DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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:
Element 400c (Fig. 4c)
Element 510 (Fig. 5)
Element 512 (Fig. 5)
Element 516 (Fig. 5)
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because abstract is not on a separate sheet apart from other text.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: last semicolon should be followed with an “and” due to list designated with “comprises one or more of:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1- 7, 12, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti et al, hereinafter Marti (U.S. 2013/0257734 A1), in view of Noble (U.S. 2016/0252968 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Marti 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 a lap of a user (Marti, figs. 1A-2, & 4-5B illustrate computer device 100/200 {including element 205}, keyboard 230/125, sensor 240/155 & display 250/105, disclosed in ¶ [0015], ¶ [0018]- ¶ [0019], ¶ [0024], ¶ [0028]- ¶ [0029], ¶ [0081], & ¶ [0087]), the method comprising:
entering a gesture mode in response to detecting a gesture mode activation event; and in the gesture mode: determining, based at least partially on sensor data captured using the sensor means, a movement of at least one finger, recognition 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; 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 (Marti, figs. 1A & 6, fingertip recognition 120, disclosed in ¶ [0021], ¶ [0027], ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0036], ¶ [0042]- ¶ [0043], ¶ [0050]- ¶ [0051], ¶ [0091]- ¶ [0093], & ¶ [0101]; please note, gesture activation key gesture event is described in ¶ [0093] & mode assignment described in ¶ [0043]).
Marti fails to disclose: a movement of at least one finger, preferably of the fingertip of the at least one finger.
However, Noble discloses: a movement of at least one finger, preferably of the fingertip of the at least one finger (Noble, figs. 7-8, disclosed in ¶ [0049]- ¶ [0050]).
Noble and Marti are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to camera touch finger detection display interaction devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the computer device of Marti to further include an EMF sensor in order to properly detect a movement of at least one finger, preferably of the fingertip of the at least one finger, as taught by Noble, in order to provide a more accurate touch position (Noble, ¶ [0050]).
With respect to claim 2, Marti in combination above discloses: the method of claim 1, further comprising: entering a typing mode in response to detecting a gesture mode deactivation event; and in the typing mode: disregarding the sensor data captured using the sensor means; and/or omitting to generate the at least one control command configured for manipulating content displayed on the display means (Marti, ¶ [0023], “assigning it to the typing mode…..omit the visualization of the right hand 135…..”).
With respect to claim 3, Marti in combination above discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the gesture mode activation event comprises one or more of:
a predefined movement of the at least one finger (Marti, figs. 1A & 6, fingertip recognition 120, disclosed in ¶ [0021], ¶ [0027], ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0036], ¶ [0042]- ¶ [0043], ¶ [0050]- ¶ [0051], ¶ [0091]- ¶ [0093], & ¶ [0101]; please note, gesture activation key gesture event is described in ¶ [0093] & mode assignment described in ¶ [0043]; please note, claim is in alternative format, due to comprises one or more clause);
a predefined pointing direction of the at least one finger, such as a pointing direction of the at least one finger essentially towards the display means;
a predefined posture of the at least one finger, such as a posture other than a typing posture and/or a posture in which the at least one finger is raised above a surface of the keyboard beyond a normal typing position and/or a posture in which the at least one finger is raised above the surface of the keyboard for a predetermined threshold time.
With respect to claim 4, Marti in combination above discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the gesture mode activation event comprises a user input using an input element (Marti, figs. 3 & 5A-5B {claimed input element = elements 352, 354, & 356}; disclosed in ¶ [0026], ¶ [0043], ¶ [0050], ¶ [0079], & ¶ [0091]- [0098]).
With respect to claim 5, Marti in combination above discloses: the method of claim 4, wherein the gesture mode deactivation event comprises: a user input using a second input element separate from the input element; or a user input using the input element; or the user ceasing to use the input element (Marti, figs. 3 & 5A-5B {claimed input element = elements 352, 354, & 356}; disclosed in ¶ [0026], ¶ [0043], ¶ [0050], ¶ [0079] & ¶ [0091]- ¶ [0098]; the office relies on the concept that method 500 fig. 5A may continue to block 555 in fig. 5B, where if no touch or type mode inputs are detected/received, then fig. 5B concludes with STOP block 595 {i.e., ceasing use of input element}; please note, claim is in alternative format).
With respect to claim 6, Marti in combination above discloses: the method of claim 4, wherein the input element is arranged on and/or near the keyboard (Marti, figs. 3 & 5A-5B {claimed input element = elements 352, 354, & 356}; disclosed in ¶ [0026], ¶ [0043], ¶ [0050], ¶ [0079], & ¶ [0091]- [0098]; please note, the claim is in alternative format); and/or wherein the input element is arranged essentially in and/or near the keyboard plane; and/or wherein the input element is arranged at and/or near a proximal edge of the keyboard; and/or wherein the input element is arranged in an area that is accessible with a user's finger, preferably with a user's thumb, while the user's hands are placed essentially in a typing position; and/or wherein the input element is arranged next to, in particular proximal to, a space bar of the keyboard; and/or wherein the input element is an input element configured for generating a click event; and/or wherein the input element is an input element associated with a trackpoint of the keyboard; and/or wherein the input element is an input element associated with a trackpad associated with the computer device.
With respect to claim 7, Marti in combination above discloses: the method of claim 4, wherein the input element comprises a button or key and wherein the user input using the input element comprises pushing the input element; or wherein the input element comprises a touch-sensitive input element and wherein the user input using the input element comprises touching the input element (Marti, figs. 3 & 5A-5B {claimed input element = elements 352, 354, & 356}; disclosed in ¶ [0026], ¶ [0043], ¶ [0050], ¶ [0079], & ¶ [0091]- [0098]; please note, the claim is in alternative format).
With respect to claim 12, Marti discloses: a data processing apparatus, preferably an electronic device, more preferably a computer device, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a computer program which, when executed by the processor (Marti, figs. 1A-2, & 4-5B illustrate computer device 100/200 {including element 205}, processor 210, memory/ readable medium 220, keyboard 230/125, sensor 240/155 & display 250/105; disclosed in ¶ [0015], ¶ [0018]- ¶ [0019], ¶ [0024], ¶ [0028]- ¶ [0031], ¶ [0081], & ¶ [0087]), causes the apparatus to carry out a method comprising:
entering a gesture mode in response to detecting a gesture mode activation event; and in the gesture mode: determining, based at least partially on sensor data captured using sensor means, a movement of at least one finger, recognition 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; 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 (Marti, figs. 1A-2 & 4-6, fingertip recognition 120, keyboard 230/125, sensor 240/155 & display 250/105; disclosed in ¶ [0018], ¶ [0021], ¶ [0024], ¶ [0027]- ¶ [0028], ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0036], ¶ [0042]- ¶ [0043], ¶ [0050]- ¶ [0051], ¶ [0091]- ¶ [0093], & ¶ [0101]; please note, gesture activation key gesture event is described in ¶ [0093] & mode assignment described in ¶ [0043]).
Marti fails to disclose: a movement of at least one finger, preferably of the fingertip of the at least one finger.
However, Noble discloses: a movement of at least one finger, preferably of the fingertip of the at least one finger (Noble, figs. 7-8, disclosed in ¶ [0049]- ¶ [0050]).
Noble and Marti are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to camera touch finger detection display interaction devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the computer device of Marti to further include an EMF sensor in order to properly detect a movement of at least one finger, preferably of the fingertip of the at least one finger, as taught by Noble, in order to provide a more accurate touch position (Noble, ¶ [0050]).
13. (Cancelled)
14. (Cancelled)
With respect to claim 15, Marti 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 (Marti, figs. 1A-2, & 4-5B illustrate computer device 100/200 {including element 205}, processor 210, memory/ readable medium 220, keyboard 230/125, sensor 240/155 & display 250/105; disclosed in ¶ [0015], ¶ [0018]- ¶ [0019], ¶ [0024], ¶ [0028]- ¶ [0031], ¶ [0058], ¶ [0081], & ¶ [0087]), comprising:
entering a gesture mode in response to detecting a gesture mode activation event; and in the gesture mode: determining, based at least partially on sensor data captured using sensor means, a movement of at least one finger, recognition 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; 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 (Marti, figs. 1A-2 & 4-6, fingertip recognition 120, keyboard 230/125, sensor 240/155 & display 250/105; disclosed in ¶ [0018], ¶ [0021], ¶ [0024], ¶ [0027]- ¶ [0028], ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0036], ¶ [0042]- ¶ [0043], ¶ [0050]- ¶ [0051], ¶ [0091]- ¶ [0093], & ¶ [0101]; please note, gesture activation key gesture event is described in ¶ [0093] & mode assignment described in ¶ [0043]).
Marti fails to disclose: a movement of at least one finger, preferably of the fingertip of the at least one finger.
However, Noble discloses: a movement of at least one finger, preferably of the fingertip of the at least one finger (Noble, figs. 7-8, disclosed in ¶ [0049]- ¶ [0050]).
Noble and Marti are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to camera touch finger detection display interaction devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the computer device of Marti to further include an EMF sensor in order to properly detect a movement of at least one finger, preferably of the fingertip of the at least one finger, as taught by Noble, in order to provide a more accurate touch position (Noble, ¶ [0050]).
Claims 9 & 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti in combination above in view of Official Notice.
With respect to claim 9, Marti in combination above discloses: the method of claim 2, further comprising, in the typing mode: causing the sensor means to transition into a power mode below a normal operation mode, such as an idle mode, a sleep mode or an off mode (the office takes official notice that it would have been well known and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a power key on the keyboard in order to shutdown/ turn off a laptop PC {e.g., Dell laptop} in order to improve user convenience); and/or causing at least one electrical component associated with a pointer input means, such as a touchpad or a trackpoint, to transition into a power mode below a normal operation mode, such as an idle mode, a sleep mode or an off mode.
With respect to claim 11, Marti in combination above discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein manipulating content displayed on the display means comprises moving a mouse pointer in accordance with the movement of the at least one finger; wherein, optionally, the method further comprises 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; wherein, optionally, the user action comprises using at least one input element arranged on and/or near the keyboard (the office takes official notice that it would have been well known and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a touch pad and keys to have cursor pointer functionality with clicking action with either the mouse keys or the keyboard enter key in order to improve user versatility).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti in combination above in view of Garelli et al, hereinafter Garelli (U.S. 10,921,854 B2).
With respect to claim 10, Marti in combination above discloses: the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose: further comprising, in the gesture mode: causing at least one electrical component associated with the keyboard, in particular related to illumination and/or key depression detection, to transition into a power mode below a normal operation mode, such as an idle mode, a sleep mode or an off mode.
However, Garelli discloses: further comprising, in the gesture mode: causing at least one electrical component associated with the keyboard, in particular related to illumination and/or key depression detection, to transition into a power mode below a normal operation mode, such as an idle mode, a sleep mode or an off mode (Garelli, col 6, line 59, – col 7, line 11 & lines 51-64).
Garelli and Marti in combination above are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to touch finger detection display interaction devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the gesture mode of Marti in combination above to further comprise, in the gesture mode: causing at least one electrical component associated with the keyboard, in particular related to illumination and/or key depression detection, to transition into a power mode below a normal operation mode, such as an idle mode, a sleep mode or an off mode, as taught by Garelli, in order to enhance customization (Garelli, col 7, lines 51-64).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Duane N. Taylor Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-4703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Saturday [5:30am- 10pm].
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.
Duane N. Taylor Jr.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2626
/DUANE N TAYLOR JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights