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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 November 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant arguments/Remarks made in amendment in which the following is noted: claims 1 4, 9, 18, and 20 are amended and the rejection of the claims traversed. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sipolins et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0160744 A1), hereafter Sipolins et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0160744 A1), hereafter Sipolins, in view of Yoo et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0004287 A1), hereafter Yoo.
Regarding claim 1:
Sipolins discloses a method (Sipolins Figure 1 and 2) comprising:
at a device comprising a processor (Sipolins Figure 4 410):
obtaining physiological data associated with an eye of a user during presentation of content wherein the content comprises text (Sipolins Figure 4 220 230; [0018 – 0019] eye tracking data obtained while text is presented);
determining whether the user is reading a portion of the text based on an assessment of the physiological data, wherein, if the physiological data satisfies a first criterion, the user is determined to be reading the portion of the text (Sipolins [0018 – 0019] determination is made whether user is seeing the presented text (determined whether reading/not reading) based on the data obtained visual sensor camera performing blink detecting/eye tracking).
Sipolins does not disclose wherein the content comprises text that includes an interactable element embedded within or proximate to the text and determining whether the user intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on the assessment of the physiological data; and if the physiological data satisfies a second criterion, the user is determined to be performing the interaction with the portion of the text that is different than reading the portion of the text; and in accordance with a determination that the user intends the interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element, initiating an interaction event associated with the portion of the text.
However, Yoo discloses a method for providing user interface through head mounted display using eye recognition and bio-signal, apparatus using same, and computer readable recording medium. More particularly, Yoo discloses:
wherein the content comprises text that includes an interactable element embedded within or proximate to the text (Yoo Figure 4 “question GUI” include a text-based question an interactable element proximate to the question; [0060]) and determining whether the user intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on the assessment of the physiological data (Yoo Figure 2 S230 [0054]); Figure 1 camera module 120 is basis of physiological data; [0060]); and
if the physiological data satisfies a second criterion, the user is determined to be performing the interaction with the portion of the text that is different than reading the portion of the text (Yoo Figure 2 S230 blinking of the right eye is a second criterion used to determine intended interaction); and
in accordance with a determination that the user intends the interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element, initiating an interaction event associated with the portion of the text (Yoo [0055]).
It would have been obvious to modify Sipolins wherein the content comprises text that includes an interactable element embedded within or proximate to the text and determining whether the user intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on the assessment of the physiological data; and if the physiological data satisfies a second criterion, the user is determined to be performing the interaction with the portion of the text that is different than reading the portion of the text; and in accordance with a determination that the user intends the interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element, initiating an interaction event associated with the portion of the text, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate dividing measurement between a first eyeball and a second eyeball, thereby securing a user-friendly manner of operating the HMD.
Regarding claim 3:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in accordance with a determination that the user is reading the portion of the text, forgoing initiation the interaction event associated with the portion of the text (disclosed by combination of Sipolins Figure 2 295 and Yoo Figure 2 S230 as right eye blink indicates user intends to interact with text portion).
Regarding claim 4:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first criterion is associated with a reading characteristic that comprises a reading pace of the text by the user (Sipolins [0016] 600 wpm for typical user).
Regarding claim 5:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the user is reading the portion of the text or intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on the assessment comprises: determining a transition detection from the user reading the text to the user intending the interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element (disclosed in combination of Sipolins Figure 2 295 and Yoo Figure 2 S230; transition between reading and right eye blink detected).
Regarding claim 7:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the user is reading a portion of the text or intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on the assessment comprises: deterring that the user is transitioning from reading the portion of the text to interaction with the portion of the text (disclosed in combination of Sipolins Figure 2 295 and Yoo Figure 2 S230; transition between reading and right eye blink detected).
Regarding claim 11:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: adjusting content in response to initiating the interaction event (Yoo Figure 2 S260; [0054]).
Regarding claim 14:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the physiological data comprises an image of an eye or electrooculography (EOG) data (Sipolins Figure 4 220 and 230).
Regarding claim 15:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the device is a head-mounted device (HMD) (Yoo Figure 1 100).
Regarding claim 17:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the presentation of the content is an extended reality (XR) experience that is presented to the user (Yoo Figure 1 100 hmd).
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1 (and for those reasons disclosed by Sipolins [0024 – 0025]).
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 19 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1 (and for those reasons disclosed by Sipolins [0024 – 0025]).
Claim(s) 2 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sipolins et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0160744 A1), hereafter Sipolins et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0160744 A1), hereafter Sipolins, in view of Yoo et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0004287 A1), hereafter Yoo, in view of Abhishek Naveen Hegde (Publication number: US 2013/0232444 A1), hereafter Hegde.
Regarding claim 2:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the interaction event is embedded within the portion of the text.
However, Hegde discloses content sensitive automatic scrolling. More particularly, Hegde discloses wherein the interaction event is embedded within the portion of the text (Hegde Figure 1 <hyperlink> is embedded within text), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to further modify Sipolins (in view of Yoo) wherein the interaction event is embedded within the portion of the text, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate providing an interactable element which is part of the text, thereby providing quick user access to relevant navigable information.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 2.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 - 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sipolins et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0160744 A1), hereafter Sipolins et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0160744 A1), hereafter Sipolins, in view of Yoo et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0004287 A1), hereafter Yoo, in view of Gregory A. Maltz (Publication number: US 2014/0049452 A1), hereafter Maltz.
Regarding claim 6:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the user is reading a portion of the text or intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on the assessment comprises: determining a reading pace of the user from the user reading the text; and comparing the reading pace to a threshold.
However, Maltz discloses determining whether the user is reading a portion of the text or intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on the assessment comprises: determining a reading pace of the user from the user reading the text; and comparing the reading pace to a threshold (Maltz [0065] if the user continues to glance at the key for a still longer period of time T3, the key will be considered to be activated or “pressed”, and in this example the system will go a full active mode. Threshold T1 and T2 and T3 are compared to a reading pace of 0).
It would have been obvious to modify Sipolins (in view of Yoo) wherein determining whether the user is reading a portion of the text or intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on the assessment comprises: determining a reading pace of the user from the user reading the text; and comparing the reading pace to a threshold, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to reduce unintended selections.
Regarding claim 8:
Sipolins (in view Yoo) does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the user is reading a portion of the text or intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on an assessment comprises:
determining scene-induced pupil response variation characteristic for the portion of the text; and
determining that the user intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on the scene-induced pupil response variation characteristic for the portion of the text.
However, Maltz discloses:
determining scene-induced pupil response variation characteristic for the portion of the text; and determining that the user intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on the scene-induced pupil response variation characteristic for the portion of the text (Maltz [0085] These algorithms includes steps such as determining if the eye is revisiting on particular target regions, and determining if the eye has a tendency to visit the target region just prior to the main incidences of target fixation. Other selected methods include determining changes in eye pupil diameter, because the pupil diameter can ten to change when the us gazing upon an intended target region.).
It would have been obvious to further modify Sipolins (in view of Yoo) wherein determining whether the user is reading a portion of the text or intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on an assessment comprises: determining scene-induced pupil response variation characteristic for the portion of the text; and determining that the user intends an interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element based on the scene-induced pupil response variation characteristic for the portion of the text, as claimed, based simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More particularly, both blink detection and pupil-induced response are natural detectable movements of the eye which may be responsive to reading text. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 9:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) discloses interaction with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element, but does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein an intent for the interaction is classified using a machine learning technique based on a pupillary response.
However, Maltz discloses wherein an intent for the interaction is classified using a machine learning technique based on a pupillary response (Maltz [0085] Other selected methods include determining changes in eye pupil diameter, because the pupil diameter can ten to change when the us gazing upon an intended target region.; [0082] The human eye has a number of visible sub-structures, such as the pupil, iris, and sclera, which artificial vision software can use to track the eye, and determine where the eye is pointing or gazing at any given moment of time.).
It would have been obvious to further modify Sipolins (in view of Yoo) wherein an intent for the interaction is classified using a machine learning technique based on a pupillary response, as claimed, for those reasons discussed above in claim 8.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sipolins et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0160744 A1), hereafter Sipolins et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0160744 A1), hereafter Sipolins, in view of Yoo et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0004287 A1), hereafter Yoo, in view of Gregory A. Maltz (Publication number: US 2014/0049452 A1), hereafter Maltz, in view of Forutanpour et al; (Publication number: US 2023/0144091), hereafter Forutanpour.
Regarding claim 10:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo and Maltz) does not disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the machine learning technique is refined based on at least one of a reading pace of the user, a detected transition from reading the text to an intent to interact with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element, and a detected intent of the user to cancel the interaction event.
However, Forutanpour discloses dynamic content presentation for extended reality systems. More particularly, Forutanpour discloses wherein an intent for the interaction is classified using machine learning technique based on a pupillary response and the reading characteristic (Forutanpour [0083][0102] system includes ML system which takes attribute inputs which include dwell times/fixations and pupil dilations [0080]). It would have been obvious to modify Sipolins (in view of Yoo and Maltz) wherein the machine learning technique is refined based on at least one of a reading pace of the user, a detected transition from reading the text to an intent to interact with the portion of the text that includes the interactable element, and a detected intent of the user to cancel the interaction event, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to improve the detection for the user over time.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sipolins et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0160744 A1), hereafter Sipolins et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0160744 A1), hereafter Sipolins, in view of Yoo et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0004287 A1), hereafter Yoo, in view of Wayne Rasanen (Publication number: US 2018/0300008), hereafter Ransanen.
Regarding claim 12:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) does not disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising: determining that the user cancels the interaction event based on detection that the interaction event comprises a false positive activation on a detection of an abnormal user interaction.
However, Ransanen discloses an assistive text-entry system and method. More particularly, Rasanen discloses closing both eyes for a period of time could rest an inadvertent blink (Ransanen [0106]).
It would have been obvious to modify Sipolins (in view of Yoo) to include determining that the user cancels the interaction event based on detection that the interaction event comprises a false positive activation on a detection of an abnormal user interaction, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to retract unintended inputs to the system, thereby facilitating user operation of the device.
Regarding claim 13:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo and Rasanen) discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the abnormal user interaction is: an eye twitch, an eye closing; or an eye squinting (Rasanen [0106]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sipolins et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0160744 A1), hereafter Sipolins et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0160744 A1), hereafter Sipolins, in view of Yoo et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0004287 A1), hereafter Yoo, in view of Ambrus et al; (Publication number: US 2015/0212576 A1), hereafter Ambrus.
Regarding claim 15:
Sipolins (in view of Yoo) does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the physiological data comprises head movements of the user.
However, Ambrus discloses radial selection by vestibulo-ocular reflex fixatiaion.
More particularly, Ambrus discloses wherein the physiological data comprises head
movements of the user (Ambrus Figure 5 506; detects head movement performed by
the user). It would have been obvious to modify Sipolins (in view of Yoo) wherein the physiological data comprises head movements of the user, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate improving a reliability of selecting objects by taking into account the vestibulo-ocular reflex of the end user's eyes (Ambrus [0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5pm (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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 20 February 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621