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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges the references do not “teach or suggest ‘determine a point of focus of the user based on the score associated with each control item from the plurality of control items,” as argued by Applicant at page 13-14 of the Response. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pradeep teaches and suggests attention scores at [0063] based on gaze input/intention at [0078], [0085] and [0039] for an individual [0024] which is associated with a specific item (FIG. 2 [0052] stimulus attribute data model 201 of specific channels 203, in view of [0075]-[0078] describing eye gaze and eye tracking on a specific object of stimulus, enhanced estimate activity EEG/EOG associated with the specific objects of the stimulus; further see at least FIG. 6 and data analysis at 605 and 607 and 609 from obtained data at 603). Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits these limitations are clearly disclosed by the references. As such the claim stands as rejected. Claims 11 and 23 are similar in scope and stand as properly rejected. As such, Examiner respectfully submits, these claims and all claims depending therefrom stand properly rejected below.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “such as a mu rhythm or beta rhythm” which may cause confusion as to what is being claimed. Examiner suggests either deleting “such as” or replace with “including” depending on what is intended. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-13 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradeep et al., US 2010/0145215 A1 (hereinafter “Pradeep”) in view of Vertegaal, US 2006/0093998 A1 (hereinafter “Vertegaal”).
Regarding claim 1, Pradeep discloses an apparatus (FIG. 1, generally and [0004] and [0034]-[0040] and claims 11-19), comprising:
a display (FIG. 1, stimulus presentation device 101 include a display at [0034]-[0035]) configured to present a control interface (FIG.1, [0034]-[0035] presentation device 101 displays stimulus/stimuli material to a user) to a user (FIG. 1, subjects 103 and users at [0034]-[0036]), the control interface including a plurality of control items (FIG. 1, 101 and [0034]-[0036] stimulus materials may be variety of items) each associated with an action (FIG. 1, [0032]-[0037] describing user intent and responses and action of the groups of subjects/users 103 integrated with the stimulus material of the presentation device 101, FIG. 8 at [0087] describing the system with an interface 811; further note stimulus item and associated action at FIG. 6 and [0067], generally understood resulting eye and brain activity, such as gaze or various brain signals as action produced by the stimuli [0078]);
a neural recording device (FIG. 1, [0036]-[0042] data collection device 105) configured to record neural signals associated with the user (FIG. 1, [0036]-[0042] data collection device 105 collects neuro-response data from the subjects/user connected to it; see at least FIG. 3 with data collection data model 337 at [0057]-[0060]); and
an interface device (FIG. 1, stimulus presentation device 101 would include graphical representations as described at [0034] including movies and other stimulus material presentable on a display, FIG. 8, [0087] interface 811 of a system 800) operatively coupled to the display (FIG. 1, [0034]-[0035] stimulus presentation device 101 presents interface objects) and the neural recording device (see at least FIG. 1, [0034]-[0039] data collection device 105, various stimuli of the presentation device 101 presented to the user 103 and data collected by the data collection device 105, noting the interfacing devices being as described at [0035] in addition to a display; and FIG. 8 illustrating interface 811 of a system 800), the interfacing device including:
a memory (see at least FIG. 8 with memory 803 described at [0087]-[0088] and further describing storing functionality of the data collection device 105 at [0037]-[0039]), and
a processor (801) operatively coupled to the memory ([0016] processor connected to memory, and FIG. 8, processor 801 of system 800 at [0087]-[0088]) and configured to:
present, via the control interface (FIG. 1, 101, FIG. 8, 811), a set of stimuli individually (FIG. 1, [0034] stimulus presentation device 101 displays stimulus material in a discrete mode; FIG. 5, [0054] a product out of multiple products; FIG. 6 at [0067] stimulus material 601 video/audio, [0078] e.g., specific object, and [0039] e.g., specific channel)
receive, from the neural recording device (FIG. 1, 105), a set of neural signals associated with each stimulus (FIG. 1, [0036]-[0039] modality 1, 2…n 111-115 measurements are neural signals associated with stimulus) from the set of stimuli after presenting that stimulus (FIG. 1, [0036]-[0039] modality 1, 2…n 111-115 collected data is based on and correlated with the stimuli; FIG. 3, [0058] neuro-feedback association 325; FIG. 6 and step 603 receive response via multiple modalities and [0067]-[0069]);
determine a score ([0049] numerical values assigned to exposure of subject to stimulus) associated with each control item ([0078] e.g., specific object, and [0039] e.g., specific channel) from the plurality of control items ([0078] e.g., specific objects implies multiple, and [0039] e.g., multiple channels when changed) based on the set of neural signals for each stimulus from the set of stimuli (FIG. 1, 111-115 neural measurements [0036]-[0039], data analyzer 123, receives measurements/data from data collection device 105 and assigns values based on neural measurements correlated with each stimulus respectively; FIG. 6 and steps 605 and 607 described at [0067]-[0069]);
determine a point of focus ([0078]-[0079] e.g., gaze path, location, and dwell on a specific object) of the user based on the score associated with each control item ([0078] e.g., specific object, and [0039] e.g., specific channel) from the plurality of control items ([0078] e.g., multiple objects, and [0039] e.g., multiple channels when changed; correlating the focus with measured EEG/EOG, which produces the score), the point of focus associated with at least one control item from the plurality of control items (FIG. 2 [0052] stimulus attribute data model 201 of specific channels 203, in view of [0075]-[0078] describing eye gaze and eye tracking on a specific object of stimulus, enhanced estimate activity EEG/EOG associated with the specific objects of the stimulus; further see at least FIG. 6 and data analysis at 605 and 607 and 609 from obtained data at 603); and
determine, based on the point of focus, an action intended by the user (FIG. 1, [0033] [0066] and [0085] describing intention of motor activity of the subject in view of [0075]-[0078] gaze and eye tracking).
However, although Pradeep appears to suggest using point of focus information for determining action intended by the user (Pradeep at [0078] and [0085]), Pradeep does not explicitly disclose determining action intended by the user based on the point of focus.
In the same field of endeavor, Vertegaal discloses user interface system for determining an attentive state of the user by gathering data related to brain activity/arousal and eye tracking (Vertegaal at [0024] and [0050]) used for determining an action intended by the user based on the point of focus (see at least FIGS. 9A-10 with display and eye focus, gaze and movement taken into consideration to enact an intended action as disclosed at least at [0136]-[0138]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the neural input device of Pradeep to incorporate the eye tracking input device as disclosed by Vertegaal because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, analyzing and determining input devices using brain, head, and eye activity. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve user input and communication with the device (see Vertegaal at least at Abstract and [0002]-[0004]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see above), wherein:
the neural signals include electroencephalography (EEG) signals including at least one of a Event Related Potentials (ERPs) (see at least Pradeep at [0025]-[0032] and [0075]-[0080]), a motor imagery signal (see above, condition satisfied), steady state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) (see above, condition satisfied), transitory visual evoked potentials (TVEPs) (see above, condition satisfied), brain state commands (see above, condition satisfied), visual evoked potentials (VEPs) (see above, condition satisfied), evoked potentials like a P300 evoked potential (see above, condition satisfied), sensory evoked potentials (see above, condition satisfied), motor evoked potentials (see above, condition satisfied), sensorimotor rhythms such as a mu rhythm or beta rhythm (see above, condition satisfied), event related desynchronization (ERDs) (see above, condition satisfied), event-related synchronization (ERSs) (see above, condition satisfied), slow cortical potentials (SCPs) (see above, condition satisfied), or a brain state dependent signal (see above, condition satisfied),
the processor is further configured to process the set of neural signals for each stimulus from the set of stimuli to extract information associated with a set of features from the EEG signals (see Pradeep at least FIG. 6 and [0067]-[0070] and [0075]-[0082] describing information extracting at least at step 605 and 607 and 609), and
the processor is configured to determine the score associated with each control item from the plurality of control items using the information associated with the set of features (see Pradeep at least [0063]-[0065] describing scores at FIG. 5, and [0065] and [0073]).
Regarding claim 3, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the apparatus of claim 2 (see above), wherein the set of features includes at least one of: an amplitude of a response included in the neural signal (see below, condition satisfied), a duration of the response (see below, condition satisfied), a shape of the response (see below, condition satisfied), a timing of the response relative to the presentation of a stimulus from the set of stimuli (Pradeep, reaction time at [0026], [0032] and [0036]-[0037] and describing reaction time), or a frequency associated with the neural signal (see above, condition satisfied).
Regarding claim 4, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see above), further comprising an eye-tracking device configured to record eye-movement signals associated with the user (Pradeep eye tracking at [0026] and [0032], [0036]-[0041], [0050], [0059], and [0075]-[0078]),
the processor further configured to receive, from the eye-tracking device, a set of eye- movement signals associated with each stimulus from the set of stimuli after presenting that stimulus (Pradeep eye tracking and associated data based on the stimuli at [0026] and [0032], [0036]-[0041], [0050], [0059], and [0075]-[0078]),
the processor configured to determine the score associated with each control item from the plurality of control items based on the set of neural signals and the set of eye- movement signals associated with each stimulus from the set of stimuli (Pradeep at [0032], [0036]-[0041] and [0075]-[0078], and [0063] describing attention score;).
Regarding claim 5, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see above), wherein:
each control item from the set of control items is associated with a visual representation (Vertegaal at FIGS. 9A-10 and [0136]-[0138], Pradeep at [0034]-[0039]), and
the processor is configured to present the set of stimuli individually by changing, for each stimulus from the set of stimuli being presented, an appearance of the visual representation associated with each control item from the set of control items included in that stimulus (see at least Vertegaal at FIGS. 9A-10 and [0136]-[0138], Pradeep at [0037]-[0039] monitoring channel changes).
Regarding claim 6, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the apparatus of claim 5 (see above), wherein changing the appearance includes a change in at least one of a size, a color, a hue, a texture, an outline, an orientation, an intensity, a thickness, or a mobility of the visual representation (Vertegaal at [0156] and [0082] and FIGS. 9A-10 and [0132]-[0138] and [0148] with visual changes to objects in view including size and shape as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, Pradeep at [0037]-[0039], various stimuli would have differences such as size and color, including other stimuli such as visual alerts).
Regarding claim 7, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see above), wherein the processor is configured to determine the score associated with each control item from the plurality of control items (see above) by calculating a likelihood estimate for each control item from the plurality of control items (see Pradeep at [0045]-[0046] effectiveness estimator evaluating stimulus materials; least FIG. 6 and steps 605 and 607 described at [0067]-[0069] and [0075]-[0080]), the likelihood estimate for each control item from the plurality of control items indicating a likelihood that that control item is associated with the point of focus of the user (see Pradeep at least FIG. 6 and steps 605 and 607 described at [0067]-[0069] and [0075]-[0080]; Vertegaal [0101] and at FIGS. 9A-10 with display and eye focus, gaze and movement taken into consideration to enact an intended action as disclosed [0136]-[0138]).
Regarding claim 8, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see above), wherein the processor is further configured to implement the action intended by the user (Pradeep at [0033] and [0052] describing intent of subject, and predict behavior at [0083] step 613 at FIG. 6 used to determine a motor intent at [0085]), the action being at least one of an activation or a deactivation of a control item from the plurality of control items (Vertegaal [0004] selection based on gazing upon it, [0091] gaze used to pause video feed, [0156] describing a jog dial functionality based on the movement of eyes, [0179] volume control, and [0082] and FIGS. 9A-10 and [0132]-[0138]).
Regarding claim 9, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the apparatus of claim 8 (see above), wherein the point of focus is a first point of focus during a first time period, the action is a first action (see Vertegaal at [0137], fixation on a first eyecon), and the processor is further configured to:
determine a second point of focus of the user during a second time period after the first time period, the second point of focus associated with at least one control item from the plurality of control items (Vertegaal at [0137] removes the fish eye when the user looks away; [0156] and FIGS. 9A-10 and [0132]-[0138]);
determine, based on the second point of focus, a second action intended by the user, the second action being distinct from the first action (Vertegaal at [0137] removes the fish eye when the user looks away, at [0156] and [0082] and FIGS. 9A-10 and [0132]-[0138]); and
implement, after implementing the first action, the second action intended by the user (Vertegaal at [0137] removes the fish eye when the user looks away, [0156] and [0082] and FIGS. 9A-10 and [0132]-[0138] consecutive inputs would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art as described by Vertegaal).
Regarding claim 10, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see above), wherein the processor is further configured to classify the set of neural signals associated with each stimulus from the set of stimuli according to at least one classification scheme using a set of statistical models (Pradeep, FIG. 1, generally [0033]-[0039] for collecting neural signals, FIGS. 2-5, data models for pattern analysis at [0052]-[0058], FIG. 6 describing steps 601-607 and describing reporting, classification and group reporting at least at [0065]-[0070]; measurements from EEG signals are classified into bands using various filters and pattern analysis to produce reports – classifications of the correlated signals based on various stimuli, for example, channel changes at [0039]),
the processor configured to determine the score associated with each control item from the plurality of control items based on the classification of the set of neural signals associated with each stimulus from the set of stimuli (Pradeep FIG. 1, at [0033]-[0039] channels presented being scored or evaluated at FIGS. 2-5 generally; FIG. 6 describing steps 601-607 and describing score classification at least at [0060]-[0070] and extracting predicted motor intent at [0085]).
Regarding claim 11, it is similar in scope to claim 1 above, the only difference being claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory processor-readable medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by a processor (see Pradeep at [0089]). Therefore, claim 11 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, it is similar in scope to claim 2 above; therefore, claim 12 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 11 (see above), wherein:
the code to cause the processor to determine the score associated each control item form the set of control items includes code to cause the processor to:
calculate a likelihood estimate for each control item from the set of control items, the likelihood estimate for each control item from the set of control items indicating a likelihood that that control item is associated with the point of focus of the user (see Pradeep at least FIG. 6 and steps 605 and 607 described at [0067]-[0069] and [0075]-[0080]); and
determine, for each control item from the set of control items, a set of scores based on the likelihood estimate for that control item (see Pradeep at least FIG. 6 and steps 605 and 607 described at [0067]-[0069]), and
the code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user includes code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user based on the set of scores for each control item from the set of control items (see Pradeep at least [0075]-[0078] describing eye gaze and eye tracking on a specific object of stimulus; further see at least FIG. 6 and data analysis at 605 and 607 and 609 from obtained data at 603, further at least Vertegaal at FIGS. 9A-10 and [0136]-[0138]).
Regarding claim 23, Pradeep discloses a method ([0004]) comprising: generating a control interface (FIG.1, [0034]-[0035] presentation device 101 displays stimulus/stimuli material to a user) configured to be manipulated, by a user (FIG. 1, subjects 103 and users at [0034]-[0036]), to perform a set of actions (FIG. 1, [0032]-[0037] describing user intent and responses and action of the groups of subjects/users 103 integrated with the stimulus material of the presentation device 101, FIG. 8 at [0087] describing the system with an interface 811; further note stimulus item and associated action at FIG. 6 and [0067], generally understood resulting eye and brain activity, such as gaze or various brain signals as action produced by the stimuli [0078]); presenting, via the control interface (101), a stimulus to the user (FIG. 1, [0034] stimulus presentation device 101 displays stimulus material in a discrete mode; FIG. 5, [0054] a product out of multiple products; FIG. 6 at [0067] stimulus material 601 video/audio, [0078] e.g., specific object, and [0039] e.g., specific channel), the stimulus including a set of control items (FIG. 1, 101 and [0034]-[0036] stimulus materials may be variety of items), each control item from the set of control items being associated with at least one action from the set of actions (FIG. 1, [0032]-[0037] describing user intent and responses and action of the groups of subjects/users 103 integrated with the stimulus material of the presentation device 101, FIG. 8 at [0087] describing the system with an interface 811; further note stimulus item and associated action at FIG. 6 and [0067], generally understood resulting eye and brain activity, such as gaze or various brain signals as action produced by the stimuli [0078]);; receiving, after presenting the stimulus to the user (FIG. 1, [0034] stimulus presentation device 101 displays stimulus material in a discrete mode; FIG. 5, [0054] a product out of multiple products; FIG. 6 at [0067] stimulus material 601 video/audio, [0078] e.g., specific object, and [0039] e.g., specific channel), information associated with the user from a neural recording device (FIG. 1, [0036]-[0042] data collection device 105 collects neuro-response data from the subjects/user connected to it; see at least FIG. 3 with data collection data model 337 at [0057]-[0060]); determining a score ([0049] numerical values assigned to exposure of subject to stimulus) associated with each control item ([0078] e.g., specific object, and [0039] e.g., specific channel) from the set of control items ([0078] e.g., specific objects implies multiple, and [0039] e.g., multiple channels when changed)based on the information received from the neural recording device (FIG. 1, 111-115 neural measurements [0036]-[0039], data analyzer 123, receives measurements/data from data collection device 105 and assigns values based on neural measurements correlated with each stimulus respectively; FIG. 6 and steps 605 and 607 described at [0067]-[0069]); determining a point of focus ([0078]-[0079] e.g., gaze path, location, and dwell on a specific object) of the user based on the score associated with each control item form the set of control items ([0078] e.g., specific object, and [0039] e.g., specific channel); and identifying at least one control item from the set of control items (FIG. 1, [0033] [0066] and [0085] describing intention of motor activity of the subject in view of [0075]-[0078] gaze and eye tracking).
However, although Pradeep appears to suggest using point of focus information for determining action intended by the user (Pradeep at [0078] and [0085]), Pradeep does not explicitly disclose determining action intended by the user associated with the point of focus of the user.
In the same field of endeavor, Vertegaal discloses user interface system for determining an attentive state of the user by gathering data related to brain activity/arousal and eye tracking (Vertegaal at [0024] and [0050]) used for determining an action intended by the user associated with the point of focus of the user (Vertegaal at FIGS. 9A-10 with display and eye focus, gaze and movement taken into consideration to enact an intended action at [0136]-[0138]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the neural input device of Pradeep to incorporate the eye tracking input device as disclosed by Vertegaal because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, analyzing and determining input devices using brain, head, and eye activity. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve user input and communication with the device (see Vertegaal at least at Abstract and [0002]-[0004]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the method of claim 23 (see above), wherein: determining the score associated with each control item form the set of control items comprises: calculating a likelihood estimate for each control item from the set of control items (see Pradeep at [0045]-[0046] effectiveness estimator evaluating stimulus materials; least FIG. 6 and steps 605 and 607 described at [0067]-[0069] and [0075]-[0080]), the likelihood estimate for each control item from the set of control items indicating a likelihood that that control item is associated with the point of focus of the user (see Pradeep at least FIG. 6 and steps 605 and 607 described at [0067]-[0069] and [0075]-[0080]; Vertegaal [0101] and at FIGS. 9A-10 with display and eye focus, gaze and movement taken into consideration to enact an intended action as disclosed [0136]-[0138]), and determining, for each control item from the set of control items, a set of scores based on the likelihood estimate for that control item (see Pradeep at least [0075]-[0078] describing eye gaze and eye tracking on a specific object of stimulus; further see at least FIG. 6 and data analysis at 605 and 607 and 609 from obtained data at 603, further at least Vertegaal at FIGS. 9A-10 and [0136]-[0138]); and determining the point of focus of the user comprises: determining the point of focus of the user based on the set of scores for each control item (Pradeep [0078] e.g., specific object, and [0039] e.g., specific channel) from the set of control items (Pradeep [0078] e.g., multiple objects, and [0039] e.g., multiple channels when changed; correlating the focus with measured EEG/EOG, which produces the score).
Claims 14-18 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradeep in view of Vertegaal as applied to claims 11 and 23 above, and further in view of Publicover et al., US 2015/0338915 A1 (hereinafter “Publicover”).
Regarding claim 14, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 11 (see above).
However, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal does not explicitly disclose wherein: the stimulus includes a set of visual representations associated with the set of control items, each visual representation of the set of visual representations associated with at least one control item from the set of control items and configured to be positioned in the control interface at a distinct location relative to the visual representation of each other control items from the set of control items,
the code to cause the processor to determine the score associated with each control item from the set of control items including code to cause the processor to calculate, based on the location of each visual representation from the set of visual representations, a set of distance scores associated with the set of control items, and
the code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user including code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user based at least in part on the set of distance scores.
In the same field of endeavor, Publicover discloses wherein: the stimulus includes a set of visual representations (FIGS. 6-10, the graphical interface representation of items 633-638 and 1037-1039) associated with the set of control items (items 633-638 and 1037-1039 FIGS. 6-10 the function associated with the GUI), each visual representation of the set of visual representations associated with at least one control item from the set of control items (items 633-638 and 1037-1039 FIGS. 6-10 the function associated with the GUI) and configured to be positioned in the control interface at a distinct location (FIGS. 6-10 boxes 638) relative to the visual representation of each other control items from the set of control items (see Publicover at least FIGS. 6-10 and [0428]-[0454] with control items in the form of 633-639 and 1037-1038 with various controls and with various representation of controls and with distinct locations for each),
the code to cause the processor to determine the score associated with each control item from the set of control items including code to cause the processor to calculate, based on the location of each visual representation from the set of visual representations, a set of distance scores associated with the set of control items (see Publicover at [0096] and FIGS. 6-10 and [0462]-[0465] and [0490] describing distance measurements used in eye input determination, describing scoring errors of various eye input data at [0349]), and
the code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user including code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user based at least in part on the set of distance scores (see Publicover at least FIGS. 6-10 and [0452]-[0461] and [0340]-[0349] when determining gaze, determining error scores for each process when determining intended gaze input, inherently distance determination therein).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display input device of Pradeep in view of Vertegaal to incorporate the interface control options and icons and selection thereof as disclosed by Publicover because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, eye gesture input devices. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve performance of eye signal input and reliability (Publicover at least at [0430] and [0499]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 11 (see above), wherein:
However, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal does not explicitly disclose the stimulus includes a set of visual representations associated with the set of control items, each visual representation of the set of visual representations associated with at least one control item from the set of control items and configured to be presented in the control interface at a time different from when the visual representation of each other control items from the set of control items is presented,
the code to cause the processor to determine the score associated with each control item from the set of control items including code to cause the processor to calculate, based on the time that each visual representation from the set of visual representations is presented, a set of temporal scores associated with the set of control items, and
the code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user including code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user based at least mm part on the set of temporal scores.
In the same field of endeavor, Publicover discloses the stimulus includes a set of visual representations (FIGS. 6-10, the graphical interface representation of items 633-638 and 1037-1039) associated with the set of control items (items 633-638 and 1037-1039 FIGS. 6-10 the function associated with the GUI), each visual representation of the set of visual representations associated with at least one control item from the set of control items (items 633-638 and 1037-1039 FIGS. 6-10 the function associated with the GUI) and configured to be presented in the control interface at a time different from when the visual representation of each other control items from the set of control items is presented (see Publicover at least FIGS. 6-10 and [0428]-[0454] with control items in the form of 633-639 and 1037-1038 with various controls and with various representation of controls presented based on previous interaction, for example, scroll to the left 635, will then reveal page scroll to right 1039),
the code to cause the processor to determine the score associated with each control item from the set of control items including code to cause the processor to calculate, based on the time that each visual representation from the set of visual representations is presented, a set of temporal scores associated with the set of control items (see Publicover at least FIGS. 6-10 and [0428]-[0454] with control items in the form of 633-639 and 1037-1038 with various controls and with various representation of controls and with distinct locations for each; further describing temporal adaptation to the user’s skill level at [0422]-[0426], noting when gaze determination at [0342]-[0349], determining error scores for each process when determining intended gaze input, inherently time variation determination therein), and
the code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user including code to cause the processor io determine the point of focus of the user based at least in part on the set of temporal scores (see Publicover at least FIGS. 6-10 and [0428]-[0454] with control items in the form of 633-639 and 1037-1038 with various controls and with various representation of controls and with distinct locations for each and using time to determine the intended focus at least at [0422]-[0426], noting when gaze determination at [0340]-[0349], determining error scores for each process when determining intended gaze input, inherently time variation determination therein)).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display input device of Pradeep in view of Vertegaal to incorporate the interface control options and icons and selection thereof as disclosed by Publicover because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, eye gesture input devices. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve performance of eye signal input and reliability (see Publicover at least at [0430] and [0499]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 11 (see above).
However, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal does not explicitly disclose the instructions further comprising code to cause the processor to:
receive information indicating eye-movement signals of the user from an eye-tracking device; and
determine, based on the information received from the eye-tracking device, a set of oculomotor scores associated with the set of control items,
the code to cause the processor to determine the port of focus of the user including code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user further based on the set of oculomotor scores.
In the same field of endeavor, Publicover discloses the instructions further comprising code to cause the processor to:
receive information indicating eye-movement signals of the user from an eye-tracking device (see at least [0003] describing eye tracking devices for determining user intent and further at [0012] and [0238]); and
determine, based on the information received from the eye-tracking device, a set of oculomotor scores associated with the set of control items (see at least [0009] and [0021] and [0083] and [0140] and [0236]-[0238] used when determining the input as discussed therein, scores being determined at least at [0363] used in probability determination, and [0340]-[0349] when determining gaze, determining error scores for each process when determining intended gaze input, inherently eye motor information collection and determination therein),
the code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user including code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user further based on the set of oculomotor scores (see at least [0009] and further describing classification of the training data at least at [0576]-[0577] and [0597], and [0340]-[0349] when determining gaze, determining error scores for each process when determining intended gaze input, inherently eye motor information collection and determination therein).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display input device of Pradeep in view of Vertegaal to incorporate the interface control options and icons and selection thereof as disclosed by Publicover because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, eye gesture input devices. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve performance of eye signal input and reliability (see Publicover at least at [0430] and [0499]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 11 (see above), wherein:
However, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal does not explicitly disclose the stimulus includes a set of visual representations associated with the set of control items, each visual representation of the set of visual representations associated with at least one control item from the set of control items and configured to be:
positioned in the control interface at a distinct location relative to the visual representation of each other control items from the set of control items, and
presented in the control interface at a time different from when the visual representation of each other control items from the set of control items is presented;
the code to cause the processor to determine the score associated with each control item from the set of control items including code to cause the processor to:
calculate, based on the location of each visual representation from the set of visual representations, a set of distance scores associated with the set of control items;
calculate, based on the time that each visual representation from the set of visual representations is presented, a set of temporal scores associated with the set of control items; and
calculate, based on information received from an eye-tracking device, a set of oculomotor scores associated with the set of control items,
the code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user including code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user based at least in part on a weighted average of the set of distance scores, the set of temporal scores, and the set of oculomotor scores.
In the same field of endeavor, Publicover discloses the stimulus includes a set of visual representations (FIGS. 6-10, the graphical interface representation of items 633-638 and 1037-1039) associated with the set of control items (items 633-638 and 1037-1039 FIGS. 6-10 the function associated with the GUI), each visual representation of the set of visual representations associated with at least one control item from the set of control items (items 633-638 and 1037-1039 FIGS. 6-10 the function associated with the GUI) and configured to be:
positioned in the control interface at a distinct location relative to the visual representation of each other control items from the set of control items (see Publicover at least FIGS. 6-10 and [0428]-[0454] with control items in the form of 633-639 and 1037-1038 with various controls and with various representation of controls and with distinct locations for each), and
presented in the control interface at a time different from when the visual representation of each other control items from the set of control items is presented (see Publicover at least FIGS. 6-10 and [0428]-[0454] with control items in the form of 633-639 and 1037-1038 with various controls and with various representation of controls and with distinct locations for each, further see at least [0426] with a delay provided before changing the displayed elements);
the code to cause the processor to determine the score associated with each control item from the set of control items including code to cause the processor to:
calculate, based on the location of each visual representation from the set of visual representations, a set of distance scores associated with the set of control items (see Publicover at least FIGS. 6-10 and [0462]-[0465] and [0490] describing distance measurements used in determination, and [0342]-[0349] when determining gaze, determining error scores for each process when determining intended gaze input, inherently distance determination therein);
calculate, based on the time that each visual representation from the set of visual representations is presented, a set of temporal scores associated with the set of control items (see Publicover at least FIGS. 6-10 and [0428]-[0454] with control items in the form of 633-639 and 1037-1038 with various controls and with various representation of controls and with distinct locations for each; further describing temporal adaptation to the user’s skill level at [0422]-[0426], noting when gaze determination at [0342]-[0349], determining error scores for each process when determining intended gaze input, inherently time variation determination therein)); and
calculate, based on information received from an eye-tracking device, a set of oculomotor scores associated with the set of control items (see at least [0009] and [0021] and [0083] and [0140] and [0236]-[0238] used when determining the input as discussed therein, scores being determined at least at [0363] used in probability determination, and [0340]-[0349] when determining gaze, determining error scores for each process when determining intended gaze input, inherently eye motor information collection and determination therein),
the code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user including code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user based at least in part on a weighted average of the set of distance scores (see Publicover at least FIGS. 6-10 and [0452]-[0461]), the set of temporal scores (see Publicover at least FIGS. 6-10 and [0428]-[0454] with control items in the form of 633-639 and 1037-1038 with various controls and with various representation of controls and with distinct locations for each and using time to determine the intended focus at least at [0422]-[0426]), and the set of oculomotor scores (see at least [0009] and further describing classification of the training data at least at [0576]-[0577] and [0597], and [0340]-[0349] when determining gaze, determining error scores for each process when determining intended gaze input, and weighting these scores with these values considered therein to determine intended gaze).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display input device of Pradeep in view of Vertegaal to incorporate the interface control options and icons and selection thereof as disclosed by Publicover because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, eye gesture input devices. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve performance of eye signal input and reliability (see Publicover at least at [0430] and [0499]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal discloses the non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 11 (see above),
However, Pradeep in view of Vertegaal does not explicitly disclose wherein: the code to cause the processor to determine the score associated with each control item from the set of control items including code to cause the processor to:
select a set of classifiers from a plurality of classifiers based on evaluating a set of performance parameters associated with the plurality of classifiers;
generate a ensemble classifier using the set of classifiers; and
analyze, using the ensemble classifier, the information received from the neural recording device to generate a set of scores,
the code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user including code to cause the processor to determent the point of focus of the user based at least m part on the set of scores.
In the same field of endeavor, Publicover discloses wherein: the code to cause the processor to determine the score associated with each control item from the set of control items including code to cause the processor to:
select a set of classifiers from a plurality of classifiers based on evaluating a set of performance parameters associated with the plurality of classifiers (see Publicover discussing different statistical techniques for classifying data at [0571]);
generate a ensemble classifier using the set of classifiers (see at least [0570]-[0572] describing therein use of specific classifier accordingly); and
analyze, using the ensemble classifier, the information received from the neural recording device to generate a set of scores (see Publicover at least [0570]-[0572] describing therein use of specific classifier accordingly and weighted coefficients accordingly at [0576] and [0582]),
the code to cause the processor to determine the point of focus of the user including code to cause the processor to determent the point of focus of the user based at least in part on the set of scores (see Publicover at FIG. 24 and [0572]-[0580], noting score determination at [0340]-[0349] when determining gaze, determining error scores for each process when determining intended gaze input, such classifiers used when extracting intended gaze input from the various processes applied for eye tracking and input).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display input device of Pradeep in view of Vertegaal to incorporate the interface control options and icons and algorithmic selection thereof as disclosed by Publicover because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, eye gesture input devices. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve performance of eye signal input and reliability (see Publicover at least at [0430] and [0499]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 25, it is similar in scope to claim 14 above; therefore, claim 25 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 14.
Regarding claim 26, it is similar in scope to claim 15 above; therefore, claim 26 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crawford et al., US 2016/0103487 A1;
Sakata et al., US 2013/0091515 A1;
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARVESH J NADKARNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7562. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM M-F.
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, LunYi Lao can be reached at (571) 272-7671. 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.
/SARVESH J NADKARNI/Examiner, Art Unit 2621
/LUNYI LAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621