DETAILED ACTION
The Amendments and Remarks filed on 10/15/2025 have been considered. The Applicants have cancelled claims 6, 14 and 22. Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-21 and 23-26 as amended are pending in the application.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15-21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloo et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0203379 (hereinafter “Sloo”), in view of Kempinski U.S. Publication 2015/0128075, and further in view of Chen et al. U.S. Publication 2019/0369716 (hereinafter “Chen”).
Referring to claim 1, Sloo teaches an electronic device comprising:
one or more sensors (Sloo: paragraph [0108]);
one or more displays (Sloo: paragraphs [0010] and [0012]);
one or more processors (Sloo: paragraph [0012] and claim 27); and
memory storing instructions configured to be executed by the one or more processors (Sloo: paragraph [0012] and claim 27), the instructions for:
displaying, using the one or more displays, a selection indicator at a selection region and a user interface element (for example, the electronic display shown in Figures 8A-8C displays a menu 820 comprising a plurality of user selectable options; the electronic display also displays a highlight window 822 at a selection region indicating the option that is currently highlighted) (Sloo: paragraphs [0010] and [0079]);
obtaining, via a first subset of the one or more sensors, an input (receive an input such as rotation of the ring, swipe across the touch-sensitive device, click input, etc.) (Sloo: paragraphs [0010], [0079] and [0108]);
in response to a determination that the input targets the user interface element and the user interface element is not located at the selection region and while the selection indicator is displayed, shifting the user interface element towards the selection region (as shown in Figures 8A for example: if the user input is rotating the ring in screen 801 to select the “SETTINGS” option, which is not currently located at the selection region corresponding to highlight window 822 in screen 801, then the “SETTINGS” option is moved towards the selection region as shown in screen 802) (Sloo: paragraphs [0010], [0079] and [0108]); and
in response to a determination that the input targets the user interface element and the user interface element is located at the selection region and while the selection indicator is displayed, performing an action associated with the user interface element (as shown in Figure 8C for example: if the user input is a selection input while the selectable option 809 is displayed in the selection region corresponding to highlight window 822, then an action such as displaying a second level mode menu 814 is performed) (Sloo: paragraphs [0010], [0079] and [0108]).
However, Sloo fails to explicitly teach that the input is a gaze input; obtaining, via a second subset of the one or more sensors, head pose information; and shifting the user interface element towards the selection region at a variable rate, wherein a magnitude of the variable rate is based on the head pose information. Similar to Sloo, Kempinski also teaches an electronic device that shifts a user interface element to a selection region in response to a user input (content displayed at an edge of the display screen can be moved, i.e. scrolled or browsed, to the center of the display screen; scrolling/browsing displayed items includes sequentially selecting items in a list) (Kempinski: paragraphs [0010], [0027], [0029] and [0037]). In addition, Kempinski teaches shifting the user interface element towards the selection region is in response to a gaze input (in response to determining that a user’s gaze is directed to a region with displayed content, the content being displayed in the region at which the gaze is directed is moved toward the center of the display screen) (Kempinski: paragraphs [0027] and [0038]); obtaining via a second subset of the one or more sensors, head pose information (Kempinski: paragraphs [0022]-[0024] and [0095]-[0099]; this is further shown in Figures 7A-7C); and shifting the user interface element towards the election at a variable rate (in response to determining that a user’s gaze is directed to content at an edge of the display screen, the content that is displayed at the edge can be moved, i.e. scrolled or browsed, to the center of the display screen; the rate or speed of scrolling can be altered based on the magnitude of eye gaze displacement) (Kempinski: paragraphs [0006], [0027], [0058] and [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input of Sloo to include the gaze input, head pose information and variable rate taught by Kempinski. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide convenient hands-free scrolling (Kempinski: paragraph [0030]).
Although the combination of Sloo and Kempinski (hereinafter “Sloo/Kempinski”) teaches obtaining, via a second subset of the one or more sensors, head pose information (Kempinski: paragraphs [0022]-[0024] and [0095]-[0099]; this is further shown in Figures 7A-7C) and shifting the user interface element towards the selection region at a variable rate (in response to determining that a user’s gaze is directed to content at an edge of the display screen, the content that is displayed at the edge can be moved, i.e. scrolled or browsed, to the center of the display screen; the rate or speed of scrolling can be altered based on the magnitude of eye gaze displacement) (Kempinski: paragraphs [0006], [0027], [0058] and [0064]), the combination of Sloo/Kempinski fails to explicitly teach that a magnitude of the variable rate is based on the head pose information. Instead, the combination of Sloo/Kempinski teaches that the magnitude of the variable rate is based on the magnitude of the eye gaze displacement. Similar to the combination of Sloo/Kempinski, Chen also teaches obtaining, via a first subset of one or more sensors, a gaze input (optical sensors determine a position of the eye to identify a selected object at the location that the eye is focusing on) (Chen: paragraphs [0043]-[0044]); obtaining, via a second subset of the one or more sensors, head pose information (determining direction and angle of head tilt) (Chen: paragraph [0046]); and shifting a user interface element (applying a movement or scrolling function to the selected object) (Chen: paragraphs [0044] and [0052]-[0054]). In addition, Chen teaches shifting the user interface element at a variable rate, wherein the magnitude of the variable rate is based on the head pose information (the scrolling speed of the selected object that the user is focusing on is variable based on the angle of head tilt) (Chen: paragraphs [0044] and [0046]). Since both the combination of Sloo/Kempinski and Chen teach adjusting the rate of the shift based on a certain criteria, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one type of rate shift criteria for another to achieve the predictable result of varying the shifting rate of the user interface element based on the particular criteria, in this case, head pose information.
Referring to claim 2, Sloo, as modified, teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein shifting the user interface element towards the selection region at a variable rate comprises shifting the user interface element towards the selection region at the variable rate while it is determined that the gaze input targets the user interface element (scrolling the object to the middle when it is determined that the gaze point is on the object) (Kempinski: paragraphs [0036]-[0037] and [0063]).
Referring to claim 3, Sloo, as modified, teaches wherein performing the action associated with the user interface is further in response to a determination that the gaze input targets the user interface element for more than a threshold length of time while the user interface element is located at the selection region (Sloo teaches performing an action such as displaying a second level mode menu 814 in response to a selection input of selectable option 809 shown in Figure 8C; Kempinski teaches the input selecting an object is based on determining that the gaze input remain on the object at the gaze point for a predetermined period of time) (Sloo: paragraph [0079]; Kempinski: paragraphs [0038] and [0063]).
Referring to claim 4, Sloo, as modified, teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein performing the action associated with the user interface element comprises increasing a size of the user interface element, displaying additional information, or adjusting an input-output device setting (performing an action includes displaying additional information such as a second level mode menu 814) (Sloo: paragraph [0079]).
Referring to claim 5, Sloo as modified, teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein shifting the user interface element towards the selected region at the variable rate comprises shifting an additional user interface element away from the selection region (as shown in Figure 8A for example: the selectable option “AWAY” that was previously displayed in the selection region corresponding to the highlight window 822 is shifted out of highlight window 822) (Sloo: paragraphs [0010] and [0079]).
Referring to claim 7, Sloo, as modified, teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein shifting the user interface element towards the selection region at the variable rate comprises shifting the user interface element in a first direction (as shown in Figure 8A for example: the selectable option of “SETTINGS” is shifted in a first direction, i.e. to the right, towards the selection region corresponding to the highlight window 822) (Sloo: paragraphs [0010] and [0079]) and wherein shifting the user interface element towards the selection region at the variable rate while it is determined that the gaze input targets the user interface element comprises:
increasing the variable rate in response to the head pose information indicating a head movement in the first direction (the scroll speed depends on the angle of head tilt; for example: when the user tilts their head in a particular direction from an angle of 0.1 to 5 degrees to an angle of 5.1 to 10 degrees, the scrolling speed increases) (Chen: paragraph [0046]); and
decreasing the variable rate in response to the head pose information indicating a head movement in a second direction that is opposite the first direction (the scroll speed depends on the angle of head tilt; head tilts in the range of 0.1 to 5 degrees has a slower scrolling speed than head tilts in the range of 5.1 to 10 degrees; for example: if the user tilts their head currently at an angle of 5.1 to 10 degrees and then tilts their head in the opposite direction so the tilt angle is now only 0.1 to 5 degrees, the scroll speed would be decreased) (Chen: paragraph [0046]).
Referring to claim 8, Sloo, as modified, teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the selection indicator comprises a partial outline of the selection region, a complete outline of the selection region, or a highlighted area (as shown in Figures 8A-8C for example, the highlight window 822 is outlined) (Sloo: paragraphs [0010] and [0079]).
Claims 9-13 and 15-16 recite a method embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the electronic device embodiment of claims 1-5 and 7-8. Therefore, the limitations of claims 9-13 and 15-16 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claims 1-5 and 7-8 above.
Claims 17-21 and 23-24 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the electronic device embodiment of claims 1-5 and 7-8. Therefore, the limitations of claims 17-21 and 23-24 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claims 1-5 and 7-8 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15-21 and 23-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Applicant argues that neither Sloo nor Kempinski teach that the shifting of the user interface element towards the selection region is done at a variable rate, wherein a magnitude of the variable rate is based on the head pose information (emphasis added), as recited in amended claim 1. This limitation is taught by the combination of Sloo and Kempinski with Chen.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TING ZHOU LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4058. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 9AM – 1PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. 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.
/TING Z LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171