DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 03/20/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 10, 21, and 32 are objected to for minor informalities.
Claim Objections
Claim 10, 21, and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of each of claims 10, 21, and 32, “the user” should read “the first user”.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 11-19, 22-30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AMBRUS (US 2016/0131902 A1) in view of LIU (US 2018/0052514 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, AMBRUS teaches a computer system configured to communicate with a display generation component and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: (Fig. 2, 4, ¶ 5, 69: An HMD is a display device with a processor and memory for performing instructions.)
detecting that at least a portion of the computer system has been placed on a body of a respective user; subsequent to detecting that at least a portion of the computer system has been placed on the body of the respective user, detecting an input from the respective user based on a movement or position of at least a portion of the body of the respective user; (Fig. 8 step 602; ¶ 122: “after a user puts on head mounted display device 2, eye position and tracking assemblies 134 automatically determine the center of each eye, and processor 210 automatically calculates the user's IPD value”. Also see ¶ 133-136, 130-141: After a HMD device is placed on the head of a user, input is detected from the user based on the position or movement of an eye of the user, using an eye position and tracking assembly. Biometric information is also detected to identify the user.)
and in response to detecting the input from the respective user, responding to the input from the respective user, including: in accordance with a determination that the respective user is a first user that has previously registered with the computer system… operating the device using a first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user. (¶ 123: “a determination is made whether the automatically calculated IPDc value matches (within a predetermined tolerance) one or more previously determined IPD values (referred to herein as “previously determined IPDs values”). In an embodiment, previously determined IPDs values may be stored in memory” Also see ¶ 133-136, 130-141: In addition to detecting the IPD value of the user who is wearing the HMD, the computing device also uses biometric information to determine if the respective user has previously registered with the device, including calibration data specific to the user. See ¶ 65 and 124: The calibration data specific to a user includes eye tracking calibration parameters that are associated with their user profile.)
and in accordance with a determination that the respective user is not the first user…operating the device… and without using the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user. (Fig. 8 step 606 or Fig. 10 step 630. ¶ 129-131: If the user is not detected as a previously registered user, the user is determined as a guest and either creates a profile or a quick calibration process is performed in order for the user to operate the device. Either way, the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to a previously registered user are not loaded or used to operate the device.
Furthermore, there may be a second user, as illustrated by the table in Fig. 9A, that is determined to be a match. In this case, the device would be operated using the calibration settings of the second user, not the first set of calibration settings specific to the first user.)
AMBRUS teaches loading calibration data for a HMD based on the user detected to be wearing the HMD, but AMBRUS does not explicitly teach using the calibration data to respond to inputs by the user. Rather, it is implied that the calibration data would be used to more accurately track user eye position and movement. AMBRUS therefore does not explicitly teach generating a response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body and a first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user or generating a response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body and without using the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user
However, LIU, which is similarly directed to creating and loading eye tracking calibration profiles for a plurality of users, teaches generating a response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body and a first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user (“a processing unit of the eye tracking device is controlled in dependency of the control data or the profile of the specific user, the at least one user was identified as. This controlling can be done as described above. If the user is identified, the processing unit can read out the control data of the corresponding user profile and control the eye tracking device or any other system coupled with eye tracking device in dependency of these data, for example calculating the gaze direction or a point of regard taking into account the stored calibration parameters” Paragraph 37. The user input is a gaze of the user which is tracked based on the calibration data in the user’s profile. The system responds to the user’s gaze input by calculating a direction or point of interest of the user’s gaze on a display. See Paragraph 67, which provides an example of the response being tracking the user’s gaze in order to move a cursor displayed on a video game application, and Paragraph 52, which generally discusses a user controlling applications using their gaze as a pointing device.)
generating a response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body and without using the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user (The same citations to LIU above teaches the limitations of this claim in context with the teachings in ¶ 53: If another user is detected and their user profile is loaded, such as the user with profile P2 and identification information I2, then calibration data C2 would be loaded and a response to the user’s eye movements would be generated based on the detected movement and the loaded calibration data C2, not the calibration data C1. In combination with the guest mode taught by AMBRUS, the same logic would apply, i.e. the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user would not be used to determine the response.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the loading of a specific user profile having calibration data specific to a user after detecting that a wearable device has been worn by the user taught by AMBRUS by responding to inputs, particularly eye movements, made by the user using their respective calibration data as taught by LIU. Since LIU also teaches authentication of a user of the wearable device and determining whether or not a profile having calibration data for that user already exists, the combination would have yielded predictable results. LIU (¶ 4) teaches, “As certain properties of human eyes are different from person to person, usually the calibration result of one person will not produce accurate eye tracking for another one. Therefore, the current eye tracking systems usually generate a profile for each user to store the calibration result and some other specific setting. This allows the user to load his/her calibration data from the previous session instead of doing a new calibration.” LIU (¶ 69-71) also discusses that the advantage of incorporating specific user profiles with calibration data is an improved user experience due to the speed of access to an application with accurate eye tracking performance without the need for a more interruptive calibration process.
Claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and Claim 23 is directed to a method, but they otherwise recite the same limitations as claim 1. Claim 12 and Claim 23 are therefore rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 2, AMBRUS in view of LIU further teaches wherein generating the response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body and without using the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user comprises: (Repeated claim language from claim 1: See the explanation and relevant citations above.)
in accordance with a determination that the respective user is an unregistered user, (AMBRUS, ¶ 129, Fig. 8 step 606: A determination that a user is unregistered. LIU, Fig. 2 “no” branch of S14, ¶ 54: A determination that a user is unregistered.)
generating a response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body (LIU, ¶ 37, 52-53, 67: The HMD responds to inputs corresponding to eye movement or position.)
and a second set of device calibration settings that are different from the first set of device calibration settings and that represent a set of guest device calibration settings for the unregistered user. (AMBRUS, ¶ 129-130, Fig. 10 step 634/632: A second set of device calibration settings are guest calibration settings for an unregistered user that are different from the set corresponding to the (first) registered user.)
The guest calibration settings would be used to respond to the inputs made by the guest user in view of the teachings of AMBRUS and LIU for the reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 13 and claim 24 recite the same limitations as claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 3, AMBRUS in view of LIU further teaches wherein generating the response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body and without using the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user comprises: (Repeated claim language from claim 1: See the explanation and relevant citations above.)
in accordance with a determination that the respective user is a second user that has previously registered with the computer system different from the first user, (AMBRUS, Fig. 8 step 604, Figs. 9A-9B, which show a plurality of registered users. ¶ 126, 128, 140-144: A match between the respective user wearing the device and previously stored users based on IPD values and biometric information. When a match is made, the calibration data is loaded by the HMD. Therefore, there would be a determination that the respective user is one of the second users, different from the first user. LIU also teaches this concept in ¶ 54.)
generating a response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body (LIU, ¶ 37, 52-53, 67: The HMD responds to inputs corresponding to eye movement or position.)
and a third set of device calibration settings that are different from the first set of device calibration settings and are specific to the second user. (AMBRUS, Figs. 9A-9B, ¶ 126, 128, 144: A third set of calibration settings that are specific to a second registered user and that are different from the first set specific to the first registered user are loaded by the HMD. LIU teaches a similar concept in ¶ 54.)
The second registered user’s calibration settings would be used to respond to the inputs made by the second registered user in view of the teachings of AMBRUS and LIU for the reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14 and claim 25 recite the same limitations as claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 4, AMBRUS in view of LIU further teaches wherein the first set of device calibration settings are determined based on a plurality of device calibration inputs received from the first user. (AMBRUS, ¶ 65: Eye tracking calibration parameters are stored for the registered user. The parameters are determined based on the inputs received from the first user during a calibration process that is discussed in ¶ 131-133.)
Claim 15 and claim 26 recite the same limitations as claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 5, AMBRUS in view of LIU further teaches wherein generating the response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body and without using the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user comprises: (Repeated claim language from claim 1: See the explanation and relevant citations above.)
in accordance with a determination that the respective user is an unregistered user, (AMBRUS, ¶ 129, Fig. 8 step 606: A determination that a user is unregistered. LIU, Fig. 2 “no” branch of S14, ¶ 54: A determination that a user is unregistered.)
generating a response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body (LIU, ¶ 37, 52-53, 67: The HMD responds to inputs corresponding to eye movement or position.)
and a second set of device calibration settings that are different from the first set of device calibration settings and that represent a set of guest device calibration settings for the unregistered user, (AMBRUS, ¶ 129-130, Fig. 10 step 634/632: A second set of device calibration settings are guest calibration settings for an unregistered user that are different from the set corresponding to the (first) registered user.)
wherein the second set of device calibration settings are determined based on a plurality of device calibration inputs received from the unregistered user. (AMBRUS, Fig. 10 step 632, ¶ 130: The guest user calibration settings are determined based on a plurality of device calibration inputs received from the unregistered user in a “quick” eye tracking calibration process.)
The guest calibration settings would be used to respond to the inputs made by the guest user in view of the teachings of AMBRUS and LIU for the reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 16 and claim 27 recite the same limitations as claim 5 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 6, AMBRUS in view of LIU further teaches wherein the plurality of device calibration inputs received from the unregistered user are a subset of device calibration inputs that are less than the plurality of device calibration inputs received from the first user. (AMBRUS, ¶ 130: The quick calibration process includes “an abbreviated eye tracking calibration process by requiring the user to “look at” a reduced number of transmitted images (e.g., fewer than would be used for a complete eye tracking calibration)”. The registered users would have done a full calibration process; therefore, the calibration inputs received from the unregistered user are less than the device calibration inputs received from the registered user.)
Claim 17 and claim 28 recite the same limitations as claim 6 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 7, AMBRUS in view of LIU further teaches wherein generating the response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body and without using the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user comprises: (Repeated claim language from claim 1: See the explanation and relevant citations above.)
in accordance with a determination that the respective user is an unregistered user, (AMBRUS, ¶ 129, Fig. 8 step 606: A determination that a user is unregistered. LIU, Fig. 2 “no” branch of S14, ¶ 54: A determination that a user is unregistered.)
generating a response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body (LIU, ¶ 37, 52-53, 67: The HMD responds to inputs corresponding to eye movement or position.)
and a second set of device calibration settings that are different from the first set of device calibration settings and that represent a set of guest device calibration settings for the unregistered user, (AMBRUS, ¶ 129-130, Fig. 10 step 634/632: A second set of device calibration settings are guest calibration settings for an unregistered user that are different from the set corresponding to the (first) registered user.)
wherein the second set of device calibration settings are a default set of device calibration settings and are not based on user input from the unregistered user. (AMBRUS, ¶ 130: The guest calibration settings are “previously stored eye tracking calibration data from another user having a similar IPD”. In other words, default values that are already stored are used rather than requiring user input from the unregistered user to generate the calibration settings.)
The guest calibration settings would be used to respond to the inputs made by the guest user in view of the teachings of AMBRUS and LIU for the reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 18 and claim 29 recite the same limitations as claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 8, AMBRUS in view of LIU further teaches wherein the first set of device calibration settings includes one or more eye and/or gaze movement calibration settings. (AMBRUS, ¶ 65, 132: The set of device calibration settings corresponding to the registered users include one or more eye tracking calibration data parameters.)
Claim 19 and claim 30 recite the same limitations as claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 11, AMBRUS in view of LIU further teaches wherein the determination that the respective user is the first user is performed automatically in response to detecting that at least the portion of the computer system has been placed on the body of a user. (AMBRUS, ¶ 122-124, 140-144: Upon wearing the HMD, the IPD and biometric information is automatically detected. The IPD data and/or biometric information is used to determine if the user who put on the device is the first user, or any other previously registered user.)
Claim 22 and claim 33 recite the same limitations as claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claims 9, 20, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AMBRUS (US 2016/0131902 A1) in view of LIU (US 2018/0052514 A1) and further in view of ENGLE (US 2013/0321279 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, AMBRUS in view of LIU teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 9 depends.
AMBRUS and LIU teach determining and loading calibration data for eye tracking and therefore do not teach wherein the first set of device calibration settings includes one or more hand movement calibration settings.
However, ENGLE, which is similarly directed to calibrating a user interface for use by different users, teaches wherein the first set of device calibration settings includes one or more hand movement calibration settings. (¶ 49-52: “More particularly, the size, shape, and movement of various parts of the hand can vary between users and as such, in some embodiments, a calibration process can be performed to more accurately process the various key presses and identify the various key states… the calibration process may require the user to make certain motions… a different profile can be constructed for each user and then loaded into the system when that particular user has logged in or has otherwise identified him or herself to the system” A hand motion detection device (see ¶ 22, 24) is calibrated for specific users and the hand motion calibration information is stored in a profile for each user. The hand movement calibration profile is loaded when the user logs into the system.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the loading of calibration information for a user upon the user wearing and being identified by a wearable device taught by AMBRUS in view of LIU by determining, storing, and loading hand movement calibration settings as taught by ENGLE. Since ENGLE is similarly directed to the calibration of a device for a specific user, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to loading hand tracking calibration information instead of eye tracking calibration information (as taught by AMBRUS and LIU) depending on the wearable device and the application environment. Furthermore, as taught by ENGLE (¶ 22, 49, 51), loading of calibration information pertaining to hand movements would have been advantageous since users have different hand sizes, shapes, and moving patterns and accounting for such data would aid in accurately tracking hand motion for a plurality of practical applications.
Claim 20 and claim 31 recite the same limitations as claim 9 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claims 10, 21, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AMBRUS (US 2016/0131902 A1) in view of LIU (US 2018/0052514 A1) and further in view of HOSHI (US 2015/0161371 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, AMBRUS in view of LIU teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 10 depends.
AMBRUS in view of LIU further teaches wherein generating the response to the input based on the movement or position of the portion of the respective user's body and the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the [first] user (Repeated claim language from claim 1: See the explanation and relevant citations above.)
comprises enabling the computer system to be used with the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user, (AMBRUS, ¶ 138, 144, Fig. 8 step 616: The HMD is calibrated with the calibration settings specific to the matched registered user. Thus, the HMD is enabled to be used for eye tracking with the registered user. LIU teaches a similar concept in ¶ 54.)
and the one or more programs further include instructions for: while the computer system is enabled to be used with the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user, (AMBRUS, ¶ 138, 144, 151: The HMD is enabled to be used for eye tracking with the registered user. LIU teaches a similar concept in ¶ 54.)
While AMBRUS (¶ 122) at least suggests that the process would be performed automatically any time a user puts on the HMD, AMBRUS in view of LIU does not explicitly teach detecting that the at least the portion of the computer system has been removed from the body of the respective user; and in response to detecting that the at least the portion of the computer system has been removed from the body of the respective user, ceasing to enable the computer system to be used with the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user.
However, HOSHI, which is similarly directed to access control based on a device being worn by a user, teaches detecting that the at least the portion of the computer system has been removed from the body of the respective user; and in response to detecting that the at least the portion of the computer system has been removed from the body of the respective user, ceasing to enable the computer system to be used with the first set of device calibration settings that are specific to the first user. (¶ 55 “if the electronic bracelet (wearable device) 10 is removed from the human body after the above-described function has started (YES in step S58), the authentication controller 51 disables the first function (step S58). Then, the authentication controller 51 transmits a lock request to the OS 43 to lock the electronic bracelet 10 (step S60).” Also see ¶ 49 and 87 for a similar embodiment. When a wearable device is taken off, a previously enabled function is disabled and the user of the wearable device is no longer authenticated.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the identification of a user when a device is worn and loading of calibration data specific to the user taught by AMBRUS in view of LIU by incorporating the method of determining whether the device was taken off and disabling the previously authenticated functionality taught by HOSHI. Since the references are directed to identification or authentication methods for wearable devices and AMBRUS at least suggests automatic identification of a user upon wearing the device, it would have been obvious that this identification would be reperformed every time the device is taken off and put on. Disabling or locking the device when the user takes it off therefore would have yielded predictable results. As suggested by HOSHI (¶ 3), such an implementation would have been advantageous for improving the security of the device.
Claim 21 and claim 32 recite the same limitations as claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Starner (US 10,341,113 B2) teaches authentication of a user wearing a device and a guest mode of operation. (Col. 18: 1-10, Figs. 5E-F)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights