DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
i. The recitation within claim 12 of “…computer program carrier…” is neither described as “…non-transitory…” nor is there a clear exclusion of it occupying transitory form.
ii. The recitation within claim 12 of “…computer program code…” does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, merely by the recitation of being that of which the computer program carrier is comprised, and executed on a computer.
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.
i. Claims 1 – 3, 7 – 9, 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eil (2021/0349534) in view of Burmistrov et al. (2022/0028406; hereinafter Burmistrov).
Regarding claim 1, Eil discloses a method for controlling gaze interactivity with a user interface, UI [0004], the method comprising:
tracking the gaze of a user on the UI (Figure 3: Comprising 350) to allow the user to select a UI control with the user's gaze (Comprising 360); wherein
the first physical control ([0014]: Examples of pressed physical button, actuated foot pedal) is configured to
adapt a parameter corresponding to a selected UI control (Selectable graphical elements issue commands encompassing settings, information [0013] embodied as surgical parameters [0016]).
Eil does not explicitly discloses the method further comprising in response to the user interacting with a first physical control, locking gaze interactions with the UI to prevent the user's gaze from selecting a different UI control.
In the same field of endeavor, Burmistrov discloses a method for capturing a user’s gaze as sensor data [0006] wherein in response to the user interacting with a first physical control, locking gaze interactions with the UI to prevent the user's gaze from selecting a different UI control (Pressing and holding button during eye gaze focus on source of interest [0055] among input by which source of interest may be locked onto, even when eye gaze focus goes elsewhere [0056]). This is among measures implemented to ease the challenge of gaze tracking applied to augmented reality [0060] in a crowded environment [0002].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eil as further comprising, in response to the user interacting with a first physical control, locking gaze interactions with the UI to prevent the user's gaze from selecting a different UI control, in view of the teaching of Burmistrov, to more effectively implement augmented reality in a crowded environment.
Regarding claim 2, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses the method of claim 1.
Eil does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising unlocking gaze interactions with the UI in response to the user interacting with a second physical control.
In the same field of endeavor, Burmistrov discloses a method for capturing a user’s gaze as sensor data [0006] further comprising unlocking gaze interactions with the UI in response to the user interacting with a second physical control ([0057]: Lock released, in response to button hold for predefined amount of time). This is among measures implemented to ease the challenge of gaze tracking applied to augmented reality [0060] in a crowded environment [0002].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eil as further comprising unlocking gaze interactions with the UI in response to the user interacting with a second physical control, in view of the teaching of Burmistrov, to more effectively implement augmented reality in a crowded environment.
Regarding claim 3, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses the method of claim 2. Eil discloses the method wherein the first physical control is a first function of a physical input device ([0014]: Examples of pressed physical button, actuated foot pedal).
Eil does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the second physical control is a second function of the physical input device.
In the same field of endeavor, Burmistrov discloses a method for capturing a user’s gaze as sensor data [0006] wherein the first physical control is a first function of a physical input device ([0055]: Continued tracking input is hold of button for predefined amount of time) and the second physical control is a second function of the physical input device ([0057]: Lock of continued tracking released, in response to button hold for predefined amount of time). This is among measures implemented to ease the challenge of gaze tracking applied to augmented reality [0060] in a crowded environment [0002].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eil wherein the second physical control is a second function of the physical input device, in view of the teaching of Burmistrov, to more effectively implement augmented reality in a crowded environment.
Regarding claim 7, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses the method of claim 1.
Eil does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising unlocking gaze interactions with the UI in response to the user not interacting with the first physical control for at least a first period of time.
In the same field of endeavor, Burmistrov discloses a method for capturing a user’s gaze as sensor data [0006] further comprising unlocking gaze interactions with the UI in response to the user not interacting with the first physical control for at least a first period of time [0057]. This is among measures implemented to ease the challenge of gaze tracking applied to augmented reality [0060] in a crowded environment [0002].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Eil to be modified as further comprising unlocking gaze interactions with the UI in response to the user not interacting with the first physical control for at least a first period of time, in view of the teaching of Burmistrov, to more effectively implement augmented reality in a crowded environment.
Regarding claim 8, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses the method of claim 7.
Eil does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the first period of time when the user is adapting a first parameter is different to the first period of time when the user is adapting a second, different parameter.
In the same field of endeavor, Burmistrov discloses a method for capturing a user’s gaze as sensor data [0006] wherein the first period of time when the user is adapting a first parameter is different to the first period of time when the user is adapting a second, different parameter (The amount of time required to release the “lock-on” [0057] is the sum total of time initiating the “lock-on” [0055] and the subsequent predetermined amount of time required to release). This is among measures implemented to ease the challenge of gaze tracking applied to augmented reality [0060] in a crowded environment [0002].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Eil to be modified wherein the first period of time when the user is adapting a first parameter is different to the first period of time when the user is adapting a second, different parameter, in view of the teaching of Burmistrov, to more effectively implement augmented reality in a crowded environment.
Regarding claim 9, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses the method of claim 1. Eil discloses the method wherein the UI is a medical UI configured to display a medical image [0001] and UI controls to adapt parameters of the medical image [0016].
Regarding claim 11, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses the method of claim 1. Eil discloses the method wherein the first physical control comprises at least one of a knob; a slider; a button [0014]; a dial; a switch; a rotary control/trackball/button; a touchpad; a joystick; and a scroll wheel.
Regarding claim 12, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses a computer program carrier comprising computer program code which, when executed on a computer, causes the computer to perform all of the steps (Eil | [0022]) according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses a system for controlling gaze interactivity with a user interface, UI [0010], the system comprising: a gaze tracker configured to track the gaze of a user relative to the UI (Eil | Figure 3: Comprising 350) to allow the user to select a UI control with the user's gaze (Eil | Figure 3: Comprising 360); a first physical control (Eil | [0014]: Examples of pressed physical button, actuated foot pedal) configured to adapt a parameter corresponding to a selected UI control (Eil | Selectable graphical elements issue commands encompassing settings, information [0013] embodied as surgical parameters [0016]); and a processor (Eil | Figure 1: Comprising 128) configured to perform all of the steps (Eil | [0015]) according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses the system of claim 13. Eil discloses the system further comprising the UI (Figure 1: Comprising 134).
Regarding claim 15, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses the system of claim 13. Eil discloses the system wherein the first physical control comprises at least one of a knob; a slider; a button [0014]; a dial; a switch; a rotary control/trackball/button; a touchpad; a joystick; and a scroll wheel.
ii. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eil in view of Burmistrov, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (2021/0089131; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 4, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses the method of claim 3. Eil discloses the method wherein a function comprises clicking ([0014]: Physical button pressed).
Eil in view of Burmistrov does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the physical input device comprises a rotary button, the first function comprises rotation, and the second function comprises clicking.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses wherein gaze tracking wherein the physical input device comprises a rotary button, the first function comprises rotation, and the second function comprises clicking [0029]. This is among measures implemented to make device interaction less cumbersome or uncomfortable [0004].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Eil to be modified wherein the physical input device comprises a rotary button, the first function comprises rotation, and the second function comprises clicking, in view of the teaching of Wang, to make device interaction less cumbersome and uncomfortable.
iii. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eil in view of Burmistrov, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hao (2017/0192500; this combination of references hereinafter referred to as EBH).
Regarding claim 5, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses the method of claim 1.
Eil in view of Burmistrov does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising displaying, on the UI, the value of the parameter being adapted by the user at the position of the user's gaze on the UI.
In the same field of endeavor, Hao discloses gaze tracking [0002] further comprising displaying, on the UI (Figure 3: Comprising 20), the value of the parameter (Comprising 22) being adapted by the user at the position of the user's gaze on the UI [0024]. This is among measures implemented to overcome defects of poor flexibility common in existing eye tracking [0006].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention for the method of Eil to be modified as further comprising displaying, on the UI, the value of the parameter being adapted by the user at the position of the user's gaze on the UI, in view of the teaching of Hao, to increase the flexibility in eye tracking implementation.
iii. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EBH, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Moussette et al. (2023/0019336; hereinafter Moussette).
Regarding claim 6, EBH discloses the method of claim 5.
EBH does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising adapting the position at which the parameter is displayed to avoid a region of interest on the UI, or a portion thereof, in response to the gaze of the user being on the region of interest.
In the same field of endeavor, Moussette discloses gaze tracking [0272] further comprising adapting the position at which the parameter is displayed (Figure 5Q: Comprising 5206b) to avoid a region of interest on the UI, or a portion thereof (Comprising 5204), in response to the gaze of the user being on the region of interest (Focus selector [0252] applied to inputs taking the form of eye movements [0147] determining user’s attention [0272]). This is among measures complementing conventional forms of device feedback rendered to user [0017].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Eil to be modified as further comprising adapting the position at which the parameter is displayed to avoid a region of interest on the UI, or a portion thereof, in response to the gaze of the user being on the region of interest, in view of the teaching of Moussette, to complement conventional device feedback rendered to a user.
iv. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eil in view of Burmistrov, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Josephson et al. (2024/0412460; hereinafter Josephson).
Regarding claim 10, Eil in view of Burmistrov discloses the method of claim 1.
Eil does not explicitly disclose the method wherein locking gaze interactions with the UI to prevent the user's gaze from selecting a different UI control.
In the same field of endeavor, Burmistrov discloses a method for capturing a user’s gazes as sensor data [0006] wherein locking gaze interactions with the UI to prevent the user's gaze from selecting a different UI control ([0056]: Eye gaze focus changing does not change “locked onto” source of interest). This is among measures implemented to ease the challenge of gaze tracking applied to augmented reality [0060] in a crowded environment [0002].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Eil to be modified wherein locking gaze interactions with the UI to prevent the user's gaze from selecting a different UI control, in view of the teaching of Burmistrov, to more effectively implement augmented reality in a crowded environment.
Eil in view of Burmistrov does not explicitly disclose the method wherein locking gaze interactions with the UI is further in response to determining that the user's gaze is moving towards a region of interest on the UI.
In the same field of endeavor, Josephson discloses a selection process [0119] wherein locking gaze interactions with the UI is further in response to determining that the user's gaze is moving towards a region of interest on the UI [0360]. This is among measures implemented to preserve a user’s experience of stability within the environment of an interface [0218].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Eil to be modified wherein locking gaze interactions with the UI is further in response to determining that the user's gaze is moving towards a region of interest on the UI, in view of the teaching of Josephson, to preserve a user’s sense of stability.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Midkiff whose telephone number is (571)270-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/AARON MIDKIFF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2621
/AMR A AWAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621
