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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on September 8, 2026 for the patent application 18/458,536 originally filed on August 30, 2023. Claims 1, 9, 12, 31, 34 and 40 are amended. Claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-30, 32-33, and 35-39 are cancelled. Claims 41-57 are new. Claims 1, 9, 12, 31, 34 and 40-57 are pending. The first office action of November 20, 2024; the second office action of December 5, 2024; the third office action of April 15, 2025; the fourth office action of June 6, 2025; the fifth office action of September 12, 2025; and the sixth office action of May 6, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 9, 12, 31, 34 and 40-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claims 1 and 40 are directed to “a computer-implemented method” (i.e. “a process”), and claims 12, 53 and 56 are directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “monitoring user gaze,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Claim 1:
“receiving teaching content wherein the teaching content comprises a plurality of content items;
performing eye tracking to track eye movement of a plurality of users who are viewing the teaching content;
monitoring, based on the eye tracking, aggregate user gaze of the teaching content by the plurality of users, wherein the monitoring comprises:
detecting one or more reflections of light from at least one eye; and
modifying at least some of the plurality of content items of the teaching content based on the monitoring, wherein the teaching content is viewable by the plurality of users in a physical classroom, the eye tracking is performed to track gaze vectors from the plurality of users, and the modifying comprises dynamically altering content displayed during an active instructional presentation based on real-time changes in aggregate gaze behavior, wherein the modifying further comprises identifying a plurality of content regions, and mapping aggregate user gaze to respective ones of the content regions using the gaze vectors, wherein the dynamically altering content displayed during the active instructional presentation based on real-time changes in aggregate gaze behavior comprises applying alterations differently to a first content region and a second content region of the content regions in accordance with differences in aggregate user gaze mapped respectively to the first content region and the second content region, and wherein the method includes iteratively performing the monitoring and the modifying during the active instructional presentation.”
Claim 12:
receiving the teaching content, wherein the teaching content comprises a plurality of content items;
monitoring user gaze of the teaching content by the plurality of users, wherein the monitoring comprises
to detect one or more reflections of light from at least one eye of respective ones of the plurality of users while the plurality of users are viewing the teaching content, and recording, based on the detecting, aggregate user gaze of the plurality of users for respective ones of a plurality of content regions;
generating, based on the monitoring, a first aggregate user attention score for a first content region of the plurality of content regions, the first aggregate user attention score representing a level of attention of the plurality of users on the first content region;
generating, based on the monitoring, a second aggregate user attention score for a second content region of the plurality of content regions, the second aggregate user attention score representing a level of attention of the plurality of users on the second content region, wherein the second aggregate user attention score is different from the first aggregate user attention score;
modifying content displayed in the first content region in dependence on the first aggregate user attention score;
altering content displayed in the second content region in dependence on the second aggregate user attention score; and
automatically rendering, the modified content in the first content region and the altered content in the second content region in response to the real-time generated first aggregate user attention score and the real-time generated second aggregate user attention score such that presentation of content in the first content region and the second content region automatically adapts on a per-content-region basis in dependence on real-time aggregate gaze behavior of the plurality of users as determined from the monitoring.”
Claim 40:
“receiving teaching content wherein the teaching content comprises a plurality of content items;
performing eye tracking to track eye movement of a plurality of users who are viewing the teaching content;
monitoring based on the eye tracking, aggregate user gaze of the teaching content by the plurality of users, wherein the monitoring comprises detecting one or more reflections of light from at least one eye; and
modifying at least one of the plurality of content items of the teaching content based on the monitoring, wherein the teaching content is rendered viewable by the plurality of users in a physical classroom, the eye tracking is performed to track gaze vectors from the plurality of users, and the modifying comprises dynamically altering content displayed during an active instructional presentation based on real-time changes in the aggregate user gaze, wherein the dynamically altering content displayed during the active instructional presentation based on real-time changes in the aggregate user gaze comprises determining, that an attention score derived from the aggregate user gaze for a content item associated with a predefined importance metric is below a minimum attention threshold, and in response to determining that the attention score is below the minimum attention threshold, adding content to the teaching content or replacing content of the teaching content during the active instructional presentation.”
Claim 53:
“receiving the teaching content, wherein the teaching content comprises a plurality of content items;
monitoring gaze of the teaching content by the plurality of users, wherein the monitoring comprises to track gaze vectors from the plurality of users while the plurality of users view the teaching content;
identifying a plurality of content regions;
mapping the gaze vectors from the plurality of users to respective ones of the plurality of content regions;
generating, in real time, a first attention score for a first content region of the plurality of content regions based on the gaze vectors from the plurality of users mapped to the first content region, the first attention score representing a level of attention of the plurality of users on the first content region;
generating, in real time, a second attention score for a second content region of the plurality of content regions based on the gaze vectors from the plurality of users mapped to the second content region, the second attention score representing a level of attention of the plurality of users on the second content region, wherein the second attention score is different from the first attention score;
controlling display of content in the first content region in dependence on the first attention score derived from the gaze vectors from the plurality of users mapped to the first content region;
controlling display of content in the second content region in dependence on the second attention score derived from the gaze vectors from the plurality of users mapped to the second content region; and
automatically rendering content in the first content region in accordance with the controlling based on the first attention score and content in the second content region in accordance with the controlling based on the second attention score, such that display of content in the first content region and display of content in the second content region are controlled on a per-content-region basis in response to the gaze vectors from the plurality of users mapped respectively to the first content region and the second content region,
wherein configured to provide a gaze-aware display responsive to changes in gaze by the plurality of users, and wherein the gaze-aware display controls display of content in the respective content regions in response to the changes in gaze by the plurality of users mapped to the respective content regions.”
Claim 56:
“receiving the teaching content, wherein the teaching content comprises a plurality of content items;
performing eye tracking to track eye movement and gaze vectors from the plurality of users while the plurality of users view the teaching content;
monitoring, based on the eye tracking, gaze of the teaching content by the plurality of users, wherein the monitoring comprises to detect the one or more reflections of light from the at least one eye of respective ones of the plurality of users and tracking real-time changes in the gaze vectors from the plurality of users while the plurality of users view the teaching content during an active instructional presentation;
determining, based on the monitoring, that an attention score derived from the gaze vectors from the plurality of users for a content item associated with a predefined importance metric is below a minimum attention threshold;
controlling display of at least one of the plurality of content items in response to determining that the attention score derived from the gaze vectors from the plurality of users is below the minimum attention threshold, wherein controlling comprises adding content to the teaching content or replacing content of the teaching content during the active instructional presentation; and
automatically rendering and while the plurality of users view the teaching content during the active instructional presentation, the teaching content having the added content or the replacement content, wherein configured to provide a gaze-aware display responsive to the real-time changes in gaze by the plurality of users, and wherein the gaze-aware display controls the display of the teaching content in response to determining, from the gaze vectors from the plurality of users, that the attention score for the content item associated with the predefined importance metric is below the minimum attention threshold.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed element of “a data processing system,” “a memory,” “at least one processor,” “a computer readable storage medium,” “a shared display screen,” and “at least one video-based camera,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “monitoring user gaze,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a data processing system,” “a memory,” “at least one processor,” “a computer readable storage medium,” “a shared display screen,” and “at least one video-based camera,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a data processing system,” “a memory,” “at least one processor,” “a computer readable storage medium,” and “at least one video-based camera,” as illustrated in FIGS. 11-13 and as described in paras. [0068] [0111], [0128] and [0134] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed provides the following:
“[0068] FIG. 4 depicts one example of a classroom 400 during a teaching session, in accordance with one or more aspects of the present disclosure… While the class is in session, a video camera 410 tracks student gaze on the digital teaching content.”
“[0111] Broad network access: capabilities are available over a network and accessed through standard mechanisms that promote use by heterogeneous thin or thick client platforms (e.g., mobile phones, laptops, and PDAs).”
“[0128] As shown in FIG. 11, computer system 12 in computing node 10 is shown in the form of a computing device. The components of computer system 12 may include, but are not limited to, one or more processor 16, a system memory 28, and a bus 18 that couples various system components including system memory 28 to processor 16.”
“[0134] Referring now to FIG. 12, illustrative cloud computing environment 50 is depicted. As shown, cloud computing environment 50 comprises one or more cloud computing nodes 10 with which local computing devices used by cloud consumers, such as, for example, personal digital assistant (PDA) or cellular telephone 54A, desktop computer 54B, laptop computer 54C, and/or automobile computer system 54N may communicate.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer and generic computer components which again provides no specific details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a shared display screen,” is not described with any detail in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Regardless, “a display screen,” is reasonably interpreted as ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Therefore, the claimed limitations of “a data processing system,” “a memory,” “at least one processor,” “a computer readable storage medium,” “a shared display screen,” and “at least one video-based camera,” are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 9, 31, 34, 41-52, 54-55 and 57 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 9, 31, 34, 41-52, 54-55 and 57 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 12, 40, 53 or 56. Therefore, claims 1, 9, 12, 31, 34 and 40-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 9, 12, 31, 34, 40-48 and 50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the following limitation: “aggregate gaze behavior.” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 9 and 41-48 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 12.
Claims 1, 12, 40 and 44 recite the following limitation: “aggregate user gaze.” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claims 1, 12, 40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 9, 31, 34, 41-48 and 50-52 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 12 or 40.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
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.
Claims 1, 9 and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “aggregate gaze behavior.” The limitations is previously introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the aggregate gaze behavior”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 9 and 41-44 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on September 8, 2026 related to claims 1, 9, 12, 31, 34 and 40-57 are reasonably considered, but are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Applicant’s arguments with regard to “aggregate gaze behavior” and “aggregate user gaze,” continue to be unpersuasive. Specifically, the term “gaze behavior” is simply not found in the written description of the specification as originally filed. In fact the term, “behavior” only appears once. As such, the limitation “aggregate gaze behavior” is reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter.
Likewise, the limitation “aggregate user gaze,” is simply not found in the written description of the specification as originally filed. In fact the term, “aggregate” only appears twice and not with the context being claimed. As such, the limitation “aggregate user gaze” is reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter.
Finally, the Applicant’s amendments have overcome most of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). However, the Applicant’s repetitive use of the unsupported limitation of “aggregate gaze behavior,” failing to follow antecedent basis warrants further rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are not withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant’s arguments are derivative and repetitive of the arguments asked and answered in the first office action of November 20, 2024; the second office action of December 5, 2024; the third office action of April 15, 2025; the fourth office action of June 6, 2025; the fifth office action of September 12, 2025; and the sixth office action of May 6, 2025. As such, the arguments continue to be unpersuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
