, using hand tracking landmarks of the user, hand size parameters of the user (FIGS. 3-9 and 11 illustrating ROI distances measured to determine hand shape/size using the 2D length between points P1-P4 described at [0094]-[0098] and [0100]-[0110]); and storing the maximum distance of the hand size parameters in a parameter memory ([0016], [0028] storing the hand shape; FIG. 3 and describing storing body characteristics of the user such as the hand shape at [0075]-[0078]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the HMD interface calibration system of Sarria to incorporate the hand shape and size determination as disclosed by Lee because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, head mounted display systems and devices capable of determining gesture inputs. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve obtaining 3D location information to improve pointer coordinate determination and input detection and range of a real space derived according to a body characteristic of a user (see Lee at least at Abstract and at [0015]-[0016]). 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.
However, Sarria in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose determining user reach using arm tracking landmarks of the user.
In the same field of endeavor, Erivantcev discloses determining user reach using arm tracking landmarks of the user (FIGS. 1-7 [0073]-[0082] and FIGS. 8-9 and [0083]-[0093] and with arm tracking components 115 and 113 used in determining length of the coordinate input system and length L determination, which is arm reach).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the HMD interface calibration system of Sarria in view of Lee to incorporate the arm tracking IMUs as disclosed by Erivantcev because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, head mounted display systems and devices capable of determining gesture inputs and calibration thereof. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve calibration and recalibration through a simple and convenient reference pose (see Erivantcev at Abstract and [0073]). 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 4, Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev discloses the method of claim 1 (see above), wherein the stored hand size parameters include at least one of palm size (see below, condition satisfied), knuckle spacing (see below, condition satisfied), or finger length for the user (Lee at FIG. 6 generally describing lengths of fingers L1 and L2 in determination at [0095] and [0102]-[0109]).
Regarding claim 5, Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev discloses the method of claim 4 (see above), wherein adjusting the UI elements relative to each other comprises adjusting a spacing of a group of the UI elements to be scaled to a hand size of the user to facilitate selection of the UI elements by the user (Lee describing of scaling the virtual space based on coordinates at [0070] and [0180] , [0190]-[0193] describing scaling in accordance with user factors further describing length components L1 and L2 are clearly tracked at FIGS. 3-7 and [0104]-[0113] taken into consideration; as would be understood by one of ordinary skill, the hand size/shape determination would be a user factor by which scale can be determined and thereby spacing determined ).
Regarding claim 8, Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev discloses the method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising using the stored maximum distance to adjust an interaction and gesture radius for capturing images with the camera (Lee describing embodiments of VR menus in a radial shape; as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art an interactive menu would need to be within view of a camera capturing the interaction for proper operation; noting the radius of interaction of a user of Sarria as illustrated in FIGS. 2A-1 through 2B-2 and at [0046]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 9, Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev discloses the method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising storing the maximum distance that the user can reach and the hand size parameters in the parameter memory as system parameters (Sarria at [0007] describing a user profile associated with a user used to predict the location for the placement of the virtual menu, Lee at FIGS. 2-3 and [0071]-[0078] describing storing the user factors in a storage unit 340 which may be a part of a database which could be considered part of a system, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill, the profile data related to the user being stored and retrieved when needed, by the obvious means of storage, described at least at [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 10, it is similar in scope to claim 1 above, the only difference being claim 10 is directed to an eyewear device (Saria at Abstract and [0030] and FIGS. 1A-3 [0037]-[0052] HMD 102; Lee at FIG. 2, VR device 100 at [0057]-[0058]), comprising: a display that presents a user interface (UI) (Sarria at least FIG. 10, display 1004 described at [0097] and FIGS. 2A-1 through 3 illustrating various user interfaces presented to user); a camera that captures images (Sarria, FIG. 10, camera 1016 and depth camera 1018 at [0102]); a memory that stores instructions (Sarria, FIG. 10, memory 1002 at [0097], FIG. 12, memory 1204 and storage 1206 at [0133]); a parameter memory (Sarria, FIG. 10, memory 1002 at [0097], FIG. 11, 1155, FIG. 12, memory 1204 and storage 1206 at [0133], any of which may store the parameters for user profile 502 at [0066]-[0077]); and a processor (Sarria at FIG. 10, processor 1000 at [0097], FIG. 12 and CPU 1202 and [0132]) coupled to the display, the camera, and the memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions (see Sarria at FIGS. 10-12 and [0097]-[0109], describing interconnectivity and execution of instructions, as understood by one of ordinary skill) to configure the eyewear device to perform the steps of claim 1 (see above). Therefore, claim 10 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is similar in scope to claim 4 above. Therefore, claim 13 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, it is similar in scope to claim 5 above. Therefore, claim 14 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, it is similar in scope to claim 8 above. Therefore, claim 17 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, it is similar in scope to claim 9 above. Therefore, claim 18 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, it is similar in scope to claim 1 above, the only difference being claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions (Sarria at FIGS. 10-12, memory 1002, storage 1155, memory 1204 and storage 1206 at [0097], [0126], [0133], claims 15-20) that when executed by at least one processor (Sarria at FIG. 10, processor 1000 at [0097], FIG. 12 and CPU 1202 and [0132]-[0135]) cause the at least one processor to calibrate a user interface (UI) of an eyewear device (Saria at Abstract and [0030] and FIGS. 1A-3 [0037]-[0052] HMD 102; Lee at FIG. 2, VR device 100 at [0057]-[0058], FIG. 7 generally) by performing operations of claim 1 (see above). Therefore, claim 19 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 1 above.
Claims 2-3, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Erivantcev et al., US 2021/0089116 A1 (hereinafter “Erivantcev ‘116”).
Regarding claim 2, Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev discloses the method of claim 1 (see above).
However, Sarria in view of Ozbek further in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose initiating a calibration timer in response to detection of the predetermined calibration gesture; while the predetermined calibration gesture is detected in the captured images and the calibration timer has not expired, performing the determining of the maximum distance that the user can reach and determining the hand size parameters; and upon expiration of the calibration timer, storing the maximum distance and hand size calibration parameters in the parameter memory.
In the same field of endeavor, Erivantcev ‘116 discloses initiating a calibration timer in response to detection of the predetermined calibration gesture (FIG. 1 and [0098]-[0104] describing period of time in which the actions/gestures are to be performed); while the predetermined calibration gesture is detected in the captured images and the calibration timer has not expired, performing the determining of the maximum distance that the user can reach (FIG. 1 and [0098]-[0104] describing period of time in which the actions/gestures are to be performed) and determining the hand size parameters (noting hand size determination based on Lee (see above); and upon expiration of the calibration timer, storing the maximum distance and hand size calibration parameters in the parameter memory (FIG. 1 and [0098]-[0104] describing selectively remembering histories after the actions have been performed and stored in the LSTM, FIG. 13 and [0147]-[0156] describing the training of the RNN and system therein).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of gestures for a head mounted display of Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev to incorporate the calibration timer and training of the head mounted display system as disclosed by Erivantcev ‘116 because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, head mounted display devices capable of gesture input calibration. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve user experience and reduce the cost of tracking the inputs of a user through a predictive methodology (see Erivantcev at least at [0118]). 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 3, Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev further in view of Erivantcev ‘116 discloses the method of claim 2 (see above), further comprising detecting a new user of the eyewear device and, when a new user is detected, initiating the calibration timer (Sarria at [0007] describing a user profile associated with a user used to predict the location for the placement of the virtual menu, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill, the profile data related to the user being stored and retrieved when needed, by the obvious means of storage, described at least at FIGS. 2A-1 through 6B, and [0050] and [0064]-[0073] and [0082], and Lee at FIG. 2, and [0074]-[0075] describing initial registration of user and obtaining distance factor for the user; as would be understood by one of ordinary skill, the calibration process of Erivantcev ‘116 would be initiated for a user detected not having a user profile or when initiating the use by a user not identified or registered with the device).
Regarding claim 11, it is similar in scope to claim 2 above. Therefore, claim 11 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, it is similar in scope to claim 3 above. Therefore, claim 12 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, it is similar in scope to claim 2 above, Therefore, claim 20 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 2.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev as applied to claim 4 and above, and further in view of Chang et. al, US 2023/0176657 A1 (hereinafter “Chang”).
Regarding claim 6, Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev discloses the method of claim 4 (see above).
However, Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev does not explicitly disclose wherein adjusting the spacing of the group of the UI elements comprises spacing of the group of the UI elements to a scale of a determined knuckle spacing of the user's hand.
In the same field of endeavor, Chang discloses wherein adjusting the spacing of the group of the UI elements comprises spacing of the group of the UI elements to a scale of a determined knuckle spacing of the user's hand (Chang FIGS. 3-4 and 7-8 and icons 32a-35a adjusted in accordance with location of fingers and knuckles [0038]-[0042] and [0062]-[0069]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head mounted input device of Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev to incorporate the scaling and spacing of UI elements in a virtual environment as disclosed by Chang because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, modifying user interface elements in a virtual environment based on the user. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve pinch motion detection in VR environments (see Chang at least at [0003]). 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 7, Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev discloses the method of claim 4 (see above), further comprising adjusting a pinch gesture or button interaction by determining if two of the user's fingertip locations are within a certain radius that is determined from the finger length (Sarria and [0058] describing pinch gesture to control a game content menu; in view of Lee at FIG. 6 and finger lengths L1 and L2 which).
However, Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev does not explicitly disclose determining pinch gesture within a radius based on knuckle spacing of the user.
In the same field of endeavor, Chang discloses determining pinch gesture within a radius based on knuckle spacing of the user (Chang FIGS. 3-4 and 7-8 and icons 32a-35a adjusted in accordance with location of fingers and knuckles [0038]-[0042] and [0062]-[0069], pinch interaction being determined based on knuckle spacing of the user since icons are dependent on the knuckle spacing).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head mounted input device of Sarria in view of Lee further in view of Erivantcev to incorporate the scaling and spacing of UI elements in a virtual environment as disclosed by Chang because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, modifying user interface elements in a virtual environment based on the user. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve pinch motion detection in VR environments (see Chang at least at [0003]). 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 15, it is similar in scope to claim 6 above. Therefore, claim 15 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, it is similar in scope to claim 7 above. Therefore, claim 16 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cabeza, US 2022/0261113 A1: Abstract and FIGS. 6-8, using hand and arm motions for interaction with a UI element after gesture calibration including arm extension.
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