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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to application communication filed on 1/17/2024.
2. Claims 21-40 are pending in the case.
3. Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
4. Claims 1, 35 and 40 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 31 should read “larger” to read more clearly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: ref. no. 402B and 410B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 31, 33, 34 and 37 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 dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "wherein the third size of the second selection zone is large than the second size of the first UI element." (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 recites the first selection zone having a second size. Therefore, it appears claim 31 should read “the second size of the first selection zone
Claim 33 recites the limitation " wherein the third size of the second selection zone is smaller than the second size of the first UI element." (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 recites the first selection zone having a second size. Therefore, it appears claim 33 should read “the second size of the first selection zone
Claim 37 recites the limitation " wherein the third size of the second UI element is different from the default size." (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 recites the second selection zone having a third size. Therefore, it appears claim 33 should read “the third size of the second selection zone
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11073904 B2 in view of Vennstrom et al. (hereinafter “Vennstrom”), U.S. Published Application No. 20150177833 A1.
Independent Claim 21:
Patent 904 teaches A system comprising:
a processor;
and memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed, performs operations comprising:
receiving, at a user interface (UI) comprising a first UI element and a second UI element of a first size, (claim 1; A processor-implemented method for providing user interface (UI) element selection using eye-gaze, comprising: identifying a first area surrounding a boundary of a UI element within a user interface; identifying a second area surrounding the boundary of the UI element within the user interface)
first gaze input associated with a first selection zone of the first UI element, the first selection zone surrounding a boundary of the first UI element and having a second size; (claim 1; identifying a first score assigned to the first area surrounding the boundary of the UI element; identifying a second score assigned to the second area surrounding the boundary of the UI element, wherein the second score is different from the first score; identifying a threshold for the UI element; receiving, over a period of time, a series of gaze inputs comprising a first set of gaze locations within the first area)
based on the first gaze input, determining a first action response for the first UI element; (claim 1; based on the comparison of the aggregated score with the threshold, determining at least one action response associated with the UI element;)
receiving second gaze input associated with the second selection zone; and based on the second gaze input, determining a second action response for the second UI element. (claim 1; based on the comparison of the aggregated score with the threshold, determining at least one action response associated with the UI element;)
Patent 904 fails to expressly teach in response to the first action response, modifying a second selection zone surrounding a boundary of the second UI element to a third size that is different from the second size, the second UI element maintaining the first size while the second selection zone is the third size;
However, Vennstromm teaches in response to the first action response, modifying a second selection zone surrounding a boundary of the second UI element to a third size that is different from the second size, the second UI element maintaining the first size while the second selection zone is the third size; (e.g., in response to a previous choice, modifying a selection area of a button marked “ok” while the selection area size (i.e., modifying a second selection zone) is dependent on the weight values see Figure 5A; illustrates assigning different weights resulting in different volume sizes of the selection areas par. 69; The size of the selection area depends on the weighting of the interaction element, par. 86; For example, a button marked "OK" may be assigned a high weighting if it is likely that the user will want to confirm a previous choice or the like by activating the button. Par. 91; Furthermore, The interaction element 540 of the figure also appears to have a high likelihood of being of interest to the user, based on its properties or the previous behavior of the user as discussed herein, since the weighted volume 560, based on the interaction element 540, has a greater "height" in the z direction then the weighted volume 550, based on the interaction element 500. Par. 128; For a first and a second interaction elements, wherein the first interaction element was identified, and possibly also selected, at the previous time instance: )
In the analogous art of eye input recognition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a selection zone size of a UI element as taught by Patent 904 to be based weights as taught by Vennstrom, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide the benefit of an dynamic selection zone area in effort to improve the accuracy of UI element selection based on eye input.
Claim 22 depends on claim 21:
Patent 904 fails to expressly teach the operations further comprising: prior to receiving the first gaze input, receiving UI layout data indicating at least one of: a type of UI elements presented in the UI; a location of UI elements presented in the UI; or an importance of UI elements presented in the UI.
Vennstrom teaches the operations further comprising: prior to receiving the first gaze input, receiving UI layout data indicating at least one of: a type of UI elements presented in the UI; a location of UI elements presented in the UI; or an importance of UI elements presented in the UI. (e.g., processor retrieving user interface layout data indicating the properties of user interaction elements or importance of user interaction elements based on contextual information par. 86; Information on where in the GUI interaction elements are located, and/or the size of the interaction elements, may be preset by a system developer at the distributor of the GUI, or input by a system developer using the system 1 at a later time, via an API, for example during operation of the system 1 or as a separate process based on input from one or more sessions of a user interacting with the system 1. Par. 86; For example, interaction element related properties may comprise information on how the interaction element is intended to be used (just to be looked at, selection, activation of a function etc.) and what the user intends to achieve by looking at and/or interacting with the interaction element (close window, open window, expand menu, scroll page etc.) par. 86; Interaction element related properties may in embodiments be context related, as described herein, which may in turn generate a higher weighting value for interaction elements that are important according in the specific context).
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 user interface activating UI elements in response to gaze input as taught by Patent 904 to include retrieved layout data in respect to UI elements as taught by Vennstrom, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide the benefit of establishing context to better assist the user in utilizing the displayed UI elements based on gaze input.
Claim 23 depends on claim 22:
Patent 904 teaches wherein the UI layout data further indicates UI element selection zones for the UI elements presented in the UI. (claim 1; identifying a first area surrounding a boundary of a UI element within a user interface; identifying a second area surrounding the boundary of the UI element within the user interface, wherein the first area encircles the second area; )
Claim 24 depends on claim 22:
Patent 904 teaches wherein the UI element selection zones are at least one of rectangular-shaped or circular-shaped. (claim 6; wherein the first area corresponds to a first concentric shape and the second area corresponds to a second concentric shape inside the first concentric shape.)
Claim 25 depends on claim 21:
Patent 904 teaches wherein the first selection zone is assigned a first score and the second selection zone is assigned a second score. (claim 1; identifying a first score assigned to the first area surrounding the boundary of the UI element; identifying a second score assigned to the second area surrounding the boundary of the UI element)
Claim 26 depends on claim 21:
Patent 904 teaches wherein: the first gaze input includes a series of gaze locations corresponding to pixel coordinates of the UI;
and determining the first action response for the first UI element comprises: creating a set of first scores by assigning the first score to each gaze location of the gaze locations that is located within the first selection zone;
calculating a sum based on the set of first scores;
and comparing the sum to an action response threshold for the first UI element. (claim 1; receiving, over a period of time, a series of gaze inputs comprising a first set of gaze locations within the first area and a second set of gaze locations within the second area; assigning the first score to each gaze input in the first set of gaze locations; assigning the second score to each gaze input in the second set of gaze locations; calculating an aggregated score associated with the series of gaze inputs by aggregating the first score and the second score; comparing the aggregated score with the threshold for the UI element; based on the comparison of the aggregated score with the threshold, determining at least one action response associated with the UI element; and performing the at least one action response.) (claim 8; wherein a sum of the first score and the second score is less than the threshold associated with the UI element.)
Claim 27 depends on claim 26:
Patent 904 teaches wherein: if the sum exceeds the action response threshold, the first UI element is activated; and if the sum does not exceed the action response threshold, the first UI element is not activated. (claim 1; based on the comparison of the aggregated score with the threshold, determining at least one action response associated with the UI element; and performing the at least one action response.)
Claim 28 depends on claim 26:
Patent 904 teaches wherein a value of the action response threshold is determined based on historical user activity associated with the first UI element. (claim 4; wherein the threshold is associated with a probability that the UI element is intended for selection.) (claim 5; wherein the probability is a statistical probability based at least in part on historical data)
Claim 29 depends on claim 28:
Patent 904 fails to expressly teach wherein: if the historical user activity indicates the first UI element has been previously selected at least a predefined number of times, the action response threshold is reduced from a default value; and if the historical user activity indicates the first UI element has not been previously selected at least the predefined number of times, the action response threshold is not reduced from the default value.
However, Vennstromm teaches wherein: if the historical user activity indicates the first UI element has been previously selected at least a predefined number of times, the action response threshold is reduced from a default value; and if the historical user activity indicates the first UI element has not been previously selected at least the predefined number of times, the action response threshold is not reduced from the default value. (e.g., threshold value determined in real time based on properties of the interaction elements such as collected data indicating that the user often interacts with the interaction element (i.e., historical user activity associated with UI element) Examiner notes that the threshold value set by the system developer would be the default value which would be change based on the real time calculations associated with past interactions with the interaction element. Vennstrom; par. 85; In embodiments, an interaction element that has a high likelihood to be selected by the user of the system, based on its properties, for example comprising a selection of: intended use; visual context; interaction context; and/or collected data indicating that the user often interacts with the interaction element, will be assigned a high weighting value. par. 133; In different embodiments, the threshold value is preset by a system developer, retrieved from the memory 115, or calculated in real-time based on a selection of: properties of the UI; properties of the interaction elements; psychological properties of the user; physiological properties of the human eye; detected noise; and/or offset.)
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 user interface activating UI elements in response to gaze input as taught by Patent 904 to include dynamic thresholds and collected past usage data retrieved layout data in respect to UI elements as taught by Vennstrom, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide the benefit of establishing selection context to better assist the user in activating the displayed UI elements based on gaze input.
Claim 30 depends on claim 21:
Patent 904 teaches wherein the first selection zone of the first UI element is surrounded by a second selection zone of the first UI element, the second selection zone of the first UI element being a larger size than the first size and the second size. (claim 6; wherein the first area corresponds to a first concentric shape and the second area corresponds to a second concentric shape inside the first concentric shape..)
Claim 31 depends on claim 21:
Patent 904 teaches wherein the third size of the second selection zone is [[large]] larger than the second size of the first UI element. (claim 6; wherein the first area corresponds to a first concentric shape and the second area corresponds to a second concentric shape inside the first concentric shape..)
Claim 32 depends on claim 31:
Patent 904 teaches wherein it is determined that the second UI element is statistically likely to be selected in response to selection of the first UI element. (claim 4; wherein the threshold is associated with a probability that the UI element is intended for selection.) (claim 5; wherein the probability is a statistical probability based at least in part on historical data)
Claim 33 depends on claim 21:
Patent 904 teaches wherein the third size of the second selection zone is smaller than the second size of the first UI element. (claim 6; wherein the first area corresponds to a first concentric shape and the second area corresponds to a second concentric shape inside the first concentric shape..)
Claim 34 depends on claim 33:
Patent 904 teaches wherein it is determined that the second UI element is statistically unlikely to be selected in response to selection of the first UI element. (claim 4; wherein the threshold is associated with a probability that the UI element is intended for selection.) (claim 5; wherein the probability is a statistical probability based at least in part on historical data)
Independent claim 35:
Claim 35 is substantially encompassed in claim 21, therefore, Examiner relies on the same rationale set forth in claim 21 to reject claim 35.
Claim 36 depends on claim 35:
Patent 904 teaches wherein the UI is associated with UI layout data indicating a default size for the first selection zone and the second selection zone. (claim 6; wherein the first area corresponds to a first concentric shape and the second area corresponds to a second concentric shape inside the first concentric shape.)
Claim 37 depends on claim 36:
Patent 904 teaches wherein the third size of the second UI element is different from the default size. (claim 6; wherein the first area corresponds to a first concentric shape and the second area corresponds to a second concentric shape inside the first concentric shape.)
Claim 38 depends on claim 35:
Patent 904 teaches wherein the first selection zone of the first UI element is within a second selection zone of the first UI element,
the first selection zone of the first UI element and the second selection zone of the first UI element having different score values. (claim 1; identifying a first area surrounding a boundary of a UI element within a user interface; identifying a second area surrounding the boundary of the UI element within the user interface, wherein the first area encircles the second area; identifying a first score assigned to the first area surrounding the boundary of the UI element; identifying a second score assigned to the second area surrounding the boundary of the UI element, wherein the second score is different from the first score;)
Claim 39 depends on claim 35:
Patent 904 teaches wherein selecting the first UI element based on the first gaze input comprises determining a predefined number of gaze locations with the first gaze input are located within the first selection zone. ( claim 1; receiving, over a period of time, a series of gaze inputs comprising a first set of gaze locations within the first area and a second set of gaze locations within the second area; assigning the first score to each gaze input in the first set of gaze locations; assigning the second score to each gaze input in the second set of gaze locations;)
Independent Claim 40:
Claim 40 is substantially encompassed in claim 21, therefore, Examiner relies on the same rationale set forth in claim 21 to reject claim 40.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11907419 B2 in view of Vennstrom et al. (hereinafter “Vennstrom”), U.S. Published Application No. 20150177833 A1.
Independent Claim 21:
Patent 419 teaches A system comprising:
a processor;
and memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed, performs operations comprising:
receiving, at a user interface (UI) comprising a first UI element and a second UI element of a first size, (claim 1; A system comprising: a processor; and memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, performs a method comprising: receiving, within a user interface, a first series of gaze inputs associated with at least a first selection zone of a first UI element, wherein the first selection zone of the first UI element is assigned a first score; identifying a previous or default score for the first selection zone of the second UI element; )
first gaze input associated with a first selection zone of the first UI element, the first selection zone surrounding a boundary of the first UI element and having a second size; (claim 1; receiving, within a user interface, a first series of gaze inputs associated with at least a first selection zone of a first UI element, wherein the first selection zone of the first UI element is assigned a first score) (claim 2; wherein: the first selection zone of the first UI element surrounds a boundary of the first UI element; and a second selection zone of the first UI element surrounds the first selection zone of the first UI element.)
based on the first gaze input, determining a first action response for the first UI element; (claim 1; based on the first UI element score, performing an action response associated with the first UI element; in response to the action response)
receiving second gaze input associated with the second selection zone; and based on the second gaze input, determining a second action response for the second UI element. (claim 1; and in response to determining, by the predictive analysis algorithm, that a second series of gaze inputs is likely to be directed toward the second UI element following the action response, increasing the previous or default score to the second score;)(claim 9; wherein using the predictive analysis algorithm to dynamically assign the second score to the first selection zone of the second UI element comprises: determining the second UI element is a critical key having a function beyond character entry)
Patent 419 fails to expressly teach in response to the first action response, modifying a second selection zone surrounding a boundary of the second UI element to a third size that is different from the second size, the second UI element maintaining the first size while the second selection zone is the third size;
However, Vennstromm teaches in response to the first action response, modifying a second selection zone surrounding a boundary of the second UI element to a third size that is different from the second size, the second UI element maintaining the first size while the second selection zone is the third size; (e.g., in response to a previous choice, modifying a selection area of a button marked “ok” while the selection area size (i.e., modifying a second selection zone) is dependent on the weight values see Figure 5A; illustrates assigning different weights resulting in different volume sizes of the selection areas par. 69; The size of the selection area depends on the weighting of the interaction element, par. 86; For example, a button marked "OK" may be assigned a high weighting if it is likely that the user will want to confirm a previous choice or the like by activating the button. Par. 91; Furthermore, The interaction element 540 of the figure also appears to have a high likelihood of being of interest to the user, based on its properties or the previous behavior of the user as discussed herein, since the weighted volume 560, based on the interaction element 540, has a greater "height" in the z direction then the weighted volume 550, based on the interaction element 500. Par. 128; For a first and a second interaction elements, wherein the first interaction element was identified, and possibly also selected, at the previous time instance: )
In the analogous art of eye input recognition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a selection zone size of a UI element as taught by Patent 419 to be based weights as taught by Vennstrom, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide the benefit of an dynamic selection zone area in effort to improve the accuracy of UI element selection based on eye input.
Claim 22 depends on claim 21:
Patent 419 fails to expressly teach the operations further comprising: prior to receiving the first gaze input, receiving UI layout data indicating at least one of: a type of UI elements presented in the UI; a location of UI elements presented in the UI; or an importance of UI elements presented in the UI.
Vennstrom teaches the operations further comprising: prior to receiving the first gaze input, receiving UI layout data indicating at least one of: a type of UI elements presented in the UI; a location of UI elements presented in the UI; or an importance of UI elements presented in the UI. (e.g., processor retrieving user interface layout data indicating the properties of user interaction elements or importance of user interaction elements based on contextual information par. 86; Information on where in the GUI interaction elements are located, and/or the size of the interaction elements, may be preset by a system developer at the distributor of the GUI, or input by a system developer using the system 1 at a later time, via an API, for example during operation of the system 1 or as a separate process based on input from one or more sessions of a user interacting with the system 1. Par. 86; For example, interaction element related properties may comprise information on how the interaction element is intended to be used (just to be looked at, selection, activation of a function etc.) and what the user intends to achieve by looking at and/or interacting with the interaction element (close window, open window, expand menu, scroll page etc.) par. 86; Interaction element related properties may in embodiments be context related, as described herein, which may in turn generate a higher weighting value for interaction elements that are important according in the specific context).
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 user interface activating UI elements in response to gaze input as taught by Patent 419 to include retrieved layout data in respect to UI elements as taught by Vennstrom, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide the benefit of establishing context to better assist the user in utilizing the displayed UI elements based on gaze input.
Claim 23 depends on claim 22:
Patent 419 teaches wherein the UI layout data further indicates UI element selection zones for the UI elements presented in the UI. (claim 2; wherein: the first selection zone of the first UI element surrounds a boundary of the first UI element; and a second selection zone of the first UI element surrounds the first selection zone of the first UI element. )
Claim 24 depends on claim 22:
Patent 419 teaches wherein the UI element selection zones are at least one of rectangular-shaped or circular-shaped. (claim 4; wherein: the first selection zone of the first UI element surrounds a center point of the first UI element, the first selection zone comprising less than all of the first UI element; and a second selection zone of the first UI element encircles the first selection zone of the first UI element.)
Claim 25 depends on claim 21:
Patent 419 teaches wherein the first selection zone is assigned a first score and the second selection zone is assigned a second score. (claim 1; wherein the first selection zone of the first UI element is assigned a first score; and in response to determining, by the predictive analysis algorithm, that a second series of gaze inputs is likely to be directed toward the second UI element following the action response, increasing the previous or default score to the second score; receiving, within the user interface, the second series of gaze inputs directed toward the first selection zone of the second UI element; assigning the second score to one or more gaze inputs in the second series of gaze inputs; and aggregating each second score assigned to the one or more gaze inputs in the second series of gaze inputs to calculate a second UI element score for the second UI element.)
Claim 26 depends on claim 21:
Patent 419 teaches wherein: the first gaze input includes a series of gaze locations corresponding to pixel coordinates of the UI;
and determining the first action response for the first UI element comprises: creating a set of first scores by assigning the first score to each gaze location of the gaze locations that is located within the first selection zone;
calculating a sum based on the set of first scores;
and comparing the sum to an action response threshold for the first UI element. (claim 1; assigning the first score to one or more gaze inputs in the first series of gaze inputs; aggregating each first score assigned to the one or more gaze inputs in the first series of gaze inputs to calculate a first UI element score for the first UI element; based on the first UI element score, performing an action response associated with the first UI element; in response to the action response, using a predictive analysis algorithm to dynamically assign a second score to a first selection zone of a second UI element within the user interface, wherein dynamically assigning the second score to the first selection zone comprises: identifying a previous or default score for the first selection zone of the second UI element; and in response to determining, by the predictive analysis algorithm, that a second series of gaze inputs is likely to be directed toward the second UI element following the action response, increasing the previous or default score to the second score; receiving, within the user interface, the second series of gaze inputs directed toward the first selection zone of the second UI element; assigning the second score to one or more gaze inputs in the second series of gaze inputs; and aggregating each second score assigned to the one or more gaze inputs in the second series of gaze inputs to calculate a second UI element score for the second UI element.) (claim 5; wherein performing the action response associated with the first UI element comprises: comparing the first UI element score to a first threshold for the first UI element; and when the first UI element score exceeds the first threshold, activating the first UI element.)
Claim 27 depends on claim 26:
Patent 419 teaches wherein: if the sum exceeds the action response threshold, the first UI element is activated; and if the sum does not exceed the action response threshold, the first UI element is not activated. (claim 5; wherein performing the action response associated with the first UI element comprises: comparing the first UI element score to a first threshold for the first UI element; and when the first UI element score exceeds the first threshold, activating the first UI element.)
Claim 28 depends on claim 26:
Patent 419 teaches wherein a value of the action response threshold is determined based on historical user activity associated with the first UI element. (claim 6; wherein the predictive analysis algorithm is based on at least one of contextual information or historical eye-gaze typing patterns) (claim 8; wherein the historical eye-gaze typing patterns comprise at least one of: user data related to a document; or data associated with past user actions related to the document.)
Claim 29 depends on claim 28:
Patent 419 fails to expressly teach wherein: if the historical user activity indicates the first UI element has been previously selected at least a predefined number of times, the action response threshold is reduced from a default value; and if the historical user activity indicates the first UI element has not been previously selected at least the predefined number of times, the action response threshold is not reduced from the default value.
However, Vennstromm teaches wherein: if the historical user activity indicates the first UI element has been previously selected at least a predefined number of times, the action response threshold is reduced from a default value; and if the historical user activity indicates the first UI element has not been previously selected at least the predefined number of times, the action response threshold is not reduced from the default value. (e.g., threshold value determined in real time based on properties of the interaction elements such as collected data indicating that the user often interacts with the interaction element (i.e., historical user activity associated with UI element) Examiner notes that the threshold value set by the system developer would be the default value which would be change based on the real time calculations associated with past interactions with the interaction element. Vennstrom; par. 85; In embodiments, an interaction element that has a high likelihood to be selected by the user of the system, based on its properties, for example comprising a selection of: intended use; visual context; interaction context; and/or collected data indicating that the user often interacts with the interaction element, will be assigned a high weighting value. par. 133; In different embodiments, the threshold value is preset by a system developer, retrieved from the memory 115, or calculated in real-time based on a selection of: properties of the UI; properties of the interaction elements; psychological properties of the user; physiological properties of the human eye; detected noise; and/or offset.)
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 user interface activating UI elements in response to gaze input as taught by Patent 419 to include dynamic thresholds and collected past usage data retrieved layout data in respect to UI elements as taught by Vennstrom, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide the benefit of establishing selection context to better assist the user in activating the displayed UI elements based on gaze input.
Claim 30 depends on claim 21:
Patent 419 teaches wherein the first selection zone of the first UI element is surrounded by a second selection zone of the first UI element, the second selection zone of the first UI element being a larger size than the first size and the second size. (claim 4; wherein: the first selection zone of the first UI element surrounds a center point of the first UI element, the first selection zone comprising less than all of the first UI element; and a second selection zone of the first UI element encircles the first selection zone of the first UI element.)
Claim 31 depends on claim 21:
Patent 904 teaches wherein the third size of the second selection zone is [[large]] larger than the second size of the first UI element. (claim 4; wherein: the first selection zone of the first UI element surrounds a center point of the first UI element, the first selection zone comprising less than all of the first UI element; and a second selection zone of the first UI element encircles the first selection zone of the first UI element.)
Claim 32 depends on claim 31:
Patent 419 teaches wherein it is determined that the second UI element is statistically likely to be selected in response to selection of the first UI element. (claim 6; wherein the predictive analysis algorithm is based on at least one of contextual information or historical eye-gaze typing patterns.) (claim 7; wherein the contextual information comprises at least one of: a type of application in use; previous message context in a conversation; substantive content in a document; GPS location of a user; or an intended recipient of a message.)
Claim 33 depends on claim 21:
Patent 419 teaches wherein the third size of the second selection zone is smaller than the second size of the first UI element. (claim 4; wherein: the first selection zone of the first UI element surrounds a center point of the first UI element, the first selection zone comprising less than all of the first UI element; and a second selection zone of the first UI element encircles the first selection zone of the first UI element.)
Claim 34 depends on claim 33:
Patent 419 teaches wherein it is determined that the second UI element is statistically unlikely to be selected in response to selection of the first UI element. (claim 6; wherein the predictive analysis algorithm is based on at least one of contextual information or historical eye-gaze typing patterns.) (claim 7; wherein the contextual information comprises at least one of: a type of application in use; previous message context in a conversation; substantive content in a document; GPS location of a user; or an intended recipient of a message.)
Independent claim 35:
Claim 35 is substantially encompassed in claim 21, therefore, Examiner relies on the same rationale set forth in claim 21 to reject claim 35.
Claim 36 depends on claim 35:
Patent 419 teaches wherein the UI is associated with UI layout data indicating a default size for the first selection zone and the second selection zone. (claim 4; wherein: the first selection zone of the first UI element surrounds a center point of the first UI element, the first selection zone comprising less than all of the first UI element; and a second selection zone of the first UI element encircles the first selection zone of the first UI element.)
Claim 37 depends on claim 36:
Patent 419 teaches wherein the third size of the second UI element is different from the default size. (claim 2; wherein: the first selection zone of the first UI element surrounds a boundary of the first UI element; and a second selection zone of the first UI element surrounds the first selection zone of the first UI element.)(claim 4; wherein: the first selection zone of the first UI element surrounds a center point of the first UI element, the first selection zone comprising less than all of the first UI element; and a second selection zone of the first UI element encircles the first selection zone of the first UI element.)
Claim 38 depends on claim 35:
Patent 419 teaches wherein the first selection zone of the first UI element is within a second selection zone of the first UI element,
the first selection zone of the first UI element and the second selection zone of the first UI element having different score values. (claim 9; wherein using the predictive analysis algorithm to dynamically assign the second score to the first selection zone of the second UI element comprises: determining the second UI element is a critical key having a function beyond character entry.) (claim 10; wherein the critical key is associated with a second activation threshold that is lower than a first activation threshold for the second UI element.)
Claim 39 depends on claim 35:
Patent 419 teaches wherein selecting the first UI element based on the first gaze input comprises determining a predefined number of gaze locations with the first gaze input are located within the first selection zone. ( claim 1; receiving, within a user interface, a first series of gaze inputs associated with at least a first selection zone of a first UI element, wherein the first selection zone of the first UI element is assigned a first score; assigning the first score to one or more gaze inputs in the first series of gaze inputs; aggregating each first score assigned to the one or more gaze inputs in the first series of gaze inputs to calculate a first UI element score for the first UI element;)
Independent Claim 40:
Claim 40 is substantially encompassed in claim 21, therefore, Examiner relies on the same rationale set forth in claim 21 to reject claim 40.
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.
Claims 21-25 and 30-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Vennstrom et al. (hereinafter “Vennstrom”), U.S. Published Application No. 20150177833 A1.
Independent Claim 21:
Vennstrom teaches A system comprising:
a processor; (e.g., configured processor of system par. 29; the processor is configured to identify an interaction element based on the weights.)
and memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed, performs operations comprising: (see Figure 1C; memory coupled to processor par. 62; As shown in FIG. 1c, the system 1 further comprises a processing device, or processor, 150 that is connected to or communicatively coupled to the one or more imaging devices 130 and the display device 120. par. 63; the system 1 further comprises at least one memory 115 integrated in, connected to or communicatively coupled to the system 1.)
receiving, at a user interface (UI) comprising a first UI element and a second UI element of a first size, (e.g., user interface interaction elements having a default size par. 86; Information on where in the GUI interaction elements are located, and/or the size of the interaction elements, may be preset by a system developer at the distributor of the GUI)
first gaze input associated with a first selection zone of the first UI element, the first selection zone surrounding a boundary of the first UI element and having a second size; (e.g., gaze input associated with weighted selection areas (i.e., selection zones having a size dependent on assigned weights ) surrounding user interface interaction elements par. 69; A selection area in the context of the invention is an area defined for a specific interaction element, wherein the selection area at least partly overlaps the area of the interaction element. Typically, the selection area coincides with or comprises the area of the interaction element. The size of the selection area depends on the weighting of the interaction element, based on the properties of the interaction element, the interaction context, the psychological properties of the user and the physiological properties of the human eye, as discussed herein. Par. 91; The shape and size of the selection area may in turn be based on weighting information for the respective interaction elements, such as objects and/or areas in the UI.)
based on the first gaze input, determining a first action response for the first UI element; (e.g., gaze input to confirm a previous choice (i.e., first action) par. 86; For example, interaction element related properties may comprise information on how the interaction element is intended to be used (just to be looked at, selection, activation of a function etc.) and what the user intends to achieve by looking at and/or interacting with the interaction element (close window, open window, expand menu, scroll page etc.) For example, a button marked "OK" may be assigned a high weighting if it is likely that the user will want to confirm a previous choice or the like by activating the button.)
in response to the first action response, modifying a second selection zone surrounding a boundary of the second UI element to a third size that is different from the second size, the second UI element maintaining the first size while the second selection zone is the third size; (e.g., in response to a previous choice, modifying a selection area of a button marked “ok” while the selection area size (i.e., modifying a second selection zone) is dependent on the weight values see Figure 5A; illustrates assigning different weights resulting in different volume sizes of the selection areas par. 69; The size of the selection area depends on the weighting of the interaction element, par. 86; For example, a button marked "OK" may be assigned a high weighting if it is likely that the user will want to confirm a previous choice or the like by activating the button. Par. 91; Furthermore, The interaction element 540 of the figure also appears to have a high likelihood of being of interest to the user, based on its properties or the previous behavior of the user as discussed herein, since the weighted volume 560, based on the interaction element 540, has a greater "height" in the z direction then the weighted volume 550, based on the interaction element 500. Par. 128; For a first and a second interaction elements, wherein the first interaction element was identified, and possibly also selected, at the previous time instance: )
receiving second gaze input associated with the second selection zone; and based on the second gaze input, determining a second action response for the second UI element. (e.g., gaze input to select a button marked “OK” associated with selection area (i.e., second selection zone) par. 69; The size of the selection area depends on the weighting of the interaction element, based on the properties of the interaction element, the interaction context, the psychological properties of the user and the physiological properties of the human eye, as discussed herein. par. 86; For example, interaction element related properties may comprise information on how the interaction element is intended to be used (just to be looked at, selection, activation of a function etc.) and what the user intends to achieve by looking at and/or interacting with the interaction element (close window, open window, expand menu, scroll page etc.) For example, a button marked "OK" may be assigned a high weighting if it is likely that the user will want to confirm a previous choice or the like by activating the button. Par. 134; If the second interaction element has a weight value that is larger than the weight value of the first interaction element, and the difference exceeds the threshold value, the method further comprises: par. 135; In step S354: selecting the second interaction element. )
Claim 22 depends on claim 21:
Vennstrom teaches the operations further comprising: prior to receiving the first gaze input, receiving UI layout data indicating at least one of: a type of UI elements presented in the UI; a location of UI elements presented in the UI; or an importance of UI elements presented in the UI. (e.g., processor retrieving user interface layout data indicating the properties of user interaction elements or importance of user interaction elements based on contextual information par. 86; Information on where in the GUI interaction elements are located, and/or the size of the interaction elements, may be preset by a system developer at the distributor of the GUI, or input by a system developer using the system 1 at a later time, via an API, for example during operation of the system 1 or as a separate process based on input from one or more sessions of a user interacting with the system 1. Par. 86; For example, interaction element related properties may comprise information on how the interaction element is intended to be used (just to be looked at, selection, activation of a function etc.) and what the user intends to achieve by looking at and/or interacting with the interaction element (close window, open window, expand menu, scroll page etc.) par. 86; Interaction element related properties may in embodiments be context related, as described herein, which may in turn generate a higher weighting value for interaction elements that are important according in the specific context).
Claim 23 depends on claim 22:
Vennstrom teaches wherein the UI layout data further indicates UI element selection zones for the UI elements presented in the UI. (e.g., see Figure 5A: illustrating selection area for user interface interaction elements par. 69; The method embodiments may further comprise selecting, determining or identifying the interaction element that has within the borders of the element, or within the borders of a defined selection area: the largest amount of overlapping measured gaze positions, or the largest area that coincides with the area in which all the measured gaze positions reside. A selection area in the context of the invention is an area defined for a specific interaction element, wherein the selection area at least partly overlaps the area of the interaction element. par. 90; In embodiments, if the user's gaze is measured at positions within the borders of a selection area representing selection, identification or determination of an interaction element in a UI, the interaction element connected to the selection area is selected.)
Claim 24 depends on claim 22:
Vennstrom teaches wherein the UI element selection zones are at least one of rectangular-shaped or circular-shaped. (e.g., see circular shaped selection areas in Figure 5A; par. 91; In FIG. 5A, weighted volumes 550, 560, are assigned to the respective interaction elements 500, 540, based on their properties. par. 91; The shape and size of the selection area may in turn be based on weighting information for the respective interaction elements, such as objects and/or areas in the UI.)
Claim 25 depends on claim 21:
Vennstrom teaches wherein the first selection zone is assigned a first score and the second selection zone is assigned a second score. (e.g., selection areas being assigned calculated weighted volumes (i.e., first and second scores) par. 91; In FIG. 5A, weighted volumes 550, 560, are assigned to the respective interaction elements 500, 540, based on their properties. Par. 91; The weighting may in embodiments include the use of a weighting function, as described in connection with FIG. 5B and/or determination of a selection area, as described in connection with FIG. 6. The shape and size of the selection area may in turn be based on weighting information for the respective interaction elements, such as objects and/or areas in the UI. In embodiments, the processor 150 may be configured to receive identification rule information, calculate weights for one or more interaction elements of the UI and/or assign weights to one or more interaction elements of the UI.)
Claim 30 depends on claim 21:
Vennstrom teaches, wherein the first selection zone of the first UI element is surrounded by a second selection zone of the first UI element, the second selection zone of the first UI element being a larger size than the first size and the second size. (e.g., size of selection area may vary (i.e., larger or smaller) par. 69; The size of the selection area depends on the weighting of the interaction element)
Claim 31 depends on claim 21:
Vennstrom teaches wherein the third size of the second selection zone is [[large]] larger than the second size of the first UI element. (e.g., selection area 560 is larger than the UI element 540 as shown in Figure 5A par. 69; A selection area in the context of the invention is an area defined for a specific interaction element, wherein the selection area at least partly overlaps the area of the interaction element. Typically, the selection area coincides with or comprises the area of the interaction element. The size of the selection area depends on the weighting of the interaction element, par. 91; For the interaction element 540, on the other hand, the weight is constant for the entire interaction element and parts of the area surrounding the interaction element, represented by a cylindrical weight volume 560. The reason is that the interaction element 540 is so small that if the user gazes near to the interaction element, it is very likely that the user intends to look at and/or interact with the interaction element.)
Claim 32 depends on claim 31:
Vennstrom teaches wherein it is determined that the second UI element is statistically likely to be selected in response to selection of the first UI element. (e.g., “button “ok” (i.e., second UI element) is likely to be select in response to selection of “previous choice” (i.e., first UI element) par. 86; For example, a button marked "OK" may be assigned a high weighting if it is likely that the user will want to confirm a previous choice or the like by activating the button.)
Claim 33 depends on claim 21:
Vennstrom teaches wherein the third size of the second selection zone is smaller than the second size of the first UI element. (e.g., size of selection area may vary (i.e., larger or smaller) par. 69; The size of the selection area depends on the weighting of the interaction element)
Claim 34 depends on claim 33:
Vennstrom teaches wherein it is determined that the second UI element is statistically unlikely to be selected in response to selection of the first UI element. (e.g., other interaction elements outside of the button marked “Ok” are considered unlikely to be selected based on previous selection par. 69; Other interaction elements, such as scroll areas, text areas or images, may in this context be assigned lower weights or inactivated. In another example, if the user is reading a text, panning or scrolling, again known from user input, through statistics based assumption or the like, any selectable interaction elements may be assigned low weights or inactivated, and/or any highlights may be removed, so that the user is not distracted.
par. 86; For example, interaction element related properties may comprise information on how the interaction element is intended to be used (just to be looked at, selection, activation of a function etc.) and what the user intends to achieve by looking at and/or interacting with the interaction element (close window, open window, expand menu, scroll page etc.). For example, a button marked "OK" may be assigned a high weighting if it is likely that the user will want to confirm a previous choice or the like by activating the button. Interaction element related properties may in embodiments be context related, as described herein, which may in turn generate a higher weighting value for interaction elements that are important according in the specific context.)
Independent claim 35:
Claim 35 is substantially encompassed in claim 21, therefore, Examiner relies on the same rationale set forth in claim 21 to reject claim 35.
Claim 36 depends on claim 35:
Vennstrom teaches wherein the UI is associated with UI layout data indicating a default size for the first selection zone and the second selection zone. (e.g., user interface interaction elements with selection area having a default size par. 69; A selection area in the context of the invention is an area defined for a specific interaction element, wherein the selection area at least partly overlaps the area of the interaction element. par. 86; Information on where in the GUI interaction elements are located, and/or the size of the interaction elements, may be preset by a system developer at the distributor of the GUI)
Claim 37 depends on claim 36:
Vennstrom teaches wherein the third size of the second UI element is different from the default size. (e.g., size of selection area may vary (i.e., larger or smaller) par. 69; The size of the selection area depends on the weighting of the interaction element)
Claim 38 depends on claim 35:
Vennstrom teaches wherein the first selection zone of the first UI element is within a second selection zone of the first UI element, (e.g., in the instance that the selection area at least partly overlaps the area of the interaction element, results in a selection area within the borders of the interaction element (i.e., first selection zone of the first UI element) and a selection area within the borders of a defined selection area (i.e., second selection zone of the first UI element) par. 69; The method embodiments may further comprise selecting, determining or identifying the interaction element that has within the borders of the element, or within the borders of a defined selection area par. 69; A selection area in the context of the invention is an area defined for a specific interaction element, wherein the selection area at least partly overlaps the area of the interaction element.)
the first selection zone of the first UI element and the second selection zone of the first UI element having different score values. (e.g., par. 90; The processor 150 may be configured to determine when the user's gaze lingers for a predetermined period of time, or a predetermined number of measured gaze points, at positions within the borders of a selection area representing selection or determination of an interaction element in a graphical user interface, and when the predetermined period of time, or predetermined number of measured gaze points, is exceeded select or identify the interaction element connected to the selection area)
Claim 39 depends on claim 35:
Vennstrom teaches wherein selecting the first UI element based on the first gaze input comprises determining a predefined number of gaze locations with the first gaze input are located within the first selection zone. (e.g., calculating gaze locations comprises determining a predefined number of interaction elements within selection areas (i.e., predefined number of gaze locations with the first gaze input are located within the first selection zone) par. 69; The measurement distribution of gaze points 210 in FIG. 2A is positioned partly on and between the two interaction elements 200, 220. Some method embodiments for selecting, determining or identifying one interaction element from two or more interaction elements 200, 220 in GUI 190, when the measured gaze points of the distribution 210 are not all positioned on an interaction element but positioned partly on and between the two or more interaction elements, comprise calculating all measured gaze position and/or the area in which all the measured gaze positions reside. The method embodiments may further comprise selecting, determining or identifying the interaction element that has within the borders of the element, or within the borders of a defined selection area: the largest amount of overlapping measured gaze positions, or the largest area that coincides with the area in which all the measured gaze positions reside.)
Independent Claim 40:
Claim 40 is substantially encompassed in claim 21, therefore, Examiner relies on the same rationale set forth in claim 21 to reject claim 40. (see Figure 1c: for computer device system)
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.
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.
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vennstrom as cited above, in view of Nister et al. (hereinafter “Nister”), U.S. Published Application No. 20140002341.
Claim 26 depends on claim 21:
Vennstrom teaches wherein: the first gaze input includes a series of gaze locations corresponding to pixel coordinates of the UI; (e.g., a series of gaze locations corresponding to pixel coordinates of the UI as shown in Figure 4 par. 66; FIG. 4 shows a GUI comprising a visual representation of a distribution consisting of a number of measured, or calculated, gaze positions. More specifically, in FIG. 4 a measurement distribution 210 comprising a number of measured, or calculated, gaze positions 410 are shown, along with an actual gaze position 400, in other words the point or position in a GUI 190 that the user is actually looking at. The GUI 190 can of course comprise any suitable number of interaction elements.)
and comparing the sum to an action response threshold for the first UI element. (e.g., dynamic thresholding to compare weighted values to thresholds associated with selecting user interaction elements par. 127; In some method embodiments, as illustrated in FIG. 3C, dynamic thresholding may be used to determine when to switch from identification of a first interaction element to identification of a second interaction element. Par. 132; In step 353: comparing the difference between the weight value for the first interaction element and the weight value for the second interaction element to a threshold value. Par. 133; In step 353: comparing the difference between the weight value for the first interaction element and the weight value for the second interaction element to a threshold value. )
Vennstrom fails to expressly teach
and determining the first action response for the first UI element comprises: creating a set of first scores by assigning the first score to each gaze location of the gaze locations that is located within the first selection zone;
calculating a sum based on the set of first scores;
However, Nister teaches
and determining the first action response for the first UI element comprises: creating a set of first scores by assigning the first score to each gaze location of the gaze locations that is located within the first selection zone; (e.g., a score is computed for each key (i.e., selection zone) based on gaze location par. 31; Method 400 may be carried out by a computing device that has received a plurality of gaze samples collected during an instance of eye-typing, and may be performed as part of method 300 described above. At 402, method 400 includes comparing the plurality of gaze samples to a layout of user input keys, for example an on-screen keyboard. As explained previously, the gaze samples are a series of gaze coordinates periodically sampled in time that may be used to correlate gaze location to a particular user input key. Par. 32; At 404, a per-key score is assigned to each user input key for each point in time. For each gaze sample in time, a score is computed for each key on the keyboard. For a given key and a given point in time, the score represents the probability that the user's gaze was intentionally directed at the key at that point in time. )
calculating a sum based on the set of first scores; (e.g., calculating a maximum per-key score for each character of a character string when calculating the probability of the character string matching the order in which the input keys were gazed at during the collection of the gaze samples par. 36; Calculating this probability may include rewarding character strings from the database that include characters that match the order in which the characters (e.g., input keys) were gazed at during the collection of the gaze samples, as indicated at 412. In some embodiments, determining if the characters in the character string match the order in which that the characters were gazed may be computed using dynamic programming. For example, in one example, for all suffixes of the character string (S.sub.1, S.sub.2, . . . , S.sub.n, where n is the term's length), a reward is computed in each point in time. The calculation loops back-to-front, both in suffix size (shortest to longest) and in time (latest to oldest key scores). The reward may be the maximum per-key score for that character up until that point in time.)
In the analogous art of eye typing recognition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dynamic thresholding as taught by Vennstrom to be based on a scoring system as taught by Nister with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide the benefit of an improved typing system that reduces user fatigue (see Nister: par. 16)
Claim 27 depends on claim 26:
Vennstrom/Nister teaches wherein: if the sum exceeds the action response threshold, the first UI element is activated; and if the sum does not exceed the action response threshold, the first UI element is not activated. (e.g., dynamic thresholding to compare weighted values to thresholds associated with selecting or not selecting user interaction elements Vennstrom; par. 127; In some method embodiments, as illustrated in FIG. 3C, dynamic thresholding may be used to determine when to switch from identification of a first interaction element to identification of a second interaction element. Par. 132; In step 353: comparing the difference between the weight value for the first interaction element and the weight value for the second interaction element to a threshold value. Par. 133; In step 353: comparing the difference between the weight value for the first interaction element and the weight value for the second interaction element to a threshold value. )
Claim 28 depends on claim 26:
Vennstrom/Nister teaches wherein a value of the action response threshold is determined based on historical user activity associated with the first UI element. (e.g., threshold value determined in real time based on properties of the interaction elements such as collected data indicating that the user often interacts with the interaction element (i.e., historical user activity associated with UI element) Vennstrom; par. 85; In embodiments, an interaction element that has a high likelihood to be selected by the user of the system, based on its properties, for example comprising a selection of: intended use; visual context; interaction context; and/or collected data indicating that the user often interacts with the interaction element, will be assigned a high weighting value. par. 133; In different embodiments, the threshold value is preset by a system developer, retrieved from the memory 115, or calculated in real-time based on a selection of: properties of the UI; properties of the interaction elements; psychological properties of the user; physiological properties of the human eye; detected noise; and/or offset.)
Claim 29 depends on claim 28:
Vennstrom/Nister teaches wherein: if the historical user activity indicates the first UI element has been previously selected at least a predefined number of times, the action response threshold is reduced from a default value; and if the historical user activity indicates the first UI element has not been previously selected at least the predefined number of times, the action response threshold is not reduced from the default value. (e.g., threshold value determined in real time based on properties of the interaction elements such as collected data indicating that the user often interacts with the interaction element (i.e., historical user activity associated with UI element) Examiner notes that the threshold value set by the system developer would be the default value which would be change based on the real time calculations associated with past interactions with the interaction element. Vennstrom; par. 85; In embodiments, an interaction element that has a high likelihood to be selected by the user of the system, based on its properties, for example comprising a selection of: intended use; visual context; interaction context; and/or collected data indicating that the user often interacts with the interaction element, will be assigned a high weighting value. par. 133; In different embodiments, the threshold value is preset by a system developer, retrieved from the memory 115, or calculated in real-time based on a selection of: properties of the UI; properties of the interaction elements; psychological properties of the user; physiological properties of the human eye; detected noise; and/or offset.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nijs; Daan US 10895908 B2
See abstract; The eye tracking system may compare the images to identify a change in the content. The location of this change may correspond to a sub-area of the display. The output of the ballistic prediction may include a landing point that represents an anticipated gaze point. This landing point may be adjusted such that a gaze point is now predicted to fall within the sub-area when the change is significant.
Bangalore; Srinivas US 20110078613 A1
See abstract; The touchscreen works with the soft keyboard as a form of text input. Keyboard logic on the text-entry device is programmed to change the visual appearance of each key within the soft keyboard based on the prior entry. The keyboard logic assigns a prediction value to each key based on a statistical probability that the key will be entered next. The touchscreen displays a visually enhanced keyboard based on these prediction values. Enhancements include resizing keys relative to their prediction value, rearranging the keys a distance from the previous key entered inverse to its prediction value, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY ORR whose telephone number is (571)270-1308. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/HENRY ORR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights