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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 29, 2023, October 22, 2024, and July 16, 2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 28, and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 8: “input” should be deleted;
in claim 1, line 7: “falls” should be inserted before “within”;
in claim 2, line 7: “region, when” should be “region when”;
in claim 2, line 8: “measured” should be deleted;
in claim 3, line 2: “is” should be inserted after “circuitry”;
in claim 28, line 6: “inputted” should be deleted; and
in claim 32, line 7: a period should be added at the end of the sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10, 22, 25-37, 59, 64-65, and 67-68 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.
Claim 1 recites “sightline-position input circuitry” in line 2. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP § 2173.03. For the same reasons, the features claimed are new matter. In this case, the sightline-position input unit is described in the specification as a software module (see specification ¶[0155] and ¶[0221]; Fig. 1) as operating on a generic computer (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server). However, claim 1 requires “sightline-position input circuitry”, which would indicate a distinct hardware component via “circuitry”. The specification does not describe a distinct hardware component for the “sightline-position input circuitry”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed.
Claim 1 recites “set a determination region” in line 5. This is clearly computer-implemented recitation (i.e., software module operating on a generic computer). See specification about the setting (see specification ¶[0026]-[0032], ¶[0110]-[0114], ¶[0128]-[0133], and ¶[0206]-[0211]; Fig. 1). See specification about computer implemented (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 1, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to setting the determination region. The disclosure details various aspects that the setting region may be based on (i.e., different targets or dimensions, etc.); however, the disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the setting itself, but only refers to the determination in a “black box” description, meaning that the setting is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the setting itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, especially since it appears that the setting is one of central features of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “determine whether or not the input position of the sightline [falls] within the determination region” in lines 6-7. This is clearly computer-implemented recitation (i.e., software module operating on a generic computer). See specification about the determination (see specification ¶[0034], ¶[0037], ¶[0040], ¶[0066]-[0068], ¶[0105]-[0106], ¶[0124]-[0125], ¶[0141], ¶[0143], and ¶[0200]-[0201]; Fig. 1). See specification about computer implemented (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 1, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the determination on whether or not the input position of the sightline falls within the determination region. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the determination itself, but only refers to the determination in a “black box” description, meaning that the determination is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the determination itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, especially since it appears that the determination is one of central features of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-10, 22, and 25-27 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “measurement circuitry” in line 3. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP § 2173.03. For the same reasons, the features claimed are new matter. In this case, the measurement unit is described in the specification as a software module (see specification ¶[0141]-[0144] and ¶[0212]; Fig. 1) as operating on a generic computer (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server). However, claim 2 requires “measurement circuitry”, which would indicate a distinct hardware component via “circuitry”. The specification does not describe a distinct hardware component for the “measurement circuitry”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed.
Claim 4 recites “set a target position” in line 3. This is clearly computer-implemented recitation (i.e., software module operating on a generic computer). See specification about setting the target position (see specification ¶[0050] and Fig. 2). See specification about computer implemented (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 4, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to setting target position. The disclosure mentions that “it may use face recognition software, and/or an object detection algorithm (see specification ¶[0050]); however, any specific algorithm/software is not disclosed. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of setting the target position, but only refers to setting the target position in a “black box” description, meaning that setting the target position is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of setting the target position itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, especially since it appears that setting the target position is one of central features of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 recites “setting a determination region” in line 3. This is clearly computer-implemented recitation (i.e., software module operating on a generic computer). See specification about the setting (see specification ¶[0026]-[0032], ¶[0110]-[0114], ¶[0128]-[0133], and ¶[0206]-[0211]; Fig. 1). See specification about computer implemented (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 28, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to setting the determination region. The disclosure details various aspects that the setting region may be based on (i.e., different targets or dimensions, etc.); however, the disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the setting itself, but only refers to the determination in a “black box” description, meaning that the setting is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the setting itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, especially since it appears that the setting is one of central features of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 recites “determining whether or not the inputted position of the sightline falls within the determination region” in lines 4-5. This is clearly computer-implemented recitation (i.e., software module operating on a generic computer). See specification about the determination (see specification ¶[0034], ¶[0037], ¶[0040], ¶[0066]-[0068], ¶[0105]-[0106], ¶[0124]-[0125], ¶[0141], ¶[0143], and ¶[0200]-[0201]; Fig. 1). See specification about computer implemented (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 28, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the determination on whether or not the input position of the sightline falls within the determination region. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the determination itself, but only refers to the determination in a “black box” description, meaning that the determination is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the determination itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, especially since it appears that the determination is one of central features of the claimed invention.
Claims 29-37, 59, 64-65, and 67-68 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 28.
Claim 31 recites “setting a target position” in line 3. This is clearly computer-implemented recitation (i.e., software module operating on a generic computer). See specification about setting the target position (see specification ¶[0050] and Fig. 2). See specification about computer implemented (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 31, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to setting target position. The disclosure mentions that “it may use face recognition software, and/or an object detection algorithm” (see specification ¶[0050]); however, any specific algorithm/software is not disclosed. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of setting the target position, but only refers to setting the target position in a “black box” description, meaning that setting the target position is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of setting the target position itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, especially since it appears that setting the target position is one of central features of the claimed invention.
Claim 36 recites “the lower limit value is determined based on sightline-position variation data representing a sightline position which varies with time when the user gazes at an arbitrary point” in lines 3-5. This is clearly computer-implemented recitation (i.e., software module operating on a generic computer). See specification about setting the lower limit value and the sightline-position variation data (see specification ¶[0031]). See specification about computer implemented (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 31, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to determining the lower limit value from the sightline-position variation data. The disclosure details that “the sightline- position variation data means a plot of variation of the sightline position over time” and that the lower limit value may be an average (see specification ¶[0031]); however, as the sightline- position variation data is unclear (see below 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection), it is not clear how the average may be taken without specific disclosure. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of determining the lower limit value from the sightline-position variation data, but only refers to the determining in a “black box” description, meaning that the determining is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the determining itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, especially since it appears that the determining is one of central features of the claimed invention.
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 1-10, 22, 25-27, 29, 31-37, 59, and 64 are 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. That follows are examples of some of the errors in the claims.
Claim 1 recites “sightline-position input circuitry” in line 2. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP § 2173.03. In this case, the sightline-position input unit is described in the specification as a software module (see specification ¶[0155] and ¶[0221]; Fig. 1) as operating on a generic computer (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server). However, claim 1 requires “sightline-position input circuitry”, which would indicate a distinct hardware component via “circuitry”. The inconsistency between what is claimed (the sightline-position input circuitry, i.e., a distinct hardware component) and what appears to be required for the device (i.e., a software module operating on a generic computer) renders claim 1 indefinite. Furthermore, it is not clear how this circuitry is different from the “processing circuitry” recited in line 4, as both would appear to be referring to the processing (i.e., CPU, GPU, etc.) on a generic computer. These inconsistencies render claim 1 indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the “sightline-position input circuitry” is being interpreted as a software module operating on a generic computer. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10, 22, and 25-27 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “measurement circuitry” in line 3. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP § 2173.03. In this case, the measurement unit is described in the specification as a software module (see specification ¶[0141]-[0144] and ¶[0212]; Fig. 1) as operating on a generic computer (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server). However, claim 2 requires “measurement circuitry”, which would indicate a distinct hardware component via “circuitry”. The inconsistency between what is claimed (the measurement circuitry, i.e., a distinct hardware component) and what appears to be required for the device (i.e., a software module operating on a generic computer) renders claim 2 indefinite. Furthermore, it is not clear how this circuitry is different from the “processing circuitry” recited in claim 1, line 4, as both would appear to be referring to the processing (i.e., CPU, GPU, etc.) on a generic computer. These inconsistencies render claim 2 indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the “measurement circuitry” is being interpreted as a software module operating on a generic computer. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “measure a first time having elapsed in a state where the position of the sightline remains in the determination region since the position of the sightline was located in the determination region” in lines 3-5, which is grammatically awkward and generally unclear. The usage of past tense (i.e., first time having elapsed, was) and present tense (i.e., remains) add to the confusion. Is the first time the time that position is within the determination region or since the position was in the determination region? These inconsistencies render claim 2 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “a sightline” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a sightline” in claim 1, lines 2-3. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the sightline”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “set the determination region such that the determination region includes one selected from an entire body of an animal, which includes a person, facing the user, a part of the body of the animal facing the user, an entire face of the animal facing the user, a part of the face of the animal facing the user, an eye part of the animal facing the user, and a part of an eyeball position of the animal facing the user” in lines 3-7, which is grammatically awkward and generally unclear. The one is selected from “an entire body of an animal”, but then the additional recitations include “the animal” add confusion as to their relation to “an animal” in the alternative choice grouping. The recitation “which includes a person” is not clear, the metes and bounds are not clear, does the animal need to be a person. It is not clear what “a part of an eyeball position” actually is. These inconsistencies render claim 5 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 5.
Claim 6 recites “set the determination region such that the determination region includes one selected from an entire body of an animal including a person, a part of the body of the animal, an entire face of the animal, a part of the face of the animal, an eye part of the animal, and an eyeball position of the animal, in an image of the animal displayed on a display facing the user” in lines 3-6, which is grammatically awkward and generally unclear. The one is selected from “an entire body of an animal”, but then the additional recitations include “the animal” add confusion as to their relation to “an animal” in the alternative choice grouping. The recitation “including a person” is not clear, the metes and bounds are not clear, does the animal need to be a person. It is not clear what the display’s relationship to the claimed device is. These inconsistencies render claim 6 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “an eyeball position” in lines 3-4, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a part of an eyeball position” in claim 5, lines 6-7. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. It is not clear how “part” modifies the recitation of claim 5. The relationship between these recitations should be made clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “set a size of the determination region, based on a distance between left and right eyeball positions of an animal, in an image of the animal, which includes a person, included in a field-of-view image of the user” in lines 3-5, which is grammatically awkward and generally unclear. The recitation “which includes a person” is not clear, the metes and bounds are not clear, does the animal need to be a person. It is not clear the relationship between “an image of the animal” and “a field-of-view image” is. The specification suggests that they are the same (see specification ¶[0028]). It is not clear what “size” represents, as it is not defined in the specification (i.e., is size an area, perimeter, or something else). These inconsistencies render claim 7 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 8.
Claim 9 recites “a lower limit value” in line 3, but it is not clear what the lower limit value actually represents. As recited above, it is not clear what “size” represents, as it is not defined in the specification (i.e., is size an area, perimeter, or something else). The specification details that it may be based on “sightline-position variation data”, which is “a plot of variation of the sightline position over time” (see specification ¶[0031]). However, it is not clear what is actually encompassed by the “sightline-position variation data”, so the lower limit value is not clear. The lower limit is also described as being set based off of the dimensions between the eyes (see specification ¶[0032]); however, it is not clear how this dimension relates to the size of the determination region (i.e., the distance “L” is 1 dimensional, and the determination region is two dimensional). The specification also recites “[w]hen the lower limit value is set to the determination region P2, the determination region P2 is set so as not to fall below the lower limit value”, which is not clear. As the lower limit value is set based on the determination region, but the determination region is also set to not fall below the lower limit value, it is not clear where the lower limit value actually comes from. This confusion as to what the “lower limit value” actually represents renders claim 9 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “a size” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a size” in claim 8, line 3. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the size”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “a human” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a person” in claim 5, line 4. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the person”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites “the feedback is performed using one or more senses selected from a visual sense, an auditory sense, and a tactile sense” in lines 3-4; however, it is not clear how feedback can be performed “using one or more sense selected from a visual sense, an auditory sense, and a tactile sense”. Senses are not something capable of performing the output feedback. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 recites “a sightline” in line 5, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a sightline” in claim 1, lines 2-3. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the sightline”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 recites “a sightline-position acquisition” in line 5, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitations “sightline-position input circuitry” in claim 1, line 2 and/or “circuitry” in claim 25, line 5. The context of the claim suggests this recitation is related to the recitation of claim 25, the function recited suggests this recitation is related to the recitation of claim 1, and the indefinite article “a” suggests this recitation is not related. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 recites “a position” in line 5, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a position” in claim 1, line 2. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the position”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 recites “a presentation image” in lines 4-5, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a field-of-view image” in claim 26, line 4. The different phraseology suggests that they are different; however, the definitions given in the specification indicate that they are the same (see ¶[0028]). The field-of-view image is defined as “an image seen in a user’s field of view”, and the presentation image is defined as “an image presented to the user”. An image seen in a user’s field of view is presented to the user, such that it is not clear how these recitations are different, which suggest the recitations may be the same and/or related. See also specification ¶[0045], “the presentation image is regarded as the field-of-view image”. Furthermore, since both recitation appear to be the same, it is not clear how the coordinates can be transformed to another, if the coordinates are based off of the same image. The relationship between these recitations should be made clear. These inconsistencies render claim 27 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 recites “a position” in line 8, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitations “a position” in claim 1, line 2 and “a position” in claim 26, line 5. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the position”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 recites “measuring a first time having elapsed in a state where the position of the sightline remains in the determination region since the position of the sightline got to be located in the determination region” in lines 3-5, which is grammatically awkward and generally unclear. The usage of past tense (i.e., first time having elapsed, got to be) and present tense (i.e., remains) add to the confusion. Is the first time the time that position is within the determination region or since the position was in the determination region? These inconsistencies render claim 29 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 recites “a sightline” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a sightline” in claim 28, line 2. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the sightline”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 recites “the determination region is set such that the determination region includes one selected from an entire body of an animal, which includes a person, facing the user, a part of the body of the animal facing the user, an entire face of the animal facing the user, a part of the face of the animal facing the user, an eye part of the animal facing the user, and a part of an eyeball position of the animal facing the user” in lines 3-7, which is grammatically awkward and generally unclear. The one is selected from “an entire body of an animal”, but then the additional recitations include “the animal” add confusion as to their relation to “an animal” in the alternative choice grouping. The recitation “which includes a person” is not clear, the metes and bounds are not clear, does the animal need to be a person. It is not clear what “a part of an eyeball position” actually is. These inconsistencies render claim 32 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 32.
Claim 33 recites “the determination region is set such that the determination region includes one selected from an entire body of an animal including a person, a part of the body of the animal, an entire face of the animal, a part of the face of the animal, an eye part of the animal, and an eyeball position of the animal, in an image of the animal displayed on a display facing the user” in lines 3-6, which is grammatically awkward and generally unclear. The one is selected from “an entire body of an animal”, but then the additional recitations include “the animal” add confusion as to their relation to “an animal” in the alternative choice grouping. The recitation “including a person” is not clear, the metes and bounds are not clear, does the animal need to be a person. It is not clear what the display’s relationship to the claimed device is. These inconsistencies render claim 33 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 recites “a size of the determination region is set based on a distance between left and right eyeball positions of an animal including a person facing the user” in lines 3-4, which is grammatically awkward and generally unclear. The recitation “including a person” is not clear, the metes and bounds are not clear, does the animal need to be a person. It is not clear what “size” represents, as it is not defined in the specification (i.e., is size an area, perimeter, or something else). This inconsistencies render claim 34 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 35-36 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 34.
Claim 35 recites “a lower limit value” in line 3, but it is not clear what the lower limit value actually represents. As recited above, it is not clear what “size” represents, as it is not defined in the specification (i.e., is size an area, perimeter, or something else). The specification details that it may be based on “sightline-position variation data”, which is “a plot of variation of the sightline position over time” (see specification ¶[0031]). However, it is not clear what is actually encompassed by the “sightline-position variation data”, so the lower limit value is not clear. The lower limit is also described as being set based off of the dimensions between the eyes (see specification ¶[0032]); however, it is not clear how this dimension relates to the size of the determination region (i.e., the distance “L” is 1 dimensional, and the determination region is two dimensional). The specification also recites “[w]hen the lower limit value is set to the determination region P2, the determination region P2 is set so as not to fall below the lower limit value”, which is not clear. As the lower limit value is set based on the determination region, but the determination region is also set to not fall below the lower limit value, it is not clear where the lower limit value actually comes from. This confusion as to what the “lower limit value” actually represents renders claim 9 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 35.
Claim 36 recites “the lower limit value is determined based on sightline-position variation data representing a sightline position which varies with time when the user gazes at an arbitrary point” in lines 3-5, but it is not clear what “sightline-position variation data” is. As stated above, the specification details that it may be based on “sightline-position variation data”, which is “a plot of variation of the sightline position over time” (see specification ¶[0031]). However, it is not clear what is actually encompassed by the “sightline-position variation data”, so the lower limit value is not clear. Furthermore, it is not clear how the lower limit value is set, as claim 36 depends from claim 35. Claim 35 indicates that the lower limit value is set based off of the size of the determination, but claim 36 indicates that the lower limit value is set based off of the sightline-position variance data. These inconsistencies render claim 36 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 recites “a human” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a person” in claim 32, line 4. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the person”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 59 recites “applying the sightline-position determination method according to claim 28” in line 2. It is not clear what is required to “apply” the method as currently recited. It is not clear that any additional metric is required for “monitoring”, as the sightline is monitored in the method of claim 28. The metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 64 recites “applying the sightline-position determination method according to claim 28” in line 3. It is not clear what is required to “apply” the method as currently recited. The metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 59 does not further limit the method of claim 28, see above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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