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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Independent claims 1 and 17-18 recite(s) a controller, an optical axis detector and a gaze estimation module. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Claim 1 recites:
An eye tracking system, comprising:
a controller comprising:
an optical axis detector and a gaze estimation module, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive, using the optical axis detector, eye measurement data associated with an eye of a user [the Examiner find that the foregoing underlined element recite a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer) and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., a controller). Additionally, the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity];
determine, using the optical axis detector, an optical axis of the eye from the eye measurement data [the Examiner find that the foregoing underlined element recite a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer) and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., a controller). Additionally, the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity];
select, using the gaze estimation module, one of a plurality of eye models based on a direction of the optical axis [the Examiner find that the foregoing underlined element recite a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer) and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., a controller). Additionally, the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity] to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment [the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity]; and
determine, using the gaze estimation module, a gaze vector of the eye by applying the selected eye model to the eye measurement data [the Examiner find that the foregoing underlined element recite a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer) and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., a controller). Additionally, the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea:
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (a generic computer to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer), or merely uses a processor (a generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for generic computer elements at high level of generality does not result in a claim directed to significantly more than the abstract idea. Since the claims do not recite any additional elements that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and is therefore not patent eligible.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea and each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use [because it/they is/are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the system of claim 1 and the process steps of claims 17-18 are performed]:
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a processor/computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the inclusion of a processor which performs the steps of the method is deemed as a generic computer component that is claimed to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the method and system which is provided to perform eye tracking. The recitation of the processor limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Independent claims 17-18 recite(s) an optical axis detector and a gaze estimation module. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Claim 17 recites:
A method of eye tracking, comprising:
receiving, using an optical axis detector, eye measurement data associated with an eye of a user [the Examiner find that the foregoing underlined element recite a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., a controller). Additionally, the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity];
determining, using the optical axis detector, an optical axis of the eye from the eye measurement data [the Examiner find that the foregoing underlined element recite a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., a controller). Additionally, the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity]; and
selecting, using a gaze estimation module, one of a plurality of eye models based on a direction of the optical axis [the Examiner find that the foregoing underlined element recite a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., a controller). Additionally, the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity] to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment [the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity]; and
determining, using a gaze estimation module, a gaze vector of the eye by applying the selected eye model to the eye measurement data [the Examiner find that the foregoing underlined element recite a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., a controller). Additionally, the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity].
Claim 18 recites:
A method of calibrating an eye tracking system, the method comprising:
displaying, by a controller, a plurality of stimulus points one at a time, to an eye of a user [the Examiner find that the foregoing underlined element recite a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., a controller). Additionally, the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity];
receiving, using an optical axis detector, eye measurement data for each stimulus point; and determining, based on the eye measurement data [the Examiner find that the foregoing underlined element recite a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., a controller). Additionally, the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity], at least one of:
a plurality of eye modelling parameter sets defining a corresponding plurality of predetermined eye models;
a baseline eye model and a plurality of gaze offset values for applying to the baseline eye model;
or the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets defining the corresponding plurality of predetermined eye models and a plurality of gaze offset values for applying to one of the predetermine eye models,
wherein the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets and the plurality of gaze offset values correspond to each of the plurality of stimulus points or a region of the plurality of stimulus points, and wherein the calibration is performed to define a strabismus compensation mode for the eye tracking system [the steps are directed towards capturing data and to the organization of information which represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea:
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (a generic computer to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer), or merely uses a processor (a generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for generic computer elements at high level of generality does not result in a claim directed to significantly more than the abstract idea. Since the claims do not recite any additional elements that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and is therefore not patent eligible.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea and each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use [because it/they is/are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the system of claim 1 and the process steps of claims 17-18 are performed]:
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a processor/computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the inclusion of a processor which performs the steps of the method is deemed as a generic computer component that is claimed to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the method and system which is provided to perform eye tracking. The recitation of the processor limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2020/0241635) in view of Rohbacher (US 2019/0294312).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen discloses, an eye tracking system (Figs. 2-3, 5-9c and 17), comprising:
a controller (612) comprising: an optical axis detector (614, 722) and a gaze estimation module (614, 702), wherein the controller is configured to:
receive, using the optical axis detector (722), eye measurement data associated with an eye of a user (Para. 0110-0112; discloses the optical axis detector receives data from modules 716 (cornea center estimation module) and 720 (pupil center locator module));
determine, using the optical axis detector (722), an optical axis (830) of the eye from the eye measurement data (Para. 0110-0112; discloses the optical axes determination module may receive data from modules 716 and 720 and based on this data the optical axes determination module then identifies the optical axis of a user’s eye);
select, using the gaze estimation module (614, 702), one of a plurality of eye models (Para. 0150) based on a direction of the optical axis (Para. 0121-0122 and 0157; discloses using the optical axis to determine the cornea modeled center of the corneal sphere 804, determining pupil size or orientation, detecting glints for determining gaze detection, determining gaze offset values); and
determine, using the gaze estimation module, a gaze vector (832) of the eye by applying the selected eye model to the eye measurement data (Para. 0170; discloses computing the current gaze (e.g., the eye optical axis or the gaze vector) using the gaze estimation module).
Cohen does not disclose the controller is configured to use the gaze estimation module to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment.
Rohbacher teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye tracking system that it would have been desirable to make the controller configured to use the gaze estimation module to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment (Para. 0008 and 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the controller is configured to use the gaze estimation module to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment as taught by the eye tracking system of Rohbacher in the eye tracking system of Cohen since Rohbacher teaches it is known to include this feature in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing an eye tracking system with enhanced speed and precision.
Regarding claim 2, Cohen in view of Rohbacher discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Cohen further discloses, the controller is further configured to select one of a plurality of predetermined eye models based on the direction of the optical axis (Para. 0121-0122 and 0157; discloses using the optical axis to determine the cornea modeled center of the corneal sphere 804, determining pupil size or orientation, detecting glints for determining gaze detection, determining gaze offset values).
Regarding claim 3, Cohen in view of Rohbacher discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Cohen further discloses, selecting one of the plurality of eye models comprises: selecting a gaze offset value from a plurality of gaze offset values based on the direction of the optical axis (Para. 0116, 0121-0122 and 0157; discloses using the optical axis to determine the cornea modeled center of the corneal sphere 804, determining pupil size or orientation, detecting glints for determining gaze detection, determining gaze offset values); and applying the selected gaze offset value to a baseline eye model (Para. 0116, 0121-0122 and 0157; discloses using the optical axis to determine the cornea modeled center of the corneal sphere 804, determining pupil size or orientation, detecting glints for determining gaze detection, determining gaze offset values).
Regarding claim 4, Cohen in view of Rohbacher discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Cohen further discloses, selecting the one of the plurality of eye models comprises: selecting a gaze offset value from a plurality of gaze offset values based on the direction of the optical axis; and applying the selected gaze offset value to the selected predetermined eye model (Para. 0116, 0121-0122 and 0157; discloses using the optical axis to determine the cornea modeled center of the corneal sphere 804, determining pupil size or orientation, detecting glints for determining gaze detection, determining gaze offset values).
Regarding claim 16, Cohen in view of Rohbacher discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Cohen further discloses, the eye tracking system comprises a head-mounted device (Para. 0091 and see 200, 600).
Regarding claim 17, Cohen discloses, a method of eye tracking (Figs. 2-3, 5-9c and 17), comprising:
receiving, using the optical axis detector (722), eye measurement data associated with an eye of a user (Para. 0110-0112; discloses the optical axis detector receives data from modules 716 (cornea center estimation module) and 720 (pupil center locator module));
determining, using the optical axis detector (722), an optical axis (830) of the eye from the eye measurement data (Para. 0110-0112; discloses the optical axes determination module may receive data from modules 716 and 720 and based on this data the optical axes determination module then identifies the optical axis of a user’s eye); and
selecting, using the gaze estimation module (614, 702), one of a plurality of eye models (Para. 0150) based on a direction of the optical axis (Para. 0121-0122 and 0157; discloses using the optical axis to determine the cornea modeled center of the corneal sphere 804, determining pupil size or orientation, detecting glints for determining gaze detection, determining gaze offset values); and
determining, using the gaze estimation module, a gaze vector (832) of the eye by applying the selected eye model to the eye measurement data (Para. 0170; discloses computing the current gaze (e.g., the eye optical axis or the gaze vector) using the gaze estimation module).
Cohen does not disclose the controller is configured to use the gaze estimation module to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment.
Rohbacher teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method of eye tracking that it would have been desirable to make the controller configured to use the gaze estimation module to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment (Para. 0008 and 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the controller is configured to use the gaze estimation module to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment as taught by the method of eye tracking of Rohbacher in the method of eye tracking of Cohen since Rohbacher teaches it is known to include this feature in a method of eye tracking for the purpose of providing an eye tracking system with enhanced speed and precision.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2020/0241635) in view of Rohbacher (US 2019/0294312) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hallowell et al. (US 2010/0092929).
Cohen in view of Rohbacher remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Cohen discloses, the controller is further configured to determine the plurality of eye models by determining, during a calibration process (Para. 0116 and see 706), at least one of: a plurality of eye modelling parameter sets defining a corresponding plurality of predetermined eye models (Para. 0122, 0150 and 0157); a baseline eye model and a plurality of gaze offset values for applying to the baseline eye model; or the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets defining the corresponding plurality of predetermined eye models and a plurality of gaze offset values for applying to one of the plurality of predetermine eye models (Para. 0122, 0150 and 0157).
Cohen in view of Rohbacher does not disclose the plurality of eye modeling parameter sets or the plurality of gaze offset values correspond to a plurality of different regions of stimulus points, each region associated with a different quadrant of a user's visual field.
Hallowell teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye tracking system that it would have been desirable to make the plurality of eye modeling parameter sets or the plurality of gaze offset values correspond to a plurality of different regions of stimulus points, each region associated with a different quadrant of a user's visual field (Para. 0002 and 0171).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the plurality of eye modeling parameter sets or the plurality of gaze offset values correspond to a plurality of different regions of stimulus points, each region associated with a different quadrant of a user's visual field as taught by the eye tracking system of Hallowell in the combination of Cohen in view of Rohbacher since Hallowell teaches it is known to include this feature in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing an effective and efficient eye tracking system with improved speed and accuracy.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2020/0241635) in view of Rohbacher (US 2019/0294312) in view of Hallowell et al. (US 2010/0092929) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nistico et al. (US 2019/0129501; already of record).
Cohen, Rohbacher and Hallowell remains applied to claim 5 above.
Cohen, Rohbacher and Hallowell does not disclose the controller is further configured to: cause a plurality of stimulus points to be displayed, one at a time, to a user; and receive eye measurement data for each stimulus point.
Nistico teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in eye tracking system (Figs. 1-4) that it would have been desirable to make the controller (24) is further configured to: cause a plurality of stimulus points (“S”, “S1”, “S2”) to be displayed (22), one at a time (Para. 0065), to a user (Para. 0003); and receive eye measurement data (Para. 0064-0065 and see 12 and “P”) for each stimulus point (Para. 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the controller is further configured to: cause a plurality of stimulus points to be displayed, one at a time, to a user; and receive eye measurement data for each stimulus point as taught by the eye tracking system of Nistico in the combination of Cohen, Rohbacher and Hallowell since Nistico teaches it is known to include these features in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing an eye tracking system with improved accuracy and reliability.
Regarding claim 7, Cohen, Rohbacher, Hallowell and Nistico discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Nistico further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye tracking system that it would have been desirable to make the plurality of stimulus points comprises six or more stimulus points (Para. 0003, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the eye tracking system of Nistico in the combination of Cohen, Rohbacher and Hallowell since Nistico teaches it is known to include these features in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing an eye tracking system with improved accuracy and reliability.
Regarding claim 8, Cohen, Rohbacher, Hallowell and Nistico discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Nistico further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye tracking system that it would have been desirable to make each of the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets and the plurality of gaze offset values correspond to each stimulus point; or a region of stimulus points (Para. 0070 and see Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the eye tracking system of Nistico in the combination of Cohen, Rohbacher and Hallowell since Nistico teaches it is known to include these features in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing an eye tracking system with improved accuracy and reliability.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2020/0241635) in view of Rohbacher (US 2019/0294312), in view of Hallowell et al. (US 2010/0092929) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0150759; already of record).
Cohen, Rohbacher and Hallowell remains as applied to claim 5 above.
Cohen, Rohbacher and Hallowell does not disclose the controller is further configured to: determine a left eye gaze vector for a left eye of a user; determine a right eye gaze vector for a right eye of the user; determine a weighting for each of the left eye gaze vector and the right eye gaze vector based on a selected left eye model for the left eye and a selected right eye model for the right eye, wherein the weighting is based on a magnitude of a gaze offset value or a variation in eye modeling parameter sets associated with the selected eye model; and provide a combined gaze vector by applying the weighting for the left eye gaze vector to the left eye gaze vector and applying the weighting for the right eye gaze vector to the right eye gaze vector.
Zhang teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye tracking system (Figs. 1-14) that it would have been desirable to make the controller is further configured to: determine a left eye gaze vector for a left eye of a user (1324); determine a right eye gaze vector for a right eye of the user (1322); determine a weighting for each of the left eye gaze vector and the right eye gaze vector based on a selected left eye model for the left eye and a selected right eye model for the right eye, wherein the weighting is based on a magnitude of a gaze offset value or a variation in eye modeling parameter sets associated with the selected eye model (Para. 0239, 0260 and see 414, 420); and provide a combined gaze vector by applying the weighting for the left eye gaze vector to the left eye gaze vector and applying the weighting for the right eye gaze vector to the right eye gaze vector (Para. 0239, 0260 and see 414, 420).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the controller is further configured to: determine a left eye gaze vector for a left eye of a user; determine a right eye gaze vector for a right eye of the user; determine a weighting for each of the left eye gaze vector and the right eye gaze vector based on a selected left eye model for the left eye and a selected right eye model for the right eye, wherein the weighting is based on a magnitude of a gaze offset value or a variation in eye modeling parameter sets associated with the selected eye model; and provide a combined gaze vector by applying the weighting for the left eye gaze vector to the left eye gaze vector and applying the weighting for the right eye gaze vector to the right eye gaze vector as taught by the eye tracking system of Zhang in the combination of Cohen, Rohbacher and Hallowell since Zhang teaches it is known to include these features in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing an eye tracking system with improved accuracy and effective gaze tracking.
Regarding claim 10, Cohen, Rohbacher, Hallowell and Zhang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Zhang further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye tracking system that it would have been desirable to make the controller is further configured to determine the weighting for each of the left eye gaze vector and the right eye gaze vector based on a magnitude of the gaze offset value associated with the selected eye model (Para. 0239, 0260 and see 414, 420).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the eye tracking system of Zhang in the combination of Cohen, Rohbacher and Hallowell since Zhang teaches it is known to include these features in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing an eye tracking system with improved accuracy and effective gaze tracking.
Regarding claim 11, Cohen, Rohbacher, Hallowell and Zhang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Zhang further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye tracking system that it would have been desirable to make the weighting is dependent on a variation of gaze offset values associated with the selected eye model relative to neighboring values of the plurality of gaze offset values (Para. 0239, 0260 and see 414, 420).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the eye tracking system of Zhang in the combination of Cohen, Rohbacher and Hallowell since Zhang teaches it is known to include these features in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing an eye tracking system with improved accuracy and effective gaze tracking.
Regarding claim 12, Cohen, Rohbacher, Hallowell and Zhang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Zhang further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye tracking system that it would have been desirable to make the weighting is dependent on a variation of values of the eye modelling parameter sets associated with the selected eye model relative to neighboring values of the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets (Para. 0239, 0260 and see 414, 420).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the eye tracking system of Zhang in the combination of Cohen, Rohbacher and Hallowell since Zhang teaches it is known to include these features in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing an eye tracking system with improved accuracy and effective gaze tracking.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2020/0241635) in view of Rohbacher (US 2019/0294312), in view of Hallowell et al. (US 2010/0092929), in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0150759; already of record) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Nistico et al. (US 2019/0129501; already of record).
Cohen, Rohbacher, Hallowell and Zhang remains as applied to claim 9 above.
Cohen, Rohbacher, Hallowell and Zhang does not disclose the controller is further configured to determine a plurality of weightings during the calibration process, each weighting of the plurality of weightings corresponding to at least one of the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets, the plurality of gaze offset values, or the plurality of stimulus points.
Nistico teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye tracking system that it would have been desirable to make the controller is further configured to determine a plurality of weightings during the calibration process (Para. 0119), each weighting of the plurality of weightings corresponding to at least one of the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets, the plurality of gaze offset values, or the plurality of stimulus points (Para. 0119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the controller is further configured to determine a plurality of weightings during the calibration process, each weighting of the plurality of weightings corresponding to at least one of the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets, the plurality of gaze offset values, or the plurality of stimulus points as taught by the eye tracking system of Nistico in the combination of Cohen, Rohbacher, Hallowell and Zhang since Nistico teaches it is known to include these features in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing method of calibrating an eye tracking system with improved accuracy and reliability.
Regarding claim 14, Cohen, Rohbacher, Hallowell, Zhang and Nistico discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Nistico further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye tracking system that it would have been desirable to make each weighting comprises a value from zero to one (Para. 0119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the eye tracking system of Nistico in the combination of Cohen, Rohbacher, Hallowell and Zhang since Nistico teaches it is known to include these features in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing method of calibrating an eye tracking system with improved accuracy and reliability.
Regarding claim 15, Cohen, Rohbacher, Hallowell, Zhang and Nistico discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Nistico further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye tracking system that it would have been desirable to make the controller is further configured to: cause the plurality of stimulus points to be re-displayed, one at a time, to the user; and for each of the plurality of stimulus points that is re-displayed (Para. 0003): receive eye measurement data (Para. 0036 and 0064); select an eye model corresponding to the stimulus point (Para. 0065-0068); calculate a gaze vector using the selected eye model and the eye measurement data (Para. 0065-0068); calculate a difference between the calculated gaze vector and a known gaze vector corresponding to the stimulus point (Para. 0071-0072); and determine a weighting based on the difference (Para. 0119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the eye tracking system of Nistico in the combination of Cohen, Rohbacher, Hallowell and Zhang since Nistico teaches it is known to include these features in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing method of calibrating an eye tracking system with improved accuracy and reliability.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2020/0241635) in view of Rohbacher (US 2019/0294312) in view of Nistico et al. (US 2019/0129501; already of record), and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0150759; already of record).
Regarding claim 18, Cohen discloses, a method of calibrating an eye tracking system (Figs. 2-3, 5-9c and 17), the method comprising:
displaying (22), by a controller (612), a plurality of stimulus points (“S”, “S1”, “S2”) one at a time, to an eye of a user (Para. 0065);
receiving, using an optical axis detector (722), eye measurement data (Para. 0110-0112; discloses the optical axis detector receives data from modules 716 (cornea center estimation module) and 720 (pupil center locator module)); and
determining, based on the eye measurement data (Para. 0170), at least one of:
a plurality of eye modelling parameter sets defining a corresponding plurality of predetermined eye models (Para. 0122, 0150 and 0157);
a baseline eye model and a plurality of gaze offset values for applying to the baseline eye model; or
the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets defining the corresponding plurality of predetermined eye models and a plurality of gaze offset values for applying to one of the predetermined eye models (Para. 0122, 0150 and 0157),
wherein the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets and the plurality of gaze offset values correspond to a region of the plurality points (Para. 0110-0112; discloses the optical axes determination module may receive data from modules 716 and 720 and based on this data the optical axes determination module then identifies the optical axis of a user’s eye).
Cohen does not disclose the controller is configured to use the gaze estimation module to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment.
Rohbacher teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method of eye tracking that it would have been desirable to make the controller configured to use the gaze estimation module to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment (Para. 0008 and 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the controller is configured to use the gaze estimation module to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment as taught by the method of eye tracking of Rohbacher in the method of eye tracking of Cohen since Rohbacher teaches it is known to include this feature in a method of eye tracking for the purpose of providing an eye tracking system with enhanced speed and precision.
Cohen in view of Rohbacher does not disclose the controller configured to perform the steps of: displaying, by a controller, a plurality of stimulus points one at a time, to an eye of a user, and the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets and the plurality of gaze offset values correspond to each of the plurality of stimulus points or a region of the plurality of stimulus points.
Nistico teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method of calibrating an eye tracking system that it would have been desirable to make the controller configured to perform the steps of: displaying (22), by a controller, a plurality of stimulus points (“S”, “S1”, “S2”) one at a time (Para. 0065), to an eye of a user (Para. 0003) and the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets and the plurality of gaze offset values correspond to each of the plurality of stimulus points or a region of the plurality of stimulus points (Para. 0070 and see Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the controller configured to perform the steps of: displaying, by a controller, a plurality of stimulus points one at a time, to an eye of a user, and the plurality of eye modelling parameter sets and the plurality of gaze offset values correspond to each of the plurality of stimulus points or a region of the plurality of stimulus points as taught by the method of calibrating an eye tracking system of Nistico in the combination of Cohen in view of Rohbacher since Nistico teaches it is known to include this feature in a method of calibrating an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing method of calibrating an eye tracking system with improved accuracy and reliability.
Cohen, Rohbacher and Nistico does not disclose the calibration is performed to define a strabismus compensation mode for the eye tracking system.
Zhang teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method of calibrating an eye tracking system that it would have been desirable to make the calibration is performed to define a strabismus compensation mode for the eye tracking system (Para. 0234 and 0238-0239).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the calibration is performed to define a strabismus compensation mode for the eye tracking system as taught by the method of calibrating an eye tracking system of Zhang in the combination of Cohen, Rohbacher and Nistico since Zhang teaches it is known to include these features in an eye tracking system for the purpose of providing an eye tracking system with improved accuracy and effective gaze tracking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention is directed to a specific technological solution for a technical problem in the field of eye tracking, namely, “compensat[ing] for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment” (e.g., strabismus). The claimed invention is not an abstract idea of “selecting a model.” Rather, it is a concrete, non-conventional process for adapting eye tracking to a specific physiological condition (strabismus) that conventional systems fail to address accurately. This is a “technical solution to a technical problem,” much like the claims found eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), solving the problem of inaccurate gaze estimation in strabismus cases where conventional single-model systems fail (specification at [0003]-[0005]). The claimed invention is not an abstract idea of “selecting a model.” Rather, it is a concrete, non-conventional process for adapting eye tracking to a specific physiological condition (strabismus) that conventional systems fail to address accurately. This is a “technical solution to a technical problem,” much like the claims found eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), solving the problem of inaccurate gaze estimation in strabismus cases where conventional single-model systems fail (specification at [0003]-[0005]).
The Examiner points out that the amended claims incorporate the inclusion of the controlled being configured to select, using the gaze estimation module….to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment. The controller is deemed as a generic computer components that is claimed to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the method and system which is provided to design an eye tracking system and method. The recitation of the controller limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Taking the additional element individually and in combination, the controller at each step of the method perform purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, the claim encompasses the user manually using parameters to perform eye tracking. The mere nominal recitation of a generic controller does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible. The claims are directed to an abstract idea and has an additional element (controller) that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Srirangam Narashiman et al. (US 2019/0279009) discloses an eye tracking system that includes a controller that is configured to compensate for a gaze defect characterized by eye misalignment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 03/06/2026