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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-20 in the reply filed on 9/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/29/2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legalese - i.e. it is an almost verbatim copy of claim 8 and 15. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klingström (20200257359).
Regarding claim 8, Klingström discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 307) comprising computer readable code executable ([0106], 307 stores instructions which, when executed by the eye tracking system 300) by one or more processors ([0039], one or more processors) to: obtain environment sensor data from a first one or more sensors of a device (Fig 3, [0108], perform eye tracking for the eye 100); determine a current context for the device based on the environment sensor data ([0038], determine a combined gaze point as an average of the gaze points for the left and right eyes); determine that an eye state criterion is satisfied based on the current context ([0041], recalibrate the eye tracking system 300 when performance degradation is detected); in response to determining that the eye state criterion is satisfied (Fig 3, [0041]), determine a corrective operation in accordance with the eye state criterion ([0034], display 303 to show test stimulus points 305 for calibration of the eye tracking system 300); and cause the corrective operation to be performed, wherein performance of the corrective operation adjusts an environmental condition associated with the eye state criterion ([0041], recalibration of the cornea radius may therefore improve eye tracking performance significantly, even if the originally calibrated values are employed for the rest of the eye model).
Regarding claim 11, Klingström discloses wherein the computer readable code to cause the corrective operation to be performed ([0113], processing circuitry 304, software and/or encoded logic operable to provide computer functionality) comprises computer readable code to transmit a triggering notification to a second device to perform the corrective operation ([0034], 304 may also be communicatively connected to display 303, controlling (or triggering) display 303 to show test stimulus points 305 for calibration of eye tracking system 300).
Regarding claim 12, Klingström discloses wherein the computer readable code ([0113], processing circuitry 304, software and/or encoded logic operable to provide computer functionality) to cause the corrective operation to be performed comprises computer readable code to modify an operation of the device ([0107], perform calibration, the calibration comprising estimating values for a plurality of parameters defining respective optical properties of an eye 100) to perform the corrective operation ([0041], eye model is calibrated to properties of the individual user's eyes).
Regarding claim 13, Klingström discloses further comprising computer readable code ([0113], processing circuitry 304, software and/or encoded logic operable to provide computer functionality) to: determine a user activity based on sensor data from at least one of the first on or more sensors or a second sensor ([0039], 307 may store instructions for causing the eye tracking system 300 to perform an eye tracking method), wherein the eye characteristic is determined in accordance with the user activity ([0034], 305 for calibration of the eye tracking system 300).
Regarding claim 15, Klingström discloses a system (eye tracking system 300) comprising: one or more processors ([0039], one or more processors); and one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising computer readable code executable ([0106], 307 stores instructions which, when executed by the eye tracking system 300) by the one or more processors ([0039], one or more processors) to: obtain environment sensor data from a first one or more sensors of a device (Fig 3, [0108], perform eye tracking for the eye 100); determine a current context for the device based on the environment sensor data ([0038], determine a combined gaze point as an average of the gaze points for the left and right eyes); determine that an eye state criterion is satisfied based on the current context ([0041], recalibrate the eye tracking system 300 when performance degradation is detected); in response to determining that the eye state criterion is satisfied (Fig 3, [0041]), determine a corrective operation in accordance with the eye state criterion ([0034], display 303 to show test stimulus points 305 for calibration of the eye tracking system 300); and cause the corrective operation to be performed, wherein performance of the corrective operation adjusts an environmental condition associated with the eye state criterion ([0041], recalibration of the cornea radius may therefore improve eye tracking performance significantly, even if the originally calibrated values are employed for the rest of the eye model).
Regarding claim 18, Klingström discloses wherein the computer readable code to cause the corrective operation to be performed ([0113], processing circuitry 304, software and/or encoded logic operable to provide computer functionality) comprises computer readable code to transmit a triggering notification to a second device to perform the corrective operation ([0034], 304 may also be communicatively connected to display 303, controlling (or triggering) display 303 to show test stimulus points 305 for calibration of eye tracking system 300).
Regarding claim 19, Klingström discloses wherein the computer readable code ([0113], processing circuitry 304, software and/or encoded logic operable to provide computer functionality) to cause the corrective operation to be performed comprises computer readable code to modify an operation of the device ([0107], perform calibration, the calibration comprising estimating values for a plurality of parameters defining respective optical properties of an eye 100) to perform the corrective operation ([0041], eye model is calibrated to properties of the individual user's eyes).
Regarding claim 20, Klingström discloses further comprising computer readable code ([0113], processing circuitry 304, software and/or encoded logic operable to provide computer functionality) to: determine a user activity based on sensor data from at least one of the first on or more sensors or a second sensor ([0039], 307 may store instructions for causing the eye tracking system 300 to perform an eye tracking method), wherein the eye characteristic is determined in accordance with the user activity ([0034], 305 for calibration of the eye tracking system 300).
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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingström (20200257359) in view of Hazra (20210241676).
Regarding claim 9, Klingström discloses the invention as described within claim 8 but does not teach wherein the eye characteristic comprises at least one of eye coloration, pupil dilation, and blinking rate. However, in a similar endeavor, Hazra teaches wherein the eye characteristic comprises at least one of eye coloration, pupil dilation ([0073], pupil dilation of a user), and blinking rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the optical system of Klingström with the attributes of Hazra for the purpose of avoiding and optimizing the high computational demands associated with using a GPU within an imaging structure (Hazra, [0016]).
Regarding claim 10, Klingström discloses the invention as described within claim 8 but does not teach wherein the current context comprises at least one of ambient light, a current device activity, and a user routine. However, Hazra teaches wherein the current context comprises at least one of ambient light ([0044], ambient light sensor 190), a current device activity, and a user routine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the optical system of Klingström with the attributes of Hazra for the purpose of avoiding and optimizing the high computational demands associated with using a GPU within an imaging structure (Hazra, [0016]).
Regarding claim 16, Klingström discloses the invention as described within claim 15 but does not teach wherein the eye characteristic comprises at least one of eye coloration, pupil dilation, and blinking rate. However, Hazra teaches wherein the eye characteristic comprises at least one of eye coloration, pupil dilation ([0073], pupil dilation of a user), and blinking rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the optical system of Klingström with the attributes of Hazra for the purpose of avoiding and optimizing the high computational demands associated with using a GPU within an imaging structure (Hazra, [0016]).
Regarding claim 17, Klingström discloses the invention as described within claim 15 but does not teach wherein the current context comprises at least one of ambient light, a current device activity, and a user routine. However, Hazra teaches wherein the current context comprises at least one of ambient light ([0044], ambient light sensor 190), a current device activity, and a user routine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the optical system of Klingström with the attributes of Hazra for the purpose of avoiding and optimizing the high computational demands associated with using a GPU within an imaging structure (Hazra, [0016]).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingström (20200257359) in view of Burns (20210216146).
Regarding claim 14, Klingström discloses the invention as described within claim 8 but does not teach further comprising computer readable code to: obtain additional environmental data from a second device, wherein the current context for the device is further determined based on the additional environmental data. However, Burns teaches further comprising computer readable code ([0064], a processor executing code stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., a memory) to: obtain additional environmental data from a second device (secondary input 404), wherein the current context for the device is further determined based on the additional environmental data ([0061], 432 assigns a relatively high confidence level to the secondary input 404 because the environmental data indicates a high luminance level). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the optical system of Klingström with the attributes of Burns for the purpose of reducing measurement errors associated with utilizing an eye tracking system (Burns, [0054]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshika (20170344110), Cavin (20170263007), and Guenter (20170123488) are examples of a processor within a detector that operates by dynamically tracking the geometric relationship between a wearable device and a user's eyes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872