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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed: METHOD OF DETERMINING DIRECTION OF GAZE BY DETERMINING REFLECTED LIGHT POINT INFORMATION FOR EACH IMAGE FRAME AFTER ONE IMAGE FRAME AMONG IMAGE FRAME SETS BELONING TO SAME CYCLE, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM.
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.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koo et al. (US 2021/0191511 A1).
As to claim 1, Koo discloses a method of determining a gaze direction (Koo, Abs., an “eye tracking apparatus”), the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of image frames by performing decoding based on data acquired by an event camera (Koo, FIG. 4, [0114], “the DVS camera module 304 may generate a DVS image representing a change in the amount of light measured for each of consecutive frames, in units of pixels”);
determining reflected light point information for each image frame among the plurality of image frames (Koo, FIG. 4, [0112], e.g., “the amount of light reflected by the boundary point 403 of the cornea 310 may be sharply reduced compared with the amounts of light beams reflected by the points 401 and 402 other than the cornea 310”); and
determining the gaze direction for each image frame among the plurality of image frames based on the reflected light point information (Koo, FIG. 10, [0146], “as the position of the detected pupil region changes, the processor 120 may update the changed position of the pupil region and store the changed position in the memory 130 of FIG. 20”), wherein each image frame among the plurality of image frames comprises:
event data obtained based on a reflected light point signal captured by the event camera (Koo, e.g., FIG. 8, [0132], “when a cornea 810 and the pupil region 820 of the user's eye move left and right, the DVS camera module 304 may consecutively generate a plurality of DVS images, as an operation of scanning the entire region of the user's eye is repeated. The consecutively-generated plurality of DVS images may represent movement of the user's eye according to changes in the positions of the cornea 810 and the pupil region 820 of the user's eye”), the reflected light point signal being light that is emitted from a light source and is reflected by a corneal surface (Koo, e.g., FIG. 4, [0113], “the DVS camera module 304 may sense a sharp difference between the amount of light reflected by the point 402 of the eyeball region 330 and the amount of light reflected by the boundary point 403 of the cornea 310, which is adjacent to the point 402, as a projection direction of the light provided by the light source module 301 changes over time, and may generate a DVS image representing a change in the light amount”), and
wherein the reflected light point information comprises at least one of a reflected light point position and numbers of reflected light points (Koo, FIGS. 3-4, [0120], e.g., “a substantial difference between the amount of reflected light when light is projected to one point outside the cornea 310 adjacent to the boundary point of the cornea and the amount of reflected light when light is projected to the boundary point of the cornea 310 may be detected. Accordingly, a DVS image 601 may be generated such that a boundary point 602 of the cornea, from which a substantial variation in the light amount is sensed, is distinguishable from a peripheral region”) corresponding to a pair of reflected light points (Koo, FIG. 1, [0120], “light source module 301” for “first eye tracker 101” and the other one for “second eye tracker 102”) obtained based on the event data (Koo, FIG. 1, [0090], the data obtained by “DVS camera module 304”).
As to claim 20, it differs from claim 1 only in that it is the electronic device performing the method claim 1. It recites substantially the same limitations, and Koo discloses them. Please see claim 1 for detailed analysis.
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (US 2021/0191511 A1) in view of Chartrand (US 2014/0184828 A1).
As to claim 2, Koo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the event camera comprises a dynamic vision sensor (DVS) camera (Koo, FIG. 1, [0090], “DVS camera module 304”).
Koo does not explicitly teach the camera being “based on camera parallel interface (CPI)”.
However, Chartrand teaches the concept of a camera being based on camera parallel interface (CPI) (Chartrand, FIG. 1, [0036], “camera subsystems developed according to a MIPI Camera Parallel Interface (CPI) may also be used in the present techniques”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “DVS camera module 304” taught by Koo to be further based on the “CPI”, as taught by Chartrand, in order to provide “techniques for the support and validation of various image device configurations” (Chartrand, [0016]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (US 2021/0191511 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2024/0045943 A1).
As to claim 18, it differs from claim 1 only in that it is the interaction method performing the method claim 1, further performing the step of “performing an action for an object corresponding to the gaze direction based on receiving a user input”. It recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 1, and Koo teaches them. Please see claim 1 for detailed analysis.
Koo does not explicitly teach “performing an action for an object corresponding to the gaze direction based on receiving a user input”.
However, Lee teaches the concept of performing an action for an object corresponding to the gaze direction based on receiving a user input (Lee, e.g., FIG. 4, [0124], “the electronic device may detect a user input that sequentially selects one or more objects from among the virtual objects output in operation 430. The user input will be described below with reference to FIG. 7”; [0126], “the electronic device may identify an order (e.g., a sequence) for selecting a plurality of objects arranged in a space (e.g., a virtual space) by recognizing a user input including a gaze or a gesture (e.g., hand gesture) of the user”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “gaze tracking” taught by Koo to be further associated with actions, e.g., “selecting a plurality of objects”, as an “user input including a gaze or a gesture (e.g., hand gesture) of the user”, as taught by Lee, in order to intuitively execute actions by user inputs on smart glasses.
As to claim 19, Lee teaches the interaction method of claim 18, wherein the user input comprises at least one of: a click input or a touch input on a smart ring; a voice input; a gesture input (Lee, e.g., [0126], “a user input including a gaze or a gesture (e.g., hand gesture) of the user”); and an eye blink input. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-17 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3, the closest known prior art, i.e., Koo et al. (US 2021/0191511 A1), Chartrand (US 2014/0184828 A1), Lee et al. (US 2024/0045943 A1), Fix et al. (US 2023/0057514 A1, IDS), Wang et al. (US 2016/0093273 A1), Fix et al. (US 11,176,367 B1), Wu et al. (US 8,878,749 B1), Lundell et al. (US 2022/0397956 A1) and Nistico (US 2021/0068652 A1), alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “determining a first frame among a set of image frames included in a same cycle based on time information corresponding to the plurality of image frames; sequentially obtaining whether one image frame among the first frame and a second frame of the plurality of image frames satisfies a requirement; and determining the reflected light point information for each image frame among the plurality of image frames after the one image frame among the set of image frames, based on the one image frame among the first frame and the second frame satisfying the requirement”.
As to claims 4-7, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 3, and are allowable at least for the same reason above.
As to claim 8, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “determining a pair of reflected light points corresponding to the light source in a current image frame; and determining the reflected light point information of a first reflected light point among each pair of reflected light points, wherein the reflected light point position corresponds to a pixel position of the first reflected light point in the current image frame”.
As to claims 9-17, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 8, and are allowable at least for the same reason above.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Fix et al. (US 2023/0057514 A1, IDS) teaches the concept of “detecting glints including a pair of light sources positioned on a head-mounted frame” (Abs.); Wang et al. (US 2016/0093273 A1) teaches the concept of “DVS including shared pixels that employ TDM” (Abs.); Fix et al. (US 11,176,367 B1) teaches the concept of “event camera positioned to receive light from the illumination source reflected by a portion of a cornea of a user” (Abs.); Wu et al. (US 8,878,749 B1) teaches the concept of “improving gaze estimation based on glints” (Abs.); Lundell et al. (US 2022/0397956 A1) teaches the concept of “a plurality of infrared light emitters … and a IR camera configured to sequentially capture IR images of the user eye” (Abs.); and Nistico (US 2021/0068652 A1) teaches the concept of “determining gaze direction based on cornea center and pupil center” (Abs.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7772. 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.
Jun. 5, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
***
Prosecution Insights