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
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
The present application is a continuation in part and there are a series of parent applications, which they themselves are also continuation in parts. Accordingly, many of the limitations in the current application have different dates of priority.
As for claims 1, 10, and 20, the majority of these limitations have a priority date as of the filing date of this application which is 12/24/2025. However, the limitations regarding: plurality of applications, the performing of the follow-up action associated with a second application, and the execution of the follow-up action on the second application have support to publication 2024/0070488 with a priority date of 01/10/2019.
As for claims 3 and 12, these also have priority to the current application whose filing date is 12/24/2025.
As for claims 2 and 11, these claims are supported by publication 2019/0139092 with a priority date of 06/13/2018.
As for claims 4 and 13, these claims are supported by publication 2025/0217678 with a priority date of 03/22/2025.
As for claims 5 and 14, these claims are supported by patent 9,858,967 with a priority date of 9/9/2015.
As for claims 6-7 and 15-16, these claims are supported by publication 2012/0030027 with a priority date of 04/19/2011.
As for claims 8-9 and 17-18, these claims are supported by publication 2019/0139092 with a priority date of 06/13/2018.
As for claim 19, this claim is supported by publication 2017/0148073 with a priority date of 18/11/2016.
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 1-20 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. Independent claims 1, 10, and 20 each recite that the user interest is “determined based at least on a correspondence between the one or more determined positions and the positions of the identified objects or regions.” The specification does not describe this correspondence. Paragraph [0061] talks about an eye tracking analysis module that receives video recordings of the user, tracks eye movement across the device screen, and determines one or more “y” positions viewed by the user. That paragraph states that the virtual agent may decide on courses of action based on those positions, but doesn’t talk about any comparison between the viewed positions and the positions the identified objects described. As for paragraph [0009], it states that user interest is determined based on visual analysis and eye-tracking information, which describes a result rather than the claimed way in which it happens. In addition, paragraph [0061] is concerned with potions on a screen that displays a website or software application, but the claimed object positions are identified with camera-captured real-time images of a real-world environment. Both of these are disclosed in separate embodiments found in paragraph [0061] and [0298], and nothing links them together.
The other issue is that these independent claims also recite that the overlay position is “determined based on the positional information associated with the identified objects or regions.” But the specification does not describe this. Paragraphs [0322]-[0327] discuss placing a furniture item within an image of the user’s living room as displayed on the screen, but the placement is determined by the user’s voice instruction or by the user’s past behavior. The placement based on positional information from identified objects isn’t described.
The examiner invites the application to identify support in the original disclosure for these elements or cancel the limitations, which would require another analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Remarks
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn because the applicant has amended the claims and overcome the rejection. However, the claims are not in condition for allowance because they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Additional prior art relevant to the application but not relied upon includes:
STAUBER (US 2023/0093979) teaches augmented reality display of recommendations based on eye gaze tracking and purchase history.
SAMANTA (US 2019/0130184) teaches eye gaze tracking and item recommendations based on purchase history.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571)272-6764. 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.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
