DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“…responsive to the first user interaction and prior to detecting a second user interaction with the user interface, updating a calibration …” (Claim(s) 1; Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are similar. Please see Item Numeral 3 below for detail.)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-20 is/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.
Regarding Claim 1’s limitation “…responsive to the first user interaction and prior to detecting a second user interaction with the user interface, updating a calibration …” is NOT clear because:
Does “…responsive to the first user interaction and prior to detecting a second user interaction with the user interface, updating a calibration …” mean that:
A. IMMEDIATELY in time after the first user interaction and prior to detecting the second user interaction and ONLY the first user interaction DIRECTLY triggers/causes updating a calibration WITHOUT any intermediate steps? or
B. The first user interaction is one of the steps including the intermediate steps following the first user interaction would collectively trigger/cause updating a calibration?
To advance prosecution, the Examiner interprets the above limitation as assuming above in scenario B which is corresponding to applicant’s disclosure in PGPub. [0065]-[0070] and FIG. 9.
Claims 13 and 19 are similarly rejected as shown above in Claim 1.
Correction and clarification required.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11, 13-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bigham et al. (US Patent/PGPub. No. 11106280).
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended),
Bigham et al. teach
a method (Col. 4, Ln. 34-40, FIG. 2, i.e. method for on-the-fly calibration of eye tracking) comprising:
detecting a first user interaction (Col. 5, Ln. 64-67, Col. 6, Ln. 1-3, FIG. 2, i.e. user's eye looking) with a user interface (Col. 5, Ln. 64-67, Col. 6, Ln. 1-3, FIG. 2, i.e. the stimulus mark) of a wearable display device (Col. 3, Ln. 57-64, FIG. 1, i.e. display 180 may be a … head mounted display) by a user (Col. 5, Ln. 23-26, FIG. 1, i.e. user);
associating the first user interaction (i.e. please see above citation(s)) with information regarding a gaze direction (Col. 4, Ln. 50-58, FIG. 2, i.e. eye vectors and … a position and orientation of each eye) of the user to determine a gaze-target pair (Col. 2, Ln. 46-48, FIG. 1-2, i.e. calibration pair may be obtained, which includes an uncalibrated gaze point and a stimulus mark location associated with the gaze); and
responsive to the first user interaction (FIG. 2, i.e. as shown by the figure(s) user input/interface at 210 is one of the steps triggers updating calibration at 260) and prior to detecting a second user interaction (Col. 6, Ln. 25-28, FIG. 1-2, i.e. “block 235 and … as described at block 200” that means the process repeats again the second time. That is,
starting at 200/205 (first time) [Wingdings font/0xE0] 210 (FIRST “USER INTERACTION”/INPUT) [Wingdings font/0xE0] 215/220 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 230 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 240 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 245 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 250 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 260 (“UPDATE CALIBRATION”/INCORPORATE CALIBRATION … INTO … MODEL) [Wingdings font/0xE0] 235 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 200/205 (second time)[Wingdings font/0xE0] 210 (SECOND “USER INTERACTION”/INPUT).
All of the above steps are the exact recitation of
“prior to detection of a second user interaction with the user interface, update the calibration matrix based on the determined gaze-target pair”) with the user interface (i.e. please see above citation(s)), updating a calibration (Col. 6, Ln. 55-60, FIG. 1-2, i.e. block 260 the current calibration pair is incorporated into the calibration model) of the wearable display device based on the determined gaze-target pair (i.e. please see above citation(s)), the calibration correlating gaze directional data (Col. 4, Ln. 50-58, FIG. 2, i.e. eye vectors and … a position and orientation of each eye) with one or more calibrated gaze positions (Col. 6, Ln. 39-43, FIG. 2, i.e. 245 where screen gaze estimation may be determined, for example, using a prior determined calibration model to calibrate the uncalibrated screen gaze into a screen gaze estimation) of the wearable display device (please see Response to Arguments for detail).
Regarding Claim 2 (Original),
Bigham et al. teach
the method of claim 1, further comprising generating the gaze directional data for a defined time period (Col. 5, Ln. 8-14, FIG. 1-2, i.e. dwell time) preceding the first user interaction by filtering raw gaze data (Col. 5, Ln. 8-14, FIG. 1-2, i.e. Kalman filter may be applied … Once the user is on target, selection of the target may be confirmed) from the defined time period using one or more of a minimum fixation duration (Col. 6, Ln. 8-14, FIG. 1-2, i.e. “230 … selection has not occurred, for example if the user shifts gaze away from the target area”; Col. 5, Ln. 8-14, FIG. 1-2, i.e. “dwell time”; all of which mean minimum dwelling time if user fails to gaze at a location for predetermined period) or a spatial dispersion threshold.
Regarding Claim 4 (Original),
Bigham et al. teach
the method of claim 1, wherein updating the calibration comprises adjusting coefficients of a calibration matrix (Col. 4, Ln. 67, Col. 5, Ln. 1-4, FIG. 1-2, i.e. calculate a marker for the transformation matrix, with coefficients that best fit the points) based on a difference between a gaze direction (Col. 4, Ln. 50-58, FIG. 2, i.e. eye vectors and … a position and orientation of each eye) of a respective gaze-target pair (Col. 7, Ln. 22-31, FIG. 4, i.e. 415L … (for example, for a left eye), … 415R represents the … (for example, for a right eye)) and a user interface target (Col. 7, Ln. 19-24, FIG. 4, i.e. user interface 400) of the respective gaze-target pair (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
Regarding Claim 7 (Original),
Bigham et al. teach
the method of claim 1, further comprising determining to update the calibration (i.e. please see above citation(s)) based at least in part on one or more criteria selected from a group that includes a distance between the gaze direction and a target of the first user interaction (Col. 7, Ln. 40-45, FIG. 4, i.e. location of the screen gaze estimation is within a predetermined distance threshold 410 of the stimulus mark), a stability metric of the gaze direction, or occurrence of a correction event.
Regarding Claim 8 (Original),
Bigham et al. teach
the method of claim 1, further comprising evaluating cumulative calibration accuracy (Col. 2, Ln. 53-58, FIG. 1-2, i.e. calibration pair renders the calibration model more accurate than the calibration model) over a plurality of updates responsive to multiple determined gaze-target pairs (Col. 6, Ln. 25-28, FIG. 1-2, i.e. block 235 and … as described at block 200” that means the process repeats again and again to refine and update the calibration pairs), and suspending one or more additional updates of the calibration based at least in part on the evaluating (Col. 6, Ln. 51-55, FIG. 2, i.e. block 255 and the current calibration pair is discarded).
Regarding Claim 11 (Original),
Bigham et al. teach
the method of claim 1, wherein the first user interaction comprises a selection of a graphical user interface element (Col. 6, Ln. 4-12, FIG. 2, i.e. selection of the user interface component associated with the stimulus mark).
Regarding Claim 13 (Currently Amended),
Bigham et al. teach
a wearable display device (Col. 3, Ln. 57-64, FIG. 1, i.e. display 180 may be a … head mounted display), comprising:
one or more sensors (Col. 3, Ln. 11-56, FIG. 1, i.e. sensors 175) to provide gaze directional data (Col. 4, Ln. 50-58, FIG. 2, i.e. eye vectors and … a position and orientation of each eye);
a memory (Col. 4, Ln. 9-16, FIG. 1, i.e. memory 140) to store a calibration matrix (Col. 4, Ln. 58-62, FIG. 1, i.e. transform matrix), wherein the calibration matrix correlates the gaze directional data (i.e. please see above citation(s)) with one or more calibrated gaze positions (Col. 6, Ln. 39-43, FIG. 2, i.e. 245 where screen gaze estimation may be determined, for example, using a prior determined calibration model to calibrate the uncalibrated screen gaze into a screen gaze estimation) of the wearable display device (i.e. please see above citation(s)); and
one more processors (Col. 4, Ln. 4-10, FIG. 1, i.e. eye vectors and … a position and orientation of each eye) to:
detect a first user interaction (Col. 5, Ln. 64-67, Col. 6, Ln. 1-3, FIG. 2, i.e. user's eye looking) with a user interface (Col. 5, Ln. 64-67, Col. 6, Ln. 1-3, FIG. 2, i.e. the stimulus mark) of the wearable display device by a user (i.e. please see above citation(s));
associate the first user interaction (i.e. please see above citation(s)) with information regarding a gaze direction (Col. 4, Ln. 50-58, FIG. 2, i.e. eye vectors and … a position and orientation of each eye) of the user to determine a gaze-target pair (Col. 2, Ln. 46-48, FIG. 1-2, i.e. calibration pair may be obtained, which includes an uncalibrated gaze point and a stimulus mark location associated with the gaze); and
responsive to the first user interaction (FIG. 2, i.e. as shown by the figure(s) user input/interface at 210 is one of the steps triggers updating calibration at 260) and prior to detection of a second user interaction (Col. 6, Ln. 25-28, FIG. 1-2, i.e. “block 235 and … as described at block 200” that means the process repeats again the second time. That is,
starting at 200/205 (first time) [Wingdings font/0xE0] 210 (FIRST “USER INTERACTION”/INPUT) [Wingdings font/0xE0] 215/220 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 230 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 240 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 245 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 250 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 260 (“UPDATE CALIBRATION”/INCORPORATE CALIBRATION … INTO … MODEL) [Wingdings font/0xE0] 235 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 200/205 (second time)[Wingdings font/0xE0] 210 (SECOND “USER INTERACTION”/INPUT).
All of the above steps are the exact recitation of
“prior to detection of a second user interaction with the user interface, update the calibration matrix based on the determined gaze-target pair”) with the user interface (i.e. please see above citation(s)), update the calibration matrix (Col. 6, Ln. 55-60, FIG. 1-2, i.e. block 260 the current calibration pair is incorporated into the calibration model) based on the determined gaze-target pair (please see Response to Arguments for detail).
Regarding Claim 14 (Original),
Bigham et al. teach
the wearable display device of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further to filter the gaze directional data using one or more of a minimum fixation duration (Col. 6, Ln. 8-14, FIG. 1-2, i.e. “230 … selection has not occurred, for example if the user shifts gaze away from the target area”; Col. 5, Ln. 8-14, FIG. 1-2, i.e. “dwell time”; all of which mean minimum dwelling time if user fails to gaze at a location for predetermined period), a spatial dispersion threshold, or a defined time period preceding the first user interaction.
Regarding Claim 16 (Original),
Bigham et al. teach
the wearable display device of claim 13, wherein to update the calibration matrix (i.e. please see above citation(s)) comprises adjusting coefficients of the calibration matrix (Col. 4, Ln. 67, Col. 5, Ln. 1-4, FIG. 1-2, i.e. calculate a marker for the transformation matrix, with coefficients that best fit the points) based on a difference between a gaze direction (Col. 4, Ln. 50-58, FIG. 2, i.e. eye vectors and … a position and orientation of each eye) of the identified gaze-target pair (Col. 7, Ln. 22-31, FIG. 4, i.e. 415L … (for example, for a left eye), … 415R represents the … (for example, for a right eye)) and a target (Col. 7, Ln. 19-24, FIG. 4, i.e. user interface 400) of the first user interaction for the identified gaze-target pair (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
Regarding Claim 17 (Original),
Bigham et al. teach
the wearable display device of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further to determine to update the calibration matrix (i.e. please see above citation(s)) based at least in part on one or more criteria selected from a group that includes a distance between the gaze direction and the user interface target (Col. 7, Ln. 40-45, FIG. 4, i.e. location of the screen gaze estimation is within a predetermined distance threshold 410 of the stimulus mark), a stability metric of the gaze direction, or occurrence of a correction event.
Regarding Claim 18 (Original),
Bigham et al. teach
the wearable display device of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further to evaluate cumulative calibration accuracy (Col. 2, Ln. 53-58, FIG. 1-2, i.e. calibration pair renders the calibration model more accurate than the calibration model) over a plurality of calibration matrix updates responsive to multiple determined gaze-target pairs (Col. 6, Ln. 25-28, FIG. 1-2, i.e. block 235 and … as described at block 200” that means the process repeats again and again to refine and update the calibration pairs), and to suspend one or more additional updates of the calibration matrix based at least in part on the evaluation (Col. 6, Ln. 51-55, FIG. 2, i.e. block 255 and the current calibration pair is discarded).
Regarding Claim 19 (Currently Amended),
Bigham et al. teach
a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Col. 4, Ln. 9-16, FIG. 1, i.e. memory 140) storing instructions (Col. 4, Ln. 9-16, FIG. 1, i.e. store various programming modules) that, when executed by one or more processors (Col. 4, Ln. 4-10, FIG. 1, i.e. eye vectors and … a position and orientation of each eye), manipulate the one or more processors (i.e. please see above citation(s))to:
detect a first user interaction (Col. 5, Ln. 64-67, Col. 6, Ln. 1-3, FIG. 2, i.e. user's eye looking) with a user interface (Col. 5, Ln. 64-67, Col. 6, Ln. 1-3, FIG. 2, i.e. the stimulus mark) of a wearable display device (Col. 3, Ln. 57-64, FIG. 1, i.e. display 180 may be a … head mounted display) by a user (Col. 5, Ln. 23-26, FIG. 1, i.e. user);
associate the first user interaction (i.e. please see above citation(s)) with information regarding a gaze direction (Col. 4, Ln. 50-58, FIG. 2, i.e. eye vectors and … a position and orientation of each eye) of the user to determine a gaze-target pair (Col. 2, Ln. 46-48, FIG. 1-2, i.e. calibration pair may be obtained, which includes an uncalibrated gaze point and a stimulus mark location associated with the gaze); and
responsive to the first user interaction (FIG. 2, i.e. as shown by the figure(s) user input/interface at 210 is one of the steps triggers updating calibration at 260) and prior to detecting a second user interaction (Col. 6, Ln. 25-28, FIG. 1-2, i.e. “block 235 and … as described at block 200” that means the process repeats again the second time) with the user interface, update a calibration (Col. 6, Ln. 55-60, FIG. 1-2, i.e. block 260 the current calibration pair is incorporated into the calibration model) of the wearable display device based on the determined gaze-target pair (i.e. please see above citation(s)), the calibration correlating gaze directional data (Col. 4, Ln. 50-58, FIG. 2, i.e. eye vectors and … a position and orientation of each eye) with one or more calibrated gaze positions (Col. 6, Ln. 39-43, FIG. 2, i.e. 245 where screen gaze estimation may be determined, for example, using a prior determined calibration model to calibrate the uncalibrated screen gaze into a screen gaze estimation) of the wearable display device (please see Response to Arguments for detail).
Regarding Claim 20 (Original),
Bigham et al. teach
the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the instructions further manipulate the one or more processors to generate the gaze directional data for a defined time period (Col. 5, Ln. 8-14, FIG. 1-2, i.e. dwell time) preceding (Col. 5, Ln. 21-29, FIG. 1-2, i.e. “block 205” before block 215) the first user interaction by filtering raw gaze data from the defined time period using one or more of a minimum fixation duration (Col. 6, Ln. 8-14, FIG. 1-2, i.e. “230 … selection has not occurred, for example if the user shifts gaze away from the target area”; Col. 5, Ln. 8-14, FIG. 1-2, i.e. “dwell time”; all of which mean minimum dwelling time if user fails to gaze at a location for predetermined period) or a spatial dispersion threshold.
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 of this title, 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.
5. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigham et al. (US Patent/PGPub. No. 11106280) in view of Hudman (US Patent/PGPub. No. 20240353921).
Regarding Claim 12,
Bigham et al. teach
the method of claim 1.
However, Bigham et al. do not explicitly teach
the method is performed without providing an indication of gaze calibration to the user.
In the same field of endeavor, Hudman teaches
the method ([0066], FIG. 1, i.e. methods for tracking the eyes) is performed without providing an indication of gaze calibration to the user ([0013], FIG. 1, i.e. user interface elements are not indicated to the user as being calibration targets).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Bigham et al. teaching method of calibrating head-mount using calibration pair of gaze direction and user interface location with Hudman teaching of method of calibrating head-mount without providing user interface to effectively enhance user’s experience with the device by tracking user’s eyes without user knowing yet providing seamless activity and enjoyment (Hudman’s [0013]).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 9-10, and 15 is/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.
7. The reasons for allowance have been set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/30/2026.
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.”
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. On P. 6-7, first of all applicant argues that Bigham et al. fail to teach “…the calibration correlating gaze directional data with one or more calibrated gaze positions of the wearable display device.” (Claim 1; Claims 13 and 19 are similar) since “averaged screen coordinates are not "gaze directional data" - Bigham's calibration merely maps an averaged screen coordinate to a refined screen coordinate”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because:
I. The Examiner does NOT equate “averaged screen coordinate” to “gaze directional data”.
II. The Examiner equates “screen gaze estimation” to “gaze directional data” for the following reasons:
Applicant (19/197641)
Bigham et al. (US Pat. 11106280)
Inputs: Raw gaze coordinates 305 and target coordinates 310.
Device/Process: Horizontal Calibrator 315 and Vertical Calibrator 320.
Outputs: Calibrated Horizontal Gaze Estimate 325 and Calibrated Vertical Gaze Estimate 330.
(PGPub. [0027]-[0028] and FIG. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
384
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Inputs: Raw (uncalibrated) gaze points and screen point locations.
Device/Process: Method for obtaining calibration pair 240.
Outputs: Screen Gaze Estimation 245.
(Col. 7, Ln. 4-17, FIGs. 2-3)
PNG
media_image2.png
409
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
III. In view of the above comparation, Bigham et al. fully teach the above limitation as interpreted by the Examiner.
IV. Although the device(s)/process(es) used for calibration are totally different, however, they are not recited.
B. Also on P. 6-7, finally applicant argues that Bigham et al. fail to teach “prior to detecting a second user interaction with the user interface, updating a calibration of the wearable display device based on the determined gaze-target pair,” (Claim 1; Claims 13 and 19 are similar) since the reference “fails to describe any mechanism or sequence that precludes detecting a second interaction during the validation phase.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because:
I. The applicant does NOT recite “any mechanism or sequence that precludes detecting a second interaction” during calibration process either.
II. Both applicant’s and reference’s processes are similar as follow:
Applicant (19/197641)
Bigham et al. (US Pat. 11106280)
* detecting a first user interaction (910)
* associating … gaze direction … to determine a gaze-target pair (920)
* updating a calibration (925)
… responsive … prior to detecting a second user interaction (loop 925 back to 905 and then 910 for the second time).
(PGPub. [0065]-[0070] and FIG. 9)
PNG
media_image3.png
624
429
media_image3.png
Greyscale
* detecting a dwelling action/user input (210/215)
* obtaining a calibration pair … and screen location … (240)
* incorporate calibration (260)
… respond to … prior to second dwelling action/user input (loop 235 back to 205 and then 210/215).
(Col. 5, Ln. 15-68, Col. 6, Ln. 1-28 and FIG. 2; for specific detail see above.)
PNG
media_image4.png
747
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
III. Although both applicant’s and reference’s processes are different in the number of steps, however, all recited steps in the claims are the same.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINH T. LAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Nitin K Patel can be reached at (571) 272-7677. 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.
/VINH T LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights