CTNF 19/279,839 CTNF 87848 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priorities 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2011654.7 , filed on 07/28/2020 . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-8, 10, 13-16, and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-9 and 11-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,268 in view of Schaefer (US Patent No. 11,852,493) . The present application US Patent No. 12,393,268 Claim 1: A gaze tracking system comprising: a pupil detector operable to produce a detected pupil location of a pupil of a user's eye in one or more images captured by a camera; a confidence value determinator operable to determine a confidence value indicative of a reliability of the detected pupil location with respect to an actual pupil location of the user's eye; and a processor operable to compare the determined confidence value with a predetermined threshold and generate, based on the determined confidence value being less than the predetermined threshold, one or more outputs to prompt the user to modify the actual pupil location to a new actual pupil location that results in a higher determined confidence value. Claim 1: A gaze tracking system comprising: a pupil detector operable to produce a detected pupil location of a pupil of a user by analyzing an actual pupil location of the user in one or more images captured of one or both of the user's eyes; a confidence value determinator operable to determine a confidence value indicative of an accuracy and precision of the detected pupil location with respect to the actual pupil location and therefore an expected reliability of the detected pupil location; and a processor operable to generate, in dependence upon the determined confidence value, one or more outputs to cause the user to modify the actual pupil location to a new actual pupil location that results in a higher determined confidence value. Claim 2 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 6 Claim 7 Claim 11 Claim 8 Claim 12 Claim 10 Claim 7 Claim 13 Claim 8 Claim 14 Claim 9 Claim 15: A gaze tracking method comprising: producing a detected pupil location of a pupil of a user's eye in one or more images captured by a camera; determining a confidence value indicative of a reliability of the detected pupil location with respect to an actual pupil location of the user's eye; comparing the determined confidence value with a predetermined threshold; and generating, based on the determined confidence value being less than the predetermined threshold, one or more outputs to prompt the user to modify the actual pupil location to a new actual pupil location that results in a higher determined confidence value. Claim 13: A gaze tracking method comprising: producing a detected pupil location of a pupil of a user by analyzing an actual pupil location of the user in one or more images captured of one or both of the user's eyes; determining a confidence value indicative of an accuracy and precision of the detected pupil location with respect to the actual pupil location and therefore, an expected reliability of the detected pupil location; and generating, in dependence upon the determined confidence value, one or more outputs to cause the user to modify the actual pupil location to a new actual pupil location that results in a higher determined confidence value. Claim 16 Claim 14 Claim 18: A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium which stores computer software which, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a gaze tracking method comprising: producing a detected pupil location of a pupil of a user's eye in one or more images captured by a camera; determining a confidence value indicative of a reliability of the detected pupil location with respect to an actual pupil location of the user's eye; comparing the determined confidence value with a predetermined threshold; and generating, based on the determined confidence value being less than the predetermined threshold, one or more outputs to prompt the user to modify the actual pupil location to a new actual pupil location that results in a higher determined confidence value. Claim 15: A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium which stores computer software which, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a gaze tracking method comprising: producing a detected pupil location of a pupil of a user by analyzing an actual pupil location of the user in one or more images captured of one or both of the user's eyes; determining a confidence value indicative of an accuracy and precision of the detected pupil location with respect to the actual pupil location and therefore, an expected reliability of the detected pupil location; and generating, in dependence upon the determined confidence value, one or more outputs to cause the user to modify the actual pupil location to a new actual pupil location that results in a higher determined confidence value. Claim 19 Claim 16 Regarding claims 1, 15, and 18 ; Claims 1, 13, and 15 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 does not recite “comparing the determined confidence value with a predetermined threshold, and generating, based on the determined confidence value being less than the predetermined threshold, one or more outputs to prompt the user to modify the actual pupil location to a new actual pupil location that results in a higher determined confidence value”. Schaefer discloses a method of comparing a gaze angle detection error with a threshold, and generating, based on the error being greater than the threshold, one or more outputs to prompt the user to modify the actual gaze angle to a new gaze angle that results in a lower error value (Figs. 2 and 3, col.7||32-67, col.8||1-41; Schaefer discloses a method of detecting a gaze angle; determining an error indicating a difference between a desired and an actual gaze angles; comparing the error with a threshold value (e.g., 10 degrees), generating an output (e.g., voice) to guide the user to change the gaze angle until the error is less than the threshold (e.g., a difference between actual gaze angle and desired gaze angle is less than 10 degrees). It is understood that the error would be reversely corresponding to confidence value as claimed. In particular, the error being high corresponds to the confidence value being low, and vice versa). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method recited in claims 1, 13, and 15 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 of generating an output to cause the user to modify the actual pupil location to a new location that results in a higher confidence value to include the teaching of Schaefer of determining an error indicating a difference between a desired gaze angle and an actual gaze angle; comparing the error with a threshold, and outputting a prompt (e.g., voice) to guide the user to shift his/her gaze angle so that the error is less than the threshold. The motivation would have been in order to improve the gaze detection accuracy . 08-36 AIA Claim 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,268 in view of Schaefer (US Patent No. 11,852,493) as applied to claim 7 above; further in view of Kurlethimar et al. (US Pub. 2019/0339770 A1) . Regarding claim 9 ; Claim 11 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 does not recite “determine a type of the future motion, where the type of the future motion is associated with an acceleration profile and a maximum speed of the future motion; and predict a duration or magnitude of the future motion based on the acceleration profile and the maximum speed of the future motion”. Kurlethimar et al. discloses “determine a type of the future motion, where the type of the future motion is associated with an acceleration profile and a maximum speed of the future motion; and predict a duration or magnitude of the future motion based on the acceleration profile and the maximum speed of the future motion” (In the abstract, Kurlethimar discloses a method predicting the movement of the user's gaze during a saccade. Para. [0081, 0090, and 0107], the method comprises obtaining gaze position information including position, velocity, and acceleration of the user’s eyes. Figure 4 shows a curve 400 representing eye movement velocity over time. A duration of a saccade is defined by time t1 and time t3). At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method recited in Claims 1 and 11 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 to include the teaching of Kurlethimar of predicting a duration of a saccade based on gaze information including velocity and acceleration of the user’s eyes movement. The motivation would have been in order to help a graphic processing unit to render foveated image so as to reduce potential mismatch between the user’s current point of gaze and a portion of display with higher resolution (Kurlethimar, para. [0047]) . 08-36 AIA Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,268 in view of Schaefer (US Patent No. 11,852,493) as applied to claim 10 above; further in view of Latta et al. (US Pub. 2014/0306891 A1) . Regarding claim 11 ; Claim 7 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 recite “one or more aspects of the one or more generated outputs is varied proportionally to the determined confidence value”. However, claim 7 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 does not recite “an audio output, and a volume of the audio output is varied proportionally to the determined confidence value”. Latta teaches “an audio output, and a volume of the audio output is varied to a distance between a user’s hand and an object” (para. [0067], Latta discloses a method of providing a real-time feedback when a user moves his hand to a position of a virtual object. Audio feedback may start to play that increases in volume when the user hand gets closer to the virtual object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method recited in claim 7 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 of generating outputs which is varied proportional to the determined confidence value to include the teaching of Latta of generating an audio feedback that increases in volume when the user’s hand moves closer to a virtual object. The motivation would have been in order to improve the user experience . 08-36 AIA Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,268 in view of Schaefer (US Patent No. 11,852,493) as applied to claim 10 above; further in view of Ishihara et al. (US Pub. 2018/0101223 A1) . Regarding claim 12 ; Claim 7 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 recite “one or more aspects of the one or more generated outputs is varied proportionally to the determined confidence value”. Claim 7 does not recite “outputs comprises a video output, and a size of a video element of the video output is varied to the determined confidence value”. Ishihara discloses a method of generating a visual feedback having a size corresponding to a distance between a user’s hand and an AR object (Figs. 15 and 16, para. [0145 and 0148], a ring-shape indicator is displayed to indicate a distance between a user’s hand and an AR object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method recited in claim 7 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 of generating outputs which is varied proportional to the determined confidence value to include the teaching of Ishihara of generating a visual feedback having a size corresponding to a distance between a user’s and an AR object. The motivation would have been in order to improve the user experience . 08-36 AIA Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,268 in view of Schaefer (US Patent No. 11,852,493) as applied to claim 16 above; further in view of Kurlethimar et al. (US Pub. 2019/0339770 A1) . Regarding claim 17 ; Claim 14 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 does not recite “predicting future motion of the pupil and to determine a confidence value corresponding to a future actual pupil location corresponding to the predicted future motion, wherein the generating includes generating the one or more outputs based on the predicted future motion in addition to, or instead of, the detected pupil location”. Kurlethimar teaches “predicting future motion of the pupil and to determine a confidence value corresponding to a future actual pupil location corresponding to the predicted future motion, wherein the generating includes generating the one or more outputs based on the predicted future motion in addition to, or instead of, the detected pupil location” (para. [0007], the gaze prediction may analyze past and current gaze-points computed by the gaze tracking system in order to predict a saccadic landing position, before the gaze tracking system actually computes the second gaze-point. It is understood that a gaze point is corresponding to a particular pupil location (see, Kurlethimar in para. [0026 and 0043])). At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method recited in Claim 14 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 to include the teaching of Kurlethimar of predicting a duration of a saccade based on current and past gate points. The motivation would have been in order to update the image based on the predicted saccadic landing position so that the full-resolution area of the image overlaps with the predicted saccadic landing position to reduce visible foveation error (Kurlethimar, para. [0007]) . 08-36 AIA Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,268 in view of Schaefer (US Patent No. 11,852,493) as applied to claim 18 above; further in view of Novelli et al. (US Pub. 2021/0082371 A1) . Regarding claim 20 ; Claim 15 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 does not recite “the reliability is calculated based on one or more of a pupil distance from the camera used to capture the one or more images of the user's eye, a relative angle of the pupil to the camera, or an amount and/or an angle of light incident on the user's eye”. Shaefer discloses a method of determining a different (i.e., error) between a desired gaze angle and an actual gaze angle (see the analysis of claims 1, 15, and 18 above). The motivation is the same as the analysis of claims 1, 15, and 18. Novelli discloses a method of determining a gaze direction based on a distance between a camera and a user’s pupil (Figs. 1 and 2, para. [0060], a gaze direction (e.g., gaze direction 116) of the user is determined based on the tracked location of the pupil over the period of time. For example, a distance from the camera to the pupil (e.g., distance d) is calculated, and/or the gaze direction is based on the distance from the camera to the pupil). Therefore, the method of claim 15 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 as modified by Schaefer and Novelli would render a method of determining a gaze angle based on a distance between a camera and a pupil; determining a difference between the desired gaze angle and an actual gaze angle; and determining a reliability (e.g., error) according to the difference. At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method recited in Claim 15 of US Patent No. 12,393,268 to include the teaching of Novelli of determining a gaze angle based on a distance between the camera and the pupil. The motivation would have been in order to facilitate determining a gaze angle . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowed if overcoming the non-statutory double patenting rejection. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art fails to teach “determining a confidence value indicative of a reliability of the detected pupil location with respect to an actual pupil location of the user's eye; comparing the determined confidence value with a predetermined threshold; and generating, based on the determined confidence value being less than the predetermined threshold, one or more outputs to prompt the user to modify the actual pupil location to a new actual pupil location that results in a higher determined confidence value” as recited in claims 1, 15, and 18 . Bastani et al. (US Pub. 2021/0166341 A1) discloses a method of determining a gaze location on the display and at least one of a confidence factor of the gaze location, or a speed of the change of the gaze location using the eye tracking data; establishing multiple tiles using the gaze location and at least one of the confidence factor or the speed of the change of the gaze location; and providing a foveated rendered image using the multiple tiles. Aleem et al. (US Pub. 2019/0018482 A1) discloses a wearable head-up display (WHUD) configured to identify when the user has shifted gaze to another point (B) on the display using time and distance thresholds. The WHUD may compare the vector (A)->(B) to all vectors between pairs of UI elements (A′, B′), find the most similar vector (e.g., in terms of location, angle and magnitude), and compute a confidence measure from the similarity measure. If the confidence measure is below a threshold, the WHUD may remove highlighting from UI element (A′) and may not update the calibration. Otherwise, the WHUD may infer that the user's gaze is resting on UI element (B′), may highlight (B′), and may update the calibration. If the confidence of a series of implicit calibrations is sufficiently low, the WHUD may disable the highlighting of UI elements to cue the user to shift gaze between UI elements to recalibrate, or perform the reset action. Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN H TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6. 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 at 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. /NGUYEN H TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2623 /CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 2 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 3 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 4 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 5 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 6 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 7 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 8 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 9 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 10 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 11 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 12 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 13 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 14 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 15 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 16 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 17 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 18 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/279,839 Page 19 Art Unit: 2623
Prosecution Insights