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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment After Non-Final Rejection filed 08/25/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
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, 4, 9-11, 15-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,474,772 in view of Noorkami et al. (US 2020/0195940), herein Noorkami, in view of Hicks et al. (US 2018/0075820), herein Hicks.
Application No. 19/383,025
U.S. Patent No. 12,474,772
1. A system for automatic field calibration for eye tracking in a head-mounted display using time-based filtering, the system comprising:
1. A system for automatic field calibration for eye tracking in a head-mounted display, the system comprising:
the head-mounted display;
the head-mounted display;
an eye-tracking assembly that is part of the head-mounted display, the eye-tracking assembly comprising one or more cameras; and
an eye-tracking assembly that is part of the head-mounted display; and
one or more memory devices comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
one or more memory devices comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
acquiring an image of an eye of a user of the head-mounted display using the one or more cameras;
acquiring an image of the eye, including an eyelid of the eye, using a camera of the eye-tracking assembly while the eye is illuminated using the light source;
predicting a future gaze direction; and
8. The system of claim 1, the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: rendering a plurality of images on the head-mounted display; tracking head movement of the user wearing the head-mounted display, in response to the plurality of images presented; tracking eye movement of the user in response to the plurality of images presented; predicting a future gaze direction of the user, and/or a future head orientation of the user, based on tracking the head movement of the user and tracking the eye movement of the user in response to the plurality of images presented; and
rendering an image in the head-mounted display based on the future gaze direction.
(claim 8) rendering an image on the head-mounted display based on the future gaze direction and/or based on the future head orientation predicted.
However, the patented claims do not explicitly teach acquiring an image of an eye of a user of the head-mounted display using the one or more cameras; estimating a gaze direction of the user based the image of the eye; filtering multiple images of the eye acquired over time to improve the estimated gaze direction of the user; predicting a future gaze direction based on the improved estimated gaze direction.
In an analogous art, Noorkami, which discloses a head-mounted display device, clearly teaches:
acquiring an image of an eye of a user of the head-mounted display using the one or more cameras; (Fig. 6: Imaging sensors of gaze tracking sensors 330 capture raw images of the user eyes, [0036], [0062].)
estimating a gaze direction of the user based the image of the eye; (Fig. 6: The images are processed to obtain gaze data, [0062].)
filtering multiple images of the eye acquired over time to improve the estimated gaze direction of the user; (Fig. 6: A Kalman filter is applied to the gaze data to obtain smoothed gaze estimates, [0063].)
predicting a future gaze direction based on the improved estimated gaze direction. (The Kalman filter is applied to predict gaze direction at a future time, [0063].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims by acquiring an image of an eye of a user of the head-mounted display using the one or more cameras; estimating a gaze direction of the user based the image of the eye; filtering multiple images of the eye acquired over time to improve the estimated gaze direction of the user; predicting a future gaze direction based on the improved estimated gaze direction, as taught by Noorkami, for the benefit of improving the predicted future gaze direction.
However, the patented claims in view of Noorkami do not explicitly teach predicting a future gaze direction for a frame that is a predetermined number of frames in the future and rendering an image during the frame that was the predetermined number of frames in the future.
In an analogous art, Hicks, which discloses a head-mounted display device, clearly teaches predicting a future gaze direction for a frame that is a predetermined number of frames in the future and rendering an image during the frame that was the predetermined number of frames in the future. (Fig. 2: The predicted gaze for the next frame is used to render the next frame, [0048].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims in view of Noorkami by predicting a future gaze direction for a frame that is a predetermined number of frames in the future and rendering an image during the frame that was the predetermined number of frames in the future, as taught by Hicks, for the benefit of accurately matching the frame rendering and gaze prediction.
Claim 4 of the application corresponds to claims 1, 8 of the patent in view of Noorkami [0063] and Hicks.
Claim 9 of the application corresponds to claims 1, 8 of the patent in view of Noorkami [0061] and Hicks.
Claim 10 of the application corresponds to claims 9, 17 of the patent in view of Noorkami and Hicks.
Claim 11 of the application corresponds to claims 9, 17 of the patent in view of Noorkami [0063] and Hicks.
Claim 15 of the application corresponds to claims 9, 17 of the patent in view of Noorkami [0061] and Hicks.
Claim 16 of the application corresponds to claims 9, 17 of the patent in view of Noorkami and Hicks.
Claim 17 of the application corresponds to claims 9, 17 of the patent in view of Noorkami [0063] and Hicks.
Claim 20 of the application corresponds to claims 9, 17 of the patent in view of Noorkami [0061] and Hicks.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,474,772 in view of Noorkami et al. (US 2020/0195940) in view of Hicks et al. (US 2018/0075820) in view of Sarkar et al. (US 2019/0204913), herein Sarkar.
Consider claim 2, the patented claims combined with Noorkami and Hicks clearly teach the gaze direction of the user.
However, the patented claims combined with Noorkami and Hicks do not explicitly teach using head rotation of the user to further refine calibration of the gaze direction of the user with respect to the head-mounted display.
In an analogous art, Sarkar, which discloses a head-mounted display device, clearly teaches using head rotation of the user to further refine calibration of the gaze direction of the user with respect to the head-mounted display. (Fig. 3B: Each point of the head tracking data 132 is correlated with the eye-tracking data 126 and a calibration algorithm is developed for mapping the eye angle to gaze vector, [0054]-[0058].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims combined with Noorkami and Hicks by using head rotation of the user to further refine calibration of the gaze direction of the user with respect to the head-mounted display, as taught by Sarkar, for the benefit of improving calibration of the head-mounted display.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,474,772 in view of Noorkami et al. (US 2020/0195940) in view of Hicks et al. (US 2018/0075820) in view of Burgess et al. (US 10,871,823), herein Burgess.
Consider claim 3, the patented claims combined with Noorkami and Hicks clearly teach calculating the gaze direction.
However, the patented claims combined with Noorkami and Hicks do not explicitly teach calculating a confidence measurement of the gaze direction with calculating the gaze direction.
In an analogous art, Burgess, which discloses a head-mounted display device, clearly teaches calculating a confidence measurement of the gaze direction with calculating the gaze direction. (Circuitry 116 assigns a confidence score to the gaze directions, col. 9 line 44 to col. 10 line 15.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims combined with Noorkami and Hicks by calculating a confidence measurement of the gaze direction with calculating the gaze direction, as taught by Burgess, for the benefit of improving the determination of the gaze direction.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,474,772 in view of Noorkami et al. (US 2020/0195940) in view of Hicks et al. (US 2018/0075820) in view of Miao et al. (US 2016/0202757), herein Miao.
Consider claim 5, the patented claims combined with Noorkami and Hicks clearly teach calibration of the gaze direction of the user with respect to the head-mounted display.
However, the patented claims combined with Noorkami and Hicks do not explicitly teach using a user interaction to refine a calibration of the gaze direction of the user.
In an analogous art, Miao, which discloses a system for gaze tracking, clearly teaches using a user interaction to refine a calibration of the gaze direction of the user. (Fig. 10: In step 1018 user input is used to adjust gaze direction, [0037].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims combined with Noorkami and Hicks by using a user interaction to refine a calibration of the gaze direction of the user, as taught by Miao, for the benefit of improving the determination of the gaze direction.
Claim 6 of the application corresponds to claims 1, 8 of the patent in view of Noorkami, Hicks and Miao [0058].
Claim 12 of the application corresponds to claims 9, 17 of the patent in view of Noorkami, Hicks and Miao [0037].
Claim 13 of the application corresponds to claims 9, 17 of the patent in view of Noorkami, Hicks and Miao [0058].
Claim 18 of the application corresponds to claims 9, 17 of the patent in view of Noorkami, Hicks and Miao [0037].
Claim 19 of the application corresponds to claims 9, 17 of the patent in view of Noorkami, Hicks and Miao [0058].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorkami et al. (US 2020/0195940) in view of Hicks et al. (US 2018/0075820), herein Hicks.
Consider claim 1, Noorkami clearly teaches a system for automatic field calibration for eye tracking in a head-mounted display using time-based filtering, (Fig. 3) the system comprising:
the head-mounted display; (Fig. 3: Head-mounted display 350, [0038])
an eye-tracking assembly that is part of the head-mounted display, the eye-tracking assembly comprising one or more cameras; (Fig. 3: Gaze tracking sensors 330 are coupled to display 350 and include image sensors, [0036].)
and one or more memory devices comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations (Fig. 3: Processing apparatus 310 and data storage device 320, [0035]) comprising:
acquiring an image of an eye of a user of the head-mounted display using the one or more cameras; (Fig. 6: Imaging sensors of gaze tracking sensors 330 capture raw images of the user eyes, [0036], [0062].)
estimating a gaze direction of the user based the image of the eye; (Fig. 6: The images are processed to obtain gaze data, [0062].)
filtering multiple images of the eye acquired over time to improve the estimated gaze direction of the user; (Fig. 6: A Kalman filter is applied to the gaze data to obtain smoothed gaze estimates, [0063].)
predicting a future gaze direction based on the improved estimated gaze direction; (The Kalman filter is applied to predict gaze direction at a future time, [0063].) and
rendering an image in the head-mounted display based on the future gaze direction. (Fig. 6: An enhanced frame of the video is obtained based on the smoothed gaze estimate and displayed by display 350, [0064], [0066], [0067].)
However, Noorkami does not explicitly teach predicting a future gaze direction for a frame that is a predetermined number of frames in the future and rendering an image during the frame that was the predetermined number of frames in the future.
In an analogous art, Hicks, which discloses a head-mounted display device, clearly teaches predicting a future gaze direction for a frame that is a predetermined number of frames in the future and rendering an image during the frame that was the predetermined number of frames in the future. (Fig. 2: The predicted gaze for the next frame is used to render the next frame, [0048].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Noorkami by predicting a future gaze direction for a frame that is a predetermined number of frames in the future and rendering an image during the frame that was the predetermined number of frames in the future, as taught by Hicks, for the benefit of accurately matching the frame rendering and gaze prediction.
Consider claim 4, Noorkami combined with Hicks clearly teaches the filtering multiple images of the eye uses a statistical estimate of the gaze direction from the multiple images of the eye. (Fig. 6: A Kalman filter is applied to the gaze data to obtain smoothed gaze estimates, [0063] Noorkami.)
Consider claim 9, Noorkami combined with Hicks clearly teaches per-user calibration is updated during ongoing use, without using explicit instructions to the user for calibration steps. (Fig. 6: The process 600 is performed without explicit instructions to the user, [0061] Noorkami.)
Consider claim 10, Noorkami clearly teaches a method for automatic field calibration for eye tracking in a head-mounted display using time-based filtering, (Fig. 6) the method comprising:
acquiring an image of an eye of a user of the head-mounted display using one or more cameras of an eye-tracking assembly that is part of the head-mounted display; (Fig. 6: Imaging sensors of gaze tracking sensors 330 capture raw images of the user eyes, [0036], [0062].)
estimating a gaze direction of the user based the image of the eye; (Fig. 6: The images are processed to obtain gaze data, [0062].)
filtering multiple images of the eye acquired over time to improve the estimated gaze direction of the user; (Fig. 6: A Kalman filter is applied to the gaze data to obtain smoothed gaze estimates, [0063].)
predicting a future gaze direction based on the improved estimated gaze direction; (The Kalman filter is applied to predict gaze direction at a future time, [0063].) and
rendering an image in the head-mounted display based on the future gaze direction. (Fig. 6: An enhanced frame of the video is obtained based on the smoothed gaze estimate and displayed by display 350, [0064], [0066], [0067].)
However, Noorkami does not explicitly teach predicting a future gaze direction for a frame that is a predetermined number of frames in the future and rendering an image during the frame that was the predetermined number of frames in the future.
In an analogous art, Hicks, which discloses a head-mounted display device, clearly teaches predicting a future gaze direction for a frame that is a predetermined number of frames in the future and rendering an image during the frame that was the predetermined number of frames in the future. (Fig. 2: The predicted gaze for the next frame is used to render the next frame, [0048].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Noorkami by predicting a future gaze direction for a frame that is a predetermined number of frames in the future and rendering an image during the frame that was the predetermined number of frames in the future, as taught by Hicks, for the benefit of accurately matching the frame rendering and gaze prediction.
Consider claim 11, Noorkami combined with Hicks clearly teaches the filtering multiple images of the eye uses a statistical estimate of the gaze direction from the multiple images of the eye. (Fig. 6: A Kalman filter is applied to the gaze data to obtain smoothed gaze estimates, [0063] Noorkami.)
Consider claim 15, Noorkami combined with Hicks clearly teaches per-user calibration is updated during ongoing use, without using explicit instructions to the user for calibration steps. (Fig. 6: The process 600 is performed without explicit instructions to the user, [0061] Noorkami.)
Consider claim 16, Noorkami clearly teaches a memory device comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform the following steps: (Fig. 3: Processing apparatus 310 and data storage device 320, [0035])
acquiring an image of an eye of a user of a head-mounted display using one or more cameras of an eye-tracking assembly that is part of the head-mounted display; (Fig. 6: Imaging sensors of gaze tracking sensors 330 capture raw images of the user eyes, [0036], [0062].)
estimating a gaze direction of the user based the image of the eye; (Fig. 6: The images are processed to obtain gaze data, [0062].)
filtering multiple images of the eye acquired over time to improve the estimated gaze direction of the user; (Fig. 6: A Kalman filter is applied to the gaze data to obtain smoothed gaze estimates, [0063].)
predicting a future gaze direction based on the improved estimated gaze direction; (The Kalman filter is applied to predict gaze direction at a future time, [0063].) and
rendering an image in the head-mounted display based on the future gaze direction. (Fig. 6: An enhanced frame of the video is obtained based on the smoothed gaze estimate and displayed by display 350, [0064], [0066], [0067].)
However, Noorkami does not explicitly teach predicting a future gaze direction for a frame that is a predetermined number of frames in the future and rendering an image during the frame that was the predetermined number of frames in the future.
In an analogous art, Hicks, which discloses a head-mounted display device, clearly teaches predicting a future gaze direction for a frame that is a predetermined number of frames in the future and rendering an image during the frame that was the predetermined number of frames in the future. (Fig. 2: The predicted gaze for the next frame is used to render the next frame, [0048].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Noorkami by predicting a future gaze direction for a frame that is a predetermined number of frames in the future and rendering an image during the frame that was the predetermined number of frames in the future, as taught by Hicks, for the benefit of accurately matching the frame rendering and gaze prediction.
Consider claim 17, Noorkami combined with Hicks clearly teaches the filtering multiple images of the eye uses a statistical estimate of the gaze direction from the multiple images of the eye. (Fig. 6: A Kalman filter is applied to the gaze data to obtain smoothed gaze estimates, [0063] Noorkami.)
Consider claim 20, Noorkami combined with Hicks clearly teaches per-user calibration is updated during ongoing use of the head-mounted display, without using explicit instructions to the user for calibration steps. (Fig. 6: The process 600 is performed without explicit instructions to the user, [0061] Noorkami.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorkami et al. (US 2020/0195940) in view of Hicks et al. (US 2018/0075820) in view of Sarkar et al. (US 2019/0204913), herein Sarkar.
Consider claim 2, Noorkami combined with Hicks clearly teaches calibration of the gaze direction of the user.
However, Noorkami combined with Hicks does not explicitly teach using head rotation of the user to further refine calibration of the gaze direction of the user with respect to the head-mounted display.
In an analogous art, Sarkar, which discloses a head-mounted display device, clearly teaches using head rotation of the user to further refine calibration of the gaze direction of the user with respect to the head-mounted display. (Fig. 3B: Each point of the head tracking data 132 is correlated with the eye-tracking data 126 and a calibration algorithm is developed for mapping the eye angle to gaze vector, [0054]-[0058].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Noorkami combined with Hicks by using head rotation of the user to further refine calibration of the gaze direction of the user with respect to the head-mounted display, as taught by Sarkar, for the benefit of improving calibration of the head-mounted display.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorkami et al. (US 2020/0195940) in view of Hicks et al. (US 2018/0075820) in view of Burgess et al. (US 10,871,823), herein Burgess.
Consider claim 3, Noorkami combined with Hicks clearly teaches calculating the gaze direction.
However, Noorkami combined with Hicks does not explicitly teach calculating a confidence measurement of the gaze direction with calculating the gaze direction.
In an analogous art, Burgess, which discloses a head-mounted display device, clearly teaches calculating a confidence measurement of the gaze direction with calculating the gaze direction. (Circuitry 116 assigns a confidence score to the gaze directions, col. 9 line 44 to col. 10 line 15.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Noorkami combined with Hicks by calculating a confidence measurement of the gaze direction with calculating the gaze direction, as taught by Burgess, for the benefit of improving the determination of the gaze direction.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorkami et al. (US 2020/0195940) in view of Hicks et al. (US 2018/0075820) in view of Miao et al. (US 2016/0202757), herein Miao.
Consider claim 5, Noorkami combined with Hicks clearly teaches calibration of the gaze direction of the user with respect to the head-mounted display.
However, Noorkami combined with Hicks does not explicitly teach using a user interaction to refine a calibration of the gaze direction of the user.
In an analogous art, Miao, which discloses a system for gaze tracking, clearly teaches using a user interaction to refine a calibration of the gaze direction of the user. (Fig. 10: In step 1018 user input is used to adjust gaze direction, [0037].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Noorkami combined with Hicks by using a user interaction to refine a calibration of the gaze direction of the user, as taught by Miao, for the benefit of improving the determination of the gaze direction.
Consider claim 6, Noorkami combined with Hicks, Miao clearly teaches the user interaction is a user interface element selection, a controller movement, or a hand movement. (Fig. 12: Input subsystem 1208 includes a mouse or touch screen, [0058] Miao.)
Consider claim 12, Noorkami combined with Hicks, Miao clearly teaches using a user interaction to refine a calibration of the gaze direction of the user with respect to the head-mounted display. (Fig. 10: In step 1018 user input is used to adjust gaze direction, [0037] Miao.)
Consider claim 13, Noorkami combined with Hicks, Miao clearly teaches the user interaction is a user interface element selection, a controller movement, or a hand movement. (Fig. 12: Input subsystem 1208 includes a mouse or touch screen, [0058] Miao.)
Consider claim 18, Noorkami combined with Hicks, Miao clearly teaches the instructions further comprise using user inputs to refine a calibration of the gaze direction of the user with respect to the head-mounted display. (Fig. 10: In step 1018 user input is used to adjust gaze direction, [0037] Miao.)
Consider claim 19, Noorkami combined with Hicks, Miao clearly teaches the instructions further comprise using prediction of future gaze to enhance an eye-tracking model itself, in addition to rendering the image in the head-mounted display based on the future gaze direction. (Fig. 12: Input subsystem 1208 includes a mouse or touch screen, [0058] Miao.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8 and 14 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.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights