DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A directed to claims 1-13 and 18 in the reply filed on June 22, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
The identified species are not patentably distinct, as they are obvious variants of each other.
The species are directed to methods for eye gaze tracking or calibration.
The core concept of determining a gaze direction based on eye features (such as pupil and iris position) is common to all species.
The variations between the species, such as using a confidence score or different calibration procedures, represent routine and predictable alternatives in the field of eye-tracking technology.
The restriction requirement among species, as set forth in the Office action mailed on April 21, 2026, has been reconsidered in view of the traversal of the restriction being persuasive to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn. Claims 14 and 19 and 15-17 and 20, directed to Species B and Species C are no longer withdrawn from consideration. Claims 14 and 19 and 15-17 and 20 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 Status
This action is in response to the application filed on May 03, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number SE2350538-1 dated May 03, 2023. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 03, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 this claim recites the following limitations which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more:
receiving an image of an eye of a user and a corneal centre of the eye associated with the image (abstract idea as a mental process as a human is capable of viewing images (thus receiving) and identifying a corneal center associated with the image);
detecting a pupil position of the eye from the image (abstract idea as a mental process as a human is capable of detecting a pupil position of the eye from the image);
detecting an iris position of the eye from the image (abstract idea as a mental process as a human is capable of detecting an iris position of the eye from the image);
Regarding claim 14 this claim recites the following limitations which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more:
receiving a plurality of calibration images of the eye of the user (abstract idea as a mental process as a human is capable of viewing images (thus receiving) taken during calibration);
for each calibration image, detecting an iris position of the eye with an associated detection confidence (abstract idea as a mental process as a human is capable of detecting an iris position of the eye from the image);
calculating an iris detection rate based on the associated detection confidence for the calibration images (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations);
Regarding claim 15 this claim recites the following limitations which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more:
receiving an image of an eye of a user (abstract idea as a mental process as a human is capable of viewing an eye image of a user (thus receiving));
detecting a plurality of iris detection points of the iris in the image (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations);
fitting an iris outline ellipse using the plurality of iris detection points (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of “determining the gaze axis of the eye based on the corneal centre, an iris centre of the iris position and a pupil centre of the pupil position,” however, this limitation also recites an abstract idea as a mental process as a human is capable determining the gaze axis based on the center positions of the iris and pupil and cornea.
Claim 14 recites the additional element of “and setting a gaze determination algorithm to a pupil- and iris-based gaze determination process if the iris detection rate is greater than or equal to the detection rate threshold,” however, this limitation also recites an abstract idea as a mental process as a human is capable setting a gaze determination algorithm to pupil- and iris based gaze determination process if the iris detection rate is greater than or equal to the detection rate threshold.
Claim 15 recites the additional element of “calculating a detection confidence by combining a deviation of each of the plurality of iris detection points from the fitted iris outline ellipse, wherein each deviation is weighted with a weighting based on an angle between: a vector from the centre of the iris outline ellipse to the iris detection point; and a horizontal axis of the eye,” however, this limitation also recites an abstract idea as mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations as calculating a detection confidence by combining a deviation of a plurality of iris detection points from the fitted iris outline ellipse and the deviation is weighted on an angle is mere mathematical calculations.
Claims 18, 19, and 20 further recite the additional element of “one or more processors.” While these limitations include an additional elements of a processor they are not sufficient to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas recited in claims 1, 14, and 15 as they amount to mere generic computer elements and thus amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are no more than the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, the above recited additional elements from claims 18, 19, and 20 do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Rather, the additional elements disclosed above perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 14, and 15 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 16-17 the limitations are merely directed towards mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations that nonetheless do not integrate the abstract idea recited from claim 1 into a practical application.
Regarding claims 6 the limitations are merely directed towards insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that nonetheless do not integrate the abstract idea recited from claim 1 into a practical application.
Regarding claims 10 the limitations are merely directed towards a mental process that nonetheless do not integrate the abstract idea recited from claim 1 into a practical application.
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 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rougeaux et al, US 20190156100 in view of Das et al, US 20210173206.
Regarding claim 1, Rougeaux teaches
A method for eye gaze tracking, the method comprising (see Rougeaux, Paragraph [0009], “a method of calculating eye gaze vectors of a subject”):
receiving an image of an eye of a user (see Rougeaux, Paragraph [0010], “a) capturing, from one or more imaging devices, a sequence of time separated images of the subject's face including one or both of the subject's eyes; [0011] b) processing the images to detect specular reflections present in the images, and determining a two dimensional position of any detected specular reflections”)
and a corneal centre of the eye associated with the image (see Rougeaux, Paragraph [0020], “at least one reference eye feature to a three dimensional cornea model having a known cornea center to determine three dimensional positions of the corneal reflections and iris center”);
detecting a pupil position of the eye from the image (see Rougeaux, Paragraph [0016], “the at least one reference eye feature includes one or more of a pupil center, iris center, pupil/iris boundary or iris/sclera boundary. Preferably the reference facial features of the subject includes a pupil center, iris center, pupil/iris boundary or iris/sclera boundary, eyelids, eye corners, mouth corners, nostrils and ears of the subject”);
detecting an iris position of the eye from the image (see Rougeaux, Paragraph [0016], “the at least one reference eye feature includes one or more of a pupil center, iris center, pupil/iris boundary or iris/sclera boundary. Preferably the reference facial features of the subject includes a pupil center, iris center, pupil/iris boundary or iris/sclera boundary, eyelids, eye corners, mouth corners, nostrils and ears of the subject”);
Rougeaux does not expressively teach
determining the gaze axis of the eye based on the corneal centre, an iris centre of the iris position and a pupil centre of the pupil position.
However, Das in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
determining the gaze axis of the eye based on the corneal centre, an iris centre of the iris position and a pupil centre of the pupil position (see Das, Paragraph [0178], “As shown in FIG. 10, the pinhole of a render camera may be registered with a location 1014 along the optical axis 1002 or visual axis 1004 of the human eye 1000 closer to the outer surface of the cornea than both (a) the center of the pupil or iris 1006 and (b) the center of cornea curvature 1008 of the human eye 1000 … The visual axis 1004 of the human eye 1000 differs from the optical axis 1002, as it represents a line extending from the fovea of the human eye 1000 to the center of the pupil or iris 1006,” visual axis is considered to be gaze axis).
The combination of Rougeaux and Das are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor of gaze tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the visual axis based on center of the pupil, iris, and center of cornea curvature of the human eye as taught in the method of Das in the method of Rougeaux to determine whether a user is identified (Das, Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Rougeaux in view of Das further teaches
An eye tracking system comprising one or more processors configured to perform the method of claim 1 (see Rougeaux, Paragraphs [0035]-[0036], “a processor configured to: process the images to detect specular reflections present in the images;”).
The rationale of claim 1 has been applied herein.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rougeaux et al, US 20190156100 in view of Das et al, US 20210173206 in view of Hirsh et al, US 11435820.
Regarding claim 2, Rougeaux in view of Das does not expressively teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining the gaze axis of the eye based on the corneal centre, the iris centre and the pupil centre comprises:
determining a pupillary axis of the eye based on the corneal centre and the pupil centre;
determining the gaze axis of the eye by transforming the pupillary axis with a transformation mapping;
and updating the transformation mapping of the pupillary axis to the gaze axis based on the iris centre and the pupil centre.
However, Hirsh in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
determining a pupillary axis of the eye based on the corneal centre and the pupil centre (see Hirsh, Col 6, Lines 62-67, “The pupillary axis is another axis of the eye that is defined as the axis passing through the center of the pupil and that is perpendicular to the corneal surface. The pupillary axis does not, in general, directly align with the visual axis”);
determining the gaze axis of the eye by transforming the pupillary axis with a transformation mapping (see Hirsh, Col 7, Lines 21-35, “The eye tracking system 145 may use the detected torsion of the eye to estimate the orientation of the visual axis from the pupillary axis. The eye tracking system 145 may also track a change in the shape of the eye, which may be approximated as a skew or scaling linear transform or a twisting distortion (e.g., due to torsional deformation). The eye tracking system 145 may estimate the visual axis based on some combination of the angular orientation of the pupillary axis, the translation of the eye, the torsion of the eye, and the current shape of the eye”);
and updating the transformation mapping of the pupillary axis to the gaze axis based on the iris centre and the pupil centre (see Hirsh, Col 19, Lines 3-16, “The plane fitting module 408 processes a segmented depth map of an eye region to generate a gaze direction associated with an eye within the eye region. In one embodiment, the plane fitting module 408 estimates the center of the iris/pupil captured in the segmented depth map … To reconstruct the visual axis of the eye, i.e., the gaze direction, the plane fitting module 408 combines the estimated center of the iris, the vector normal to the iris plane, and the foveal angular offset”).
The combination of Rougeaux, Das, and Hirsh are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of gaze tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine a pupillary axis; estimate the orientation of the visual axis from the pupillary axis; using a plane fitting module to estimate center of the iris/pupil captured and reconstruct the visual axis of the eye as taught in the method of Hirsh in the method of Rougeaux in view of Das so that the gaze direction may be determined even when a certain type of input data is unavailable or not of at least a threshold quality (Hirsh, Col 1, Lines, 55-57).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rougeaux et al, US 20190156100 in view of Das et al, US 20210173206 in view of Hirsh et al, US 11435820 in view of Oami et al, US 20240161547.
Regarding claim 3, Rougeaux in view of Das in view of Hirsh further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein updating the transformation mapping comprises:
and updating the transformation mapping based on the pupil-iris offset for the image (see Hirsh, Col 20, Lines 19-24, “data-augmentation parameter that applies transformations to features inputted into the trained ML models (e.g., scaling, translating, rotating, shearing, shifting, and/or otherwise transforming an image)”).
Rougeaux in view of Das in view of Hirsh does not expressively teach
calculating a pupil-iris offset as a difference between the pupil centre and the iris centre for the image;
However, Oami in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
calculating a pupil-iris offset as a difference between the pupil centre and the iris centre for the image (see Oami, Paragraph [0068], “The spoofing determining unit 130 is configured to be able to determine whether or not a target is an impersonator on the basis of difference between the pupil center and the iris center detected by the center detecting unit 120”);
The combination of Rougeaux, Das, Hirsh, and Oami are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of gaze tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine a difference between the pupil center and the iris center as taught in the method of Oami in the method of Rougeaux in view of Das in view of Hirsh to determine whether or not a target is an impersonator (Oami, Paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 4, Rougeaux in view of Das in view of Hirsh in view of Oami teaches the method of claim 3, wherein updating the transformation mapping based on the pupil-iris offset for the image comprises:
calculating the transformation mapping based on a combination of the pupil-iris offset for the image and pupil-iris offsets for one or more previous images (see Rougeaux, Paragraph [0109], “The expected positions of features can be derived from their positions in past images”).
The rationale of claim 3 has been applied herein.
Regarding claim 7, Rougeaux in view of Das in view of Hirsh does not expressively teach the method of claim 2, wherein updating the transformation mapping comprises
However, Oami in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
updating the transformation mapping if a measurement confidence of the detected iris position exceeds an iris confidence threshold (see Oami, Paragraph [0068], “The spoofing determining unit 130 may determine that a target is an impersonator when the difference between the pupil center and the iris center is greater than a predetermined threshold value”).
The combination of Rougeaux, Das, Hirsh, and Oami are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of gaze tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine a difference between the pupil center and the iris center is greater than a predetermined threshold value as taught in the method of Oami in the method of Rougeaux in view of Das in view of Hirsh to determine whether or not a target is an impersonator (Oami, Paragraph [0068]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rougeaux et al, US 20190156100 in view of Das et al, US 20210173206 in view of Gonçalves et al, WO 2020016631.
Regarding claim 5, Rougeaux in view of Das does not expressively teach the method of claim 1, wherein the transformation mapping comprises:
a pupillary-optical transformation mapping for transforming the pupillary axis to an optical axis of the eye;
and a fixed geometrical relationship between the optical axis and the gaze axis.
However, Gonçalves in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
a pupillary-optical transformation mapping for transforming the pupillary axis to an optical axis of the eye (see Gonçalves, Paragraph [0017], “For an artificial eye with the pupillary axis aligned with the optical axis, one can tailor the Kappa angle by offsetting the light sensor reference signal after calibrating the optical axis”);
and a fixed geometrical relationship between the optical axis and the gaze axis (see Gonçalves, Paragraph [0017], “Kappa angle is defined as the angle between the visual axis (connecting the fovea to the pupil center) and the pupillary axis (perpendicular to the cornea and passing through the pupil center). Kappa angle varies among individual, with a distribution peak of 5 degrees temporally [2]”).
The combination of Rougeaux, Das, and Gonçalves are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of gaze tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to align the pupillary axis with the optical axis and tailor the Kappa angle by offsetting the light sensor after calibrating the optical axis; and for the Kappa angle to be defined as the angle between the visual axis and the pupillary axis as taught in the method of Gonçalves in the method of Rougeaux in view of Das to test the accuracy of eye trackers at determining eye gaze directions (Gonçalves, Paragraph [0001], “to test the accuracy of eye trackers at determining eye gaze directions”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rougeaux et al, US 20190156100 in view of Das et al, US 20210173206 in view of Wu et al, US 20160202756.
Regarding claim 11, Rougeaux in view of Das does not expressively teach the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the iris position comprises:
detecting a plurality of iris detection points of the iris in the image;
and fitting an iris outline ellipse using the plurality of iris detection points.
However, Wu in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
detecting a plurality of iris detection points of the iris in the image (see Wu Paragraph [0056], “For iris detection, points along the boundary of the iris were manually selected);
and fitting an iris outline ellipse using the plurality of iris detection points (see Wu Paragraph [0056], “For iris detection, points along the boundary of the iris were manually selected, and an ellipse was fit onto the points”).
The combination of Rougeaux, Das, and Hirsh are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of gaze tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select points along the boundary for iris detection; to fit an ellipse onto the points as taught in the method of Wu in the method of Rougeaux in view of Das to estimate a lower bound of gaze error (Wu, Paragraph [0056]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection on the record set for the in the office action.
Regarding independent Claim 14; the Examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art, found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art that teaches: “setting a gaze determination algorithm to a pupil-only based gaze determination process if the iris detection rate is less than a detection rate threshold; and setting a gaze determination algorithm to a pupil- and iris-based gaze determination process if the iris detection rate is greater than or equal to the detection rate threshold” in combination with the other limitations of the independent claims.
The dependent claims are allowable due to its dependence to the independent claims.
A closest prior art, Oami et al, US 20240161547 discloses in Paragraph [0068], “The spoofing determining unit 130 may determine that a target is an impersonator when the difference between the pupil center and the iris center is greater than a predetermined threshold value. On the other hand, the spoofing determining unit 130 may determine that a target is not an impersonator when the different between the pupil center and the iris center is less than the predetermined threshold value.” Oami disclosed the use of a spoofing determining unit to determine an impersonator difference between the pupil center and the iris center is greater than a predetermined threshold but does not disclose setting a gaze determination algorithm to pupil-only if the iris detection rate is less than a detection rate threshold hold or setting a gaze determination algorithm to pupil- and iris-based gaze determination if the iris detection rate is greater than or equal to the detection rate threshold. Therefore Claim 14 is allowable over Oami et al.
Regarding independent Claim 15; the Examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art, found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art that teaches: “calculating a detection confidence by combining a deviation of each of the plurality of iris detection points from the fitted iris outline ellipse, wherein each deviation is weighted with a weighting based on an angle between: a vector from the centre of the iris outline ellipse to the iris detection point; and a horizontal axis of the eye” in combination with the other limitations of the independent claims.
The dependent claims are allowable due to its dependence to the independent claims.
A closest prior art, Wu et al, US 20160202756, discloses in Fig. 6 and paragraph [0042], “FIG. 6 shows example data steps at various points in an iris detection process that using the Starburst ellipse fitting method. … The candidate points with gradient values lower than a predefined threshold may be removed, and the remaining points may be used to fit the ellipse. Further, candidate points with fitting residuals greater than two standard deviations away from the mean may be considered as outliers, and may thus be removed. An ellipse may then be refit on the remaining candidate points. The pupil center then may be estimated as the center of the fitted ellipse.” Wu does not disclose wherein each deviation is weighted with a weighting based on an angle between a vector from the center of the iris outline ellipse to the iris detection point and a horizontal axis of the eye. Therefore Claim 15 is allowable over Wu et al.
Claims 6, 8-10, 12-13, 16-17 and 19-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection on the record and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIQUE JAMES whose telephone number is (703)756-1655. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm 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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571)270-3717. 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.
/DOMINIQUE JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights