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 Objections
Claim 1 recites “determine a first device based on the first point of reference and the second point of reference for the first point of time, and determine a second device based on the first point of reference”. The “first device” and “second device” is not clearly marked in the specification or drawing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martin (US 20230297166).
Regarding claim 1 Martin teaches a system (fig.2 and fig. 3) for controlling a user interface (fig.2, 232), the system comprising one or more processors (fig.3, 310), wherein the system is one or more processors are configured to:
determine a position of a first point of reference (fig. 6D, 606 position on the left) based on a position of a first point (fig. 6D, hand position on the left) on a body of a user (hand) for a first point of time (fig. 6D, time when hand on the left) and a second point of time (fig. 6D, time when hand on the right);
determine a position of a second point of reference (fig. 6D, time when hand on the right); based on a position of a pointing indicator (16) used by the user for the first point of time and the second point of time ([0121]);
determine a first device based on the first point of reference and the second point of reference for the first point of time, and determine a second device based on the first point of reference and the second point of reference for the second point of time ([0121] also see fig.5); and
determine a response based on the first device and second device, the determining the response comprising controlling the second device (120) to display information displayed on the first device (fig.1, 110).
Regarding claim 2 Martin teaches wherein the second point of time is later than the first point of time (fig. 6D).
Regarding claim 3 Martin teaches wherein is one or more processors are configured to identify a pre-defined gesture ([0005]-[0007]) being performed by the user, and to determine the first point in time and the second point in time based on the pre-defined hand-gesture gesture (fig. 6D).
Regarding claim 4 Martin teaches wherein the pre-defined gesture includes pointing at the first device at the first point in time and pointing at the second device at the second point in time (fig. 6D).
Regarding claim 5 Martin teaches on wherein the pre-defined gesture is a drag-and-drop gesture (fig. 6C- 6D).
Regarding claim 6 Martin teaches one or more processors are configured to obtain the information (fig. 6C- 6D, 606) displayed on the first device from the first device ([0042] display device 110 may be embodied, for example, as a head-mounted apparatus having an integrated display).
Regarding claim 10 Martin teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine an element of a user interface of the second device (fig.6C, 120) based on the first point of reference and the second point of reference, and to control a control functionality associated with the element of the user interface based on the identified gesture (fig. 6C, 6D).
Regarding claim 11 Martin teaches one or more processors are configured to display a visual representation of the identified gesture or of a functionality of the device being controlled by the hand gesture via a display device (fig. 3, 110, (fig. 6C, 6D) or via a projection device (fig. 6C, 6D).
Regarding claim 12 Martin teaches wherein the is one or more processors are configured to provide a display signal for a display device of the second device (fig.6C, 120), the display signal comprising a representation of the information (fig. 6C, 6D) provided by displayed on the first device (fig. 3, 110).
Regarding claim 14 the limitations are similar to the limitations of claim 1 so rejected same way.
Regarding claim 15 Martin teaches a non-transitory computer- readable medium having a program code stored thereon, the program code, when executed by a computer processor, causing performance of the method ([0077]).
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20230297166) in vies of Lewkow (US 9319980).
Regarding claim 7 Martin is silent on wherein the is one or more processors are configured to obtain imaging sensor data showing the information displayed on the first device from a camera being separate from the first device, the imaging sensor data comprising the information displayed on the first device.
However, Lewkow teaches wherein the is one or more processors (fig.1A, 118) are configured to obtain imaging sensor data showing the information displayed on the first device from a camera being separate from the first device, the imaging sensor data comprising the information displayed on the first device (col. 12, fig. 3, As one possible example, HMD 252 may be wirelessly tethered to camera device 300, and via this arrangement may be able to instruct camera device 300 to capture still images and/or video. HMD 252 may display these captured images such that the wearer of HMD 252 can view them as part, or all, of displayed UI of HMD 252.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to combine Martin in light of Lewkow teaching so that it may include wherein the is one or more processors are configured to obtain imaging sensor data showing the information displayed on the first device from a camera being separate from the first device, the imaging sensor data comprising the information displayed on the first device.
The motivation is to provide wearable computing device may receive a data transmission schedule from a wirelessly tethered camera device to optimize power management.
Regarding claim 8 Martin in view of Lewkow teach wherein the imaging sensor data comprises a representation of the information shown on a screen of the first device ([0042] display device 110 may be embodied, for example, as a head-mounted apparatus having an integrated display … augmented reality application, the display device 110 enables presentation of information and/or virtual objects together with a viewer's view of the real world. This overlay may be implemented, for example, through a semi-transparent display that enables the user to view the rendered presentation concurrently with a real world view, a projection system that projects virtual objects or information onto the real world view, or a camera feed that captures the real world view, combines it with the overlaid presentation, and presents the combined view to the user via a display. In a virtual reality environment, the display device 110 presents a virtual scene that is completely rendered without combining aspects of the real world environment).
Regarding claim 9 Martin in view of Lewkow teach wherein one or more processors are configured to extract the information by displayed on the first device from the imaging sensor data, by cropping the imaging sensor data
and/or
geometrically transforming the imaging sensor data ([0042] display device 110 may be embodied, for example, as a head-mounted apparatus having an integrated display … augmented reality application, the display device 110 enables presentation of information and/or virtual objects together with a viewer's view of the real world. This overlay may be implemented, for example, through a semi-transparent display that enables the user to view the rendered presentation concurrently with a real world view, a projection system that projects virtual objects or information onto the real world view, or a camera feed that captures the real world view, combines it with the overlaid presentation, and presents the combined view to the user via a display. In a virtual reality environment, the display device 110 presents a virtual scene that is completely rendered without combining aspects of the real-world environment).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20230297166) in vies of Razzaque (US 9675319).
Regarding claim 13 Martin is silent on a surgical imaging system comprising the system at least one of the first device and the second device.
However, Razzaque teaches a surgical imaging system, comprising the system at least one of the first device and the second device (fig. 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to combine Martin in light of Razzaque teaching so that it may include a surgical imaging system comprising the system at least one of the first device and the second device.
The motivation is to system and method for providing image guidance for placement of one or more medical devices at a target location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220276729 is related prior art as it teaches some limitations of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOWFIQ ELAHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-3PM.
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, William Boddie can be reached at (571)272-0666. 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.
/TOWFIQ ELAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
