Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 16-21 have been added. Accordingly, Claims 1 & 3-21 are pending. Because dependent Claim 15 was originally objected to in the first non-final rejection as being allowable if made independent, and because new prior art was found to reject that limitation in independent Claim 17, this rejection will not be made final.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae & Kim (WO 2021157906 A1, hereinafter, "Bae") in view of Luo et al (US 20090135245 A1, hereinafter, "Luo") and Park et al (WO 2023136625 A1, hereinafter, "Park").
Regarding Claim 17, Bae teaches An apparatus comprising: an electronic device, the electronic device comprising: an emissive display comprising a plurality of pixels (Bae, Fig. 10a, pg. 23, para. 4, ln. 1, "10A is a diagram illustrating a display DP and an image sensor 910…"); a first image sensor, the first image sensor located adjacent to an edge of the emissive display (Bae, Fig. 10b, pg. 23, para. 6, ln. 3, "…under-display camera area 911."), and a second image sensor, the second image sensor being an under-display sensor located substantially at a center of the emissive display (Bae, Fig. 10b, pg. 23, last para., ln. 3-4, 6-9, "…a plurality of image sensors 910 may be disposed under the display panel 920...However, the present invention is not limited thereto, and the under-display camera area 911 may be disposed without suggesting a location of the upper center, upper left, center, center right, center left, lower right, lower center, lower left, etc. of the electronic device 900."), the at least one image processor configured to: receive the first image from the first image sensor (Bae, Fig. 1, pg. 3, para. 7, ln. 3, "…an image processing module 35…"); and receive the second image from the second image sensor (Bae, Fig. 1, pg. 3, para. 7, ln. 3, "…an image processing module 35…"). Bae does not teach the first image sensor configured to capture a first image of a first eye gaze of a user, the second image sensor configured to capture a second image of a second eye gaze of the user; and at least one image processor physically packaged with the first image sensor. However, Park teaches the first image sensor configured to capture a first image of a first eye gaze of a user (Park, pg. 9, para. 1, ln. 1-2, "…the first gaze tracking camera 205 and the second gaze tracking camera 207 may check the gaze of the user."); the second image sensor configured to capture a second image of a second eye gaze of the user (Park, pg. 9, para. 1, ln. 1-2, "…the first gaze tracking camera 205 and the second gaze tracking camera 207 may check the gaze of the user."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Park with those of Bae because it is widely known in the art to use multiple cameras to track multiple eye gazes. Luo teaches at least one image processor physically packaged with the first image sensor (Luo, Fig. 8, [0039], ln. 8-9, "Both the image sensor chip 830 and the image processor ASIC 840 can be mounted on PCB 860."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Luo with those of Bae and Park because it is widely known in the art to combine an image processor with an image sensor on a single PCB.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Park, Luo, and Cha & Yoo (JP 2024159484 A, hereinafter, "Cha").
Regarding Claim 19, Bae, Park, and Luo teach the limitations of dependent Claim 17 as noted above. Cha teaches the first image sensor has a first pixel count and the second image sensor has second pixel count, the second pixel count being smaller than the first pixel count (Cha, pg. 3, para. 2, ln. 9-11, "The second image sensor 200 operates at a lower resolution and a lower frame rate in the low power mode compared to the normal mode, thereby reducing the power consumption of the second image sensor 200."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Cha with those of Bae, Park, and Luo because it is widely known in the art to use two image sensors having different resolutions.
Regarding Claim 20, Bae, Park, and Luo teach the limitations of dependent Claim 17 as noted above. Cha teaches the first image sensor operates at a first power level and the second image sensor operates at a second power level, the second power level being lower than the first power level (Cha, pg. 3, para. 2, ln. 9-11, "The second image sensor 200 operates at a lower resolution and a lower frame rate in the low power mode compared to the normal mode, thereby reducing the power consumption of the second image sensor 200."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Cha with those of Bae, Park, and Luo because it is widely known in the art to reduce power to a second image sensor having a lower resolution.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Park, Luo, and Kramer & Oguz (US 20210314467 A1, hereinafter, "Kramer").
Regarding Claim 21, Bae, Park, and Luo teach the limitations of dependent Claim 17 as noted above. Kramer teaches the second image sensor comprises a grayscale camera (Kramer, [0165], ln. 6, "…a second mode may be associated with grayscale imaging [using the second image sensor 303]."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kramer with those of Bae, Park, and Luo because it is widely known in the art to use a color image sensor and a grayscale image sensor in tandem.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fails to teach or render obvious the at least one image processor is further configured to modify the first eye gaze captured by the first image sensor using the second image of the second eye gaze received from the second image sensor.
Claims 1 & 3-16 are allowed.
The following is the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fails to teach or render obvious modify the first eye gaze captured by the first image sensor using the second image of the second eye gaze received from the second image sensor.
Regarding Claim 3, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 3 which is dependent on Claim
Regarding Claim 5, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 4 which is dependent on Claim 3 which is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 4 which is dependent on Claim 3 which is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 4 which is dependent on Claim 3 which is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 4 which is dependent on Claim 3 which is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 4 which is dependent on Claim 3 which is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 9 which is dependent on Claim 4 which is dependent on Claim 3 which is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 4 which is dependent on Claim 3 which is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 4 which is dependent on Claim 3 which is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 12 which is dependent on Claim 4 which is dependent on Claim 3 which is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 4 which is dependent on Claim 3 which is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, it is allowed because it is dependent on Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN DANIEL BARRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0432. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0730-1630.
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, Lin Ye can be reached on 517-272-7372. 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.
/STEVEN DANIEL BARRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
