DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 29 June 2026. Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 have been examined.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon:
US 20100189354
Pars. 62-63
“A normalized version of a saliency [heat] map can be seen as the probability density function of the gaze positions in an image.”
US 20220014764
Par. 31
“Saliency maps may be generated, for example using deep learning or other techniques together with, eye tracker-generated fixation maps…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein associating the sensor information.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the sensor information” in the claim. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as “the eye tracking information.” All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C. Weilin, CN114653068A (Espacenet English translation), hereinafter Weilin in view of Rosman et al., Pub. No.: US 20220153278 A1, hereinafter Rosman.
As per claim 1, Weilin discloses A computer-implemented method comprising: as implemented by an interactive computing system configured with specific computer-executable instructions,
capturing one or more image frames of a video game (in the provided Espacenet English translation document with page and line numbers: see page 2, lines 16-19, page 3, line 4, page 6, line 10, page 9, lines 15, 18-21, 30, page 10, lines 1-6 wherein still images, game interface/area, dynamic data, appearance time etc. are all alternative disclosures of one or more image frames and content therein);
receiving, from one or more sensors, eye tracking information associated with a user playing the video game (see above mapping as well as page 10, lines 2-13, page 14, lines 1-14);
associating the eye tracking information with the one or more image frames (see above mapping as well as page 10, lines 1-12) […];
identifying at least a first frame based at least in part on the eye tracking information (see above mapping as well as page 10, lines 8-12, page 14, lines 1-8);
identifying at least one feature of interest within the first frame based on the eye tracking information (see all above mapping as well as page 10, lines 10-13, page 11, lines 13-14, page 14, lines 1-8); and
outputting an indication associated with the at least one feature of interest (page 9, lines 34-37, page 10, lines 7-8, 13-14, page 13, lines 36-37).
Weilin does not explicitly disclose, however Rosman discloses:
wherein associating the sensor information with the one or more image frames comprises: filtering the eye tracking information using at least one image saliency model (Rosman, pars. 55-56, 65, 74-76 disclose denoising, correcting, refining, etc.);
generating at least a first heatmap based, at least in part, on the eye tracking information and the at least one image saliency model using one or more machine learning models (Rosman, pars. 53, 56, 62, 74-75 disclose a ML model or CNN that processes image data and gaze sequences and that visual saliency is determined from image data and fused with the gaze sequences to generate a gaze probability density heat map); and
associating the first heatmap with the one or more image frames (see Rosman as cited above as well as pars. 63, 76, 80, fig.’s 7A-8C2);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Rosman would have allowed Weilin to “provide processes for the refinement of noisy and/or biased gaze sequences by leveraging visual saliency of a scene the subject is viewing” (Rosman, par. 27), wherein “the machine learning model … makes it possible to simultaneously estimate scene saliency, a denoised gaze signal, and an estimate of the [subject’s] overall awareness of the scene” (Rosman, par. 30) and to implement a system “that utilizes image data of an environment and gaze sequence data to determine an attended awareness and recognition of aspects and/or events in the environment by a subject” (Rosman, par. 35).
As per claim 2, Weilin as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the indication is a category associated with the at least one feature of interest (page 10, lines 7-8 wherein eye trajectory info is a type (category) associated with the thing of interest being looked at and lines 13-14 wherein a video is generated (another associated category) and eye tracking report (another associated category), page 13, lines 36-37 wherein types of markings and types of colors are even further examples of associated categories; see rejection of claim 1 for further examples of the claimed category).
As per claim 4, Weilin as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a camera (see rejection of claim 1 including page 10, first par. and page 14, lines 1-14).
As per claim 5, Weilin as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sensor information comprises positional information associated with the user (see rejection of claim 1 including page 10, first par. and page 14, lines 1-14).
As per claim 8, Weilin as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first heatmap identifies eye position of the user with respect to image frames over a defined time frame (Rosman, pars. 43, 45, 72, 80).
As per claim 9, Weilin as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising altering a configuration of the video game based on the at least one feature of interest (see rejection of claim 1 and note that page 9, lines 34-37, page 10, lines 10-13, page 11, lines 13-14, page 14, lines 1-8 disclose one or more video game configuration alterations).
As per claim 10, Weilin as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein altering the configuration of the video game comprises: determining the first feature of interest triggers a condition; and causing one or more actions to occur in the video game based on the condition (see rejection of claim 9 as well as page 9, lines 34-37, page 10, lines 7-8, 13-14, page 13, lines 36-37).
As per claims 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 20, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Claim 3, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilin as modified, and further in view of Mccoy et al., Pub. No.: US 20240350912 A1, hereinafter Mccoy.
As per claim 3, Weilin as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 2. Weilin as modified does not expressly disclose however Mccoy discloses wherein the category is a rendering error for an improperly rendered or an unrendered feature (Mccoy, pars. 22, 35, 54-55, 58). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Mccoy would have allowed Weilin as modified to “to controlling rendering modes of gaming content… to reduce the amount of visual distraction in the background, such as blurring the display of the background, reducing the color saturation of the background, or adjusting the brightness of the background. Minimalist rendering control is also provided to allow for activation and calibration of rendering styles to increase accessibility and provide improved game play experience” (Mccoy, par. 22). Claim 14 is likewise rejected.
Claim 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilin as modified and further in view of Kerofsky et al., Pub. No.: US 20160255322 A1, hereinafter Kerofsky.
As per claim 6, Weilin as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 5. Weilin as modified does not expressly disclose however Kerofsky discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise a light detection and ranging (“LIDAR”) system (Kerofsky, pars. 59, 81). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Kerofsky would have allowed Weilin as modified to implement well known LIDAR technology as indicated by Kerofsky in par. 81: “A camera or any other type of sensor or combination thereof (e.g., thermal, infrared, light detection and ranging (LIDAR), 3-D LIDAR, 3-cameras, etc.) may track a viewer's face location and direction of view. Gaze tracking may also be performed using such sensors. A user interface may use a viewer's direction of view to control interaction.” Claim 16 is likewise rejected.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilin as modified and further in view of Froy et al., Pub. No.: US 20170236363 A1, hereinafter Froy.
As per claim 11, Weilin as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10. Weilin as modified does not expressly disclose however Froy discloses wherein the one or more actions comprise an animation triggered within a virtual environment of the video game (Froy, pars. 50, 160-170). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Froy would have allowed Weilin as modified “to display a graphical animation effect to enhance the positive game component with additional fanfare, for example, a special particle effect, fireworks, additional resolution and/or size of the positive game component, greater colour contrast and brightness, or lights and noises. In some embodiments, the graphical animation effect may correlate with the amount of time the player has maintained their eye gaze on the positive game component. The longer the player focuses their eye gaze on the positive game component, the more graphical animation effects may be displayed” (Froy, par. 163).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 29 June 2026 have been considered.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is because the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a practical application that provides an improvement to a technical field. It is noted that the claims themselves reflect the disclosed improvement. That is, the claims include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
With respect to the prior art rejection, Rosman et al., Pub. No.: US 20220153278 A1, has been applied in response to claim amendments.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights