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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 7-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,269. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 is met by patented claim 1.
Claim 7 is met by patented claim 7.
Claim 8 is met by patented claim 8.
Claim 9 is met by patented claim 10.
Claim 10 is met by patented claim 12.
Claim 11 is met by patented claim 16.
Claim 12 is met by patented claim 17.
Claim 13 is met by patented claim 18.
Claim 14 is met by patented claim 19.
Claim 20 is met by patented claim 20.
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, 2, 7-12, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alonso (2019/0258857).
Regarding claim 1, Alonso discloses a method comprising:
at a device including a display, a gaze tracker, a non-transitory memory and one or more processors coupled with the display and the non-transitory memory:
displaying, on the display, a cursor (inherently included; par. 33);
setting a first display region corresponding to the cursor as an expected gaze target that indicates where a user of the device intends to gaze (402);
determining, using the gaze tracker, a second display region corresponding to a measured gaze target on the display where the user is measuredly gazing (410); and
adjusting a calibration parameter (422) of the gaze tracker based on a difference between the first display region and the second display region without prompting a guided calibration (par. 23 and 52).
It should be noted that the gaze location in Alonso is intended to be any graphics symbol, including the cursor in the computer display 102. For instance, the user can use the computer input means to move the cursor to attract the user’s attention as the gaze target (note par. 46, 47, 50, 53 and 57).
Regarding claim 2, Alonso discloses setting the first display region corresponding to the cursor as the expected gaze target includes: detecting, via a physical input device, an input directed to the first display region; and setting the first display region as the expected gaze target in response to detecting the input directed to the first display region (note par. 42, 47, 86 and 94).
Regarding claim 7, Alonso discloses adjusting the calibration parameter comprises adjusting the calibration parameter when a distance between the first display region and the second display region is greater than a threshold (note par. 69-71).
Regarding claim 8, Alonso discloses the adjustment to the calibration parameter is proportional to a distance between the first display region and the second display region (note par. 80).
Regarding claim 9, Alonso discloses the expected gaze target is associated with a confidence score, and wherein adjusting the calibration parameter comprises: adjusting the calibration parameter in response to the confidence score being greater than a threshold confidence score; and forgoing adjustment of the calibration parameter in response to the confidence score being less than the threshold confidence score (note par. 78-85).
Regarding claim 10, Alonso discloses the confidence score is a function of a distance between the first display region and the second display region (note par. 78-85).
Regarding claim 11, Alonso discloses adjusting the calibration parameter comprises adjusting the calibration parameter in response to the second display region corresponding to a blank space (note the change color in par. 47 does not have a shape).
Regarding claim 12, Alonso discloses adjusting the calibration parameter comprises adjusting the calibration parameter in response to the first display region having a first saliency value that is greater than a second saliency value of the second display region (note the difference values and thresholds in par. 78-85).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, see rejection to claim 1.
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(s) 3-6, 13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso (2019/0258857).
Regarding claim 3, Alonso discloses setting the first display region corresponding to the cursor as the expected gaze target includes: detecting, via a mouse, a mouse click while the first display region corresponds to the cursor (par. 42, 47, 86, 94); except
setting the expected gaze target to the cursor in response to detecting the mouse click.
However, according to paragraph 47, Alonso teaches that the portion 312 can be changed to different shapes or colors in temporal manner.
Therefore, based on the input availabilities as described in par. 42, 86 and 94, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the mouse as the input device to change or setting the shapes or color of the portion 312 as desired.
Regarding claim 4, Alonso discloses setting the first display region corresponding to the cursor as the expected gaze target includes: detecting, via a touch-sensitive surface, a tap input while the first display region corresponds to the cursor (par. 42, 47, 86 and 94); except
setting the expected gaze target to the cursor in response to detecting the tap input.
However, according to paragraph 47, Alonso teaches that the portion 312 can be changed to different shapes or colors in temporal manner.
Therefore, based on the input availabilities as described in par. 42, 86 and 94, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the touch screen as the input device to change or setting the shapes or color of the portion 312 as desired.
Regarding claim 5, Alonso discloses setting the first display region corresponding to the cursor as the expected gaze target includes: detecting, via a keyboard, a key press while the first display region corresponds to a focus indicator; except
setting the first display region as the expected gaze target in response to detecting the key press.
However, according to paragraph 47, Alonso teaches that the portion 312 can be changed to different shapes or colors in temporal manner.
Therefore, based on the input availabilities as described in par. 42, 86 and 94, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the keyboard as the input device to change or setting the shapes or color of the portion 312 as desired.
Regarding claim 6, Alonso discloses setting the first display region corresponding to the cursor as the expected gaze target includes: detecting, via an audio sensor, a voice input including a selection command while the first display region corresponds to a focus indicator (par. 42, 47, 86, 94); except
setting the first display region as the expected gaze target in response to detecting the voice input including the selection command.
However, according to paragraph 47, Alonso teaches that the portion 312 can be changed to different shapes or colors in temporal manner.
Therefore, based on the input availabilities as described in par. 42, 86 and 94, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the audio sensor and microphone as the input device to change or setting the shapes or color of the portion 312 as desired.
Regarding claim 13, Alonso does not disclose the expected gaze target is determined based on the measured gaze target when a selection input is received.
However, according to paragraph 47, Alonso teaches that the portion 312 can be changed to different shapes or colors in temporal manner.
Therefore, based on the input availabilities as described in par. 42, 86 and 94, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the input device to change or select the shapes or color of the portion 312 as desired.
Regarding claims 15-19, see similar rejections as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williams et al. (2019/0107884) discloses a calibration process.
Larsen (2015/0085251) discloses a gaze tracking system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights