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 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 are independent Claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto (U.S. 9,939,894 hereinafter Imoto) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2022/0155857 hereinafter Lee) in further view of Ambrus et al. (U.S. 2022/0155857 hereinafter Ambrus).
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);
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 below a first threshold, deselecting the first UI element; and
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is not below the first threshold, maintaining selection of the first UI element.
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, 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, maintaining deselection 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 below a first threshold, deselecting 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); and
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is not below the first threshold, 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).
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is above a second threshold (Ambrus (¶0023 line 4), three seconds) different from the first threshold (Ambrus (¶0023 line 13), 5 seconds), selecting the first UI element (Ambrus (¶0023 line 1-4), In one embodiment, a selectable object (e.g., a selectable real object or a selectable virtual object) may be selected by an end user if the end user gazes at the selectable object for a first period of time (e.g., for three seconds) (second threshold)); and
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is not above the second threshold, maintaining deselection of the first UI element (Ambrus (¶0023 line 1-4), In one embodiment, a selectable object (e.g., a selectable real object or a selectable virtual object) may be selected by an end user if the end user gazes at the selectable object for a first period of time (e.g., for three seconds) (second threshold)).
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)).
As Claim 2, besides Claim 1, Imoto in view of Lee in further view of Ambrus 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 in view of Lee in further view of Ambrus 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 in view of Lee in further view of Ambrus 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 in view of Lee in further view of Ambrus 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 (col. 7 line 23-34), selection criteria is based on gaze time);
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is above a second threshold, selecting the first UI element (Imoto (col. 7 line 23-34), selection criteria is based on gaze time); and
in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator value associated with the first UI element is not above the second threshold, forgoing selection of the first UI element (Imoto (col. 7 line 23-34), selection criteria is based on gaze time).
As Claim 6, besides Claim 5, Imoto in view of Lee in further view of Ambrus teaches wherein the second threshold is different than the first threshold (Imoto (col. 10 line 44-46), second setting time is based on the size of movement eyes of the user).
As Claim 7, besides Claim 6, Imoto in view of Lee in further view of Ambrus 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 in view of Lee in further view of Ambrus 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 in view of Lee in further view of Ambrus 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 15, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 6.
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.
Response to Arguments
As Claim 1, Applicants argue that Ambrus fail to disclose “in accordance with a determination that the accumulator … below a first threshold, deselecting the first UI element” and “ in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator … is not below the first threshold, maintaining selection …” (fourth paragraph of page 8 in the remarks).
PNG
media_image1.png
194
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive. (Ambrus (¶0023 line 8-11) teaches that 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.
As Claim 1, Applicants argue that Imoto, Lee and Ambrus fail to disclose “in accordance with a determination that the first attention accumulator …” (last paragraph of page 8 in the remarks).
PNG
media_image2.png
117
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
288
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive because Ambrus teaches both thresholds. See the current rejection(s) for details.
Conclusion
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