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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-2, 14, 19-20, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0187907 A1 to Lee et al. (Lee) and 2011/0234386 A1 to Matsuda et al. (Matsuda).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: acquiring a biosignal (gaze) via a biosensor (112) (Figs. 3A-3B, Par. 29, see also Pars.28, 31-32), wherein the biosignal (gaze) is generated by a user (302) of an extended-reality (XR) system (100) (Figs. 3A-3B, Par. 29, see also Pars.28, 31-32);
providing the biosignal (gaze) to a predictive model (spatial intent model) trained to generate an intent-to-interact signal based on the biosignal (gaze) (Figs. 3A-3B, Pars. 30-31), wherein the intent-to-interact signal indicates an intent of the user to interact with a physical object (e.g. 310 , 314, etc.) (Figs. 3A-3B, Pars. 30-31);
prior to receiving the intent-to-interact signal from the predictive model, refraining from identifying the physical object (Figs. 3A-3B, Pars. 30-31, time-dependent attention value in gaze direction is used to determine to identify which physical object the user intend to interact with); and
responsive to receiving the intent-to-interact signal from the predictive model (e.g. 310 , 314, etc.) (Figs. 3A-3B, Pars. 30-31),
Lee does not expressly disclose presenting a menu of options to the user for controlling the physical object via the XR system.
Matsuda discloses responsive to receiving the intent-to-interact signal from the predictive model (1) (Figs. 1-3, Pars. 43-45, 51), presenting a menu of options (G) to the user for controlling the physical object (21) via the XR system (Figs. 1-3, Pars. 43-45, 51).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee with the teaching of Matsuda to remotely operate a target device with more ease as suggested by Matsuda (Par. 8).
As to claims 14 and 20, see claim 1 rejection and motivation above.
As to claim 2, Lee as modified discloses receiving a user interaction with the menu of options (Matsuda’s Figs. 1-3, Par. 58, see also Pars. 43-45, 51; and responsive to receiving the user interaction, causing the physical object to perform an operation corresponding to the user interaction (Matsuda’s Figs. 1-3, Par. 58, see also Pars. 43-45, 51). See claim 1 motivation above.
As to claim 19, see claim 2 rejection above.
As to claim 22, Lee as modified discloses prior to presenting the menu of options to the user, determining based on the intent-to-interact signal that the user is more likely to interact with the physical object than with an other physical object (Lee’s Figs. 3A-3B, Pars. 28-29, 31, Matsuda’s Figs. 1-3, Par. 58, see also Pars. 43-45, 51), wherein the intent-to-interact signal further indicates an intent of the user to interact with the other physical object (Lee’s Figs. 3A-3B, Pars. 28-29, 31).
As to claim 23, Lee as modified discloses prior to presenting the menu of options to the user, dynamically generating the menu of options based on a type of the physical object (Lee’s Figs. 3A-3B, Pars. 28-29, 31, Matsuda’s Figs. 1-3, Par. 58, 62, see also Pars. 43-45, 51).
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0187907 A1 to Lee et al. (Lee) and 2011/0234386 A1 to Matsuda et al. (Matsuda); in view of U.S. Patent No. US 10,871,825 B1 to Sztuk et al. (Sztuk).
As to claim 4, Lee discloses the biosensor (112) comprises an eye-tracking
Lee does not expressly disclose the biosignal comprises signals indicative of gaze dynamics of the user; the predictive model is further trained to generate the intent-to-interact signal based on the signals indicative of gaze dynamics of the user; and the computer-implemented method further comprises, prior to receiving the intent-to- interact signal from the predictive model, providing to the predictive model the signals indicative of gaze dynamics of the user.
However, Lee discloses the biosignal comprises signals indicative of time-dependent attention value the gaze of the user (Figs. 3A-3B, Pars. 28-31); the predictive model is further trained to generate the intent-to-interact signal based on the signals indicative of time-dependent attention value the gaze of the user (Figs. 3A-3B, Pars. 28-31); and the computer-implemented method further comprises, prior to receiving the intent-to- interact signal from the predictive model, providing to the predictive model the signals indicative of time-dependent attention value the gaze of the user (Figs. 3A-3B, Pars. 28-31).
Sztuk discloses the one or more biosignals comprise signals indicative of gaze dynamics of the user (e.g. gaze velocity)(Col. 16, lines 18-23, 31-38); and the signals indicative of gaze dynamics (e.g. gaze velocity) of the user are used to anticipate the intent of the user to interact (Col. 16, lines 18-23, 31-38).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee as modified with the teaching of Sztuk to provide an improved gazed detection and predict the upcoming frame image and time as suggested by Sztuk (Col. 16, lines 46-67).
As to claim 15, see claim 4 rejection and motivation above.
Claim(s) 5 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0187907 A1 to Lee et al. (Lee) and 2011/0234386 A1 to Matsuda et al. (Matsuda); in view of U.S. Patent No. US 10,871,825 B1 to Sztuk et al. (Sztuk); further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2016/0062459 A1 to Publicover et al. (Publicover).
As to claim 5, Lee as modified discloses the signals indicative of gaze dynamics of the user comprise a measure of gaze velocity (Sztuk’s Col. 16, lines 18-23, 31-38). See claim 4 motivation above.
Lee does not expressly disclose measure gaze velocities from angular displacements using a gaze-velocity calculation.
Publicover discloses measure gaze velocities from angular displacements using a gaze-velocity calculation (Fig. 3, Pars. 119, 137, 220, 225).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee as modified with the teaching of Publicover to provide an improved gaze detection as suggested by Publicover (Par. 226).
As to claim 21, Lee as modified discloses the gaze-velocity calculation further comprises a filtering operation on the gaze velocities exceeding 800 degrees/second (Publicover’s Fig. 3, Pars. 119, 137, 220, 225). See claim 5 motivation above.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0187907 A1 to Lee et al. (Lee) and 2011/0234386 A1 to Matsuda et al. (Matsuda); in view of U.S. Patent No. US 10,871,825 B1 to Sztuk et al. (Sztuk); further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0104596 A1 to Bell et al. (Bell).
As to claim 6, Lee does not expressly disclose the signals indicative of gaze dynamics of the user comprise: a measure of ambient attention; or a measure of focal attention.
Bell discloses the signals indicative of gaze dynamics of the user comprise a measure of focal attention (Pars. 30, 39).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee as modified with the teaching of Bell to provide an improved gaze detection as suggested by Bell (Par. 39).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 14-15, and 19-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Examiner notes that the new claim elements are now addressed by reference Lee and Matsuda as necessitated by amendments. Please see above for full basis of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2012/0154557 A1 to Perez et al. teaches a user's intent to interact with one or more objects in the user's focal region is determined by detecting the user's eye movement patterns in the user's focal region and determining the intensity of the user's gaze on one or more objects being viewed by the user in the user's focal region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA whose telephone number is (571)270-7361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 8:30AM to 6:00PM, 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, Lun Yi Lao can be reached at 571-272-7671. 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.
/JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA/Examiner, Art Unit 2621
/LUNYI LAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621