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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 2/14/2025 and 10/3/2025 were considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. {“Alice Corp.’’), the Supreme Court made clear that it applies the framework set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S._(2012) {Mayo), to analyze claims directed towards laws of nature and abstract idea. Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis applies for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). The basic inquiries to determine subject matter eligibility remain the same as explained in MPEP 2106(1). First, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Next, determine if the claim is directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). The two-part test provided in Alice Corp. to determine whether a claim directed towards an abstract idea is statutory under § 101 requires an evaluation to determined 1) whether the claims is directed to an abstract idea and 2) if an abstract idea is present in the claim, whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas reference in Alice Corp. include:
- Fundamental economic principles
- Certain methods of organizing human activities
- An idea of itself
- Mathematical relationships/formulas
In accordance with judicial precedent, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance sets forth a procedure to determine whether a claim is ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception. Under the procedure, if a claim recites a judicial exception (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), it must then be analyzed to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Step 1 - Statutory Category
The claims 1-20 recite a process receiving video images, and recognizing objects in a gaze target region, therefore it recites at least one of the enumerated categories, a process, eligible subject matter in 35 USC 101. Accordingly, claims 1-20 satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A(i) -Focus of the Claim
As a result, the claims 1-20 will be reviewed under Step 2A(i) to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The claims recite analyzing video images to recognize objects in a gaze target region, thus the organization of human activity such as surveillance of human behavior.
The court have ruled that receiving and authenticating identity data to permit access was abstract since the functions were claimed generically rather than offering a "'concrete, specific solution" See Prisnz Technologies LLC v. T-Afobile USA, 696 F. App'x 1014 (Fed. Cir.2017). Abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, storing the data in memory, and notifying the user of the results. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea"). Moreover, the reviewing court has concluded that acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In addition, the collection of information and analysis of information ( e.g., recognizing certain data within the dataset, such as rules) are also abstract ideas. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis").
The process of receiving video images and recognize objects in a gaze target region is a method of organizing human activity, as considered under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A(ii) -Practical Application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
In this instance, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely detect objects in video images. The claims do not provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer or image analysis technical field; the claims are not implemented with or used with a particular machine; the claims do not transform an article to a different state or thing when locating an object in images; and the claims do not provide a meaningful way of analyzing image regions in the image analysis technical environment.
Step 2B - Inventive Concept
As set forth under MPEP § 2106.05( d), only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception; and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look under Step 2B to determine; (3) whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional activity" (WURC) in the field; or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Having determined claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, we now evaluate whether the additional elements, whether examined alone or as an ordered combination, add a specific limitation that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea. See generally Revised Guidance.
It is possible that a claim that does not ‘‘integrate’’ a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element. Along these lines, the Federal Circuit has held claims eligible at the second step of the Alice/Mayo test because the additional elements recited in the claims provided ‘‘significantly more’’ than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional elements were unconventional in combination).
Limitations reference in Alice Corp. that may be enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as nonexclusive examples:
- Improvements to another technology or technical field
- Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself
- Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment
Examples that are not enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive example:
- Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer
- Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry
The additional elements recited in claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are well-understood, routine, and conventional steps in image analysis and image surveillance. The claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to viewing an image and determining location of object.
Additionally, as noted in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have previously recognized that using computer processors and memories to collect data and keep records, perform repetitive calculations, and/or receive/send data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)-(iv)). See also Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1366 (acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas); SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis"); Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F .3d at 1340 ("[C]ollecting, displaying, and manipulating data" is an abstract idea); Smart Sys. Innovations, 873 F .3d at 1372 (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea.").
The claims state receiving images using a processor. However, the claims merely implement the judicial exception using generic computer elements to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter."); see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363 (claims reciting, inter alia, sending messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized system to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting offers to potential customers found to merely recite "'well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],' either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps").
In claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19, the steps of receiving video images and recognizing objects in a gaze target region is not an improvement to a fundamental practice and/or method of organizing human activity. In claims 1-6, 15-19, the steps are tied to a processor; however, combining the steps with a generic processor is not significant. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than generalized steps well-known and routine in the art such as image detection and object localization. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are directed to patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, with steps that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are ineligible. Claims 7, 14, and 20 are eligible.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8, 15 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.
The following claims 1, 8, 15 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite:
“extracting the gaze target based on uncertainty of a recognition result of the recognition processing.”
The following claims 4, 11, 18 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite:
“The video processing system according to claim 2, wherein
the video processing system further comprises plurality of action predictors that have learned different learning data, and
the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to extract the gaze target based on variation in a plurality of action recognition results output from the plurality of action predictors.”
The following claims 6 and 13 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite:
“wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to extract the gaze target based on variation in action labels included in the action recognition results or variation in scores of the action labels.”
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lai et al. (US 2021/0011288).
Regarding claim 1, Lai teaches a video processing system comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (see para. 0044, 0060) and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to; control image quality of a gaze region including a gaze target in an input video (see para. 0081, 0114, Lai discusses controlling image quality, and identifying and controlling the region in the gaze FOV and surrounding regions);
perform recognition processing regarding an object included in the video in which the image quality of the gaze region is controlled (see para. 0097, 0124, 0127, Lai discusses performing object recognition in video images); and
extract the gaze target based on uncertainty of a recognition result of the recognition processing (see para. 0097, Lai discusses compares a confidence score to a threshold confidence, and detect that the user is gazing at the object responsive to the confidence score meeting or exceeding the threshold confidence; see para. 0124, Lai discusses neural network can determine with a level of certainty (degree of error or accuracy) that a certain object or feature is not present in the input data).
Claim 8 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding apparatus.
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.
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 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US 2021/0011288) in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0271880).
Regarding claim 2, Lai does not expressly disclose wherein the recognition processing includes processing of recognizing an action of the object, and the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to extract the gaze target based on variation in recognition results of the action.
However, Park teaches wherein the recognition processing includes processing of recognizing an action of the object, and the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to extract the gaze target based on variation in recognition results of the action (see para. 0090, Park discusses the prediction apparatus may analyze the duration of a fixation of the user on an object estimated to be a recognition target of the user in the gaze sequence).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lai with Park to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform gaze region detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Lai in this manner in order to improve gaze region detection based on the consistency of objection recognition. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Lai, while the teaching of Park continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating object recognition consistency to analyze gaze targets. The Lai and Park systems perform gaze analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches wherein in a case where the variation in the action recognition results is not included in a predetermined range, the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine an object of the recognized action as the gaze target (see para. 0050, Park discusses duration of a fixation of the user on an object estimated to be a recognition target of the user in the gaze sequence; see para. 0090, Park discusses the prediction apparatus may analyze the duration of a fixation of the user on an object estimated to be a recognition target of the user in the gaze sequence).
The same motivation of claim 2 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lai with Park to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform gaze region detection.
Claim 9 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 10 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding apparatus.
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding apparatus.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US 2021/0011288) in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0271880) in view of Frank et al. (US 2021/0280322).
Regarding claim 4, Lai and Park do not expressly disclose wherein the video processing system further comprises plurality of action predictors that have learned different learning data, and the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to extract the gaze target based on variation in a plurality of action recognition results output from the plurality of action predictors.
However, Frank teaches wherein the video processing system further comprises plurality of action predictors that have learned different learning data, and the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to extract the gaze target based on variation in a plurality of action recognition results output from the plurality of action predictors (see para. 0840, 0854, 0856, Frank discusses neural network with parameters of predictors and providing labeled images to an algorithm for training one or more of the machine learning-based predictors).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lai and Park with Frank to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform gaze region detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Lai and Park in this manner in order to improve gaze region detection based on the consistency of objection recognition. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Lai and Park, while the teaching of Frank continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating object recognition consistency to analyze gaze targets. The Lai, Park, and Frank systems perform gaze analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 5, Lai and Park do not expressly disclose wherein the video processing system further comprises an action predictor, and the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to extract the gaze target based on variation in a plurality of action recognition results output by the action predictor recognizing an action a plurality of times.
However, Frank teaches wherein the video processing system further comprises an action predictor, and the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to extract the gaze target based on variation in a plurality of action recognition results output by the action predictor recognizing an action a plurality of times (see para. 0746, 0840, 0854, 0856, Frank discusses neural network with parameters of predictors and movement pattern features).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lai and Park with Frank to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform gaze region detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Lai and Park in this manner in order to improve gaze region detection based on the consistency of objection recognition. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Lai and Park, while the teaching of Frank continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating object recognition consistency to analyze gaze targets. The Lai, Park, and Frank systems perform gaze analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 7, Frank teaches wherein the action predictor outputs the plurality of action recognition results by inactivating different nodes of a neural network for each recognition of the action (see para. 0746, 0840, 0854, 0856, Frank discusses neural network with parameters of predictors and movement pattern features).
The same motivation of claim 5 is applied to claim 7. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lai and Park with Frank to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform gaze region detection.
Claim 11 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 12 is rejected as applied to claim 5 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 7 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding apparatus.
Claim 19 is rejected as applied to claim 5 as pertaining to a corresponding apparatus.
Claim 20 is rejected as applied to claim 7 as pertaining to a corresponding apparatus.
Claims 6, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US 2021/0011288) in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0271880) in view of He (US 2021/0405742).
Regarding claim 6, Lai and Park do not expressly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to extract the gaze target based on variation in action labels included in the action recognition results or variation in scores of the action labels. However, He teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to extract the gaze target based on variation in action labels included in the action recognition results or variation in scores of the action labels (see para. 0054, He discusses collecting coordinate labels to identify and output the gaze position of a user).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lai and Park with He to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform gaze region detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Lai and Park in this manner in order to improve gaze region detection based on the consistency of objection recognition. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Lai and Park, while the teaching of He continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating object recognition consistency to analyze gaze targets. The Lai, Park, and He systems perform gaze analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohashi et al. (US 2021/0295053) discusses region determined based on at least one of the observation region and the existence region may correspond to a region composed of one or more pixels corresponding to one or more probabilities greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold in a probability map.
Kempinski et al. (US 2016/0132726) discusses calculating a reliability score or confidence level of the detection of the change in the location of the eye in various images.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights