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 .
Amendments
Applicant’s Amendment filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Currently Pending claims: 1-20
Independent claims: 1, 12, and 17
Amended claims: 1, 12, and 17
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment received on 5/26/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-8, filed 5/26/2026, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see 8, filed 5/26/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made of independent claims 1, 12, and 17 in view of Dowiasch et al. and Ehinger et al. Claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected accordingly due to their dependencies.
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 1-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowiasch et al. (Dowiasch, Stefan, Peter Wolf, and Frank Bremmer. "Quantitative comparison of a mobile and a stationary video-based eye-tracker." Behavior research methods 52.2 (2020): 667-680) (hereafter, “Dowiasch”) (IDS) in view of Ehinger et al. (Ehinger, Benedikt V., et al. "A new comprehensive eye-tracking test battery concurrently evaluating the Pupil Labs glasses and the EyeLink 1000." PeerJ 7 (2019): e7086) (hereafter, “Ehinger”).
Regarding claim 1, Dowiasch discloses a method comprising: receiving static device data in response to detected first biometric movements (Page 668, right column, last paragraph, In this study we quantitatively compared one of the most sophisticated mobile eye-trackers available, the EyeSeeCam (ESC; Schneider et al., 2009), with a commonly used stationary but head-mounted laboratory eye-tracker, the EyeLink II (ELII); Page 669, §Methods, Each subject had to perform the same standardized sequence of paradigms twice, each time with a different eye tracker. Examiner considers the eye movements when recording with the ELII the “first biometric movements” and the stationary ELII as the “static device”); receiving mobile device data in response to detected second biometric movements (Page 668, right column, last paragraph, In this study we quantitatively compared one of the most sophisticated mobile eye-trackers available, the EyeSeeCam (ESC; Schneider et al., 2009), with a commonly used stationary but head-mounted laboratory eye-tracker, the EyeLink II (ELII); Page 669, §Methods, Each subject had to perform the same standardized sequence of paradigms twice, each time with a different eye tracker. Examiner considers the eye movements when recording with the ESC the “second biometric movements”); applying an analysis algorithm to the static device data to determine static attributes (Page 671, §Saccades, right column, last paragraph, we also analyzed the raw eye-position data recorded by both systems with the same preprocessing algorithms. Examiner considers the preprocessing algorithms the “analysis algorithm”. Since it is applied to both systems, this encompasses the static device data); applying the analysis algorithm to the mobile device data to determine mobile attributes (Page 671, §Saccades, right column, last paragraph, we also analyzed the raw eye-position data recorded by both systems with the same preprocessing algorithms. Examiner considers the preprocessing algorithms the “analysis algorithm”. Since it is applied to both systems, this encompasses the mobile device data); comparing the static attributes to the mobile attributes (Page 673, §Results, Right column, last paragraph, When using the same saccade detector, the saccade related parameters for both systems were much more alike. Examiner considers the saccade related parameters from the respective systems as “static/mobile attributes”); determining a modification action based on the comparing (Page 677, §Discussion, Our data also showed that a standardized analysis of the raw data with identical parameters across different eye-trackers—for example, for saccade detection—is often more important for consistent results across systems, than the hardware itself. Examiner considers the use of a standardized analysis the “modification action” and the interpretation of the data leading to this conclusion the “determining”); [generating a modified analysis algorithm based on the determination; and applying the modified analysis algorithm to subsequent mobile device data to result in mobile attributes that more closely match the static attributes].
However, Dowiasch fails to explicitly disclose generating a modified analysis algorithm based on the determination; and applying the modified analysis algorithm to subsequent mobile device data to result in mobile attributes that more closely match the static attributes.
Ehinger teaches generating a modified analysis algorithm based on the determination (Page 9, §Blink Classification, We noticed that the blink classification algorithm sometimes reported very long blinks (20 s or longer) and added a criterion that a blink can only have a start time point if it also has an end time point. Examiner considers the long blinks and criterion as a determination and relies on Dowiasch for a determination from the comparison. The algorithm with the criterion is considered a “modified analysis algorithm”); and applying the modified analysis algorithm to subsequent mobile device data (Page 9, §Blink Classification, For the subsequent saccade classification, we regarded the samples ±100 ms around a reported blink event. Examiner considers subsequent saccade classification to indicate the modified algorithm is applied to subsequent data) to result in mobile attributes that more closely match the static attributes (Page 27, Fig. 11C; Fig. 11C illustrates the distribution of blink durations of the Eyelink (static) and Pupil Labs (mobile) eyetrackers. Since the criterion above removes excessively long blinks, the Pupil Labs blink duration distribution is more similar to the Eyelink distribution).
Both Dowiasch and Ehinger are analogous to the claimed invention because both compare static and mobile eyetrackers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate modifying of algorithms of Ehinger into the analysis of Dowiasch. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to prevent data loss, as suggested by Ehinger at Page 36, We had to improve their algorithms, since we were often loosing large chunks of data (10’s of seconds) to the failing blink classification algorithm.
This method of improving Dowiasch was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ehinger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Dowiasch with the teachings of Ehinger to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the static device data is generated by a static device and the mobile device data is generated by a mobile device (Page 668, right column, last paragraph, … mobile eye-trackers available, the EyeSeeCam (ESC; Schneider et al., 2009), … stationary but head-mounted laboratory eye-tracker, the EyeLink II (ELII); Page 669, §Method, Each subject had to perform the same standardized sequence of paradigms twice, each time with a different eye tracker), wherein the mobile device is a wearable device (The EyeSeeCam is a wearable device).
Regarding claim 3, in which claim 2 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the static device has at least one of a higher resolution or a higher refresh-rate than the mobile device (Page 669, §Devices, right column, The ESC is a fully mobile, lightweight eye tracker, which is able to record binocular eye movements with a sampling rate of 230 Hz; Page 670, §Devices, left column The ELII system was operated bin ocularly with 500 Hz. Since the limitation is recited in the alternative, Examiner considers this to disclose the limitation in its entirety).
Regarding claim 4, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the first biometric movements and the second biometric movements (Page 668, right column, last paragraph, In this study we quantitatively compared …, the EyeSeeCam (ESC; Schneider et al., 2009), with …, the EyeLink II (ELII); Page 669, §Methods, Each subject had to perform the same standardized sequence of paradigms twice, each time with a different eye tracker. Examiner considers the eye movements when recording with the ELII the “first biometric movements” and the ESC the “second biometric movements”) are saccades (670, §Paradigm, The experiment consisted of a saccade task).
Regarding claim 5, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the static device data or the mobile device data is raw data (Page 671, §Data analysis, right column, last paragraph, we also analyzed the raw eye-position data recorded by both systems).
Regarding claim 6, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the analysis algorithm is a Velocity-Threshold Identification (I-VT) eye-tracker algorithm (Page 671, §Saccades, The ELII has a build-in online saccade and blink detector, which automatically marks those events in the recorded data. This detector uses a velocity criterion for saccades with a threshold of 30°/s).
Regarding claim 8, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the static attributes or the mobile attributes comprise one or more of a velocity (Page 673, Table 3 saccade mean velocity), an amplitude (Page 673, Table 3 saccade amplitude), a duration (Fig. 2. Length of saccade segment indicates duration), or a latency (Fig. 2. X-axis shows saccade latency).
Regarding claim 9, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the static attributes or the mobile attributes comprise one or more of a saccadic velocity (Page 673, Table 3 saccade mean velocity), a saccadic amplitude (Page 673, Table 3 saccade amplitude), a saccadic duration (Fig. 2. Length of saccade segment indicates duration), or a saccadic latency (Fig. 2. X-axis shows saccade latency).
Regarding claim 10, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the static attributes or the mobile attributes comprise one or more of a fixation attribute (Page 673, Table 3 absolute fixation error), a target shown attribute (Page 673, §Saccades and fixation, there was also a significant interaction between the location of the target and the eye-trackers), a maintain fixation attribute (Page 672, §Fixation, Consequently, small correction saccades and drifts that might occur during that fixation period were included into computation of the average absolute eye position), a saccade attribute (Page 673, Table 3 saccade mean velocity), or a correction attribute (Page 672, §Fixation, Consequently, small correction saccades and drifts that might occur during that fixation period were included into computation of the average absolute eye position).
Regarding claim 11, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the static attributes or the mobile attributes comprise one or more of a time to first saccade (Fig 2. The x-axis of the figure represents time relative to trial start. Examiner considers the time since trial start for the saccade dataset to also encompass the “time to first saccade”. Since the limitation is recited in the alternative, Examiner considers this to disclose the limitation in its entirety), a largest first saccade, a largest non-first saccade, total saccades, or a number of saccades within a duration.
Regarding claim 12, Dowiasch discloses a method comprising: receiving static device data in response to detected first biometric movements (Page 668, right column, last paragraph, In this study we quantitatively compared one of the most sophisticated mobile eye-trackers available, the EyeSeeCam (ESC; Schneider et al., 2009), with a commonly used stationary but head-mounted laboratory eye-tracker, the EyeLink II (ELII); Page 669, §Methods, Each subject had to perform the same standardized sequence of paradigms twice, each time with a different eye tracker. Examiner considers the eye movements when recording with the ELII the “first biometric movements” and the stationary ELII as the “static device”); receiving mobile device data in response to detected second biometric movements (Page 668, right column, last paragraph, In this study we quantitatively compared one of the most sophisticated mobile eye-trackers available, the EyeSeeCam (ESC; Schneider et al., 2009), with a commonly used stationary but head-mounted laboratory eye-tracker, the EyeLink II (ELII); Page 669, §Methods, Each subject had to perform the same standardized sequence of paradigms twice, each time with a different eye tracker. Examiner considers the eye movements when recording with the ESC the “second biometric movements”); applying an analysis algorithm to the static device data to determine static attributes (Page 671, §Saccades, right column, last paragraph, we also analyzed the raw eye-position data recorded by both systems with the same preprocessing algorithms. Examiner considers the preprocessing algorithms the “analysis algorithm”. Since it is applied to both systems, this encompasses the static device data); applying the analysis algorithm to the mobile device data to determine mobile attributes (Page 671, §Saccades, right column, last paragraph, we also analyzed the raw eye-position data recorded by both systems with the same preprocessing algorithms. Examiner considers the preprocessing algorithms the “analysis algorithm”. Since it is applied to both systems, this encompasses the mobile device data); determining that the static attributes are within a threshold parameter of the mobile attributes (Fig. 3B, Page 673, §Saccades and Fixation, Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the two systems concerning mean saccade peak velocity [mean ELII: 391 ± 37°/s; mean ESC: 410 ± 48°/s. Examiner considers the ESC standard deviation (± 48°/s) the “mobile threshold” and the ELII mean peak velocity the “static attribute within”); and validating a mobile device based on the determining that the static attributes are within a threshold parameter of the mobile attributes (Page 677, §Discussion, However, here we could show that, despite their different hardware features, their different methods for computing gaze direction and, more general, their different fields of key application, the ESC and the ELII provided indistinguishable data at the population level in almost all cases. Examiner considers the comparison of data between the two eye trackers and the conclusion that they are indistinguishable as “validating a mobile device”); [generating a modified analysis algorithm based on] a comparison of the static attributes to the mobile attributes (Fig. 3B, Page 673, §Saccades and Fixation, Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the two systems concerning mean saccade peak velocity [mean ELII: 391 ± 37°/s; mean ESC: 410 ± 48°/s. Examiner considers the difference to be a comparison) [which, when applied to subsequent mobile device data, results in mobile attributes that more closely match the static attributes].
However, Dowiasch fails to explicitly disclose generating a modified analysis algorithm based on a result which, when applied to subsequent mobile device data, results in mobile attributes that more closely match the static attributes.
Ehinger teaches generating a modified analysis algorithm based on a result (Page 9, §Blink Classification, We noticed that the blink classification algorithm sometimes reported very long blinks (20 s or longer) and added a criterion that a blink can only have a start time point if it also has an end time point. Examiner considers the long blinks and criterion as a result and relies on Dowiasch for a result from a comparison. The algorithm with the criterion is considered a “modified analysis algorithm”) which, when applied to subsequent mobile device data (Page 9, §Blink Classification, For the subsequent saccade classification, we regarded the samples ±100 ms around a reported blink event. Examiner considers subsequent saccade classification to indicate the modified algorithm is applied to subsequent data), results in mobile attributes that more closely match the static attributes (Page 27, Fig. 11C; Fig. 11C illustrates the distribution of blink durations of the Eyelink (static) and Pupil Labs (mobile) eyetrackers. Since the criterion above removes excessively long blinks, the Pupil Labs blink duration distribution is more similar to the Eyelink distribution).
Both Dowiasch and Ehinger are analogous to the claimed invention because both compare static and mobile eyetrackers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate modifying of algorithms of Ehinger into the analysis of Dowiasch. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to prevent data loss, as suggested by Ehinger at Page 36, We had to improve their algorithms, since we were often loosing large chunks of data (10’s of seconds) to the failing blink classification algorithm.
This method of improving Dowiasch was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ehinger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Dowiasch with the teachings of Ehinger to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, in which claim 12 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the static device has at least one of a higher resolution or a higher refresh-rate than the mobile device (Page 669, §Devices, The ESC is a fully mobile, lightweight eye tracker, which is able to record binocular eye movements with a sampling rate of 230 Hz; Page 670, §Devices, The ELII system was operated bin ocularly with 500 Hz. Since the limitation is recited in the alternative, Examiner considers this to disclose the limitation in its entirety).
Regarding claim 14, in which claim 12 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the analysis algorithm is a Velocity-Threshold Identification (I-VT) eye-tracker algorithm (Page 671, §Saccades, The ELII has a build-in online saccade and blink detector, which automatically marks those events in the recorded data. This detector uses a velocity criterion for sac cades with a threshold of 30°/s).
Regarding claim 16, in which claim 12 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the static attributes or the mobile attributes comprise one or more of a time to first saccade (Fig 2. The x-axis of the figure represents time relative to trial start. Examiner considers the time since trial start for the saccade dataset to also encompass the “time to first saccade”. Since the limitation is recited in the alternative, Examiner considers this to disclose the limitation in its entirety), a largest first saccade, a largest non-first saccade, total saccades, or a number of saccades within a duration.
Regarding claim 17, Dowiasch discloses a system comprising: a static device comprising at least one first sensor to detect first biometric movements (Page 668, right column, stationary but head-mounted laboratory eye-tracker, the EyeLink II) ; a mobile device comprising at least one second sensor to detect second biometric movements (Page 668, right column, one of the most sophisticated mobile eye-trackers available, the EyeSeeCam) ; a processor; and a computer-readable data storage device storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (Page 671, §Data analysis, Eye movement parameters were analyzed offline using MATLAB 2015a. MATLAB is a software program that runs on a computer, which inherently includes a computer readable storage device and a processor), cause the system to: receive static device data based on the first biometric movements (Page 668, right column, last paragraph, In this study we quantitatively compared one of the most sophisticated mobile eye-trackers available, the EyeSeeCam (ESC; Schneider et al., 2009), with a commonly used stationary but head-mounted laboratory eye-tracker, the EyeLink II (ELII); Page 669, §Methods, Each subject had to perform the same standardized sequence of paradigms twice, each time with a different eye tracker. Examiner considers the eye movements when recording with the ELII the “first biometric movements” and the stationary ELII as the “static device”); receive mobile device data based on the second biometric movements (Page 668, right column, last paragraph, In this study we quantitatively compared one of the most sophisticated mobile eye-trackers available, the EyeSeeCam (ESC; Schneider et al., 2009), with a commonly used stationary but head-mounted laboratory eye-tracker, the EyeLink II (ELII); Page 669, §Methods, Each subject had to perform the same standardized sequence of paradigms twice, each time with a different eye tracker. Examiner considers the eye movements when recording with the ESC the “second biometric movements”); apply an analysis algorithm to the static device data to determine static attributes (Page 671, §Saccades, right column, last paragraph, we also analyzed the raw eye-position data recorded by both systems with the same preprocessing algorithms. Examiner considers the preprocessing algorithms the “analysis algorithm”. Since it is applied to both systems, this encompasses the static device data); apply the analysis algorithm to the mobile device data to determine mobile attributes (Page 671, §Saccades, right column, last paragraph, we also analyzed the raw eye-position data recorded by both systems with the same preprocessing algorithms. Examiner considers the preprocessing algorithms the “analysis algorithm”. Since it is applied to both systems, this encompasses the mobile device data); compare the static attributes to the mobile attributes (Page 673, §Results, Right column, last paragraph, When using the same saccade detector, the saccade related parameters for both systems were much more alike. Examiner considers the saccade related parameters from the respective systems as “static/mobile attributes”); and determine a modification action based on the comparing (Page 677, §Discussion, Our data also showed that a standardized analysis of the raw data with identical parameters across different eye-trackers—for example, for saccade detection—is often more important for consistent results across systems, than the hardware itself. Examiner considers the use of a standardized analysis the “modification action” and the interpretation of the data leading to this conclusion the “determining”); [generate a modified analysis algorithm based on the determination; and apply the modified analysis algorithm to subsequent mobile device data to thereby result in mobile attributes that more closely match the static attributes].
However, Dowiasch fails to explicitly disclose generate a modified analysis algorithm based on the determination; and apply the modified analysis algorithm to subsequent mobile device data to thereby result in mobile attributes that more closely match the static attributes.
Ehinger teaches generate a modified analysis algorithm based on the determination (Page 9, §Blink Classification, We noticed that the blink classification algorithm sometimes reported very long blinks (20 s or longer) and added a criterion that a blink can only have a start time point if it also has an end time point. Examiner considers the long blinks and criterion as a determination and relies on Dowiasch for a determination from the comparison. The algorithm with the criterion is considered a “modified analysis algorithm”); and apply the modified analysis algorithm to subsequent mobile device data (Page 9, §Blink Classification, For the subsequent saccade classification, we regarded the samples ±100 ms around a reported blink event. Examiner considers subsequent saccade classification to indicate the modified algorithm is applied to subsequent data) to thereby result in mobile attributes that more closely match the static attributes (Page 27, Fig. 11C; Fig. 11C illustrates the distribution of blink durations of the Eyelink (static) and Pupil Labs (mobile) eyetrackers. Since the criterion above removes excessively long blinks, the Pupil Labs blink duration distribution is more similar to the Eyelink distribution).
Both Dowiasch and Ehinger are analogous to the claimed invention because both compare static and mobile eyetrackers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate modifying of algorithms of Ehinger into the analysis of Dowiasch. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to prevent data loss, as suggested by Ehinger at Page 36, We had to improve their algorithms, since we were often loosing large chunks of data (10’s of seconds) to the failing blink classification algorithm.
This method of improving Dowiasch was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ehinger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Dowiasch with the teachings of Ehinger to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, in which claim 17 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the static device has at least one of a higher resolution or a higher refresh-rate than the mobile device (Page 669, §Devices, right column, The ESC is a fully mobile, lightweight eye tracker, which is able to record binocular eye movements with a sampling rate of 230 Hz; Page 670, §Devices, left column The ELII system was operated bin ocularly with 500 Hz. Since the limitation is recited in the alternative, Examiner considers this to disclose the limitation in its entirety).
Regarding claim 20, in which claim 17 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the static attributes or the mobile attributes comprise one or more of a fixation attribute fixation attribute (Page 673, Table 3 absolute fixation error), a target shown attribute (Page 673, §Saccades and fixation, there was also a significant interaction between the location of the target and the eye-trackers), a maintain fixation attribute (Page 672, §Fixation, Consequently, small correction saccades and drifts that might occur during that fixation period were included into computation of the average absolute eye position), a saccade attribute (Page 673, Table 3 saccade mean velocity), or a correction attribute (Page 672, §Fixation, Consequently, small correction saccades and drifts that might occur during that fixation period were included into computation of the average absolute eye position).
Claims 7, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant supplied prior art Dowiasch et al. (Dowiasch, Stefan, Peter Wolf, and Frank Bremmer. "Quantitative comparison of a mobile and a stationary video-based eye-tracker." Behavior research methods 52.2 (2020): 667-680) (hereafter, “Dowiasch”) in view of Ehinger et al. (Ehinger, Benedikt V., et al. "A new comprehensive eye-tracking test battery concurrently evaluating the Pupil Labs glasses and the EyeLink 1000." PeerJ 7 (2019): e7086) (hereafter, “Ehinger”) as applied to claims 1, 12, and 17 above, and further in view of Abegg et al. (Abegg, Mathias, Hyung Lee, and Jason JS Barton. "Systematic diagonal and vertical errors in antisaccades and memory-guided saccades." Journal of Eye Movement Research 3.3 (2010): 15) (hereafter, “Abegg”).
Regarding claim 7, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the first biometric movements are the same as the second biometric movements, each of the first biometric movements and the second biometric movements detected during performance of a same respective (Page 668, right column, last paragraph, In this study we quantitatively compared …, the EyeSeeCam (ESC; Schneider et al., 2009), with …, the EyeLink II (ELII); Page 669, §Methods, Each subject had to perform the same standardized sequence of paradigms twice, each time with a different eye tracker. Examiner considers the eye movements when recording with the ELII the “first biometric movements” and the ESC the “second biometric movements”) [memory saccade task].
However, neither Dowiasch nor Ehinger, whether considered individually or in combination, explicity disclose memory saccade task.
Abegg teaches memory saccade task (Page 3, §Methods, left column, For the memory guided saccades, grey rather white stimuli were used. They were presented during 300 ms, followed by a grey blank screen for 300 ms. This was done to avoid afterimages. The blank screen was followed by a fixation light that disappeared after 1.7 seconds; resulting in a 2-second memory period).
Both Dowiasch, Ehingern and Abegg are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in field of measuring eye movements. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the memory saccade task of Abegg into the modifying of algorithms of Ehinger and the eye tracking system of Dowiasch. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and the results of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This method of improving Dowiasch was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ehinger and Abegg.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Dowiasch with the teachings of Ehinger and Abegg to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, in which claim 12 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the first biometric movements or the second biometric movements are detected during performance of a (Page 668, right column, last paragraph, In this study we quantitatively compared …, the EyeSeeCam (ESC; Schneider et al., 2009), with …, the EyeLink II (ELII); Page 669, §Methods, Each subject had to perform the same standardized sequence of paradigms twice, each time with a different eye tracker. Examiner considers the eye movements when recording with the ELII the “first biometric movements” and the ESC the “second biometric movements”) [memory saccade task].
However, neither Dowiasch nor Ehinger, whether considered individually or in combination, explicity disclose memory saccade task.
Abegg teaches memory saccade task (Page 3, §Methods, left column, For the memory guided saccades, grey rather white stimuli were used. They were presented during 300 ms, followed by a grey blank screen for 300 ms. This was done to avoid afterimages. The blank screen was followed by a fixation light that disappeared after 1.7 seconds; resulting in a 2-second memory period).
Both Dowiasch, Ehingern and Abegg are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in field of measuring eye movements. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the memory saccade task of Abegg into the modifying of algorithms of Ehinger and the eye tracking system of Dowiasch. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and the results of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This method of improving Dowiasch was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ehinger and Abegg.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Dowiasch with the teachings of Ehinger and Abegg to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, in which claim 17 is incorporated, Dowiasch discloses wherein the first biometric movements are the same as the second biometric movements, each of the first biometric movements and the second biometric movements detected during performance of a same respective (Page 668, right column, last paragraph, In this study we quantitatively compared …, the EyeSeeCam (ESC; Schneider et al., 2009), with …, the EyeLink II (ELII); Page 669, §Methods, Each subject had to perform the same standardized sequence of paradigms twice, each time with a different eye tracker. Examiner considers the eye movements when recording with the ELII the “first biometric movements” and the ESC the “second biometric movements”) [memory saccade task].
However, neither Dowiasch nor Ehinger, whether considered individually or in combination, explicity disclose memory saccade task.
Abegg teaches memory saccade task (Page 3, §Methods, left column, For the memory guided saccades, grey rather white stimuli were used. They were presented during 300 ms, followed by a grey blank screen for 300 ms. This was done to avoid afterimages. The blank screen was followed by a fixation light that disappeared after 1.7 seconds; resulting in a 2-second memory period).
Both Dowiasch, Ehingern and Abegg are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in field of measuring eye movements. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the memory saccade task of Abegg into the modifying of algorithms of Ehinger and the eye tracking system of Dowiasch. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and the results of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This method of improving Dowiasch was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ehinger and Abegg.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Dowiasch with the teachings of Ehinger and Abegg to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brousseau et al. (Brousseau, Braiden, Jonathan Rose, and Moshe Eizenman. "Accurate model-based point of gaze estimation on mobile devices." Vision 2.3 (2018): 35) discloses identifying parameters to optimize mobile eye tracking systems (Page 11, paragraph 3, Another parameter that affects the accuracy of the estimated PoG in smart-phone-based eye-tracking systems is the accuracy of the measured R-Roll angle).
Fong et al. (US 2017/0091591) discloses overcoming challenges of mobile eye tracking over static eye tracking (¶0013, With a traditional stationary eye-tracker, the analysis of eye movement data involves identifying areas of interest (AOIs), which are typically fixed areas of the interface, and identifying when the eyes land in those fixed areas. Making sense of mobile eye-tracking data when the user is moving and there is no fixed environment presents several analysis challenges).
Alcaide et al. (US 2020/0192478) discloses modifying biometric algorithms (¶0111, The results can be reviewed by the analyst with the aim of fine-tuning the algorithms).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOMAO DING whose telephone number is (571)272-7237. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/XIAOMAO DING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights