DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-22 are pending for examination.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 are independent Claims.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Clarity of the Record
Claim 1 recites the following contingent limitations:
a) “in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is not below the first threshold amount of time, maintaining selection of the first UI element.”,
b) “in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is above a second threshold different from the first threshold amount of time and below the first threshold amount of time, selecting the first UI element;” and
c) "in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is not above the second threshold amount of time, deselecting the first UI element”. These limitations are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions are met. Limitation a) only need to be perform if the first attention accumulator value is not below the first threshold amount of time. Limitation b) only needs to be performed if the first attention accumulator value calculated in limitation a) is less than the first threshold amount of time and greater than the second threshold amount of time, and limitation c) only needs to be performed if the first attention accumulator value in limitation a) is below the second threshold amount of time. These conditions are mutually exclusive, and therefore only one of limitations a), b) and c) can be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 1 requires limitation a) or limitation b) or limitation c) but not all of them.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-14 and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto (U.S. 9,939,894 hereinafter Imoto) and Lee et al. (U.S. 2022/0155857 hereinafter Lee) in view of Ambrus et al. (U.S. 2022/0155857 hereinafter Ambrus) in further view of Xin et al. (U.S. 2014/0129990 hereinafter Xin)
As Claim 1, Imoto teaches a method comprising:
at a computing system including non-transitory memory and one or more processors (Imoto (col. 20 line 49-57), memory and processing apparatus), wherein the computing system is communicatively coupled to a display device (Imoto (col. 21 line 17), display device) and one or more input devices via a communication interface (Imoto (col. 21 line 17), communication interface):
while a first user interface (UI) element is currently selected (Imoto (col. 9 line 30-37), first object is selected), detecting a first gaze direction not directed to the first UI element (Imoto (col. 9 line 57-67), cancellation is determined when user line of sight is inside the second region for a second setting time or longer), wherein the first UI element is selected in accordance with a predetermination that a first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element satisfies a first threshold amount of time (Imoto (¶0007 line 19-28), “selection of an object is satisfied based on the time obtained based on information about eyes of the user”, when object is focused for more than a set of first setting time, the object is selected);
in response to detecting the first gaze direction not directed to the first UI element (Imoto (col. 9 line 57-67), cancellation is determined when user line of sight is inside the second region for a second setting time or longer),
Imoto may not explicitly disclose:
decreasing a first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element based on a length of time that the first gaze direction is not directed to the first UI element;
Lee teaches:
decreasing a first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element based on a length of time that the first gaze direction is not directed to the first UI element (Lee (¶0031 line 12-15), attention for second object increases while attention for the first object decreases);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an attention accumulation of Imoto instead be an attention accumulation taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to allow “the spatial intent model correctly determine the selected entity” (Lee (¶0029 last 5 lines)).
Imoto in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose:
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is not below the first threshold amount of time, maintaining selection of the first UI element.
Ambrus teaches:
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is not below the first threshold amount of time, maintaining selection of the first UI element (Ambrus (¶0023 line 8-11), object remains being selected if the accumulative time spent is greater than a threshold. It is construed that if the accumulative time spent is below a threshold, the object is de-selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an attention accumulation of Imoto in view of Lee instead be an attention accumulative time spent taught by Ambrus, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to allow “compensate for distractions to the end user while they are focusing on the selectable object” (Ambrus (¶0023 line 6-8)).
Imoto in view of Lee in further view of Ambrus may not explicitly disclose:
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is above a second threshold different from the first threshold amount of time and below the first threshold amount of time, selecting the first UI element; and
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is not above the second threshold amount of time, deselecting the first UI element.
Xin teaches:
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is above a second threshold different from the first threshold amount of time and below the first threshold amount of time, selecting the first UI element (Xin (¶0118 last 8 lines), “the x and y-rotation control handles 546 and 548 begin to fade out (not shown) if the selected 3D object 540 is not touched for a threshold first time period, and completely disappear, as shown in FIG. 14C, after the selected 3D object 540 has not been touched for a threshold second time period”, after first threshold time, the handles are fading out); and
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is not above the second threshold amount of time, deselecting the first UI element (Xin (¶0118 last 8 lines), “the x and y-rotation control handles 546 and 548 begin to fade out (not shown) if the selected 3D object 540 is not touched for a threshold first time period, and completely disappear, as shown in FIG. 14C, after the selected 3D object 540 has not been touched for a threshold second time period”, after second threshold time, the object is deselected).
Ambrus discloses a system/method to deselect object when accumulation time spent is below a threshold. Xin discloses two thresholds, first threshold to fade out and second threshold to deselect object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a single threshold of Imoto in view of Lee in further view of Ambrus instead be first and second thresholds taught by Xin, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to “provide means of visual feedback on the paper to facilitate manipulation of recognized image objects” (Xin (¶0007 line 3-5)).
As Claim 2, besides Claim 1, Imoto and Lee in view of Ambrus in further view of Xin teaches wherein the first gaze direction is directed to no UI element (Imoto (col. 10 line 13-16), second area does not have any activated element).
As Claim 3, besides Claim 1, Imoto and Lee in view of Ambrus in further view of Xin teaches wherein the first gaze direction is directed to a second UI element different than the first UI element (Imoto (col. 10 line 1-5), second UI element is different than first UI element).
As Claim 4, besides Claim 3, Imoto and Lee in view of Ambrus in further view of Xin teaches wherein the first threshold is based on a second attention accumulator value associated with the second UI element (Imoto (col. 10 line 44-46), second setting time is based on the size of movement eyes of the user).
As Claim 5, besides Claim 1, Imoto and Lee in view of Ambrus in further view of Xin teaches further comprising:
while the first UI element is not selected, detecting a second gaze direction directed to the first UI element (Imoto (col. 7 line 23-34), selection criteria is based on gaze time);
in response to detecting the second gaze direction directed to the first UI element, increasing the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element based on a length of time that the second gaze direction is directed to the first UI element (Imoto (¶0007 line 19-28), “selection of an object is satisfied based on the time obtained based on information about eyes of the user”, when object is focused for more than a set of first setting time, the object is selected);
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is above the second threshold amount of time, selecting the first UI element (Xin (¶0118 last 8 lines), “the x and y-rotation control handles 546 and 548 begin to fade out (not shown) if the selected 3D object 540 is not touched for a threshold first time period, and completely disappear, as shown in FIG. 14C, after the selected 3D object 540 has not been touched for a threshold second time period”, after second threshold time, the object is deselected); and
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is not above the second threshold amount of time, forgoing selection of the first UI element (Xin (¶0118 last 8 lines), “the x and y-rotation control handles 546 and 548 begin to fade out (not shown) if the selected 3D object 540 is not touched for a threshold first time period, and completely disappear, as shown in FIG. 14C, after the selected 3D object 540 has not been touched for a threshold second time period”, after second threshold time, the object is deselected).
As Claim 7, besides Claim 6, Imoto and Lee in view of Ambrus in further view of Xin teaches wherein deselecting the first UI element includes changing an appearance of the first UI element (Imoto (col. 13 line 22-23), user can distinguish between selection and non-selection mode).
As Claim 8, besides Claim 1, Imoto and Lee in view of Ambrus in further view of Xin teaches wherein the first UI element is deselected after the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is reduced over at least two successive time periods (Lee (¶0031 line 12-15), attention for second object increases while attention for the first object decreases).
As Claim 9, besides Claim 1, Imoto and Lee in view of Ambrus in further view of Xin teaches wherein the first UI element corresponds to one of a selectable affordance, a selectable button, an interactive UI element, a notification, or an extended reality (XR) object (Imoto (col. 16 line 44-56), object is selectable).
As Claim 10, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
As Claim 11, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2.
As Claim 12, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
As Claim 13, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 4.
As Claim 14, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 5.
As Claim 16, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 8.
As Claim 17, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
As Claim 18, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2.
As Claim 19, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
As Claim 20, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 4.
As Claim 21, besides Claim 17, Imoto and Lee in view of Ambrus in further view of Xin teaches wherein deselecting the first UI element includes changing an appearance of the first UI element (Xin (¶0118 last 8 lines), “the x and y-rotation control handles 546 and 548 begin to fade out (not shown) if the selected 3D object 540 is not touched for a threshold first time period, and completely disappear, as shown in FIG. 14C, after the selected 3D object 540 has not been touched for a threshold second time period”, fading out is construed as changing an appearance of the first UI element).
As Claim 22, besides Claim 17, Imoto and Lee in view of Ambrus in further view of Xin teaches wherein the first UI element is deselected after the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is reduced over at least two successive time periods (Xin (¶0118 last 8 lines), “the x and y-rotation control handles 546 and 548 begin to fade out (not shown) if the selected 3D object 540 is not touched for a threshold first time period, and completely disappear, as shown in FIG. 14C, after the selected 3D object 540 has not been touched for a threshold second time period.” First time period is to determine the fading out aspect. Second time period is to determine the deselection of the object.).
Response to Arguments
As Claim 1, Applicants argue that Ambrus fails to disclose “first threshold amount of time” and “second threshold amount of time” (last paragraph of page 8 and first paragraph of page 9 in the remarks).
Applicants’ arguments are moot because new reference Xin teaches the limitation(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cappello et al. (U.S. 2022/0011860) discloses deselection of object based on threshold number of gaze point for a predetermined period of time.
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 NHAT HUY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7333. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 12:00-8:00 EST.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached on 571-270-5871. 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.
/NHAT HUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights