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 . Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 13 are objected to because they are missing with after associated. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claim 1, 12, 20, the identifying, associating cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The capturing, receiving, outputting limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19 the generate, associate, alter, determine, occur, animate cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 category indication, rendering error, camera, positional information, LIDAR, eye position are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by of C. Weilin, CN114653068A (Espacenet English translation), hereinafter Weilin.
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).
As per claim 2, Weilin discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the indication is a category associated 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 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 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 9, Weilin 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 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, 19 and 20, they are analogous to claims above and therefore 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.
Claim 3, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilin in view of Mccoy et al., Pub. No.: US 20240350912 A1, hereinafter Mccoy.
As per claim 3, Weilin discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 2. Weilin 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 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 in view of Kerofsky et al., Pub. No.: US 20160255322 A1, hereinafter Kerofsky.
As per claim 6, Weilin discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 5. Weilin 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 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.
Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilin in view of Mantri et al., Pub. No.: US 20240394941 A1, hereinafter Mantri.
As per claim 7, Weilin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2. Weilin does not expressly disclose however Mantri discloses wherein associating the sensor information with the one or more image frames comprises: generating at least a first heatmap based on the eye tracking information using one or more machine learning models trained to generate heatmaps from the eye tracking information; and associating the first heatmap with the one or more image frames (Mantri, pars. 45, 70). 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 Mantri would have allowed Weilin to implement an “on-device machine learning based personalization framework in order to understand the context and intent of the user” (Mantri, par. 69).
As per claim 8, Weilin as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the first heatmap identifies eye position of the user with respect to image frames over a defined time frame (Mantri, pars. 35-37, 45, 70).
As per claims 17, 18 they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weilin in view of Froy et al., Pub. No.: US 20170236363 A1, hereinafter Froy.
As per claim 11, Weilin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10. Weilin 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 “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).
Conclusion
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