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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “wherein the controller is further configured to: subsequent to the said performance of the visual axis enrollment process, generate, using the partially constructed personalized eye model, a multidimensional personalized eye model for the eye including an optical axis and the visual axis” (claims 24 and 35) (see 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection below for further details) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 24 and 35 appear to recite subject matter which is not present in the original specification as filed for parent application 18/534,388. Specifically, Examiner can find no disclosure regarding subsequent generation of a multidimensional personalized eye model including all the limitations of the parent claims.
Examiner notes that introduction of new subject matter is not permitted in a continuation application.
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) 21, 22, 31, 32, 33 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavin et al. (USPN 2019/0042842) in view of Das et al. (USPN 2021/0173206) and further in view of O’Sullivan et al. (USPN 2020/0364441).
With respect to claim 21, Cavin teaches a device (Figs. 1-6), comprising:
a display configured to be positioned in front of an eye (Figs. 1-6. At least Fig. 1 teaches a HMD);
an eye-facing camera configured to capture images of the eye (Figs. 1-6. At least Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0021] teach a HMD with eye tracking including cameras); and
a controller comprising one or more processors (Figs. 1-6. At least Figs. 2, 3 and 6 and paragraphs [0037]-[0039] and [0093]-[0096] teach a controller and processors can perform the functionality) configured to:
partially construct a personalized eye model for a user using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking (Figs. 1-6. At least Fig. 3, item 380 and paragraphs [0039], [0052], [0054] and [0055] teach a partially constructing a personalized eye model including at least cornea shape of a particular user).
However, Cavin fails to expressly teach partially construct a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking; and responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model (Examiner notes Cavin, paragraph [0054] teaches a calibration model but is silent on triggering an enrollment process to initiate the calibration).
Das teaches a known technique performing dynamic calibration in the background prior to completion of a dedicated calibration process (paragraph [0221]).
Cavin teaches a base process/product of partially constructing a personalized eye model for a user using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the eye model is constructed as a background process. Das teaches a known technique of performing dynamic calibration in the background prior to completion of a dedicated calibration process that is comparable to the base process/product.
Das’ known technique of performing dynamic calibration in the background prior to completion of a dedicated calibration process would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Cavin and the results would have been predictable and resulted in partially constructing a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Cavin in view of Das teach partially constructing a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking. However, Cavin in view of Das fail to expressly teach responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model.
O’Sullivan teaches a known technique for a user to trigger an enrollment process (Figs. 1-14 and paragraphs [0018]-[0023], [0059] and [0060]). Specifically, O’Sullivan teaches responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model (Figs. 1-14 and paragraphs [0018]-[0023], [0059] and [0060] teach a user triggers an enrollment process. Examiner notes the enrollment process of O’Sullivan does not include modeling the cornea shape of the user. Therefore, the partial enrollment of O’Sullivan supplements the model provided by Cavin. Examiner notes the claim does not require any specific details for a partial eye enrollment or any specific guidelines for supplementing and a reasonably broad interpretation includes the teachings of O’Sullivan).
Cavin in view of Das teaches a base process/product of partially constructing a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model. O’Sullivan teaches a known technique for a user to trigger an enrollment process that is comparable to the base process/product.
O’Sullivan’s known technique for a user to trigger an enrollment process would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Cavin in view of Das and the results would have been predictable and resulted in responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 22, Cavin in view of Das and further in view of O’Sullivan teach the device as recited in claim 21, discussed above, wherein the controller is further configured to, prior to said performance of the partial eye enrollment process: capture the images using the eye-facing camera as part of the background process; and collect gaze and cornea data based on the images of the eye captured by the eye facing camera (Cavin, paragraphs [0024] and [0025] teach capturing cornea data; and Das, paragraph [0221] teaches capturing gaze data based on images as a background process).
With respect to claim 31, Cavin in view of Das and further in view of O’Sullivan teach the device as recited in claim 21, discussed above, wherein the device is a head-mounted device (HMD) of an extended reality (XR) system (Cavin, paragraphs [0072] and [0073]; and O’Sullivan, Claim 13 and paragraphs [0006] and [0053]).
Claim 32, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed and rejected for substantially the same reasons as the device of Claim 21, discussed above.
The further limitations of claim 33 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 22, discussed above.
Claim 40, a system, corresponds to and is analyzed and rejected for substantially the same reasons as the device of Claim 21, discussed above.
Examiner notes Cavin, paragraphs [0072] and [0073] further teach a head-mounted device (HMD).
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 23, 25-30, 34 and 36-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin et al. (USPN 2019/0042842) in view of Das et al. (USPN 2021/0173206) and further in view of O’Sullivan et al. (USPN 2020/0364441).
Claim 23 Instant Application
USPN 12,504,814
21. A device, comprising: a display configured to be positioned in front of an eye; an eye-facing camera configured to capture images of the eye;
1. A device, comprising: a display configured to be positioned in front of an eye; an eye-facing camera configured to capture images of the eye;
and a controller comprising one or more processors configured to: partially construct a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking; and responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model.
and a controller comprising one or more processors configured to: detect an eye enrollment gesture of a gaze-based user interface performed by the eye based on images of the eye captured by the eye-facing camera,
wherein the eye enrollment gesture triggers an eye enrollment and is configured to be detected using an eye model that has not been calibrated to the eye for the gaze-based user interface; and perform the eye enrollment for the eye in response to said detection of the eye enrollment gesture.
22. The device as recited in claim 21, wherein the controller is further configured to, prior to said performance of the partial eye enrollment process: capture the images using the eye-facing camera as part of the background process; and collect gaze and cornea data based on the images of the eye captured by the eye facing camera.
10. The device as recited in claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to, prior to said detecting the eye enrollment gesture, collect eye pose data based on images of the eye captured by the eye facing camera; and wherein, to perform an eye enrollment for the eye in response to said detection of the eye enrollment gesture,
23. The device as recited in claim 22, wherein to perform the partial eye enrollment process the controller is further configured to: determine that the collected gaze and cornea data is not sufficient to perform a full eye enrollment; and based on the determination that the collected gaze and cornea data is not sufficient, perform a visual axis enrollment process to determine a visual axis for the eye.
the controller is configured to: if a sufficient amount of eye pose data has been collected in a background to perform full eye enrollment, generate a multidimensional personalized eye model for the eye including an optical axis and a visual axis; and if a sufficient amount of eye pose data has not been collected in the background to perform full eye enrollment, estimate a visual axis for the eye.
However, U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 fails to expressly teach partially construct a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking; and responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model (emphasis added).
Cavin teaches a known technique to partially construct a personalized eye model for a user using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking (Figs. 1-6. At least Fig. 3, item 380 and paragraphs [0039], [0052], [0054] and [0055] teach a partially constructing a personalized eye model including at least cornea shape of a particular user).
U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 teaches a base process/product of eye enrollment configured to be detected using an eye model that has not been calibrated to the eye for the gaze-based user interface which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the device is configured to partially construct a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking; and responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model. Cavin teaches a known technique to partially construct a personalized eye model for a user using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking that is comparable to the base process/product.
Cavin’s known technique to partially construct a personalized eye model for a user using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 and the results would have been predictable and resulted in the device is configured to partially construct a personalized eye model for a user using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking; and responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin teach partially constructing a personalized eye model. However, U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view Cavin fail to expressly teach partially construct a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking; and responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model (Examiner notes Cavin, paragraph [0054] teaches a calibration model but is silent on triggering an enrollment process to initiate the calibration).
Das teaches a known technique performing dynamic calibration in the background prior to completion of a dedicated calibration process (paragraph [0221]).
U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin teaches a base process/product of partially constructing a personalized eye model for a user using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the eye model is constructed as a background process. Das teaches a known technique of performing dynamic calibration in the background prior to completion of a dedicated calibration process that is comparable to the base process/product.
Das’ known technique of performing dynamic calibration in the background prior to completion of a dedicated calibration process would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin and the results would have been predictable and resulted in partially constructing a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin and further in view of Das teach partially constructing a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking. However, U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin and further in view of Das fail to expressly teach responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model.
O’Sullivan teaches a known technique for a user to trigger an enrollment process (Figs. 1-14 and paragraphs [0018]-[0023], [0059] and [0060]). Specifically, O’Sullivan teaches responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model (Figs. 1-14 and paragraphs [0018]-[0023], [0059] and [0060] teach a user triggers an enrollment process. Examiner notes the enrollment process of O’Sullivan does not include modeling the cornea shape of the user. Therefore, the partial enrollment of O’Sullivan supplements the model provided by Cavin. Examiner notes the claim does not require any specific details for a partial eye enrollment or any specific guidelines for supplementing and a reasonably broad interpretation includes the teachings of O’Sullivan).
U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin and further in view of Das teaches a base process/product of partially constructing a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model. O’Sullivan teaches a known technique for a user to trigger an enrollment process that is comparable to the base process/product.
O’Sullivan’s known technique for a user to trigger an enrollment process would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin and further in view of Das and the results would have been predictable and resulted in responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 25 Instant Application
USPN 12,504,814
21. A device, comprising: a display configured to be positioned in front of an eye; an eye-facing camera configured to capture images of the eye;
1. A device, comprising: a display configured to be positioned in front of an eye; an eye-facing camera configured to capture images of the eye;
and a controller comprising one or more processors configured to: partially construct a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking; and responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model.
and a controller comprising one or more processors configured to: detect an eye enrollment gesture of a gaze-based user interface performed by the eye based on images of the eye captured by the eye-facing camera,
25. The device as recited in claim 21, wherein the controller is further configured to: detect the trigger for the enrollment process, wherein the trigger for the enrollment process comprises: an eye enrollment gesture of a gaze-based user interface performed by the eye, wherein the eye enrollment gesture is configured to be detected using an eye model that has not been calibrated to the eye for the gaze-based user interface.
wherein the eye enrollment gesture triggers an eye enrollment and is configured to be detected using an eye model that has not been calibrated to the eye for the gaze-based user interface; and perform the eye enrollment for the eye in response to said detection of the eye enrollment gesture.
However, U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 fails to expressly teach partially construct a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking; and responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model (emphasis added).
Cavin teaches a known technique to partially construct a personalized eye model for a user using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking (Figs. 1-6. At least Fig. 3, item 380 and paragraphs [0039], [0052], [0054] and [0055] teach a partially constructing a personalized eye model including at least cornea shape of a particular user).
U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 teaches a base process/product of eye enrollment configured to be detected using an eye model that has not been calibrated to the eye for the gaze-based user interface which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the device is configured to partially construct a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking; and responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model. Cavin teaches a known technique to partially construct a personalized eye model for a user using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking that is comparable to the base process/product.
Cavin’s known technique to partially construct a personalized eye model for a user using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 and the results would have been predictable and resulted in the device is configured to partially construct a personalized eye model for a user using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking; and responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin teach partially constructing a personalized eye model. However, U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view Cavin fail to expressly teach partially construct a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking; and responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model (Examiner notes Cavin, paragraph [0054] teaches a calibration model but is silent on triggering an enrollment process to initiate the calibration).
Das teaches a known technique performing dynamic calibration in the background prior to completion of a dedicated calibration process (paragraph [0221]).
U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin teaches a base process/product of partially constructing a personalized eye model for a user using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the eye model is constructed as a background process. Das teaches a known technique of performing dynamic calibration in the background prior to completion of a dedicated calibration process that is comparable to the base process/product.
Das’ known technique of performing dynamic calibration in the background prior to completion of a dedicated calibration process would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin and the results would have been predictable and resulted in partially constructing a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin and further in view of Das teach partially constructing a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking. However, U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin and further in view of Das fail to expressly teach responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model.
O’Sullivan teaches a known technique for a user to trigger an enrollment process (Figs. 1-14 and paragraphs [0018]-[0023], [0059] and [0060]). Specifically, O’Sullivan teaches responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model (Figs. 1-14 and paragraphs [0018]-[0023], [0059] and [0060] teach a user triggers an enrollment process. Examiner notes the enrollment process of O’Sullivan does not include modeling the cornea shape of the user. Therefore, the partial enrollment of O’Sullivan supplements the model provided by Cavin. Examiner notes the claim does not require any specific details for a partial eye enrollment or any specific guidelines for supplementing and a reasonably broad interpretation includes the teachings of O’Sullivan).
U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin and further in view of Das teaches a base process/product of partially constructing a personalized eye model for a user as a background process using images captured by the eye-facing camera for gaze tracking which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model. O’Sullivan teaches a known technique for a user to trigger an enrollment process that is comparable to the base process/product.
O’Sullivan’s known technique for a user to trigger an enrollment process would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814 in view of Cavin and further in view of Das and the results would have been predictable and resulted in responsive to detecting a trigger for an enrollment process, perform a partial eye enrollment process for the eye to supplement the partially constructed personalized eye model which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The further limitations of claims 26-28 are rejected in light of claims 4-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814.
The further limitations of claims 29-30 are rejected in light of claims 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814.
The further limitations of claims 34 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 23, discussed above.
The further limitations of claims 36 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 25, discussed above.
The further limitations of claims 37-39 are rejected in light of claims 4-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,504,814.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO J XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7688. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 830am-5pm PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK EDOUARD can be reached on 571-272-7603. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTONIO XAVIER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights