DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed 10/2/2024.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
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 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite a computer-readable storage medium. As a transitory signal or propagating wave is a medium which can store instructions during transmission, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these claims includes these embodiments. A propagating signal or transitory wave is not considered a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter within the scope of the statute, and the claims must be rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 18-20, 23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morris, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0293402 (“Morris”).
With regard to Claim 1, Morris teaches a method in a computing system for controlling eye gaze actuation boundaries in a variable fashion within a user interface comprising a plurality of user interface elements, comprising:
associating each of a plurality of the user interface elements with a different actuation boundary wherein each actuation boundary associated is based upon one or more characteristics and wherein at least two of the actuation boundaries are distinct ([0046] describes that a probability of each of the 26 characters on a keyboard being input is determined. A dwell time for each key is then adjusted up or down from a baseline dwell time based on the probability);
receiving a stream of eye gaze data ([0028] describes a gaze-tracking sensor that detects the direction of a user’s gaze and detects the user’s gaze as the user fixates on a displayed key);
determining, from the received data and from the actuation boundaries associated with each of the plurality of user interface elements, which user interface element is to be actuated; and causing actuation of the determined user interface element to be actuated ([0048] describes that the key is selected when a user’s gaze falls upon the key of an on-screen keyboard for the dwell time assigned based on the selection probability).
Claim 19 recites a storage medium comprising instructions (Fig. 1) for performing the method of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 25 recites a system comprising a computer processor and memory storing code logic that, when executed on the computer processor carries out the method of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Morris teaches that the one or more characteristics include one or more of probabilities, context, consequence and/or proximity. [0046] describes that the dwell time is adjusted using a determined probability that a key will be selected by a user.
Claim 20 recites a storage medium comprising instructions (Fig. 1) for performing the method of Claim 2, and is similarly rejected. Claim 26 recites a system comprising a computer processor and memory storing code logic that, when executed on the computer processor carries out the method of Claim 2, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, Morris teaches that the one or more characteristics are probabilities of a user interface element to be actuated. [0046] describes that the dwell time is adjusted using a determined probability that a key will be selected by a user.
With regard to Claim 4, Morris teaches that the user interface implements a virtual keyboard, each user interface element is a key, and wherein frequency of character or symbol occurrences in a designated language is used to associate each key with an eye gaze actuation boundary. [0044]-[0045] describes that the system uses a statistical language model to determine the probabilities that each letter will be a next letter entered, where the model analyzes n-grams to determine letter probabilities. [0074] further describes that probability determined by a language model is based on a frequency with which a letter appears in combination with other letters.
Claim 23 recites a storage medium comprising instructions (Fig. 1) for performing the method of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected Claim 27 recites a system comprising a computer processor and memory storing code logic that, when executed on the computer processor carries out the method of Claim 4, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 5, Morris teaches that the user interface a virtual keyboard, each user interface element is a key, and wherein context of character, symbol, or language unit occurrences in a designated language are used to associate each key with an eye gaze actuation boundary. [0044]-[0045] describes that the system uses a statistical language model to determine the probabilities that each letter will be a next letter entered, where the model analyzes n-grams to determine letter probabilities. [0074] further describes that probability determined by a language model is based on a frequency with which a letter appears in combination with other letters.
With regard to Claim 6, Morris teaches receiving addition eye gaze data in the data stream; before determining a next user interface element to be actuated, modifying the association of at least some of the plurality of the user interface elements with a different actuation boundary based upon the one or more characteristics; and determining the next user interface element to be actuated based upon the modified actuation boundaries associated with the at least some of the plurality of user interface elements. [0048] describes that subsequent to receiving an input of a key from a gaze, the process of adjusting the dwell time for selecting a character from the keyboard is repeated for the input of subsequent characters.
With regard to Claim 18, Morris teaches that the one or more characteristics includes one or more of probabilities, context, consequence and/or proximity and further comprises combining one or more of the one or more characteristics to associate each of the plurality of user interface elements with the different actuation boundary. [0044]-[0045] describes that the system uses a statistical language model to determine the probabilities that each letter will be a next letter entered, where the model analyzes n-grams to determine letter probabilities. [0074] further describes that probability determined by a language model is based on a frequency with which a letter appears in combination with other letters.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris, in view of El-Monajjed, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0342478 (“El-Monajjed”).
With regard to Claim 7, Morris does not teach filtering or modifying the eye gaze data stream to remove noise or accidental gaze changes. El-Monajjed teaches at [0103] that gaze tracking applications seek to filter noise and rapid changes in gaze direction arising from involuntary eye movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Morris to include the filtering described in El-Monajjed. El-Monajjed describes at [0103] that the filtering is done to improve estimation of intended user gaze position or behavior. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve system functioning by improving the accuracy of gaze position determinations made by the system described in Morris.
Claims 8-13, 21, 22 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris, in view of Sukumar, U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0043241 (“Sukumar”).
With regard to Claim 8, Morris, in view of Sukumar teaches that the user interface implements an interface having one or more action user interface elements, and wherein a consequence associated with each of the one or more action user interface elements is used to associate each user interface element with an eye gaze actuation boundary.
Morris teaches a user interface for electing elements using a gaze dwell time, as described above. Sukumar teaches at [0019] that an eye gaze bounding requirement is adapted based on the significance level of a function or system operated by a button in an interface, where significance is related to button function. [0038]-[0039] describe that button selection is enabled by a gaze that meets the specified dwell time, where the significance is defined based on the effect controls will have on the continuation of the flight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Morris to include features related to additional types of interfaces as described in Sukumar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve the utility and commercial applicability of a gaze-controlled user interface by enabling its use for additional types of applications.
Claim 28 recites a system comprising a computer processor and memory storing code logic that, when executed on the computer processor carries out the method of Claim 8, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 9, it is obvious in view of the disclosure of Sukumar that the user interface implements an electronic game or simulation. Sukumar teaches a pilot using touch controls in the course of piloting an aircraft at [0018]. As flight controls are reproduced within simulators for the purpose of training pilots, the disclosure of flight controls would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the interfaces described in Sukumar would be usable in a simulator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Morris to include features related to additional types of interfaces as described in Sukumar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve the utility and commercial applicability of a gaze-controlled user interface by enabling its use for additional types of applications.
With regard to Claim 10, Sukumar teaches that the user interface implements an interface to control a vehicle or a drone. [0018] describes that the interface is used by a pilot to control a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Morris to include features related to additional types of interfaces as described in Sukumar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve the utility and commercial applicability of a gaze-controlled user interface by enabling its use for additional types of applications.
Claim 29 recites a system comprising a computer processor and memory storing code logic that, when executed on the computer processor carries out the method of Claim 10, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 11, Sukumar teaches that a lower eye gaze actuation boundary is associated with a lower consequence action user interface element when an action corresponding to the user interface element has a lower consequence than a second other action. [0039] describes that a standard button whose inadvertent touch has a minimal impact on continuation of a flight, has a shorter dwell time than other buttons, whose times increase as their potential impact on continuation of a flight is higher.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Morris to include features related to additional types of interfaces as described in Sukumar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve the utility and commercial applicability of a gaze-controlled user interface by enabling its use for additional types of applications.
With regard to Claim 12, Sukumar teaches that consequence of an action is based upon safety or danger. [0003] describes that the significance of the buttons ranges from a mere inconvenience, to buttons whose inadvertent activation is a possible safety issue.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Morris to include features related to additional types of interfaces as described in Sukumar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve the utility and commercial applicability of a gaze-controlled user interface by enabling its use for additional types of applications.
With regard to Claim 13, Sukumar teaches that a higher eye gaze actuation boundary is associated with a higher consequence action user interface element when the action corresponding to the user interface element could result in a collision. [0039] describes that the higher significance control buttons are those which can have significant or severe impacts on the ability to continue a flight. [0040] describes that the significance at the most severe end could be catastrophic, which suggests a collision with either another aircraft or the ground.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Morris to include features related to additional types of interfaces as described in Sukumar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve the utility and commercial applicability of a gaze-controlled user interface by enabling its use for additional types of applications.
With regard to Claim 21, Sukumar teaches that the user interface implements an interface to control a vehicle or a drone, and the actuation boundary associated with each user interface element is determined based upon a consequence or probability of a possible collision. [0018] describes that the interface is used by a pilot to control a vehicle. [0039] describes buttons having longer dwell times as their potential impact on a flight is higher.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Morris to include features related to additional types of interfaces as described in Sukumar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve the utility and commercial applicability of a gaze-controlled user interface by enabling its use for additional types of applications.
With regard to Claim 22, Sukumar teaches that the user interface implements an interface to control a vehicle or a drone, and the actuation boundary associated with each user interface element is determined based upon safety factors. [0018] describes that the interface is used by a pilot to control a vehicle. [0039] describes buttons having longer dwell times as their potential impact on a flight is higher. [0003] describes that the significance of the buttons ranges from a mere inconvenience, to buttons whose inadvertent activation is a possible safety issue.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Morris to include features related to additional types of interfaces as described in Sukumar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve the utility and commercial applicability of a gaze-controlled user interface by enabling its use for additional types of applications.
With regard to Claim 30, Sukumar teaches that the actuation boundary associated with each user interface element is determined based upon safety factors. [0018] describes that the interface is used by a pilot to control a vehicle. [0039]describes buttons having longer dwell times as their potential impact on a flight is higher. [0003] describes that the significance of the buttons ranges from a mere inconvenience, to buttons whose inadvertent activation is a possible safety issue.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Morris to include features related to additional types of interfaces as described in Sukumar. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve the utility and commercial applicability of a gaze-controlled user interface by enabling its use for additional types of applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
8/15/2026
Prosecution Insights