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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/22/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of full statutory term of prior patent no. 12,277,264 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that,
“Independent claim 13 (and, analogously, claims 22 and 27) recites, in part, "scaling a size of the second shape in proportion to network latency times a maximum eye velocity." The Office Action acknowledges that Di Cera does not disclose scaling a shape based on network latency times a maximum eye velocity. To address this deficiency, the Office Action relies on Imai, asserting that Imai teaches "link quality as network latency times an eye velocity" (Office Action, page 15). The Office Action then relies on Terzopoulos to supply the "maximum" eye velocity concept.
Applicant asserts that Imai has not been shown to teach calculating "link quality." Instead, Imai is directed to calculating a positional tracking error based on signal delay and the shifting speed of the observer's eyes. Specifically, Imai states, "[w]hen the signal delay Td is 60 ms and the shifting speed of the observer's eyes is 30 cm/s, the tracking error 806 amounts to about 2 cm" (Imai at col. 2, lines 3-6). Imai uses this mathematical product to determine a positional offset, which is a spatial shift of the tracking center, rather than a metric for link quality or a metric for scaling the size of a geometric boundary.”
(original emphases)
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that a product of the delay time in Imai, and a first order differentiation of positional information of the eye-point of the observer, i.e. user eyes’ velocity, is actually a representation of an effective link quality applicable a particular user with a specific eye moving characteristics because it reflects a delay of the signal as the signal is transmitted and processed while going through the network applicable specifically to how quickly the user moves his or her eyes. For example, for an excellent or perfect link quality, the delay is zero leading to the product being zero, which means the network is so fast that regardless of how fast the user moves his or her eyes, the tracking error is zero. Otherwise, as another example, tracking error of 1.8cm is an effective link quality for a network with a delay time of 60 ms being used by a user moves his or her eyes at a speed of 30 cm/s. In other words, for a particular person of a certain eyes moving speed, link quality is proportional to a tracking error.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate using such a link quality into the method taught by Di Cera to at least identify the region of interest more accurately.
Since Di Cera already teaches scaling the sizes of the focus regions based on link quality, the incorporated link quality clearly can be used for this purpose because the link quality in Di Cera and the link quality in Imai cannot contradict each other (the link quality in Imai increases, the link quality in Di Cera must increase and vice versa).
On page 8, Applicant further argues that,
“In contrast, Di Cera is directed to adjusting the size of a focus region based on link conditions, such as bandwidth. Di Cera states that "the size of the focus region is decreased as the link conditions deteriorate or the size of the focus region is increased as the link conditions improve" (Di Cera, para. [0046]).
Further, Applicant asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to replace Di Cera's bandwidth-based shape scaling with Imai's positional offset calculation. These mathematical products serve different spatial and technical purposes in the cited prior art. For example, Imai shifts a center point to predict where an eye will be, whereas Applicant's claims expand a geometric boundary to ensure the high-fidelity region is large enough to encompass potential eye movement during the latency period. The Office Action attempts to graft a positional shift metric from Imai onto a geometric scaling metric from Di Cera, which relies on an improper reconstruction of the prior art. Furthermore, while Terzopoulos notes that "[t]he maximum speed of saccadic eye movements is 900 degrees/sec, and the eye almost instantly rotates to foveate the visual target" (Terzopoulos, para. [0045]), this disclosure provides a maximum speed value and has not been shown to cure the fundamental mismatch between calculating a positional shift and scaling a geometric boundary.
Because the cited combination of references has not been shown to teach or to suggest scaling the size of the second shape using the claimed mathematical product, the combination fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, independent claims 13, 22, and 27, as well as their respective dependent claims, are patentable over the cited references. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 13-19 and 21-31 is respectfully requested.”
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate using such a link quality into the method taught by Di Cera to at least identify the region of interest more accurately.
Since Di Cera already teaches scaling the sizes of the focus regions based on link quality, the incorporated link quality clearly can be used for this purpose because the link quality in Di Cera and the link quality in Imai cannot contradict each other (the link quality in Imai increases, the link quality in Di Cera must increase and vice versa).
Finally, incorporating a maximum eyes’ velocity from Terzopoulos would make the method even more accurate because it accommodates the worst case of user’s eyes speed.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 13-19 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Cera (US 2020/0195944 A1 – hereinafter Di Cera), Imai et al. (US 5,742,332 A – hereinafter Imai), and Terzopoulos et al. (US 2022/0262075 A1 – hereinafter Terzopoulos).
Regarding claim 13, Di Cera discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving gaze information about an observer of a video stream ([0024]-[0025] – receiving gaze information of a user who is an observer of a video, as shown in Fig. 2, including information on where the user’s eyes are pointed); determining a video compression spatial map for the video stream based on the received gaze information and performance characteristics of a network connection with the observer (Fig. 4; [0032]-[0035] – determining a video compression spatial map, which comprises regions based on the received gaze information, e.g. to determine a focus region, when being in eye-tracking mode selected based on available bandwidth, a measure of perceived image quality, available hardware resources, power management schemes, etc., or the size of the block is determined based on link condition), wherein the determining of the video compression spatial map includes: and comprising: selecting a second shape within a first shape of a region of interest, where the region of interest corresponds to a predicted eye position ([0029]; Fig. 4 – selecting a second circle having radius r5 within a first circle of radius r4 of a region of interest, wherein the region of interest corresponds to a predicted eye position, i.e. (Eye_X, Eye_Y), as further described at least in [0024]-[0025]); sharing a center of the region of interest (Fig. 3; [0029] – sharing the center of the region of interest to an encoder); scaling a size of the second shape in proportion to link quality ([0025] – adjusting sizes of the focus regions in proportion to link quality); and selecting a video compression profile that includes (1) lower compression inside the second shape, (2) medium compression outside the second shape but inside the first shape; and (3) higher compression outside the first shape ([0026]-[0027]; [0041]-[0042] – selecting a video compression profile to compress the video stream according to locations of the blocks relative to the focus region in the video compression spatial map, i.e. the video stream is compressed with (1) lowest amount of compression for blocks within the focus region, i.e. circle of radius r5, to maintain the highest quality and highest level of detail for the pixels within this region, (2) medium amount of compression for blocks within the circle of radius from r5 to r4 to maintain a medium quality and medium level of detail for the pixels within this region, and (3) a higher amount of compression, resulting in a lower quality for the pixels outside the circle of radius r4); and compressing the video stream according to the video compression spatial map ([0026]-[0027]; [0041]-[0042] – compressing the video stream according to locations of the blocks relative to the focus region in the video compression spatial map, i.e. the video stream is compressed with (1) lowest amount of compression for blocks within the focus region, i.e. circle of radius r5, to maintain the highest quality and highest level of detail for the pixels within this region, (2) medium amount of compression for blocks within the circle of radius from r5 to r4 to maintain a medium quality and medium level of detail for the pixels within this region, and (3) a higher amount of compression, resulting in a lower quality for the pixels outside the circle of radius r4); sending the compressed video stream to the observer ([0042]; Fig. 7 – transmitting the compressed video stream to the observer for decoding and display).
However, Di Cera does not disclose the link quality as network latency times a maximum eye velocity.
Imai discloses link quality as network latency times an eye velocity (column 2, lines 25-47 – link quality as 30 (cm/s)x60 (ms) x10-3 =1.8cm).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Imai into the method taught by Di Cera to enhance processing accuracy.
However, Di Cera and Imai do not disclose the eye velocity as a maximum eye velocity.
Terzopoulos discloses an eye velocity as a maximum eye velocity ([0045] – a maximum speed of saccadic eye movements).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Terzopoulos into the method taught by Di Cera and Imai to further enhance processing accuracy by accommodating a maximum speed of saccadic eye movements.
Regarding claim 14, Di Cera in view of Imai and Terzopoulos also discloses also discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the receiving of the gaze information is a receiving of gaze information from a head-mounted or display-mounted gaze tracker ([0024] – at least a head-mounted gaze tracker).
Regarding claim 15, Di Cera in view of Imai and Terzopoulos also discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the gaze information includes information about an instantaneous eye position (in view of Imai teaching the gaze information includes information about an instantaneous eye position at column 2, lines 25-47); determining of the video compression spatial map includes: identifying the center of the region ([0029]; Fig. 4 – identifying the center of the focus region, i.. Eye_X, Eye_Y); selecting a first shape for the region of interest (Fig. 4 – selecting a first shape for the region of interest as determining radius r4); and selecting a video compression profile that includes higher compression outside the first shape ([0026]-[0027]; [0041]-[0042] – selecting a video compression profile to compress the video stream according to locations of the blocks relative to the focus region in the video compression spatial map, i.e. the video stream is compressed with (3) a higher amount of compression, resulting in a lower quality for the pixels outside the circle of radius r4).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Imai into the method has been discussed in claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 16, Di Cera in view of Imai and Terzopoulos also discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the video compression profile corresponds to a video quality profile, a video resolution profile, or a video color profile ([0026]-[0027]; [0041]-[0042] – at least a video quality profile).
Regarding claim 17, Di Cera in view of Imai and Terzopoulos also discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the video compression profile increases with distance from the center of the region of interest ([0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 18, Di Cera in view of Imai and Terzopoulos also discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the performance characteristics of the network connection include information about available bandwidth ([0045] – including a measurement of the link condition); and the determining of the video compression spatial map includes scaling a size of the first shape in proportion to a ratio of the available bandwidth to a bandwidth for the video stream without compression ([0041]; [0046] - the size of the focus region is decreased as the link conditions deteriorate or the size of the focus region is increased as the link conditions improve, thus given a bandwidth for the video stream without compression being a constant, the scaling a size of the first shape in proportion to a ratio of the available bandwidth to a bandwidth for the video stream without compression).
Regarding claim 19, Imai also discloses a gaze information includes information about instantaneous eye velocity (column 2, lines 25-47 – 30 cm/s); performance characteristics of a network connection include information about network latency (column 2, lines 25-47 – 60 ms); and a center of a region of interest corresponds to the instantaneous eye position plus an offset proportional to the instantaneous eye velocity and the network latency (column 2, lines 25-47 – plus an offset equal to a tracking error of 30 (cm/s)x60 (ms) x10-3 =1.8cm).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Imai into the method has been discussed in claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 21, see the teachings of Di Cera, Imai, and Terzopoulos as discussed in claim 13 above, in which Terzopoulos also discloses the maximum eye velocity is a human saccadic eye velocity ([0045]).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Terzopoulos into the method has been discussed in claim 13 above.
Claim 22 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Di Cera also disclosing a computer-implemented system (Fig. 1), comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 1 – processor 130); and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more processors and having tangible, non-transitory (Fig. 1 – memory 135), machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform the recited one or more operations ([0047]-[0048]).
Claim 23 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 14 above.
Claim 24 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 15 above.
Claim 25 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 16 above.
Claim 26 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 17 above.
Claim 27 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 13 above in view of De Cera also disclosing a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform one or more operations ([0047]-[0048]).
Claim 28 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 14 above.
Claim 29 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 15 above.
Claim 30 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 16 above.
Claim 31 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 17 above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Cera, Imai, and Terzopoulos as applied to claims 13-19 and 21-31 above, and further in view of Eshet et al. (US 7,116,717 B1 – hereinafter Eshet).
Regarding claim 20, see the teachings of Di Cera, Imai, and Terzopoulos as discussed in claim 13 above. However, Di Cera, Imai, and Terzopoulos do not disclose the lower compression is zero compression.
Eshet discloses a lower compression is zero compression (column 11, lines 1-6, 12-15 – a lower compression is implemented as a zero compression, i.e. keeping the original data).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Eshet into the lower compression in the method taught by Di Cera, Imai, and Terzopoulos to display the image at the focus region with the original quality as highest quality.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached on 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights