DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an image processing unit which …analyzes a face image of the user". The “face image of the user” in mentioned in the first step. It is not clear if the claim refers to the “face image of the user” mentioned in the first step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Also Claim 5 recites “detecting the face image”.
The Examiner suggests keeping the language consistent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 14 and 15 recite a “computer program comprising instructions for…..”. Such claimed software does not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other elements of a computer, which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. As such, software (functional descriptive material) per se not claimed as embodied/encoded in computer-readable media is not statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized”). Software by itself is not capable of causing functional change in the computer. Because the full scope of the claim as properly read in light of the disclosure encompasses non-statutory subject matter, the claim as a whole is non-statutory and appears to be one type of claim that is considered nonstatutory, under the present USPTO Interim Guidelines, 1300 Official Gazette Patent and Trademark Office 142 (Nov. 22, 2005).
Claims 16 and 17 sets forth a “computer-readable medium.” However, the specification as originally filed does not explicitly define the computer readable medium by stating that it '. . . includes, but is not limited to' a number of various mediums (Para. 0091 of the publication). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage media (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is absent an explicit definition or is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an image reception unit”, “a 3D eye tracking model management unit”, “an image processing unit” and “an image output unit” in claims 1, 4-5 and “a first fully connected layer unit”, “a second FC layer unit” and “a pitch gaze estimation unit” in claims 7 and 9-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to neither disclose nor sufficiently suggest the combination of features as claimed and arranged by applicant. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose cropping the face image of the user; estimating gaze directions (yaw, pitch) of the left and right eyes of the user by analyzing the cropped face image of the user; and estimating real world coordinates indicating the position and the gaze direction of the user’s eyes by fusing the estimated pixel coordinates (x1, y1) of the left eye, the estimated pixel coordinates (x2, y2) of the right eye of the user, the estimated depths (z1, z2), and the estimated gaze directions (yaw, pitch) of the left and right eyes of the user, as recited in claims 5 and 12.
Claims 12-13 are allowed.
Claims 5-11 would be allowable if the applicant overcome the above 112 rejections and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-17 would be allowable if the applicant overcome the above 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cashen (US 2017/0169612) in view of Boyle (US 2022/0146819).
Regarding claim 1, Cashen discloses a projection point locating system comprising:
an image reception unit which receives an image including a target object to be located at a projection point from a first camera (receiving target position input from a sensing unit that can be a camera. The sensing unit use a plurality of sensors to monitor and scan an environment to identify real-world targets; see at last paragraphs 0047-048), and receives a face image of a user who observes the target object from a second camera (the sensing unit may also include a tracking camera to capture eye position and/or head position of the operator; see at least paragraphs 0050-0052);
an eye tracking management unit for optimally locating the projection point of the target object (an alignment system that applies correction in real time in both graphics generation and image warping such as the generated virtual images and correctly aligned with their intended real-world targets within acceptable levels of distortion; see at least paragraph 0058);
an image processing unit which analyzes a face image of the user who observes the target object and estimates a position and a gaze direction of user's eyes, so as to process the target object such that the target object appears at optimal coordinates aligned with the position and the gaze direction of the user's eyes (a graphics unit receives data and information from the sensing unit that tracks eyes and head movement of the operator. The graphics unit comprise an alignment system that is configured to correct for misalignment by considering a number of dynamic error factor inputs and static error factor inputs in real time; see at least paragraphs 0045-0045, 0050-0052, 0056 and 0098-0102); and
an image output unit which displays the target object, which is processed by the image processing unit, by projecting the target object at the optimal coordinates aligned with the position and the gaze direction of the user's eyes (displaying, by a display unit, images that are correctly aligned with their intended real-world targets within acceptable levels of distortion; see at least paragraphs 0046, 0056, 0058 and 0100).
Cashen discloses the eye tracking, as above, but is not clear about generating and training a 3D tracking model, receiving the 3D tracking model and using the 3D tracking model.
Boyle discloses the above missing limitation; a 3D eye model is generated and used to model gaze depth of the user; see at least paragraphs 0028, 0048 and 0059.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Cashen by the teachings of Boyle by having the above limitations so to be able to map eye tracking functions to gaze depths so to determine the gaze depth of the user; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 2, Cashen in view of Boyle disclose the projection point locating system of claim 1, wherein the 3D eye tracking model is configured by integrating an eyeball tracking model for estimating pixel coordinates (x, y) of the user's eyes (determine the location for each pupil; Boyle; see at least paragraphs 0019 and 0027-0028), a depth estimation model for estimating a depth (z) corresponding to the pixel coordinates (x, y) of the user's eyes (depth determination; Boyle; see at least paragraphs 0019, 0024 and 0027-0028), and a gaze estimation model for estimating the gaze direction of the user's eyes (gaze depth; Boyle; see at least paragraphs 0019, 0022 and 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Cashen in view of Boyle disclose the projection point locating system of claim 2, wherein the gaze direction of the user's eyes, which is estimated by the gaze estimation model, is a yaw direction and a pitch direction (Boyle; see at least paragraphs 0026 and 0048).
Regarding claim 4, Cashen in view of Boyle disclose the projection point locating system of claim 3, wherein the first camera and the second camera are general cameras that generate a 2D image, and images received by the image reception unit are 2D images that do not include depth information, and the depth information corresponding to the 2D images is estimated by the depth estimation model (the camera of Cashen; see at least paragraphs 0047 and 0050-0052 in view of the depth estimation of Boyle; see at least paragraphs 0019, 0024 and 0027-0028).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426