DETAILED ACTION
The Amendments and Remarks filed on 03/10/2026 have been considered. Claims 1-16 as amended are pending in the application.
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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walkin et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0240332 (hereinafter “Walkin”), and further in view of Stellmach et al. U.S. Publication 2019/0361521 (hereinafter “Stellmach”).
Referring to claim 1, Walkin teaches a method comprising:
at a computer system in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices (Walkin: Figures 2-3):
displaying, via the display generation component, a user interface that includes an attention indicator at a first location in the user interface (for example, the user interface shown in Figure 6E includes the display of a circular attention indicator at a particular location) (Walkin: paragraphs [0205]-[0206]), wherein the first location corresponds to a location of an attention of a user of the computer system directed toward the user interface (the circular attention indicator represents the user’s current position of interest and is presented at a location shown in Figure 6E) (Walkin: paragraphs [0205]-[0206] and [0290]);
while displaying the user interface including the attention indicator, detecting, via the one or more input devices, movement of the attention of the user (the circular attention indicator represents the user’s current position of interest, which can move from the initial position shown in Figure 6E to the new position shown in Figure 6F) (Walkin: paragraphs [0207] and [0290]), including detecting a movement of the user’s attention from a first location to a second location, different from the first location (the circular attention indicator represents the user’s current position of interest and is moved from the location shown in Figure 6E to the location shown in Figure 6F) (Walkin: paragraphs [0207]-[0208] and [0290]);
in response to detecting the movement of the attention of the user, moving the attention indicator from the first location to the second location in the user interface corresponding to the movement of the attention of the user (the circular attention indicator represents the user’s current position of interest and is moved from the location shown in Figure 6E to the location shown in Figure 6F) (Walkin: paragraphs [0207]-[0208] and [0290]); and
after displaying the attention indicator at the second location in the user interface and while the attention of the user continues to be directed to the second location, in accordance with a determination that one or more criteria are satisfied, ceasing to display the attention indicator in the user interface (while the user’s attention remains on the second location, i.e. while the circular attention indicator is displayed in the second location, ceasing display of the circular attention indicator when a criteria is satisfied, such as a threshold amount of time elapsing or a scroll input being received at the position of the circular attention indicator) (Walkin: paragraphs [0242]-[0243] and [0253]).
However, Walkin fails to explicitly teach that the attention of the user is gaze-based attention, wherein the gaze-based attention of the user is based on a gaze of the user being directed to a first location and including detecting a movement of the gaze of the user from the first location to a second location different from the first location. Instead, Walkin teaches that the attention of the user is touch-based.
Similar to Walkin, Stellmach also teaches displaying a user interface that includes an attention indicator at a first location corresponding to a location of an attention of a user of the computer system directed towards the user interface (for example, the user interface shown in Figure 11 includes the display of a guidance cursor 338 at a first location 334) (Stellmach: paragraphs [0062]-[0065]). In addition, Stellmach teaches that the attention of the user can be gaze-based (gaze tracking to allow gaze-based movement and/or manipulation of virtual elements by a user) (Stellmach: paragraphs [0036] and [0062]-[0065]), wherein the gaze-based attention of the user is based on a gaze of the user being directed to a first location (a first position of a user’s gaze location) (Stellmach: paragraphs [0062]-[0065]) and including detecting a movement of the gaze of the user from the first location to a second location different from the first location (the user can move their gaze location from a first position 334 to a second position 348 in the user interface) (Stellmach: paragraphs [0062]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attention of the user provided by the touch input taught by Walkin with the attention of the user provided by gaze input, as taught by Stellmach. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve user interaction with a virtual environment (Stellmach: paragraph [0003]). Usage of UIs have become more common among non-specialists; interaction with the UIs may be improved by using gaze tracking to make interactions more intuitive and subtle (Stellmach: paragraphs [0001]-[0003]).
Referring to claim 2, Walkin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
after displaying the attention indicator at the second location in the user interface and while the gaze-based attention of the user continues to be directed to the second location, in accordance with a determination that the one or more criteria are not satisfied, maintaining display of the attention indicator at the second location in the user interface (the circular attention indicator remains displayed if the threshold amount of time has not elapsed or a scroll input has not been received) (Walkin: paragraphs [0242]-[0243]).
Referring to claim 3, Walkin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
displaying the attention indicator at the first location of the user interface includes displaying the attention indicator at a location of content of a first application (Figure 6BM shows the display of a first application 604-1 and a second application 604-2; the circular attention indicator can be displayed in the first application as shown in Figure 6BM) (Walkin: paragraph [0247]); and
displaying the attention indicator at the second location of the user interface includes displaying the attention indicator at a location of content of the second application, different from the first application (Figure 6BM shows the display of a first application 604-1 and a second application 604-2; the circular attention indicator can be displayed in the second application as shown in Figure 6BT) (Walkin: paragraphs [0247] and [0254]).
Referring to claim 4, Walkin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the first location of the user interface corresponds to content of a respective application (as shown in Figure 6BM for example, the circular attention indicator is located in the news application) (Walkin: paragraph [0247]); and
the respective application is not provided any indication that the gaze-based attention of the user of the computer system is directed to the respective application (the user has not provided a selection input corresponding one of the displayed files in the news application) (Walkin: paragraph [0247]).
Referring to claim 6, Walkin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when input for navigating through content of the user interface at the second location is received (ceasing display of the circular attention indicator when a content navigation input, i.e. a scrolling input, is received) (Walkin: paragraphs [0253] and [0365]).
Referring to claim 7, Walkin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when content at the second location in the user interface is a first type of content (the circular attention indicator shown in Figure 6BM is removed if it is moved to a type of content such as content 640-2 shown in Figure 6BN, i.e. content that is smaller than a threshold size or content that is selectable) (Walkin: paragraphs [0248] and [0400]), and is not satisfied when the content at the second location in the user interface is a second type of content, different from the first type of content (the circular attention indicator shown in Figure 6BM remains displayed if it is moved to a type of content such as content 640-3 shown in Figure 6BO, i.e. content that is larger than a threshold size or content that is not selectable) (Walkin: paragraphs [0249] and [0400]).
Referring to claim 9, Walkin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criterion that is satisfied when the gaze-based attention of the user is directed towards the second location in the user interface for more than a threshold duration (ceasing display of the cursor after the cursor has been displayed for more than a threshold amount of time) (Walkin: paragraph [0242]).
Referring to claim 10, Walkin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 9, wherein:
in accordance with a determination that the second location corresponds to a first type of content, the threshold duration is a first duration (if the cursor is displayed at a location of an object that is not currently selected, the threshold amount of time is shorter) (Walkin: paragraph [0245]), and
in accordance with a determination that the second location corresponds to a second type of content, different from the first type of content, the threshold duration is a second duration, different from the first duration (if the cursor is displayed at a location of an object that is currently selected, the threshold amount of time is longer) (Walkin: paragraph [0245]).
Referring to claim 11, Walkin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
after ceasing to display the attention indicator in the user interface and while not displaying the attention indicator in the user interface, detecting, via the one or more input devices, movement of the gaze-based attention of the user from the second location to a third location in the user interface (while displaying the user interface without displaying the circular attention indicator, the user can provide input/focus to any location on the user interface, such as an input on the touch screen 504 shown in Figure 6B or the input on the touch sensitive surface 451 shown in Figure 6C) (Walkin: paragraphs [0204]-[0205] and [0386]), wherein the second location corresponds to a first user interface object in the user interface (the input can be received at any location on the interface, such as at object 640-3 shown in Figure 6BO) (Walkin: paragraph [0247]);
in response to detecting movement of the gaze-based attention of the user:
in accordance with a determination that the third location corresponds to a second user interface object, different from the first user interface object, in the user interface, displaying, via the display generation component, the attention indicator at the third location in the user interface (if the input is the user contacting the touch sensitive surface 451 and moving to a location that corresponds to one of the displayed objects, such as object 640-4 in Figure 6BO, the circular attention indicator is displayed at the location corresponding to the contact and move) (Walkin: paragraphs [0204]-[0205], [0249]-[0250], [0253] and [0386]); and
in accordance with a determination that the third location corresponds to the first user interface object, forgoing displaying the attention indicator at the third location in the user interface (if the input is user contacting touch screen 504 at a location that corresponds to a displayed objects, such as object 640-3 in Figure 6BO, and swiping upward, the user interface is scrolled instead of displaying the cursor) (Walkin: paragraphs [0204]-[0205], [0249]-[0250], [0253] and [0386]).
Referring to claim 12, Walkin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein ceasing to display the attention indicator in the user interface includes:
displaying a gradual animated transition between displaying the attention indicator at the second location in the user interface and ceasing to display the attention indicator in the user interface (ceasing display of the circular attention indicator includes displaying an animation of the circular attention indicator fading out) (Walkin: paragraph [0366]), the method further comprising:
while the attention indicator is not displayed in the user interface, detecting that the gaze-based attention of the user is directed to a third location in the user interface (while displaying the user interface without displaying the circular attention indicator, the user can provide input/focus to any location on the user interface) (Walkin: paragraph [0386]); and
in response to detecting that the gaze-based attention of the user is directed to the third location in the user interface, and in accordance with a determination that one or more second criteria are satisfied, displaying a gradual animated transition between not displaying the attention indicator in the user interface to displaying the attention indicator at the third location in the user interface (in response to detecting contact at a location that is not a swipe gesture, displaying a circular attention indicator at the location of the user interface that currently has input/focus; displaying the circular attention indicator includes animating the circular attention indicator fading into view, as shown in Figures 6C-6E) (Walkin: paragraphs [0204]-[0206] and [0386]-[0388]).
Referring to claim 13, Walkin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
while displaying the attention indicator at the second location in the user interface, wherein the second location corresponds to a selectable user interface object, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a selection input (receiving a selection input while the circular attention indicator is displayed at a location, such as the location indicating that object 640-3 is selected as shown in Figure 6BO for example) (Walkin: paragraphs [0244]-[0245] and [0249]); and
in response to detecting the selection input, initiating an operation associated with the selectable user interface object (the selection input executes a function associated with the respective user interface object) (Walkin: paragraph [0210]).
Referring to claim 14, Walkin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second location corresponds to a user interface object (for example: the circular attention indicator moves from the first position shown in Figure 6BM to the second position shown in Figure 6BO; the location of the circular attention indicator in Figure 6BO corresponds to object 640-3) (Walkin: paragraphs [0248]-[0249]), and the attention indicator at the second location comprises a visual indication displayed in an area of the object that emphasizes the second location in the area of the object (object 640-3 is visually highlighted) (Walkin: paragraphs [0248]-[0249]).
Claim 15 recites a computer system embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the method embodiment of claim 1. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the method embodiment of claim 1. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walkin et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0240332 (hereinafter “Walkin”), and further in view of Stellmach et al. U.S. Publication 2019/0361521 (hereinafter “Stellmach”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rideout et al. U.S. Publication 2014/0280603 (hereinafter “Rideout”).
Referring to claim 5, Walkin, and further in view of Stellmach (hereinafter “the combination of Walkin/Stellmach”) teaches all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. However, the combination of Walkin/Stellmach fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a content playback status of content at the second location in the user interface is a first status. Similar to the combination of Walkin/Stellmach, Rideout also teaches the display of an attention indicator indicating an attention of a user (the user interface shown in Figure 5a includes an attention indicator 4011; the position of the attention indicator is based on where the user’s attention is currently focused at) (Rideout: paragraphs [0079] and [0089]-[0090]) and ceasing the display of the attention indicator in accordance with a determination that one or more criteria are satisfied (if the criteria of the user stopping an existing interaction is satisfied, then the attention indicator is no longer displayed) (Rideout: paragraphs [0104] and [0106]; this is further shown in Figure 6b). In addition, Rideout also teaches wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a content playback status of content at the second location in the user interface is a first status (the user can be consuming content such as watching a video; the attention indicator is hidden when the condition of the end of the user’s consumption of content is satisfied) (Rideout: paragraphs [0104] and [0106]). Because both the combination of Walkin/Stellmach and Rideout teach ceasing display of the attention indicator in the user interface in accordance with a determination that one or more criteria are satisfied, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one type of criteria for another, to achieve the predicable result of ceasing display of the attention indicator in accordance with a particular criteria being satisfied, in this case, a content playback status being satisfied.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walkin et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0240332 (hereinafter “Walkin”), and further in view of Stellmach et al. U.S. Publication 2019/0361521 (hereinafter “Stellmach”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda et al. U.S. Publication 2016/0291692 (hereinafter “Yasuda”).
Referring to claim 8, Walkin, and further in view of Stellmach (hereinafter “the combination of Walkin/Stellmach”) teaches all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. However, the combination of Walkin/Stellmach fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the movement of the attention of the user is less than a threshold movement. Similar to the combination of Walkin/Stellmach, Yasuda also teaches the display of an attention indicator indicating an attention of a user of a computer system (for example, the display unit shown in Figure 1 shows the display of a cursor P) (Yasuda: paragraph [0036]) and ceasing the display of the attention indicator in accordance with a determination that one or more criteria are satisfied (the cursor can be hidden when a predetermined condition is satisfied) (Yasuda: paragraph [0069]). In addition, Yasuda teaches wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the movement of the attention of the user is less than a threshold movement (the predetermined condition for causing the cursor to be hidden includes the amount of movement being below a threshold) (Yasuda: paragraph [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the criteria for ceasing to display the attention indicator taught by the combination of Walkin/Stellmach to include ceasing to display the attention indicator if the amount of movement is less than a predetermined threshold, as taught by Yasuda. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to allow the cursor to be easily and intuitively controlled as desired by the user (Yasuda: paragraphs [0004] and [0008]). For example, movement below a predetermined threshold indicates that the user does not have intention to change the position of the cursor (Yasuda: paragraph [0069]); hiding the cursor when the user does not have intention to change the position of the cursor allows the user to easily control the cursor as desired (Yasuda: paragraphs [0004] and [0008]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For the sake of completeness, the Applicant noted that Stellmach could not be combined with Walkin. The Applicant argues that Stellmach teaches to decouple gaze from a cursor so as to allow manual control and therefore teaches away from the inclusion of the feature: “after displaying the attention indicator at the second location in the user interface and while the gaze-based attention of the user continues to be directed to the second location, in accordance with a determination that one or more criteria are satisfied, ceasing to display the attention indicator in the user interface.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Decoupling gaze from a cursor so as to allow manual control is only one embodiment taught by Stellmach (the embodiment described in paragraphs [0056]-0057] and Figures 4-8). Stellmach also teaches an embodiment that moves the cursor from a first location to a second location based on gaze position, without decoupling the gaze from the cursor (please see the embodiment described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067] and Figures 10-12). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully argues that Stellmach does not teach away from the inclusion of the feature: “after displaying the attention indicator at the second location in the user interface and while the gaze-based attention of the user continues to be directed to the second location, in accordance with a determination that one or more criteria are satisfied, ceasing to display the attention indicator in the user interface.”
Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The features of “after displaying the attention indicator at the second location in the user interface and while the attention of the user continues to be directed to the second location, in accordance with a determination that one or more criteria are satisfied, ceasing to display the attention indicator in the user interface” is taught by the primary reference Walkin. The only difference between Walkin and the claimed limitation of claim 1 is that Walkin does not explicitly teach that the attention of the user is gaze-based attention. Walkin teaches that the attention is touch-based, i.e. based on touch input. However, Walkin states that the user input can be provided by means other than touch input, i.e. the user input can be provided via detected eye movements (please see Walkin at paragraph [0136]). Therefore, Walkin provides a suggestion for modifying the attention to be gaze-based. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the attention of the user provided by the touch input taught by Walkin with the attention of the user provided by gaze input, as taught by Stellmach, to obtain the feature of: “after displaying the attention indicator at the second location in the user interface and while the gaze-based attention of the user continues to be directed to the second location, in accordance with a determination that one or more criteria are satisfied, ceasing to display the attention indicator in the user interface.” Stellmach also explicitly states a motivation for using gaze-tracking. For example, Stellmach states: “Interactions with UIs may be improved by making the interaction more intuitive and subtle” (please see Walkin at paragraph [0001]) and “An effortless and subtle way to indicate a user’s context is to take advantage of gaze tracking data to infer a user’s current reference frame” (please see Walkin at paragraph 0002]). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully argues that there is teaching, suggestion and motivation to modify the touch-based attention taught by Walkin with the gaze-based attention taught by Stellmach.
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 TING ZHOU LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4058. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 9AM – 1PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 27. 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.
/TING Z LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights