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 a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 22, 25-37, 59, 64-65, and 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “set a determination region” (see specification ¶[0026]-[0032], ¶[0110]-[0114], ¶[0128]-[0133], and ¶[0206]-[0211]; Fig. 1) is being interpreted as evaluations and judgments. The recitation “determine whether or not the input position of the sightline within the determination region” (see specification ¶[0034], ¶[0037], ¶[0040], ¶[0066]-[0068], ¶[0105]-[0106], ¶[0124]-[0125], ¶[0141], ¶[0143], and ¶[0200]-[0201]; Fig. 1) as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The recitations are computer-implemented, as indicated in the specification (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server), and in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 28 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation the recitation “setting a determination region” (see specification ¶[0026]-[0032], ¶[0110]-[0114], ¶[0128]-[0133], and ¶[0206]-[0211]; Fig. 1) is being interpreted as evaluations and judgments. The recitation “determining whether or not the inputted position of the sightline falls within the determination region” (see specification ¶[0034], ¶[0037], ¶[0040], ¶[0066]-[0068], ¶[0105]-[0106], ¶[0124]-[0125], ¶[0141], ¶[0143], and ¶[0200]-[0201]; Fig. 1) as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The recitations are computer-implemented, as indicated in the specification (see specification ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0119], ¶[0198]-[0199], and ¶[0257]-[0258], see also ¶[0037], the external appliance, the server).
Step 1: This part of eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Claim 1 recites a device, which is directed towards a machine/manufacture (a statutory category of invention). Claim 28 recites a method, which is directed towards a process (a statutory category of invention). Step 1: YES.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, evaluations and judgments for setting the determination region, and observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions for the determination of the sightline falling within the determination region. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claims 1 and 28 recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas that fall within the mental process grouping).
In particular, claim 1 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
input a position of a sightline of a user;
set a determination region;
determine whether or not the input position of the sightline within the determination region, and
output feedback to the user when the position of the sightline is determined to fall within the determination region.
Furthermore, claim 28 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
a sightline-position determination method, comprising;
inputting a position of a sightline of a user;
setting a determination region; determining whether or not the inputted position of the sightline falls within the determination region; and
outputting feedback to the user when it is determined that the position of the sightline falls within the determination region.
Step 2A Prong One: YES.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a
whole integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application of the exception. This
evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in
the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and (b) evaluating those additional elements
individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exceptions into a practical application. Claim 28 recites no other element, such that claim 6 recites no element that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements related to a generic computer (i.e., the sightline-position input circuitry and the processing circuitry, see above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection). Therefore, the device and method are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims 1 and 28 also recite elements related to the input and output of data, which are mere insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., pre-solution and post-solution activity), and thus do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with Step 2A Prong Two, claim 28 recites no other element, such that claim 28 recites no element that adds an inventive concept to the claim and/or amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. Claim 1 recites additional elements related to a generic computer (i.e., the sightline-position input circuitry and the processing circuitry, see above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection). The device and method (claims 1 and 28) utilizing a generic computer do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
The claims 1 and 28 also recite elements related to the input and output of data, which are mere insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., pre-solution and post-solution activity), and thus do not add an inventive concept to the claim and/or amounts to significantly more than the recited exceptions. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no
indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for
example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is
no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based
problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective
functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e.,
the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Step 2B: NO.
Claims 1 and 28 are not eligible.
Claims 2-10, 22, and 25-27; and 29-37, 59, 64-65, and 67-68 depend from claims 1 and 28, respectively, merely further define the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 28. Claims 2-10, 22, and 25-27; and 29-37, 59, 64-65, and 67-68 recite additional elements directed towards a generic computer and/or computer-readable medium. The claims recite no element that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The method/devices are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite no element that adds an inventive concept to the claim and/or amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The method/devices utilizing a generic computer do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome.
Claim 25 further recites an additional element of “circuitry configured to detect a direction of a sightline of the user”. Under the BRI of the term “circuitry”, may include a sensor, such as an infrared-type sightline tracking sensor (see specification ¶[0045]). This circuitry does not qualify as significantly more because (1) this is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry and/or (2) this limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a high level of generality – see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106305(g) using generic components (i.e., the circuitry is generic). In this case, the circuitry is claimed generically, and thus may be considered a generic computer component.
Alternatively and/or additionally, Farber et al. (WIPO Publication 2018/132446 – cited by Applicant) teaches a computer-implemented method for adaptive behavioral training by presenting a first visual training area (VTA) to a user, collecting user measurement data, including gaze, while the first VTA is shown, then presenting a second VTA (see abstract and Figs. 1-2D and 17), which utilizes a commercial eye tracker to get the user gaze data (see ¶[0109]). Therefore, the generic circuitry for detecting a direction of a sightline of the user does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The succeeding art rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claims 1-10, 22, 25-35, 37, 59, 64-65, and 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Farber et al. (WIPO Publication 2018/132446 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Farber.
Regarding Claim 1, Farber teaches a computer-implemented method for adaptive behavioral training by presenting a first visual training area (VTA) to a user, collecting user measurement data, including gaze, while the first VTA is shown, then presenting a second VTA (see abstract and Figs. 1-2D and 17). Farber teaches a sightline-position determination device (see abstract and Figs. 1-2D), comprising:
sightline-position input circuitry configured to input a position of a sightline of a user (¶[0052], ¶[0057], and ¶[0253] the eye tracking measurement data recorded for the user during VTA presentation, ¶[0109] the usage of the commercial eye tracker to get the user gaze data; Fig. 1, the system is connected so that the gaze tracking data for the user is received);
processing circuitry (¶[0048]-[0052] the computer for implementing the eye tracking, display, user input functions, and other aspects of the system; Fig. 1) configured to:
set a determination region (¶[0052]-[0054] the different stimuli that may be presented to the user, including VTA, ¶[0060]-[0063] the VTAs may be preset or modified based on commands/user data, including being modified in real time for subsequent VTA, ¶[0174]-[0179] the generation of the VTAs, with subsequent VTAs being reduced in size to concentrate more on the displayed human’s eyes; Figs. 1-2D and 17);
determine whether or not the input position of the sightline within the determination region (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTAs presented to the user while the user maintains their gaze on the VTAs, ¶[0252]-[0255] the VTA is presented to the user and measurement data is collected, the user’s gaze is timed to determine if and how long the user is viewing the VTA; Figs. 1-2D and 17), and
output feedback to the user when the position of the sightline is determined to fall within the determination region (¶[0055]-[0056] the prompt which may be presented prior to, during or following the training stimulus, ¶[0252] the prompt may be audio and/or visual, ¶[0174]-[0179] the VTAs presented to the user while the user maintains their gaze on the VTAs, as subsequent VTAs get smaller if the user maintains their gaze on the initial larger VTAs, the subsequent smaller VTAs for difficulty increase are outputs, as subsequent VTAs only displayed if the user had maintained their gaze, ¶[0203]-[0212] the VTA presentation and gaze tracking of the user in order to identify emotions, output is provided to the user if the user is correct; Figs. 1-2D, 10A-10D, 17).
Regarding Claim 2, Farber teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Farber further teaches measurement circuitry configured to 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, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine that the position of the sightline falls within the determination region, when the measured first time has reached a preset maintaining time (¶[0252]-[0255] the VTA is presented to the user and measurement data is collected, the user’s gaze is timed to determine if and how long the user is viewing the VTA, for example, the user must continuously view the training area for at least 0.25 seconds in order to qualify as having viewed the first VTA).
Regarding Claim 3, Farber teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Farber further teaches the processing circuitry configured to output the feedback to the user in real-time (¶[0055]-[0056] the prompt which may be presented prior to, during or following the training stimulus, ¶[0060]-[0063] and ¶[0174]-[0179] the VTAs presented to the user while the user maintains their gaze on the VTAs, as subsequent VTAs get smaller if the user maintains their gaze on the initial larger VTAs, the subsequent smaller VTAs for difficulty increase are outputs, as subsequent VTAs only displayed if the user had maintained their gaze, the subsequent VTAs are presented in real-time to the user, and may be modified in real-time, ¶[0203]-[0212] the VTA presentation and gaze tracking of the user in order to identify emotions, output is provided to the user if the user is correct; Figs. 1-2D, 10A-10D, 17).
Regarding Claim 4, Farber teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Farber further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to set a target position to which the user directs a sightline (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTAs start out larger, covering the entire face before concentrating on the eyes, the goal is for eye contact, so the eyes are the target position for the user to direct their gaze; Figs. 2A-2D).
Regarding Claim 5, Farber teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Farber further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to 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 (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTA comprises a human face, facing the user; Figs. 2A-2D).
Regarding Claim 6, Farber teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Farber further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to 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 (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTA comprises a human face, facing the user; Figs. 2A-2D).
Regarding Claim 7, Farber teaches the device of claim 5 as stated above. Farber further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to set the determination region such that the determination region includes an eyeball position of the animal (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTA comprises a human face, facing the user, in which the face is narrowed down to the eyes in subsequent VTA; Figs. 2A-2D).
Regarding Claim 8, Farber teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Farber further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to 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 (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTA comprises a human face, facing the user, in which the face is narrowed down to the eyes in subsequent VTA, when fully narrowed (i.e., Fig. 2C), the VTA is an oval with the eyes at either end, so the size would be based on the distance between the eyes; Figs. 2A-2D).
Regarding Claim 9, Farber teaches the device of claim 8 as stated above. Farber further teaches a lower limit value is set to a size of the determination region (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTA comprises a human face, facing the user, in which the face is narrowed down to the eyes in subsequent VTA, when fully narrowed (i.e., Fig. 2C), the VTA is an oval with the eyes at either end, so the size would be based on the distance between the eyes; Figs. 2A-2D). Here, the smallest VTA is set as the distance between the eyes (i.e., the VTA is an oval with the eyes at either end). As the specification of the present application indicates that the lower limit value may be based off of this distance (see specification ¶[0032]), Farber teaches the recitation of the claim, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding Claim 10, Farber teaches the device of claim 5 as stated above. Farber further teaches the animal is a human (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTA comprises a human face, facing the user; Figs. 2A-2D).
Regarding Claim 22, Farber teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Farber further teaches the feedback is performed using one or more senses selected from a visual sense, an auditory sense, and a tactile sense (¶[0055]-[0056] the prompt which may be presented prior to, during or following the training stimulus, ¶[0252] the prompt may be audio and/or visual, ¶[0174]-[0179] the VTAs presented to the user while the user maintains their gaze on the VTAs, as subsequent VTAs get smaller if the user maintains their gaze on the initial larger VTAs, the subsequent smaller VTAs for difficulty increase are outputs, as subsequent VTAs only displayed if the user had maintained their gaze, ¶[0203]-[0212] the VTA presentation and gaze tracking of the user in order to identify emotions, output is provided to the user if the user is correct; Figs. 1-2D, 10A-10D, 17). Here, the visual and/or audio feedback of Farber is interpreted to cover a visual sense and auditory sense as recited in the claim, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding Claim 25, Farber teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Farber further teaches a sightline-position determination system, comprising: the sightline-position determination device according to claim 1 (see above claim 1 mapping); and
circuitry configured to detect a direction of a sightline of the user and output the direction of the sightline of the user to the sightline-position determination device (¶[0052], ¶[0057], and ¶[0253] the eye tracking measurement data recorded for the user during VTA presentation, ¶[0109] the usage of the commercial eye tracker to get the user gaze data; Fig. 1, the system is connected so that the gaze tracking data for the user is received).
Regarding Claim 26, Farber teaches the device of claim 25 as stated above. Farber further teaches the circuitry is further configured to acquire a field-of-view image of the user, a sightline-position acquisition acquiring a position of the sightline of the user based on the field-of-view image (¶[0052], ¶[0057], and ¶[0253] the eye tracking measurement data recorded for the user during VTA presentation, ¶[0109] the usage of the commercial eye tracker to get the user gaze data, Fig. 1, the system is connected so that the gaze tracking data for the user is received; ¶[0174]-[0179] the VTAs presented to the user while the user maintains their gaze on the VTAs, ¶[0252]-[0255] the VTA is presented to the user and measurement data is collected, the user’s gaze is timed to determine if and how long the user is viewing the VTA, Figs. 1-2D and 17). Based on the specification of the present application, the field-of-view image is interpreted to be the image/stimulus that the user is viewing (see specification ¶[0028] and ¶[0045]).
Regarding Claim 27, Farber teaches the device of claim 28 as stated above. Farber further teaches the circuitry is further configured to detect a position of a presentation image presented to the user in the field-of-view image and transform the position of the sightline of the user in a coordinate system of the field-of-view image into a position of the sightline of the user in a coordinate system of the presentation image, based on the detected position of the presentation image (¶[0052], ¶[0057], and ¶[0253] the eye tracking measurement data recorded for the user during VTA presentation, ¶[0109] the usage of the commercial eye tracker to get the user gaze data, Fig. 1, the system is connected so that the gaze tracking data for the user is received; ¶[0174]-[0179] the VTAs presented to the user while the user maintains their gaze on the VTAs, ¶[0252]-[0255] the VTA is presented to the user and measurement data is collected the measurement data including the coordinates of the user’s gaze within the VTA presented, the user’s gaze is timed to determine if and how long the user is viewing the VTA, Figs. 1-2D and 17). Based on the specification of the present application, the field-of-view image is the same as the presentation image (see specification ¶[0028] and ¶[0045]). As Farber teaches to utilize the coordinates of the user’s gaze within the presented images (see ¶[0252]-[0255]), Farber teaches the recitations of the present claim, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding Claim 28, Farber teaches a computer-implemented method for adaptive behavioral training by presenting a first visual training area (VTA) to a user, collecting user measurement data, including gaze, while the first VTA is shown, then presenting a second VTA (see abstract and Figs. 1-2D and 17). Farber teaches a sightline-position determination method (see abstract and Figs. 1-2D), comprising:
inputting a position of a sightline of a user (¶[0052], ¶[0057], and ¶[0253] the eye tracking measurement data recorded for the user during VTA presentation, ¶[0109] the usage of the commercial eye tracker to get the user gaze data; Fig. 1, the system is connected so that the gaze tracking data for the user is received);
setting a determination region (¶[0052]-[0054] the different stimuli that may be presented to the user, including VTA, ¶[0060]-[0063] the VTAs may be preset or modified based on commands/user data, including being modified in real time for subsequent VTA, ¶[0174]-[0179] the generation of the VTAs, with subsequent VTAs being reduced in size to concentrate more on the displayed human’s eyes; Figs. 1-2D and 17);
determining whether or not the inputted position of the sightline falls within the determination region (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTAs presented to the user while the user maintains their gaze on the VTAs, ¶[0252]-[0255] the VTA is presented to the user and measurement data is collected, the user’s gaze is timed to determine if and how long the user is viewing the VTA; Figs. 1-2D and 17), and
outputting feedback to the user when it is determined that the position of the sightline falls within the determination region (¶[0055]-[0056] the prompt which may be presented prior to, during or following the training stimulus, ¶[0252] the prompt may be audio and/or visual, ¶[0174]-[0179] the VTAs presented to the user while the user maintains their gaze on the VTAs, as subsequent VTAs get smaller if the user maintains their gaze on the initial larger VTAs, the subsequent smaller VTAs for difficulty increase are outputs, as subsequent VTAs only displayed if the user had maintained their gaze, ¶[0203]-[0212] the VTA presentation and gaze tracking of the user in order to identify emotions, output is provided to the user if the user is correct; Figs. 1-2D, 10A-10D, 17).
Regarding Claim 29, Farber teaches the method of claim 28 as stated above. Farber further teaches 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, and determining that the position of the sightline falls within the determination region, when the measured first time has reached a preset maintaining time (¶[0252]-[0255] the VTA is presented to the user and measurement data is collected, the user’s gaze is timed to determine if and how long the user is viewing the VTA, for example, the user must continuously view the training area for at least 0.25 seconds in order to qualify as having viewed the first VTA).
Regarding Claim 30, Farber teaches the method of claim 28 as stated above. Farber further teaches the feedback is output to the user in real-time (¶[0055]-[0056] the prompt which may be presented prior to, during or following the training stimulus, ¶[0060]-[0063] and ¶[0174]-[0179] the VTAs presented to the user while the user maintains their gaze on the VTAs, as subsequent VTAs get smaller if the user maintains their gaze on the initial larger VTAs, the subsequent smaller VTAs for difficulty increase are outputs, as subsequent VTAs only displayed if the user had maintained their gaze, the subsequent VTAs are presented in real-time to the user, and may be modified in real-time, ¶[0203]-[0212] the VTA presentation and gaze tracking of the user in order to identify emotions, output is provided to the user if the user is correct; Figs. 1-2D, 10A-10D, 17).
Regarding Claim 31, Farber teaches the method of claim 28 as stated above. Farber further teaches setting a target position to which the user directs a sightline; and setting the determination region including the target position (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTAs start out larger, covering the entire face before concentrating on the eyes, the goal is for eye contact, so the eyes are the target position for the user to direct their gaze; Figs. 2A-2D).
Regarding Claim 32, Farber teaches the method of claim 28 as stated above. Farber further teaches 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 (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTA comprises a human face, facing the user; Figs. 2A-2D).
Regarding Claim 33, Farber teaches the method of claim 28 as stated above. Farber further teaches 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 (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTA comprises a human face, facing the user; Figs. 2A-2D).
Regarding Claim 34, Farber teaches the method of claim 28 as stated above. Farber further teaches 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 (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTA comprises a human face, facing the user, in which the face is narrowed down to the eyes in subsequent VTA, when fully narrowed (i.e., Fig. 2C), the VTA is an oval with the eyes at either end, so the size would be based on the distance between the eyes; Figs. 2A-2D).
Regarding Claim 35, Farber teaches the method of claim 34 as stated above. Farber further teaches a lower limit value is set to the size of the determination region (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTA comprises a human face, facing the user, in which the face is narrowed down to the eyes in subsequent VTA, when fully narrowed (i.e., Fig. 2C), the VTA is an oval with the eyes at either end, so the size would be based on the distance between the eyes; Figs. 2A-2D). Here, the smallest VTA is set as the distance between the eyes (i.e., the VTA is an oval with the eyes at either end). As the specification of the present application indicates that the lower limit value may be based off of this distance (see specification ¶[0032]), Farber teaches the recitation of the claim, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding Claim 37, Farber teaches the method of claim 32 as stated above. Farber further teaches the animal is a human (¶[0174]-[0179] the VTA comprises a human face, facing the user; Figs. 2A-2D).
Regarding Claim 59, Farber teaches the method of claim 28 as stated above. Farber further teaches a monitoring method, comprising; applying the sightline-position determination method according to claim 28 (see above claim 28 mapping).
Regarding Claim 64, Farber teaches the method of claim 28 as stated above. Farber further teaches a method for diagnosing a neuropsychiatric disorder, comprising applying the sightline-position determination method according to claim 28 (see above claim 28 mapping). Here, the claim only requires “applying the method”. The “method for diagnosing a neuropsychiatric disorder” is recited in the claim’s preamble, and is therefore interpreted as intended use. As the method of claim 28 could be used for diagnosis by a medical professional (see Farber ¶[0260], the data may be used as basis or support for diagnosis for medical disorders or illnesses, ¶[0172], [0188], and ¶[0222] disabilities such as autism spectrum disorder), the method is capable of performing the intended use function.
Regarding Claim 65, Farber teaches the method of claim 28 as stated above. Farber further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the sightline-position determination method (¶[0048]-[0052], ¶[0057]-[0059] the computer for implementing the eye tracking, display, user input functions, and other aspects of the system, the software for running the system; Fig. 1) according to claim 28 (see above claim 28 mapping).
Regarding Claim 67, Farber teaches the method of claim 28 as stated above. Farber further teaches implementing diagnosis, severity classification, treatment, training and/or monitoring of a neuropsychiatric disorder or enhancement of a sightline communication ability based on the output feedback (¶[0259]-[0260] the data may be used as basis or support for diagnosis for medical disorders or illnesses, or as therapy to help with a disorder, ¶[0172], [0188], and ¶[0222] disabilities such as autism spectrum disorder).
Regarding Claim 68, Farber teaches the method of claim 67 as stated above. Farber further teaches the neuropsychiatric disorder is selected from anxiety disorders or neurodevelopmental disorders (¶[0172], [0188], and ¶[0222] disabilities such as autism spectrum disorder).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The succeeding art rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farber as applied to claim 35 above, and in view of Marggraff et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0123492), hereinafter Marggraff.
Regarding Claim 36, Farber teaches the method of claim 35 as stated above. Farber does not specifically teach 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.
Marggraff teaches systems and methods for discerning the intent of a device wearer based on eye movements and controlling the screen based on the eye movements/gaze (see abstract), in which a region with the target’s directed gaze (i.e., the foveal viewing region) is rendered with a higher resolution than an outside field-of-view region (i.e., non-foveal viewing region) at a lower resolution (see ¶[0047]-¶[0049]), in which the region of high resolution (i.e., the foveal viewing region) includes a degree of error consideration/buffer (so that the high resolution area is increased so that the user is always looking at a high resolution area), and the degree of error may include variance in gaze positions for a particular user and/or during recent usage (see ¶[0605]-[0615]). Here, the size of the region so that it is ensured that the user is viewing high resolution content is the lower limit, as it is the smallest area the user is estimated to view.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the degree of area about the region (i.e., lower limit) of Marggraff with the determination region (i.e., VTA) in Farber because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) it would ensure that the user could view the entirety of the VTA at a minimum (see Marggraff ¶[0605]-[0615]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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, JENNIFER M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/J.D.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights