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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 10), filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 11-12), filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hajimirza, Krasadakis, and Kurzion in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAJIMIRZA et al. (US Pub. 2021/034951 A1, hereinafter "Hajimirza"), in view of Krasadakis (US Pub. 2017/0212583 A1), and further in view of Kurzion (US Pub. 2014/0149399 A1).
Claim 1: Hajimirza teaches A system (Fig. 2, [0045], eye-tracking system 200) comprising:
a memory that stores instructions (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 2, [0009], memory storing computer readable instructions); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform a process (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 2, [0047]) comprising:
tracking engagement information of a user while the user views user interface content (“Hajimirza”, Figs. 2 and 4, [0053]-[0054], e.g., S402);
determining, based on the engagement information, a gaze point of the user with respect to the user interface content; mapping the gaze point of the user to a user interface element associated with the user interface content (“Hajimirza”, Figs. 3 and 4, [0055]-[0056], e.g., S403-404); and configured to store user intent information associated with the user’s engagement with the user interface content (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 4, [0069]-[0080], e.g., S405).
However, Hajimirza does not explicitly teach dynamically generating or updating a contextual cookie containing the claimed user intent information.
Krasadakis teaches analyzing gaze behavior associated with displayed UI elements/content, determining user interest from gaze and adding/updating the resulting gaze analytics and contextual information in a user profile (“Krasadakis”, Figs. 2-3, [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0063]); wherein the user intent information includes information indicating an intent of the user with respect to the user interface element and information indicating an ignored portion of the user interface content (“Krasadakis”, Figs. 2-3, [0041], determining what displayed UI content attract the user’s attention and what fails to attract the user’s attention, thereby teaching information indicate of an ignored portion of the UI content; UI window 310 receiving gaze while UI windows 308, 312, 314, etc. are not receiving gaze).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hajimirza to use Krasadakis’s gaze-derived interest/profile information because doing so would enable personalization and adaptation of content based on the user’s visual engagement with particular UI elements.
However, Hajimirza and Krasadakis do not explicitly teach the gaze-derived information is specifically stored in a contextual cookie.
Kurzion explicitly teaches the gaze-derived information is specifically stored in a contextual cookie (“Kurzion”, [0027], [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hajimirza and Krasadakis system to maintain the gaze-derived user intent information in Kurzion’s browser cookie because a browser cookie provides a known mechanism for persistently mainlining user specific behavioral information for subsequent browsing and personalization.
Claim 2: Hajimirza, Krasadakis, and Kurzion teach the system of claim 1, wherein the contextual cookie is configured to be used across different domains and different subdomains to track engagement of the user with respect to different user interface content (“Kurzion”, [0027], [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hajimirza and Krasadakis system to maintain the gaze-derived user intent information in Kurzion’s browser cookie because a browser cookie provides a known mechanism for persistently mainlining user specific behavioral information for subsequent browsing and personalization.
Claim 3: Hajimirza, Krasadakis, and Kurzion teach the system of claim 1, wherein the tracking of the engagement information includes:
accessing image data captured by an imaging device positioned in front of the user; and processing the image data to identify at least some of the engagement information (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 2, [0047], [0054], cameras 230).
Claim 4: Hajimirza, Krasadakis, and Kurzion teach the system of claim 1, wherein the engagement information includes biometric information including eye gaze position information indicative of where the user is looking with respect to the user interface content (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 2, [0019]-[0020], [0054]).
Claim 5: Hajimirza, Krasadakis, and Kurzion teach the system of claim 4, wherein the biometric information further includes at least one of eye attribute information, heart rate information, or facial expression information (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 2, [0054], e.g., eye attribute information).
Claim 6: Hajimirza, Krasadakis, and Kurzion teach the system of claim 1, wherein the mapping of the gaze point of the user to the user interface element includes:
accessing a domain tree structure of the user interface content that includes information indicating a position and one or more attributes of the user interface element associated with the user interface content; and determining, based on the domain tree structure, that the gaze point of the user is at a position that corresponds to the user interface element (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 3, [0037]-[0044]).
Claim 7: Hajimirza, Krasadakis, and Kurzion teach the system of claim 1, wherein the dynamically generating or updating of the contextual cookie includes:
determining, based on the engagement information, the intent of the user with respect to the user interface element; and storing the intent of the user as part of the user intent information of the contextual cookie (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 4, [0069]-[0073], e.g., S405).
Claim 8: Hajimirza, Krasadakis, and Kurzion teach the system of claim 1, wherein the dynamically generating or updating of the contextual cookie includes:
generating a plurality of behavior vectors based on the engagement information;
clustering the plurality of behavior vectors into a plurality of clusters; classifying the plurality of clusters; predicting, based on the classifying of the plurality of clusters, an intent of the user with respect to the user interface element; and storing the intent of the user as part of the user intent information of the contextual cookie (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 4, [0069]-[0072], e.g., S405).
Claim 9: Hajimirza, Krasadakis, and Kurzion teach the system of claim 1, wherein the dynamically generating or updating of the contextual cookie includes executing a machine learning algorithm to process the engagement information (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 4, [0070]-[0073]).
Claim 10: Hajimirza, Krasadakis, and Kurzion teach the system of claim 1, wherein the user intent information of the contextual cookie includes:
a first name-value pair that includes the information indicating an intent of the user with respect to the user interface element; and a second name-value pair that includes the information indicating an ignored portion of the interface content (“Kurzion”, [0027], [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hajimirza and Krasadakis system to maintain the gaze-derived user intent information in Kurzion’s browser cookie because a browser cookie provides a known mechanism for persistently mainlining user specific behavioral information for subsequent browsing and personalization.
Claim 11: Hajimirza, Krasadakis, and Kurzion teach the system of claim 1, wherein the process further comprises:
determining, based on the engagement information, an additional gaze point of the user with respect to the user interface content (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 4, [0053]-[0054], e.g., S402; [0070]-[0071]);
mapping the additional gaze point of the user to an additional user interface element associated with the user interface content; and determining, based on the mapping of the additional gaze point to the additional user interface element, an engagement sequence of the user with respect to the user interface element and the additional user interface element (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 4, [0055]-[0056], e.g., S403-404),
wherein the dynamically generating or updating of the contextual cookie includes determining, based on the engagement sequence, an intent of the user with respect to the user interface element and the additional user interface element (“Hajimirza”, Fig. 4, [0069]-[0073], e.g., S405).
Claim 12: Claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13: Claim 13 is directed to the storage medium of claim 12 for implementing the method steps of claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14: Claim 14 is directed to the storage medium of claim 12 for implementing the method steps of claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15: Claim 15 is directed to the storage medium of claim 12 for implementing the method steps of claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16: Claim 16 is directed to a method for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17: Claim 17 is directed to the method of claim 16 for implementing the method steps of claim 11. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18: Claim 18 is directed to the method of claim 16 for implementing the method steps of claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19: Claim 19 is directed to the method of claim 16 for implementing the method steps of claim 6. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20: Claim 20 is directed to the method of claim 16 for implementing the method steps of claim 8. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Turgeman et al. (U.S. 2018/0034850 A1) discloses system, device, and method of generating and managing behavioral biometric cookies.
Dhawan et al. (U.S. 2016/0314494 A1) interaction-based content configuration.
Venable et al. (U.S. 2014/0380230 A1) discloses selecting user interface elements via position signal.
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.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:00 PM.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/PHUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights