DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
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
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/045034, filed 12/08/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
This application claims foreign priority to Japanese patent application JP2020-212057, filed 12/22/2020. Therefore, the effective filing date of claims 1-18 is 12/22/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 06/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered in full. A signed copy of list of references cited from each IDS is included with this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informality: The phrase “extracts the cluster the information of which” lacks a comma separating the intended clauses and should read “extracts the cluster, the information of which”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/14/2023 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “information processing unit,” “information processing device,” “cluster configuring unit”, “resonant state emitting unit,” “feedback method determination unit” or “data acquisition unit” in claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13-15, and 18.
The information processing device has a general purpose computer with a CPU (¶ 17). However, the description of the units is not clear from the specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13-15, and 18 recite limitations for “units” that has been interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, the instant specification does not describe the algorithms associated with the “units” but rather merely restates the function of the “units”. MPEP § 2181.IV sets forth that mere restatement of function in the specification without description of the means to accomplish the function fails to provide adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Therefore, the “units” do not meet the written description requirement for means-plus-function limitations. The dependent claims inherit the issues without resolving them and are thus additionally rejected.
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 1-18 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.
Claim limitations for “units” in claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13-15, and 18 discussed above invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The dependent claims inherit these issues without resolving them and are thus additionally rejected.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 18 is non-statutory as it recites “a program”. The claims as instantly recited read on carrier waves, which are transitory propagating signals and therefore are not proper patentable subject matter because they do not fit within any of the four statutory categories of invention (In re Nuijten, Federal Circuit, 2007). It is noted that the recitation of a "non-transitory computer readable medium" would overcome the rejection with respect to claims 27 and 39 reading on signals. However, the amendment to only "non-transitory computer readable medium" would not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 since the claims would still be directed to a judicial exception without significantly more (see below).
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter ( Step 1 :. Claims 1-16 are directed to a system (yes), claim 17 is directed to a method (yes), claim 18 is directed to a non-statutory program (no)) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
1. estimates a resonant state between a user and a constituent member other than the user in a cluster including the user on a basis of biometric data of the user
2. estimates a level of consciousness of a constituent member other than the user about a phenomenon in each of the cluster on a basis of demographic information including information indicating a personal relationship of the user
2. estimates the resonant state of each of the cluster by comparing the level of consciousness of each of the cluster with reaction data for the phenomenon based on the biometric data of the user;
10. configures the cluster on a basis of the parameter.
11. the parameter includes at least one of a number of people constituting the cluster, a depth of friendship between constituent members of the cluster, a person to be included in the cluster, or a purpose of the cluster.
12. extracts the cluster on a basis of a degree of the resonant state of each of the cluster and a membership probability that is a probability that the user belongs to each of the cluster.
14. specifies the phenomenon corresponding to the biometric data on a basis of position information and line-of-sight information of the user.
15. estimates the resonant state on a basis of only the biometric data judged to be a positive reaction.
16. wherein the biometric data includes at least one of a heart rate, a biometric potential, or a tone of voice.
17. causing an information processing device to estimate a resonant state between a user and a constituent member other than the user in a cluster including the user on a basis of biometric data of the user
18. A program causing a computer to function as an information processing unit that estimates a resonant state between a user and a constituent member other than the user in a cluster including the user on a basis of biometric data of the user
The limitations for “configuring,” “extracting,” “specifying,” and “causing” are all verbal equivalents for a series of associations and transformations made to sets of data, which are so broadly recited that there are embodiments which could be carried out by a human being using a pen and paper. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. “Estimating” is a verbal equivalent to a calculation, and is therefore a mathematical concept. As such, claims 1-18 recite abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 1 : YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment for a condition. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment or mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exception via a generic treatment. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
1, 2, 17, 18. feeds back information to the user on a basis of the resonant state.
1. An information processing device
1. An information processing unit
2. A cluster configuring unit
2. A resonant state emitting unit
2. A feedback method determining unit
3. The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the feedback method determining unit extracts the cluster the information of which is fed back on a basis of the resonant state, and determines the feedback method to the user on a basis of a situation of at least one of the cluster that has been extracted or the constituent member in the cluster.
4. The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the feedback method is any one of a method of feeding back information regarding the resonant state of the cluster to the user, a method of feeding back information that gives awareness to the user, and a method of feeding back information that prompts an action to the user.
5. The information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the feedback method determining unit determines a presentation method of the information according to content of the information to be presented.
6. The information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the presentation method of the information is a method of presenting an image related to the information or a method of presenting the information by using an effect for the information.
7. The information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the presentation method of the information is a presentation method by display, audio, vibration, a change in color, or the like.
8. The information processing device according to claim 5 further comprising an information presentation unit that presents the information to the user on a basis of the feedback method and the presentation method of the information.
9. The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the cluster configuring unit generates an illustration expressing a personal relationship of the user viewed from the user by an actual spatial distance on a basis of information indicating the personal relationship of the user.
10. The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the cluster configuring unit sets a parameter indicating a condition for configuring the cluster in response to an operation of the user
13. The information processing device according to claim 2 further comprising a data acquisition unit that acquires the biometric data from a sensor.
The limitations for claims 1-4 10, 13, 17 and 18 are forms of “mere data gathering” and output because they are required steps for the action of the invention, similar to presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Regarding the limitations of claims 5-9, these limitations relate to aesthetic aspects of the data output, which are of no patentable weight – see In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (MPEP 2106.05(g)).. There are no limitations that indicate that the claimed “computer,” “information processing device,” “information processing unit,” “cluster configuring unit”, “resonant state emitting unit,” “feedback method determination unit” or “data acquisition unit” or the formats of the provided data require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 (MPEP 2106.05(f)). See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. As such, claims 1-18 are directed to an abstract idea ( Step 2A, Prong 2 : NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment. The instant claims recite additional elements enumerated above, in the section on step 2A.
The steps identified as mere data gathering and output in Step 2A Prong Two are well understood, routine, and conventional functions similar to presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Regarding the limitations of claims 5-9, these limitations relate to aesthetic aspects of the data output, which are of no patentable weight – see In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). As discussed above, there are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed “computer,” “information processing device,” “information processing unit,” “cluster configuring unit”, “resonant state emitting unit,” “feedback method determination unit” or “data acquisition unit” requires anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B : No). As such, claims 1-18 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishikawa et al. (JP2018045676A, IDS reference, henceforth “Nishikawa”).
Regarding claim 1, an information processing unit that estimates a resonant state between a user and a constituent member other than the user in a cluster including the user on a basis of biometric data of the user, and feeds back information to the user on a basis of the resonant state is taught by claim 1 of Nishikawa, which uses sensor devices to gather biometric data about a group of users to calculate a “degree of synchronization” between the users, and presents that information back to the users.
Claims 17 and 18 restate the method of claim 1 as an “information processing method” and as “a program,” respectively. The arguments against claim 1 apply, mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-11, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa as applied to claims 1 and 17-18 above rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2), and further in view of Rones (US20210065895A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nishikawa teaches estimating a “degree of interest” in the content of a lecture (¶ 2), which is a level of consciousness about a phenomenon. Nishikawa teaches giving feedback to the user (claim 1). Rones teaches clustering relationship information (¶ 78).
Nishikawa is silent as to using personal relationship information.
Rones teaches using personal relationship information to create a relationship monitoring system (abstract, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Rones teaches variable feedback based on the situation of the metrics between users (fig. 11).
Regarding claim 4, Nishikawa teaches feedback about the resonant state (claim 1). Rones teaches feedback prompting action (fig. 11) and giving awareness (fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 5, variable presentation according to content is determined in Rones (fig. 11).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Rones teaches reconfiguring the cluster to add more people or changing purpose, such as switching between or merging work and personal relationship clusters (¶ 44).
Regarding claim 13, biometric data is acquired from sensors in Nishikawa (abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Rones only judges users to be synchronized when biometric data is used to check the veracity of their responses about whether a relationship is positive (¶ 117-119).
Regarding claim 16, the biometrics of Rones include heart rate (¶ 119).
Regarding claims 2-11, 13, and 15-16, an invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention if some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. There is a teaching to use personal relationship information in the text of Rones, to better evaluate the relationship level between individuals (abstract). There would be a
reasonable expectation of success in making this combination to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as both inventions are measuring agreement between individuals. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the method of Nishikawa by incorporating the personal relationship information calculations of Rones, in order to better estimate the personal relationships between people (abstract).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa and Rones as applied to claims 1-5, 10-11, 13, and 15-18 above, and further in view of van der Maaten et al. (Tillburg University, 2009).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, presenting an image from information is the output of dimensionality reduction (pg 1 ¶ 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, variable presentation according to feedback method is taught by Rones (fig. 11).
Regarding claim 9, dimensionality reduction produces a visualization, or illustration, expressing information as spatial distance. Rones teaches presenting relationship information (fig. 11).
Regarding claims 6-9, An invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention if some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. There is a teaching to use dimensionality reduction to express information as distance in the text of van der Maaten (introduction ¶ 1-2). There would be a
reasonable expectation of success in making this combination to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as both methods are related to information presentation. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the method of Nishikawa and Rones by incorporating dimensionality reduction, in order to represent information as distance (abstract).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa and Rones as applied to claims 1-5, 10-11, 13, and 15-18 above, and further in view of Swamy (US 9336302 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Swamy states that “In many cases, a fuzzy or probabilistic clustering is converted to an exclusive clustering by assigning each object to the cluster in which its membership weight or probability is highest” (¶ 21).
Regarding claim 12, an invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention if some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. There is a teaching to use a probability of cluster membership to determine an exclusive clustering in the text of Swamy, because it converts a fuzzy clustering to an exclusive clustering (¶ 21). There would be a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as all the inventions are related to data clustering. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the method of Rones and Nishikawa by adding the membership probability determination of Swamy, in order to facilitate an exclusive clustering (¶ 21).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rones and Nishikawa as applied to claims 1-5, 10-11, 13, and 15-18 above, and further in view of Nils et al. (JP2013050945A, henceforth “Nils”).
Regarding claim 14, Nils teaches using position information and line-of-sight information to group individuals (abstract).
Regarding claim 14, an invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention if some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. There is a teaching to use line-of-sight tracking and position information in the text of Nils, in order to track people’s interest in advertisements (abstract). There would be a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as Nishikawa, Rones, and Nils are all related to tracking a person’s interest. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the method of Rones and Nishikawa by incorporating the line-of-sight tracking and position information, in order to gauge people’s interest in each other and in subjects (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACELYN M HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-9871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5pm.
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, Olivia M Wise can be reached at 571-272-2249. 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.
/G.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/Robert J. Kallal/Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights