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 .
All amendments to claims filed on 11/18/2025 have been entered and action follows:
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Independent claim 23 sets forth instructions to cause at least one programmable circuit to "generate a real image dataset based on identification of blinks in real images including eyes of human subjects, "refine the trained neural network based on at least a first portion of the real image dataset to generate a refined neural network" and "validate the refined neural network based on at least a second portion of the real image dataset." The references relied upon by the Office Action do not teach or suggest such instructions.
As discussed during the Examiner interview on November 5, 2025, the alleged combination of Ranjan and Reinerman-Jones does not teach or suggest generating a real image dataset based on identification of blinks in real images including eyes of human subjects, as set forth in claim 23. As such, the alleged Ranjan/Reinerman-Jones combination also does not teach or suggest refining a trained neural network based on at least a first portion of such a real image dataset, and validating the refined neural network based on at least a second portion of such a real image dataset, as further set forth in claim 23. Because the alleged Ranjan/Reinerman-Jones combination is missing at least the foregoing features of claim 23, the alleged Ranjan/Reinerman-Jones combination fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness against claim 23. Therefore, claim 23 is allowable, and withdrawal of the rejections of independent claim 23 and all claims depending therefrom is respectfully requested.
Independent Claim 30
Independent claim 30 sets forth at least one programmable circuit to "generate a real image dataset based on identification of blinks in real images including eyes of human subjects." The alleged Ranjan/Reinerman-Jones combination does not teach or suggest such circuitry. Therefore, claim 30 is allowable, and withdrawal of the rejections of independent claim 30 and all claims depending therefrom is respectfully requested.
Independent Claim 37
Independent claim 37 sets forth a method comprising "generating... a real image dataset based on identification of blinks in real images including eyes of human subjects." The alleged Ranjan/Reinerman-Jones combination does not teach or suggest such a method. Therefore, claim 37 is allowable, and withdrawal of the rejections of independent claim 37 and all claims depending therefrom is respectfully requested.” (see Remarks pages 9-10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitations in arguments are new matter and are rejected below. Please see the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-25, 27-32, 34-39 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 23, 30 and 37 recites a limitation of “generate a real image dataset based on identification of blinks in real images including eyes of human subjects”, this limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 24-25, 27-29, 31-32, 34-36, 39-39 and 41-42 are rejected because they depend on rejected independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 30-32 and 34-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation “at least one programmable circuit to be programed based on…” in claim 30 is unclear, it not clear how, who or what is helping the “programmable circuit” to be programed, and therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 31-32 and 34-36 are dependent on claim 30 and therefore are rejected as well.
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 23-25, 27-32, 34-39 and 41-42 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan et al (US Pub. 2018/0181809) in view of Reinerman-Jones (US Pub. 2013/0260357).
With respect to claim 23, Ranjan discloses At least one memory comprising instructions to cause at least one programmable circuit to at least, (see figure 5):
train a neural network based on a plurality of synthetic dataset to estimate gaze, the synthetic dataset including synthetic images, ones of the synthetic images including eyes generated synthetically, (see paragraph 0028, CNN may be trained using synthetic data);
generate a real image dataset based on identification of blinks in real images including eyes of human subjects, (this limitation is rejected above under 35 USC 112(a), as new matter and at best it is understood that the CNN is next trained under real data i.e. there is real data in order to use for the training of CNN, see paragraph 0030);
refine the trained neural network based on at least a first portion of the real image dataset to generate a refined neural network, (see paragraph 0030, wherein …the CNN may then be trained using the synthetic data, and may next be trained “refine” with real data);
[validate the refined neural network based on at least a second portion of the real image dataset]; and
provide the validated neural network to estimate gaze associated with an input image from a camera, (see figure 8, numerical 802-capturing an image by camera, and 816-using CNN for the gaze of an eye), as claimed.
However, Ranjan fails to explicitly disclose validate the refined neural network based on at least a second portion of the real image dataset, as claimed.
Reinerman-Jones teaches validate the refined neural network based on at least a second portion of the real image dataset, (see figure 4, Model tested “validated” with remaining 50 out of 100 people “a second portion of real image data”, also paragraph 0044, wherein …refined model is trained and then tested on the remaining data. This can be a cyclical process to optimize a model for a test group based on mathematic standards), as claimed
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of model generation/neural network model. Teaching of Reinerman-Jones to refine and validate he model can be incorporated into Ranjan’s system as suggested (see Ranjan paragraph 0030, CNN is next trained on real data to increase the accuracy), for suggestion, and modifying the system yields more accurate or decreases the error rate of the model (see Ranjan paragraph 004, This can be a cyclical process to optimize a model), for motivation.
With respect to claim 24, combination of Ranjan and Reinerman-Jones further discloses wherein the neural network to be trained includes a convolutional neural network, (see Ranjan paragraph 0030, CNN may be trained), as claimed.
With respect to claim 25, combination of Ranjan and Reinerman-Jones further discloses wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit includes a graphics processing unit (GPU), (see Ranjan paragraph 0037, PPU 200 is a graphics processing unit (GPU)), as claimed.
With respect to claim 27, combination of Ranjan and Reinerman-Jones further discloses wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one programmable circuit to train the neural network to output an estimated gaze direction, (see Ranjan paragraph 0029, wherein …each rendered image in the rendered images included in the training dataset may include a representation of a subject's head having a particular head orientation and gaze direction), as claimed.
With respect to claim 28, combination of Ranjan and Reinerman-Jones further discloses wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one programmable circuit to train the neural network based on the synthetic dataset to output an estimated gaze magnitude, (see Ranjan paragraph 0024, wherein …yet another example, the orientation of the eye may include an azimuth value (e.g., representing a yaw rotation, etc.) and an elevation value (e.g., representing a pitch rotation, etc.) of the eye. In still another example, the orientation of the eye may be in the form of a vector), as claimed.
With respect to claim 29, combination of Ranjan and Reinerman-Jones further discloses wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one programmable circuit to execute the validated neural network to output an estimated gaze direction associated with the input image, (see Ranjan figure 8, 816 CNN for gaze of an eye), as claimed.
Claims 30-36 and 37-42 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claims 23-29, because claims 30-36 and 37-42 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 23-19.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663