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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 27, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on March 30, 2026 for the patent application 18/458,536 originally filed on August 30, 2023. Claims 12 is amended. Claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 13-26 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12 and 27-40 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; and the fifth office action of September 12, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-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 1-2,5,7-10,12 and 27-40 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, 38 and 40 are directed to “a computer-implemented method” (i.e. “a process”), and claims 12 and 39 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 the 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 the content displayed on the shared screen 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
detecting 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 38:
“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 digital 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.”
Claim 39:
“receiving teaching content, wherein the teaching content comprises a plurality of content items;
performing eye tracking to track eye movement of the plurality of users who are viewing the teaching content;
monitoring, based on the eye tracking, aggregate user gaze with respect to the teaching content by the plurality of users, wherein the monitoring comprises:
detecting one or more reflections of light from at least one eye of at least one of the plurality of users; and
monitoring gaze vectors of the plurality of users;
modifying at least one of the plurality of content items of the teaching content based on the monitoring, wherein the modifying comprises:
receiving a hypergraph representing the digital teaching content and associated content heuristics;
generating one or more heat maps from gaze point sequences, each heat map reflecting gaze duration across defined content region units within a content item;
retrieving metadata for each content region unit, the metadata comprising effort and importance parameters;
computing attention scores for each content region unit based on gaze density and fixation duration;
determining whether an attention score for a content region unit satisfies a predefined threshold condition; and
in response to the determination:
(i) retaining, removing, reordering, augmenting, or replacing one or more of the content region units;
(ii) dynamically updating the hypergraph to reflect modified interdependencies among the content items;
(iii) generating new content using natural language generation techniques for content region units associated with importance metadata and insufficient gaze attention;
(iv) inserting explanatory content or magnifying visual regions of interest that exceed a gaze concentration threshold; and
(v) re-rendering the modified teaching content in a live instructional environment, wherein is viewable by the plurality of users during an ongoing teaching session, and wherein machine learning is used to iteratively improve at least one of the gaze-based monitoring, threshold evaluation, and modifying operations over time.”
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 using to track gaze vectors from the plurality of users, and the modifying comprises dynamically altering the content displayed during an active instructional session based on real-time changes in aggregate gaze behavior, wherein the dynamically altering the content displayed during the active instructional session based on real-time changes in aggregate gaze behavior comprises determining, that aggregate gaze attention for a content item associated with a predefined importance metric is below a minimum attention threshold, and in response to the threshold condition being met, adding to or replacing content of the teaching content during the active instructional session.”
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 2, 5, 7-10 and 27-37 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2, 5, 7-10 and 27-37 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 38. Therefore, claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12 and 27-40 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 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12 and 27-40 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, 12, 32, 33 and 40 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, 12, 32, 33 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 12, and 38-40 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, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2, 5, 7-10 and 27-37 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), based on their respective dependencies to claim 38.
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, 39 and 40 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 “the content.” The limitation “digital teaching content,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the digital teaching content”); 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the shared screen.” The limitation “a shared display screen,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the shared display screen”); 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.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “digital teaching content.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 39. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the digital teaching content”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 39. Therefore, claim 39 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.
Claim 39 recites the limitations “the content items,” “the modified digital teaching content,” and “the gazed-based monitoring.” The limitations are not introduced in claim 39 and lack antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 39 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.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “content region units.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 39. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the content region units”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 39. Therefore, claim 39 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.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “the content.” The limitation “digital teaching content,” is originally introduced in claim 40. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the digital teaching content”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 40. Therefore, claim 40 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.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “the shared screen.” The limitation “a shared display screen,” is originally introduced in claim 40. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the shared display screen”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 40. Therefore, claim 40 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.
Claim 40 recites the limitations “the active instructional session,” “the threshold condition,” and “the active instructional session.” The limitations are not introduced in claim 409 and lack antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 40 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.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on March 30, 2026 related to claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12 and 27-40 are reasonably considered, but are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully traverses the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant’s arguments are repetitive of the arguments asked and answered in the last office actions. Nonetheless, the Examiner has respectfully provided the Applicant’s unpersuasive arguments once again for the Applicant’s review.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action does not establish a prima facie case of ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Under current USPTO subject matter eligibility guidance, the initial burden remains on the Examiner to explain, clearly and specifically, why the pending claims are ineligible, SO that Applicant has sufficient notice of the asserted basis for the rejection and a fair opportunity to respond. The USPTO's October 2019 Update explains that "the initial burden is on the examiner to explain why a claim or claims are ineligible for patenting clearly and specifically," and MPEP § 2106.07 likewise requires a reasoned eligibility analysis identifying the asserted judicial exception and adequately explaining why the claim is allegedly "directed to" that exception, including why any additional claim elements do not integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection provided above is sufficiently clear and specific to those with ordinary skill in the art of determining subject-matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter for a variety of reasons.
In one aspect, claim 1 defines an improvement in the technology of shared display screens in a presentation setting. The inventors recognized that technological problems arise in the context of shared display screens that are not encountered in the context of displays configured for single-user control. In a single-user display environment, an individual user may manually adjust content presentation according to that user's own needs or preferences. In a shared-display environment, by contrast, such individualized manual control is not practically available because the displayed content is presented commonly to multiple viewers in a single physical setting. Claim 1 addresses that specific technological setting by reciting eye tracking for a plurality of users, monitoring aggregate user gaze, mapping aggregate user gaze to respective content regions of the shared display screen using gaze vectors, and dynamically altering displayed content on the shared screen during an active instructional presentation based on real-time changes in aggregate gaze behavior. Claim 1 is therefore directed to improving how a shared-display presentation system operates, rather than to merely using a computer as a tool to analyze information.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how the Applicant’s “shared screens” provides a technical solution to a technical problem. As such, the argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claim 1 also recites a concrete technological solution to that shared-display problem. The claim does not merely refer to user attention at a high level. Rather, the claim recites hardware-based eye tracking using at least one video-based camera configured to track gaze vectors from a plurality of users, detecting one or more reflections of light from at least one eye, mapping aggregate user gaze to respective content regions of the shared display screen, and dynamically altering content displayed on the shared screen during the presentation. The claim further requires that alterations be applied differently to different content regions in accordance with differences in mapped aggregate gaze, and that the monitoring and modifying be iteratively performed during the active instructional presentation. These recitations define a concrete closed-loop display-control technique for shared-display operation.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument continues to not be commensurate with the scope of the claims. Specifically, since neither the claims nor the written description as originally filed provides any context with regard to either “shared screens” nor “a concrete closed-loop display-control technique for shared-display operation.” As such, the argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claim 1 also more clearly removes the claim from any plausible characterization as a mental process. The recited operations include video-based eye tracking, tracking gaze vectors, mapping aggregate gaze to respective content regions of a shared display, and iteratively modifying displayed content in real time based on those mapped gaze differences. Those are concrete computer-vision and display-control operations, not acts practically performable in the human mind.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required. Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and the Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Further, claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract concept into a practical application. The claim does not merely gather information and report a result. Rather, the claim recites a specific sensor-driven display-control architecture in which aggregate gaze information from multiple users is used to dynamically alter what is shown on a shared display screen during an active presentation, including applying different alterations to different display regions based on region-specific mapped gaze behavior.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The amendments also sharpen the claim's user-interface focus in a manner consistent with Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Core Wireless, the Federal Circuit explained that claims directed to a specific improvement in the way information is displayed and accessed in a user-facing computing environment are not directed to an abstract idea. Here, amended claim 1 is likewise directed to a specific improvement in how information is presented on a user-facing display. More particularly, amended claim 1 is not directed merely to evaluating user behavior in the abstract, but to improving operation of a shared display interface by dynamically altering displayed content on a region-by-region basis in response to mapped aggregate gaze behavior from multiple viewers.
That user-interface improvement is especially pronounced here because claim 1 is directed to a shared display, not an individualized device interface. In a shared-display environment, the system cannot simply personalize content separately for different viewers. Instead, the claimed method improves the shared visual interface itself by sensing aggregate gaze across multiple users, mapping that gaze to respective display regions, and differentially altering displayed content in real time. Thus, claim 1 falls within the line of authority recognizing eligibility for concrete improvements in display and interface technology, rather than claims merely invoking computers as a tool.
Amended claim 1 therefore is not analogous to claims that merely collect information, analyze it, and present the results. Rather, like the claims found eligible in Core Wireless, amended claim 1 is directed to a particularized manner of improving how information is managed and presented in a user facing computing environment. The focus of the amended claim is a specific shared-display control mechanism that uses hardware-acquired gaze information to modify what is shown, where it is shown, and how it is altered on the display during presentation.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant’s conclusory statement with regard to Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., fails to demonstrate any claiming of a new display as in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., but rather is claiming an application to an existing technology. In view of CXLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc. slip. op., pages 16-17, the Applicant’s claims are merely directed to an abstract idea, and are implemented using conventional techniques; the claims are not directed to a technological solution to a technological problem and are therefore deemed not subject-matter eligible
Second, with regard to the Applicant’s “improving operation of a shared display interface,” the statement is conclusory since such an “improvement” is simply not claimed nor discussed in the written description as originally filed. In fact, the word “shared” only appears three times in the written description as originally filed.
Finally, the Applicant’s “particularized manner of improving how information is managed and presented in a user facing computing environment,” at best appears to approach a man-made burden and not provides any technical solution to a technical problem. Again, the Applicant’s claims are merely directed to an abstract idea, and are implemented using conventional techniques; the claims are not directed to a technological solution to a technological problem and are therefore deemed not subject-matter eligible. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Thus, claim 1 is directed to an improvement in the functioning of a shared visual interface itself. Applicant respectfully submits that, in view of the foregoing, claim 1 recites patent-eligible subject matter.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the reasons stated here and above in the rejection. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The remainder of the Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claims 12 and 38-40 are repetitive and derivative of arguments asked and answered above with regard to claim 1. As such, these arguments are also not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights