CTNF 18/790,194 CTNF 73893 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,653. The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are compared in the table below. Instant Application No. 18/790,194. Claim 1. A method comprising: at an electronic device having a processor and one or more sensors: obtaining gaze motion classification data that was generated based on sensor data of an eye captured by the one or more sensors , the gaze motion classification data distinguishing a first type of eye behavior occurring at a first time period from a second type of eye behavior different than the first type of eye behavior occurring at a second time period ; detecting a user activity; and triggering a user interface response based on the user activity and the gaze motion classification data. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein: the user activity is a gesture or input device interaction distinct from a gaze ; and the user interface response is triggered based on associating the user activity with a user interface element . 7. The method of claim 3, wherein the user activity is: a finger pinch; a multi-finger gesture; a hand grasping gesture; finger pinches made by both hands; grasping gestures made by both hands; a gesture made by moving both hands relative to one another; a head movement; user input provided via a hand-held device; user input provided via an input device; or user input provided via a wearable device. 8. The method of claim 3, wherein the user activity is detected based on images captured from an outward-facing camera of a head-mounted device. 9. The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the gaze motion classification data comprises receiving a signal of live gaze velocity data based on a stream of live images of the eye. 10. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the gaze-holding events comprises: motion classification; pose stabilization; or blink removal. 11. The method of claim 1, wherein: the user activity a saccadic event having a characteristic that exceeds a threshold; and the user interface response is based on excluding a potential gaze-holding event or a portion of a gaze-holding event occurring during a time period following the saccadic event. US Patent No. 12,099,653. Claim 1. A method comprising: at an electronic device having a processor and one or more sensors: obtaining gaze motion classification data that was generated based on sensor data of an eye captured by the one or more sensors , the gaze motion classification data distinguishing a gaze period associated with a gaze-holding event from a gaze period associated with a non-gaze-holding event, the gaze period associated with the gaze-holding event comprising a time period that includes a first type of eye behavior and the gaze period associated with the non-gaze-holding event comprising a time period that includes a second type of eye behavior different than the first type of eye behavior ; detecting a user activity; and triggering a user interface response based on the user activity and the gaze motion classification data. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein: the user activity is a gesture or input device interaction distinct from a gaze ; the gaze-holding event is associated with the user activity; and the user interface response is triggered based on associating the user activity with a user interface element. 7. The method of claim 3, wherein the user activity is: a finger pinch; a multi-finger gesture; a hand grasping gesture; finger pinches made by both hands; grasping gestures made by both hands; a gesture made by moving both hands relative to one another; a head movement; user input provided via a hand-held device; user input provided via an input device; or user input provided via a wearable device. 8. The method of claim 3, wherein the user activity is detected based on images captured from an outward-facing camera of a head-mounted device. 9. The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the gaze motion classification data comprises receiving a signal of live gaze velocity data based on a stream of live images of the eye. 10. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the gaze-holding events comprises: motion classification; pose stabilization; or blink removal. 11. The method of claim 1, wherein: the user activity a saccadic event having a characteristic that exceeds a threshold; and the user interface response is based on excluding a potential gaze-holding event or a portion of a gaze-holding event occurring during a time period following the saccadic event. Claim 1 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except “the gaze motion classification data distinguishing a gaze period associated with a gaze-holding event from a gaze period associated with a non-gaze-holding event, the gaze period associated with the gaze-holding event comprising a time period..” However, Chawda teaches The gaze motion classification data distinguishes gaze periods associated with gaze-holding events (e.g., intentional fixations on user interface targets) from gaze periods associated with non-gaze-holding events (e.g., gaze shifting events, blink/loss events, etc.). The gaze motion classification data may be provided by a simple gaze motion classifier (e.g., a heuristic algorithm that assesses only gaze velocity, or a more complex algorithm or machine learning model that uses more than gaze velocity). Using the gaze motion classification data may facilitate triggering user interface responses only in appropriate circumstances (e.g., only based on fixations on intentional fixations on user interface targets and not based on unintentional gaze motion (e.g., saccades, blinks, etc.)). In some implementations, gaze classification output (e.g., identifying gaze-holding events) is assessed to lock gaze during saccade, loss, and fast fixations and/or stabilize the gaze during fixation; [Chawda col. 2, lines 63-68 and col. 3, lines 1-15]. It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the gaze motion classification data distinguishes gaze periods associated with gaze-holding events (e.g., intentional fixations on user interface targets) from gaze periods associated with non-gaze-holding events (e.g., gaze shifting events, blink/loss events, etc.). The gaze motion classification data may be provided by a simple gaze motion classifier (e.g., a heuristic algorithm that assesses only gaze velocity, or a more complex algorithm or machine learning model that uses more than gaze velocity). Using the gaze motion classification data may facilitate triggering user interface responses only in appropriate circumstances (e.g., only based on fixations on intentional fixations on user interface targets and not based on unintentional gaze motion (e.g., saccades, blinks, etc.)). In some implementations, gaze classification output (e.g., identifying gaze-holding events) is assessed to lock gaze during saccade, loss, and fast fixations and/or stabilize the gaze during fixation, as disclosed in Chawda, within the method of claim 1 of the reference patent, the gaze motion classification data distinguishing a gaze period associated with a gaze-holding event from a gaze period associated with a non-gaze-holding event, the gaze period associated with the gaze-holding event comprising a time period. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonker et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0069764) in view of Berliner et al. (US 2022/0253149) . Regarding claim 1, Jonker discloses a method comprising: at an electronic device having a processor and one or more sensors [see par. 0157; 1058; one or more processors process the digital representation generated by the sensor(s) of eye-tracking subsystem 2006 to track the movement of eye 2001 . These processors track the movements of eye by executing algorithms represented by computer-executable instructions stored on non-transitory memory]: obtaining gaze motion classification data that was generated based on sensor data of an eye captured by the one or more sensors [see par 0091, 0114 and figures 3A-3D; This reorientation is evidenced between 300 and 550 ms, where saccade probability sharply increases, angular displacement increases, and gaze velocity and dispersion increase. Together, these gaze behaviors suggest that users are changing course in their gaze trajectory (i.e., angular displacement) and rapidly moving their eyes back to the erroneous selection (i.e., saccade, velocity, and dispersion features and features that provided measures of visual exploration: fixation probability, saccade probability, gaze velocity, and dispersion) which corresponds to gaze motion classification]; however, Jonker fails to explicitly teach the gaze motion classification data distinguishing a first type of eye behavior occurring at a first time period from a second type of eye behavior different than the first type of eye behavior occurring at a second time period; detecting a user activity; and triggering a user interface response based on the user activity and the gaze motion classification data. Berliner discloses the gaze motion classification data distinguishing a first type of eye behavior occurring at a first time period [see par. 0211, 0213 and figures 10, 16; a hand gesture 1610 may indicate a tap on virtual widget 114 E. At least one processor detect hand gesture based on image data captured by at least one image sensor having field of view 1310 , and may determine, based on hand gesture, an indication of a selection of a specific virtual object (e.g., virtual widget 114 E) for association with the specific physical object (e.g., table 102 )], from a second type of eye behavior different than the first type of eye behavior occurring at a second time period [see par. 0199 and figures 13, 30; a wearable extended reality appliance (e.g., wearable extended reality appliance 110 ) may include at least one image sensor. The at least one image sensor have field of view, which represented by a solid angle from a point of the wearable extended reality appliance. Field of view portion 1312 represented by a solid angle within the solid angle representing field of view 1310 . Field of view portion associated with a display system of the wearable extended reality appliance which refers to situations or activities where direct eye contact or sustain eye contact is not the primary]; detecting a user activity [see par. 0220 and figure 17; At least one image sensor of the wearable extended reality appliance may capture image data in the field of view of the at least one image sensor, and detect a gesture input. The gesture input may include, for example, a drag, a pinch, a spread, a swipe, a tap, a pointing, a grab, a scroll, a rotate, a flick, a touch, a zoom-in, a zoom-out, a thumb-up, a thumb-down, a touch-and-hold, or any other action of one or more fingers or hands the gesture input may be determined from analysis of the image data captured by the at least one image sensor of the wearable extended reality appliance]; and triggering a user interface response based on the user activity and the gaze motion classification data [see par. 0277, 0280 and figure 23; triggering a functionality associated with the particular virtual object based on the refined kinesics input. The triggering a functionality associated with the particular virtual object, include any occurrence resulting from an identification of a particular virtual object. Such an occurrence involve changing an appearance of the virtual object, or initiating operation of code tied to the virtual object. Thus, selection of a virtual object may result in the presentation of a virtual menu, the presentation of additional content, or the triggering of an application]. It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jonker and Berliner before the affective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, systems for using natural gaze dynamics to detect input recognitions of Jonker to include gesture interaction with invisible virtual object, as taught by Berliner. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enable adapting content or functionality based on individual gaze patterns, leading to a more personalized user experience and optimizing user interaction by triggering actions or providing information as users look at specific interface elements making interactions more efficient and engaging. Regarding claims 2 and 14, Jonker discloses wherein the user activity is a gaze in a gaze direction [see par. 0491; receiving input from a user of the wearable extended reality appliance. The input from the user include or cause, for example, an activation of the virtual cursor, the input from the user may include a click, a double-click, a scroll, a rotate, a slide, a tap, a double-tap, a zoom-in, a zoom-out, a drag, a pinch, a spread, a swipe, a touch, a touch-and-hold, a flick, a pointing, a thumb-up, a thumb-down, or any other type of gesture or indication from the user] ; and the user interface response comprises providing an indication of user attention to a user interface element based on gaze motion classification data [see par. 0531; the virtual cursor may be configured to interact with virtual targets, such as UI elements. The interactions to selecting, highlighting, or manipulating the virtual targets. The virtual cursor configured to interact with physical objects, to enable the user to trigger functionality of the physical object or to present information related to the physical object]. Regarding claims 3 and 15, Berliner discloses wherein the user activity is a gesture or input device interaction distinct from a gaze ; [see par. 0211, 0213 and figures 10, 13, 16; a hand gesture 1610 may indicate a tap on virtual widget. At least one processor detect hand gesture based on image data captured by at least one image sensor having field of view 1310 , and may determine, based on hand gesture, an indication of a selection of a specific virtual object (e.g., virtual widget 114 E) for association with the specific physical object (e.g., table 102 ), and a wearable extended reality appliance (e.g., wearable extended reality appliance 110 ) may include at least one image sensor. The at least one image sensor have field of view, which represented by a solid angle from a point of the wearable extended reality appliance]; and the user interface response is triggered based on associating the user activity with a user interface element [see par. 0277, 0280 and figure 23; triggering a functionality associated with the particular virtual object based on the refined kinesics input. The triggering a functionality associated with the particular virtual object, include any occurrence resulting from an identification of a particular virtual object. Such an occurrence involve changing an appearance of the virtual object, or initiating operation of code tied to the virtual object. Thus, selection of a virtual object may result in the presentation of a virtual menu, the presentation of additional content, or the triggering of an application]. Regarding claims 4 and 16, Jonker discloses the user activity is an input device interaction distinct from a gaze; and the user interface response is triggered based on associating the user activity with a user interface element [see par. 0091, 0173, 0202; the results demonstrated a pattern of increased eye motion immediately following false positive selections, which likely captures users’ orienting of their attention to other targets. Indeed, when a false selection is registered, users are likely already enroute to the next tile, just as they would be in a real system with a model-based gesture recognizer or some other inference-based input device and a location where a user’s eyes are verged is where the user is looking and is also typically the location where the user’s eyes are focused. For example, the vergence-processing module may triangulate gaze lines to estimate a distance or depth from the user associated with intersection of the gaze lines]. Regarding claims 5 and 17, Berliner discloses further comprising associating the user activity [see par. 0413 and figures 31A-31B; the plurality of virtual objects 3002 are presented in the selected display mode, a first display mode (e.g., a matrix mode) in which virtual objects do not move even when the wearable extended reality appliance 3006 moves. The plurality of virtual objects are presented in the selected display mode, a second display mode (e.g., a non-matrix mode) in which the plurality of virtual objects 3002 move when the wearable extended reality appliance moves]; and with a user interface element based on when the user activity occurred [see par. 0286; If a number of the plurality of dispersed virtual objects are determined by the at least one processor to fall within a threshold degree of certainty for potentially being selected based on an initial kinesics input, the group of virtual objects may be included in the group of virtual objects that are highlighted based on the initial kinesics input]. Regarding claims 6 and 18, Berliner discloses wherein associating the user activity with the user interface element comprises [see par. 0413 and figures 31A-31B; the plurality of virtual objects 3002 are presented in the selected display mode, a first display mode (e.g., a matrix mode) in which virtual objects do not move even when the wearable extended reality appliance 3006 moves]; and determining that the user activity occurred within a threshold time of a time period associated with a type of eye behavior [see par. 0481, 0527; The predetermined rules may be based on at least one factor such as: acceleration, distance of motion, repeated motion, starting point, or a user's head position differing from the virtual cursor position. The predetermined rules may determine intent by gauging whether one or a combination of the factors occurred, how one or a combination of factors occurred, and/or based on threshold times that once surpassed, reflects an intention to move the virtual cursor.] Regarding claims 7 and 19, Berliner discloses wherein the user activity is: a finger pinch [see par. 0555; pinch, swipe]; a multi-finger gesture [see figure 7]; a hand grasping gesture; finger pinches made by both hands [see par. 0079, 0085 and figure 1]; grasping gestures made by both hands [see figure 2]; a gesture made by moving both hands relative to one another [see figures 1, 36]; a head movement [see figures 48A-48B]; user input provided via an input device [see figure 2; handheld device] ; or user input provided via a wearable device [see figure 35]. Regarding claims 8 and 20, Jonker discloses wherein the user activity is detected based on images captured from an outward-facing camera of a head-mounted device [see figure 18, 19]. Regarding claims 9 and 21, Jonker discloses wherein obtaining the gaze motion classification data comprises receiving a signal of live gaze velocity data based on a stream of live images (image/video) of the eye [see par. 0282, 0303; The time at which receiving the refined kinesics input begins may be based on a measure of the distance of the user's initial kinesics input from a particular one of the group of virtual objects and/or virtual region containing said virtual objects and/or a measure of the velocity and/or acceleration, or a change thereof, related to the user's initial kinesics input or inputs]. Regarding claims 10 and 22, Berliner discloses wherein identifying the gaze-holding events comprises: motion classification [see par. 0088; Sensor 216 may be a motion sensor, a touch sensor, a light sensor, an infrared sensor, an audio sensor, an image sensor, a proximity sensor, a positioning sensor, a gyroscope, a temperature sensor, a biometric sensor, or any other sensing devices to facilitate related functionalities. Sensor integrated with, or connected to, the input devices or it may be separated from the input devices]; pose stabilization; or blink removal [see par. 0532; changes in visual appearance may include blinking, color changes, size changes, shape changes, symbol changes, animations, or other visual indicators. In some embodiments, the change in visual appearance may be in response to input data, for example, input data indicating large accelerations or velocities of a pointing device, a distance between a window boundary and a position of the virtual cursor, or a voice input reflecting a question or command]. Regarding claims 11 and 23, Jonker discloses wherein: the user activity a saccadic event having a characteristic that exceeds a threshold; and the user interface response is based on excluding a potential gaze-holding event or a portion of a gaze-holding event occurring during a time period following the saccadic event [see par. 0114 and figure 21; an angular displacement between an initial saccade centroid and a subsequent saccade centroid, an angular displacement between an initial saccade landing point and a subsequent saccade landing point, an amplitude of a saccade, a duration of a saccade, a fixation probability, a saccade probability, a gaze velocity, a gaze dispersion]. Regarding claims 12 and 24, Jonker discloses wherein the user interface response is based on excluding gaze behavior occurring during a time period following an event based on: [see figures 3A-3C]: (a) an amplitude representing velocity change during saccadic event [see figure 6A]; (b) a rate of change of gaze velocity during the event; [see figure 6B]; (c) a duration of the gaze behavior; or (d) distance of eye travel during the event [see par. 0152, 0153 and figure 6C]. Regarding claims 3 and 15, Berliner discloses wherein the user activity is a gesture or input device interaction distinct from a gaze ; [see par. 0211, 0213 and figures 10, 13, 16; a hand gesture 1610 may indicate a tap on virtual widget. At least one processor detect hand gesture based on image data captured by at least one image sensor having field of view 1310 , and may determine, based on hand gesture, an indication of a selection of a specific virtual object (e.g., virtual widget 114 E) for association with the specific physical object (e.g., table 102 ), and a wearable extended reality appliance (e.g., wearable extended reality appliance 110 ) may include at least one image sensor. The at least one image sensor have field of view, which represented by a solid angle from a point of the wearable extended reality appliance]; and the user interface response is triggered based on associating the user activity with a user interface element [see par. 0277, 0280 and figure 23; triggering a functionality associated with the particular virtual object based on the refined kinesics input. The triggering a functionality associated with the particular virtual object, include any occurrence resulting from an identification of a particular virtual object. Such an occurrence involve changing an appearance of the virtual object, or initiating operation of code tied to the virtual object. Thus, selection of a virtual object may result in the presentation of a virtual menu, the presentation of additional content, or the triggering of an application]. Regarding claims 4 and 16, Jonker discloses the user activity is an input device interaction distinct from a gaze; and the user interface response is triggered based on associating the user activity with a user interface element [see par. 0091, 0173, 0202; the results demonstrated a pattern of increased eye motion immediately following false positive selections, which likely captures users’ orienting of their attention to other targets. Indeed, when a false selection is registered, users are likely already enroute to the next tile, just as they would be in a real system with a model-based gesture recognizer or some other inference-based input device and a location where a user’s eyes are verged is where the user is looking and is also typically the location where the user’s eyes are focused. For example, the vergence-processing module may triangulate gaze lines to estimate a distance or depth from the user associated with intersection of the gaze lines]. Regarding claims 5 and 17, Berliner discloses further comprising associating the user activity [see par. 0413 and figures 31A-31B; the plurality of virtual objects 3002 are presented in the selected display mode, a first display mode (e.g., a matrix mode) in which virtual objects do not move even when the wearable extended reality appliance 3006 moves. The plurality of virtual objects are presented in the selected display mode, a second display mode (e.g., a non-matrix mode) in which the plurality of virtual objects 3002 move when the wearable extended reality appliance moves]; and with a user interface element based on when the user activity occurred [see par. 0286; If a number of the plurality of dispersed virtual objects are determined by the at least one processor to fall within a threshold degree of certainty for potentially being selected based on an initial kinesics input, the group of virtual objects may be included in the group of virtual objects that are highlighted based on the initial kinesics input]. Regarding claims 6 and 18, Berliner discloses wherein associating the user activity with the user interface element comprises [see par. 0413 and figures 31A-31B; the plurality of virtual objects 3002 are presented in the selected display mode, a first display mode (e.g., a matrix mode) in which virtual objects do not move even when the wearable extended reality appliance 3006 moves]; and determining that the user activity occurred within a threshold time of a time period associated with a type of eye behavior [see par. 0481, 0527; The predetermined rules may be based on at least one factor such as: acceleration, distance of motion, repeated motion, starting point, or a user's head position differing from the virtual cursor position. The predetermined rules may determine intent by gauging whether one or a combination of the factors occurred, how one or a combination of factors occurred, and/or based on threshold times that once surpassed, reflects an intention to move the virtual cursor.] Regarding claims 7 and 19, Berliner discloses wherein the user activity is: a finger pinch [see par. 0555; pinch, swipe]; a multi-finger gesture [see figure 7]; a hand grasping gesture; finger pinches made by both hands [see par. 0079, 0085 and figure 1]; grasping gestures made by both hands [see figure 2]; a gesture made by moving both hands relative to one another [see figures 1, 36]; a head movement [see figures 48A-48B]; user input provided via an input device [see figure 2; handheld device] ; or user input provided via a wearable device [see figure 35]. Regarding claims 8 and 20, Jonker discloses wherein the user activity is detected based on images captured from an outward-facing camera of a head-mounted device [see figure 18, 19]. Regarding claims 9 and 21, Jonker discloses wherein obtaining the gaze motion classification data comprises receiving a signal of live gaze velocity data based on a stream of live images (image/video) of the eye [see par. 0282, 0303; The time at which receiving the refined kinesics input begins may be based on a measure of the distance of the user's initial kinesics input from a particular one of the group of virtual objects and/or virtual region containing said virtual objects and/or a measure of the velocity and/or acceleration, or a change thereof, related to the user's initial kinesics input or inputs]. Regarding claims 10 and 22, Berliner discloses wherein identifying the gaze-holding events comprises: motion classification [see par. 0088; Sensor 216 may be a motion sensor, a touch sensor, a light sensor, an infrared sensor, an audio sensor, an image sensor, a proximity sensor, a positioning sensor, a gyroscope, a temperature sensor, a biometric sensor, or any other sensing devices to facilitate related functionalities. Sensor integrated with, or connected to, the input devices or it may be separated from the input devices]; pose stabilization; or blink removal [see par. 0532; changes in visual appearance may include blinking, color changes, size changes, shape changes, symbol changes, animations, or other visual indicators. In some embodiments, the change in visual appearance may be in response to input data, for example, input data indicating large accelerations or velocities of a pointing device, a distance between a window boundary and a position of the virtual cursor, or a voice input reflecting a question or command]. Regarding claims 11 and 23, Jonker discloses wherein: the user activity a saccadic event having a characteristic that exceeds a threshold; and the user interface response is based on excluding a potential gaze-holding event or a portion of a gaze-holding event occurring during a time period following the saccadic event [see par. 0114 and figure 21; an angular displacement between an initial saccade centroid and a subsequent saccade centroid, an angular displacement between an initial saccade landing point and a subsequent saccade landing point, an amplitude of a saccade, a duration of a saccade, a fixation probability, a saccade probability, a gaze velocity, a gaze dispersion]. Regarding claims 12 and 24, Jonker discloses wherein the user interface response is based on excluding gaze behavior occurring during a time period following an event based on: [see figures 3A-3C]: (a) an amplitude representing velocity change during saccadic event [see figure 6A]; (b) a rate of change of gaze velocity during the event; [see figure 6B]; (c) a duration of the gaze behavior; or (d) distance of eye travel during the event. [see par. 0152, 0153 and figure 6C]. Regarding claims 13 and 25, Jonker discloses a system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: [see par. 0196; a non-transitory computer-readable medium including computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor a computing system, cause the computing system to (1) track a gaze of a user as the user interacts with a user interface]: obtaining gaze motion classification data that was generated based on sensor data of an eye captured by the one or more sensors [see par 0091, 0114 and figures 3A-3D; This reorientation is evidenced between 300 and 550 ms, where saccade probability sharply increases, angular displacement increases, and gaze velocity and dispersion increase. Together, these gaze behaviors suggest that users are changing course in their gaze trajectory (i.e., angular displacement) and rapidly moving their eyes back to the erroneous selection (i.e., saccade, velocity, and dispersion features and features that provided measures of visual exploration: fixation probability, saccade probability, gaze velocity, and dispersion) which corresponds to gaze motion classification]; however, Jonker fails to explicitly teach the gaze motion classification data distinguishing a first type of eye behavior occurring at a first time period from a second type of eye behavior different than the first type of eye behavior occurring at a second time period; detecting a user activity; and triggering a user interface response based on the user activity and the gaze motion classification data. Berliner discloses the gaze motion classification data distinguishing a first type of eye behavior occurring at a first time period [see par. 0211, 0213 and figures 10, 16; a hand gesture 1610 may indicate a tap on virtual widget 114 E. At least one processor detect hand gesture based on image data captured by at least one image sensor having field of view 1310 , and may determine, based on hand gesture, an indication of a selection of a specific virtual object (e.g., virtual widget 114 E) for association with the specific physical object (e.g., table 102 )], from a second type of eye behavior different than the first type of eye behavior occurring at a second time period [see par. 0199 and figures 13, 30; a wearable extended reality appliance (e.g., wearable extended reality appliance 110 ) may include at least one image sensor. The at least one image sensor have field of view, which represented by a solid angle from a point of the wearable extended reality appliance. Field of view portion 1312 represented by a solid angle within the solid angle representing field of view 1310 . Field of view portion associated with a display system of the wearable extended reality appliance which refers to situations or activities where direct eye contact or sustain eye contact is not the primary]; detecting a user activity [see par. 0220 and figure 17; At least one image sensor of the wearable extended reality appliance may capture image data in the field of view of the at least one image sensor, and detect a gesture input. The gesture input may include, for example, a drag, a pinch, a spread, a swipe, a tap, a pointing, a grab, a scroll, a rotate, a flick, a touch, a zoom-in, a zoom-out, a thumb-up, a thumb-down, a touch-and-hold, or any other action of one or more fingers or hands the gesture input may be determined from analysis of the image data captured by the at least one image sensor of the wearable extended reality appliance]; and triggering a user interface response based on the user activity and the gaze motion classification data [see par. 0277, 0280 and figure 23; triggering a functionality associated with the particular virtual object based on the refined kinesics input. The triggering a functionality associated with the particular virtual object, include any occurrence resulting from an identification of a particular virtual object. Such an occurrence involve changing an appearance of the virtual object, or initiating operation of code tied to the virtual object. Thus, selection of a virtual object may result in the presentation of a virtual menu, the presentation of additional content, or the triggering of an application]. It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jonker and Berliner before the affective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, systems for using natural gaze dynamics to detect input recognitions of Jonker to include gesture interaction with invisible virtual object, as taught by Berliner. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enable adapting content or functionality based on individual gaze patterns, leading to a more personalized user experience and optimizing user interaction by triggering actions or providing information as users look at specific interface elements making interactions more efficient and engaging . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892) . Chang et al. (US2023/0133579) discloses visual attention tracking using gaze and visual content analysis detecting content of interest to a user includes obtaining a first data stream indicative of eye movement. Kurlethimar et al. (US 2019/0339770) discloses an electronic device may have a foveated display, an eye-tracking system and a head movement detection system. The eye-tracking system may gather information on a user's point of regard on the display while the head movement detection system may capture information regarding the rotation of the observer's head. Based on the point-of-regard information, head rotation information, image data, the type of eye/head movement that is underway, and/or tiredness information, control circuitry in the electronic device may produce image data for a display, with areas of different resolutions and(or) visual quality. A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAO H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4053. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm . 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, Matthew Ell can be reached on 571-270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CAO H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 2 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 3 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 4 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 5 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 6 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 7 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 8 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 9 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 10 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 11 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 12 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 13 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 14 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 15 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 16 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 17 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 18 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 19 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 20 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 21 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 22 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 23 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 24 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 25 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 26 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/790,194 Page 27 Art Unit: 2171
Prosecution Insights