DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 7/22/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the amendments or remarks filed on 7/22/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 11 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 17-18 have been added. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-18 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 and 3-18 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, the phrase "a pointer and/or triggering an action" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "and/or"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “one of a plurality of action areas arranged above and/or below and/or laterally of the screen area" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "and/or"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The dependent claims are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 12-16 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, constitute impermissible hybrid claims by combining a computer-readable storage medium claim and the method claim (e.g., a computer-readable storage medium claim 12 according to the method 1). Applicant must amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper independent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the independent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, constitute impermissible hybrid claim by combining a system claim and the method claim (e.g., a system claim 13 according to the method claim 1). Applicant must amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper independent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the independent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, constitute impermissible hybrid claim by combining a system claim and the method claim (e.g., a system claim 14 according to the method claim 1). Applicant must amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper independent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the independent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The dependent claims 15-16 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claims 13-14.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beale (US 2009/0179853) cited in the IDS.
As to claim 1, Beale teaches method for controlling a computer (a method for controlling a computer display 1, see ¶22),
wherein the computer has a graphic user interface (application software, graphic form, music, menu, text, see¶8, ¶16, ¶24, ¶30), operated by positioning a pointer icon (a cross-hair cursor, see ¶28) when the pointer icon is positioned (the cross-hair cursors are predetermined locations on the screen and are therefore known targets. See ¶30);
a) capturing a first gaze position in a screen area by means of the eye tracking camera (the user frequently directs eyes at location of known position (a known target), such as the ‘dot’ in FIG. 2 by a gaze direction tracking camera 5, see ¶22, ¶30);
b) generating a first control command, which prompts the computer to control the pointer icon to a target position, which corresponds to the first gaze position, and sending the control command to the computer (the user frequently directs his or her eyes at locations of known position (a known target), such as the `dot` in FIG. 2, and the controls of FIG. 3 which are additional to those of FIGS. 1 and 2. In FIG. 3, a graphical display is provided on the screen with a central cross-hair cursor, see ¶30);
c) capturing a second gaze position in a first action area (when reading an on-screen text, eye-pointing at LED 4 is used to "turn the page" and looking at LED 1 is used to "turn back a page". LEDs 1 and 4, which are positioned at opposite sides of the top of the display, have alternative functions with different aspects of the software. For example, when listening to music LED 4 moves to the next track, while LED 1 returns to the previous track. As a further alternative, LEDs 1 and 4 are used to the previous or to the next menu of options, see ¶24), the first action area is one of a plurality of action areas arranged above and/or below and/or laterally of the screen area and outside the screen area (See ¶ 22 shows four light emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged at the top of a screen together with a gaze direction tracking camera 5 located at the bottom of the screen, see ¶22) and each assigned to an action type (control actions such as left click, right click, double click, and drag and drop, see ¶30);
d) generating a second control command, which prompts the computer to perform an action as a function of the target position and the action type, and sending the second control command to the computer (controls such as arrows to indicate a desired direction of cursor movement and indicia, such as L, R, D and Drop for indication mouse control actions such as left click, right click, double click, and drag and drop, see ¶30).
As to claim 3, Beale teaches generating a control command, which prompts the computer to control the pointer icon to the target position and to hold it there in independently of a current gaze position; and sending the control command (See ¶23 shows the system is engaged by gazing at the target area for a predetermined time, for example about a quarter to half a second, whereupon the system is engaged and remains active).
As to claim 4, Beale teaches capturing a dwell time of a gaze position at the target position; confirming the gaze position when the dwell time exceeds at least a first time period; highlighting the target position in the graphic user interface, in particular by displaying a graphic element and/or controlling the pointer icon for carrying out a confirmation movement when the gaze position has been confirmed. (In practice, the time between eye-pointing to an unknown target and then eye-pointing to a known target will be a few seconds, typically less than two seconds, see ¶33).
As to claim 5, Beale teaches wherein step d) comprises the capturing of a gaze position in a region of the action area for a second time period, which is preferably shorter than the first time period, in particular for at least 200 ms. (The system is then engaged by gazing at the target area for a predetermined time, for example about a quarter to half a second, whereupon the system is engaged and remains active until, see ¶23).
As to claim 7, Beale teaches the action type is in particular a mouse left click, mouse right click or mouse double click and wherein the action type for the confirmed target position is performed in step d) as the action, when the confirmation of the target position has been detected (controls such as arrows to indicate a desired direction of cursor movement and indicia, such as L, R, D and Drop for indication mouse control actions such as left click, right click, double click, and drag and drop, see ¶30).
As to claim 10, Beale teaches wherein the action is performed independently of the target position in step d). (See ¶30).
As to claim 11, Beale teaches an activating of a status display, an LED element, which is assigned to the action area, and an activating of the computer for highlighting an action area region on the screen area, which is assigned to the action area, as soon as a gaze position was captured in the action area, as soon as the second control command was sent to the computer. (See ¶22-¶26).
As to claim 17, Beale teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the control command for prompting the computer to control the pointer icon to the target position and to hold it there is sent repeatedly. (See ¶30).
As to claim 18, Beale teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the control command for prompting the computer to control the pointer icon to the target position and to hold it there is sent repeatedly as long as the current gaze position lies outside the screen area. (See ¶30).
Claims 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Le et al. US 2023/0409177.
As to claim 8, Beale fails to teach the action type is a zoom, when the confirmation of the target position has been detected, the zoom is performed in step d) as the action in a zoom range around the confirmed target position, wherein the zoom range is displayed on the entire screen surface, and gaze position coordinates captured by the eye tracking camera are converted for the zoom range.
As to claim 9, Beale fails to teach the action type is a scrolling, and the scrolling is performed in step d) as the action for a window area, which is determined by a specified standard target position.
Le teaches the method eye tracking device to collect eye tracking data comprising displaying selection keys on the screen, defining a selection key which the user wants to input based on at least the eye tracking data when the user inputs the selection key by eye gaze; changing the user contents in a predefined changing manner corresponding to the selection key inputted by the eye gaze, said predefined changing manner selected from a group including at least scroll down, scroll up, scroll right, scroll left, zoom in, and zoom out. See Lee at least abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) was made to employ the action types such as zoom and scrolling as Le teaches, to modify the method of Beale. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to improve interaction speed and more convenient for users, while provide additional eye mouse control. See Le ¶5.
As to claim 12, Le modified teaches a computer-readable storage medium, which includes instructions, which prompt at least one processor to implement the method according to claim 1 when the instructions are executed by means of the at least one processor. (See Le ¶137).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park US 2018/0321739.
As to claim 6, Beale fails to teach a determining as to whether the action type is permissible for the target position, and wherein the second control command prompts the computer - to perform the action type at the target position when the action type is permissible for the target position; and - to perform a modified action, optionally as a function of the target position, if the action type is not permissible for the target position.
Park teaches a tablet configured to determine whether the point of eye gaze is staying on the user interface or staying at a predetermined position of the screen 221 through the information received from the eye tracking device 210. The controller 222 determines the position where the point of eye gaze is staying through the received information, and displays the cursor to the determined position or move a location of the cursor. The controller 222 moves in real time the location of the mouse cursor according to the movement of the point of eye gaze. The controller 222 determines if the displayed cursor according to the tracked point of gaze is located on a predetermined menu of the user interface. The controller 222 detects an input for selecting a predetermined menu of the user interface. A shape of the cursor varies depending on a selected menu. See Park ¶61 and Fig. 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) was made to employ the method as taught by Park to modify the method of Beale. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to smoothly and conveniently improve a computer through the point of a user's eye gaze with more accurately track the point of eye gaze control. See Park ¶ 4.
Claims 13-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Candelore et al. US 2022/0261069.
As to claims 13-14, Beale fails to a system has a computer with screen, in particular tablet computer, an eye tracking camera; and a holder, in and/or on which the screen and the eye tracking camera are arranged, wherein the system is formed to carry out the method according to claim 1; wherein the eye tracking camera, in particular a firmware implemented on the eye tracking camera, is formed to carry out the method according to claim 1.
Candelore teaches a system (a system, 174), a computer (a computer, 196) with screen (104), in particular tablet computer (102); an eye tracking camera (108), and a holder (a housing of a tablet 102), and a firmware (see Candelore ¶96).
As to claims 15-16, Beale teaches the holder has one or several status displays, in particular LED elements, which are in each case assigned to an action area. (See Beale ¶22-¶26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) was made to employ the tablet computer device, as Candelore teaches, associates with the method of Beale. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to control of a media display device via an electronic device based on eye gaze. Candelore ¶ 5.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lyon et al. (US 2016/0034029) teach the gaze interface application may comprise a gaze interpreter component operative to receive eye movement information of a human eye from one or more eye gaze trackers, and interpret the eye movement information as a data unit transfer request to transfer a data unit from a source device to a target device.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 7/22/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 Kevin Nguyen whose telephone is 571-272-7697. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm Eastern Time.
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 Patel can be reached on 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.
KEVIN M NGUYEN
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628
/Kevin M Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights