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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/26/25 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 2b, element 200b; Fig. 4b, element 400b; and Fig. 4C, element 400c. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 23, line 28, “200a” should be 200b; page 24, line 9, “400a” should be “400b”; and page 24, line 17, “Fig. 502” should be “step 502”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7 has “sensor means (108)” which should be “sensor means”. Claim 11, line 4 has “gesture more” which should be “gesture mode”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “display means” and “sensor means” in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1, 5, 9-10, 12 and 15 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 claims 1 and 5, the phrase "such as" (claim 1, line 4; claim 5, lines 2, 3, and 4) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “essentially” in claims 9 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12, lines 1, 2 and 8, and claim 15, line 6 recite “preferably” which is indefinite since narrow and broader ranges are in the same claim (See MPEP 2173.05(c) I.).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xue et al. (US 2014/0198049, hereinafter “Xue”, cited by Applicant). Regarding claim 1, Xue discloses a method for touchless control of a computer device, wherein the computer device comprises and/or is communicatively coupled to display means, sensor means and, optionally, a keyboard, the sensor means being configured for observing an interaction space arranged at least partially above an interaction surface, such as a surface of the keyboard, a tabletop and/or lap of a user, the method comprising (Fig. 1, [0027-0037], user can interface with a graphical user interface in a space above a surface such as a keyboard; one or more sensors in proximity to the surface to detect finger input to a computer; fingertip positions translated to position on a surface of a display such a circle as a pointer for each fingertip): determining, based at least partially on sensor data captured using the sensor means, a movement of at least one finger, preferably of the fingertip of the at least one finger, of the user while the user's hands are arranged at least partially above the interaction surface (Fig. 1, [0027-0037], user can interface with a graphical user interface in a space above a surface such as a keyboard; one or more sensors in proximity to the surface to detect finger input to a computer; fingertip positions translated to position on a surface of a display such a circle as a pointer for each fingertip); and generating at least one control command configured for manipulating content displayed on the display means in accordance with the movement of the at least one finger (Fig. 1, [0027], as the user moves a finger down to the surface, a mouse click input occurs as a control command for manipulating content displayed on the display).
Regarding claim 2, Xue discloses the method of claim 1, wherein manipulating content displayed on the display means comprises moving at least one pointer in accordance with the movement of the at least one finger (Xue, Fig. 1, [0027-0037], user can interface with a graphical user interface in a space above a surface such as a keyboard; one or more sensors in proximity to the surface to detect finger input to a computer; fingertip positions translated to position on a surface of a display such a circle as a pointer for each fingertip); wherein the at least one pointer comprises: a mouse pointer; or a user interface pointer (Xue, Fig. 1, [0027, 0032], circle 142 as a user interface pointer); or a text input cursor. Regarding claim 4, Xue discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a click command in response to a user action which is independent of the movement of the at least one finger used for generating at least one control command configured for manipulating content displayed on the display means (Xue, Fig. 1, [0027, 0050], generating a click command from a second finger which is different from a click command/scroll command from a first finger); wherein the user action comprises using at least one input element arranged on and/or near the keyboard (Xue, Fig. 1, [0027], user gesture as user action with finger as input element near the keyboard).
Regarding claim 5, Xue discloses the method claim 1,wherein manipulating content displayed on the display means comprises one or more of: scrolling or swiping content in accordance with a movement of at least one finger (Xue, [0050], “swipe” gesture); deleting content, such as a most recently typed text portion, in accordance with a movement, such as a leftward movement, of at least one finger; selecting a next input area in a form in accordance with a movement, such as a downward movement, of at least one finger; performing a keyboard shortcut in accordance with a movement of at least one finger, in particular in accordance with a pre-defined gesture performed with at least one finger.
Regarding claim 6, Xue discloses the method of claim 1, wherein different types of manipulating content displayed on the display means are discriminated based on one or more of: at least one characteristic of the at least one finger and/or movement of the finger (Xue, [0050], “swipe” gesture); a velocity of the movement of the at least one finger; an acceleration of the movement of the at least one finger; a sequence of movements of the at least one finger; a gesture performed with the at least one finger; a posture of the at least one finger relative to other fingers; a bending of the at least one finger.
Regarding claim 7, Xue discloses the method of claim 2, wherein a position of the at least one finger is translated into a position of the at least one pointer on the display means (Xue, Fig. 1, [0032], mapper 124 maps fingertip position to display element 142 on the display).
Regarding claim 8, Xue discloses the method of claim 2, wherein a position and/or movement and/or movement velocity and/or movement acceleration of the at least one finger relative to a reference position is translated into a movement and/or movement velocity and/or movement acceleration of the at least one pointer (Xue, Fig. 1, [0032], mapper 124 maps fingertip position to display element 142 on the display); wherein the reference position is a center point of the display means or a position corresponding to a neutral posture of the at least one finger (Xue, [0036], x-y plane proportional to the display for absolute-position system with reference position as center of the display); wherein, optionally, the movement and/or the movement velocity and/or the movement acceleration of the at least one pointer is based on a distance between the position of the at least one finger and the reference position and/or a finger velocity and/or a finger acceleration (The Examiner’s considers this claim limitation optional which does not further limit the claim).
Regarding claim 9, Xue discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the movement of the at least one finger takes place essentially in a finger movement plane comprising an x-axis and a y-axis (Xue, [0036, 0070], x-y plane proportional to the display for absolute-position system with reference position as center of the display); wherein a movement of the at least one pointer is based on the movement of the at least one finger essentially in the finger movement plane (Xue, [0036, 0055, 0070], x-y plane proportional to the display for absolute-position system with reference position as center of the display and movement based on the reference surface and finger movement plane).
Regarding claim 10, Xue discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the finger movement plane is arranged essentially in parallel to a display surface of the display means, or produced by the display means; or wherein the finger movement plane is arranged essentially perpendicular to a keyboard surface of the keyboard (Xue, Fig. 6, [0036, 0055, 0070], finger movement plane in dashed lines is arranged essentially perpendicular to a keyboard surface of the keyboard); or wherein the finger movement plane is arranged essentially perpendicular to a pointing direction of the at least one finger.
Regarding claim 11, Xue discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the steps of determining a movement of at least one finger and generating at least one control command configured for manipulating content displayed on the display means are performed upon entering a gesture more in response to detecting a gesture mode activation event ([0050, 0072, 0076], gesture detection resulting in mode of operation being determined, such as a hover event as a gesture mode activation event to display user input object on the display surface). Regarding claim 12, Xue discloses a data processing apparatus, preferably an electronic device, more preferably a computer device, comprising (Fig. 1, [0027], computer): a processor (Fig. 1, [0031], processor 130); and a memory storing a computer program which, when executed by the processor, causes the apparatus to carry out a method comprising (Fig. 1, [0005, 0009, 0031, and 0084-0085], memory 132): determining, based at least partially on sensor data captured using sensor means (108), a movement of at least one finger, preferably of the fingertip of the at least one finger, of a user while the user's hands are arranged at least partially above an interaction surface (Fig. 1, [0027-0037], user can interface with a graphical user interface in a space above a surface such as a keyboard; one or more sensors in proximity to the surface to detect finger input to a computer; fingertip positions translated to position on a surface of a display such a circle as a pointer for each fingertip); and generating at least one control command configured for manipulating content displayed on a display means in accordance with the movement of the at least one finger (Fig. 1, [0027], as the user moves a finger down to the surface, a mouse click input occurs as a control command for manipulating content displayed on the display).
Regarding claim 15, Xue discloses a computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program, the computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method, comprising (Fig. 1, [0005, 0009, 0027, 0031, and 0084-0085], computer has computer program stored in memory 132 as a computer-readable medium to execute the method): determining, based at least partially on sensor data captured using sensor means, a movement of at least one finger, preferably of the fingertip of the at least one finger, of a user while the user's hands are arranged at least partially above an interaction surface (Fig. 1, [0027-0037], user can interface with a graphical user interface in a space above a surface such as a keyboard; one or more sensors in proximity to the surface to detect finger input to a computer; fingertip positions translated to position on a surface of a display such a circle as a pointer for each fingertip); and generating at least one control command configured for manipulating content displayed on a display means in accordance with the movement of the at least one finger (Fig. 1, [0027], as the user moves a finger down to the surface, a mouse click input occurs as a control command for manipulating content displayed on the display).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Ghassabian (US 2012/0326984). Regarding claim 3, Xue discloses the method of claim 2, wherein moving the mouse pointer or the user interface pointer is performed in accordance with a first finger of the user and wherein moving the text input cursor is performed in accordance with a second finger of the user (Xue, Fig. 1, [0027-0037, 0050], user can interface with a graphical user interface in a space above a surface such as a keyboard; one or more sensors in proximity to the surface to detect finger(s) input to a computer; fingertip positions translated to position on a surface of a display such a circle as a pointer for each fingertip); wherein, optionally, the first finger is a right index finger of the user and the second finger is a left index finger of the user, or vice-versa (This claim language is optional and therefore not further limiting; furthermore, the Examiner considers selecting specific fingers for different cursor functions to be merely a matter of design choice).
Xue does not explicitly disclose using a finger as a text input cursor Ghassabian teaches using a finger as a text input cursor ([0293], finger movements to control a mouse cursor or a text entry cursor). Therefore, 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 method of Xue to use one finger as a text input cursor, such as taught by Ghassabian, for the purpose of providing a text input cursor option in addition to a mouse input cursor option for the display interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH PATRICK FOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3877. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
JOSEPH PATRICK FOX
Examiner
Art Unit 2622
/J.P.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2622 /PATRICK N EDOUARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights