DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 10, the limitation “a second neural network configured to regress the gaze maps to a gaze direction represented by a yaw and pitch; and
a second branch fed by the gaze maps and configured as a classification network configured to reduce entropy loss to enable a model to determine real gaze maps based on training with synthetic data,
wherein the eye gaze detection module is pre-trained with synthetic or real time data including cropped images of eye regions; and
a memory, wherein the processing device comprises a processor coupled with the memory, wherein the memory stores one or more instructions executable by the processor to determine, using the pre-trained eye gaze detection module, based on one or more images of one or more eye region of a user, a yaw and a pitch indicative of a gaze direction of the user for a real-time frame and one or more previous time frames” should be
“a second neural network configured to regress the gaze maps to a gaze direction represented by a yaw and a pitch; and
a second branch fed by the gaze maps and configured as a classification network configured to reduce entropy loss to enable a model to determine real gaze maps based on training with synthetic data,
wherein the eye gaze detection module is pre-trained with synthetic or real time data including cropped images of eye regions; and
a memory, wherein the processing device comprises a processor coupled with the memory, wherein the memory stores one or more instructions executable by the processor to determine, using the pre-trained eye gaze detection module, based on one or more images of one or more eye regions of a user, [[a]] the yaw and [[a]] the pitch indicative of [[a]] the gaze direction of the user for a real-time frame and one or more previous time frames”.
As per claim 17, the limitation “one or more eye region of the user” should be “one or more eye regions of the user”, “one or more region of interest” should be “one or more regions of interest”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-16 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 10 recites the limitation "the gaze directions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the one or more images of a face of the user”, “the cropped images”, "the eye region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the yaw and pitch of the estimated subsequent gaze direction”, “the yaw and pitch of the corresponding gaze directions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the captured one or more images”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the brightness level”, “the region of interest”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the one or more images of a face of the user”, “the cropped images”, "the eye region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220413604) in view of Guo (US 20200202562).
As per claim 17, Kim discloses a method for controlling brightness of an infotainment system of a vehicle (Abstract), the method comprising:
adjusting the brightness of a display (Fig. 2, #132) of the infotainment system at a predefined level based on an overlap between one or more region of interest associated with an interior of the vehicle, and the estimated subsequent eye gaze direction ([0077]-[0082]).
However, Kim does not teach determining, by a processing device configured with a pre-trained eye gaze detection module, a yaw and a pitch indicative of a gaze direction of a user for a real-time frame and one or more previous time frames based on one or more images of one or more eye region of the user;
estimating, using a learning module of the processing device, a subsequent eye gaze direction of the user based on corresponding gaze directions determined for the real-time frame and the one or more previous time frames.
Guo teaches determining, by a processing device (#110) configured with a pre-trained eye gaze detection module, a yaw and a pitch indicative of a gaze direction of a user for a real-time frame and one or more previous time frames based on one or more images of one or more eye region of the user ([0045]; [0050]; [0060]-[0062]; where a pre-trained eye gaze detection module is inherently present);
estimating, using a learning module of the processing device, a subsequent eye gaze direction of the user based on corresponding gaze directions determined for the real-time frame and the one or more previous time frames ([0041]; [0050]; [0060]-[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the gaze estimation apparatus disclosed by Guo to the method of Kim so as to estimate a new location of the gaze in real time (Guo: [0041]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Guo in view of Sharma (US 20220334637).
As per claim 18, Kim in view of Guo discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising:
capturing, by an image acquisition unit comprising a camera (Guo: Fig. 1, #111), the one or more images of a face of the user (Guo: [0040]).
However, the prior art of Kim and Guo do not explicitly teach cropping, by the processing device, the one or more eye region from the captured one or more images of the face; and
determining, by the processing device, based on the cropped images of the eye region, the yaw and pitch indicative of the gaze direction of the user.
Sharma teaches cropping, by the processing device, the one or more eye region (Fig. 2B, #260, 262) from the captured one or more images of the face ([0043]); and
determining, by the processing device, based on the cropped images of the eye region, the yaw and pitch indicative of the gaze direction of the user ([0047]-[0056]; [0059]; [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the cropping of the eye region disclosed by Sharma to the method of Kim in view of Guo so as to provide a set of regions of interests relevant to determining an eye-gaze location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of an infotainment brightness control system for an infotainment system of a vehicle comprising a processing device configured with a pre-trained eye gaze detection module and a learning module, wherein the pre-trained eye gaze detection module comprises a first branch comprising a first neural network configured to regress corresponding images of an eye to gaze maps, and a second neural network configured to regress the gaze maps to a gaze direction represented by a yaw and pitch does not teach or fairly suggest a second branch fed by the gaze maps and configured as a classification network configured to reduce entropy loss to enable a model to determine real gaze maps based on training with synthetic data, wherein the eye gaze detection module is pre-trained with synthetic or real time data including cropped images of eye regions.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-8044. The examiner can normally be reached 1pm-9pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571 272-7776. 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.
/Nelson Lam/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
/KE XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights