Ex Parte VanBlon et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201714258372 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/258,372 04/22/2014 Russell Speight VanBlon RPS920130267USNP(710.403) 3614 58127 7590 05/17/2017 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC 409 BROAD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15143 EXAMINER JAVED, MAHEEN I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2694 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/17/2017 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. (INVENTORS: RUSSELL SPEIGHT VANBLON, ARNOLD S. WEKSLER, and NATHAN J. PETERSON) Appeal 2017-004089 Application 14/258,372 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, BETH Z. SHAW, and DAVID J. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—5, 8—15, and 18—23, which are the only pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is for gaze tracking with electronic devices. See Spec. 11- Appeal 2017-004089 Application 14/258,372 Claims 1 and 4 are representative and are reproduced below, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method, comprising: establishing, according to a policy, an initial calibration for a gaze tracking system, said establishing comprising: determining, using a processor of a device, an occurrence of a touch input event at the device; capturing, using a sensor of the device, image data of a user; identifying, using a processor, a screen location associated with the touch input event; and calibrating, using a processor, a gaze tracking system of the device using the occurrence of the touch input event, the image data and the screen location; wherein the policy initiates the initial calibration responsive to a trigger selected from the group consisting of: start up of the device, start up of the gaze tracking system, a gaze tracking error event, and a user initiated trigger. 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the identifying a screen location associated with the touch input event comprises coordinating timing information of the determining an occurrence of the touch input event and the capturing of the image data of the user. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 5—13, and 16—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bozarth (US 8,913,004 Bl, iss. Dec. 16, 2014). Final Act. 3—9. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bozarth and Edwards (US 2011/ 0310006 Al, pub. Dec. 22, 2011). Final Act. 9-10. 2 Appeal 2017-004089 Application 14/258,372 ANALYSIS We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting the pending claims. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Final Rejection and Answer. Final Act. 2—10; Ans. 2—3. Claim 1 Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Bozarth does not disclose “identifying, using a processor, a screen location associated with the touch input event” and “calibrating, using a processor, a gaze tracking system of the device using the occurrence of the touch input event, the image data and the screen location.” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 15—16. In particular, Appellants argue that Bozarth only calibrates the size of the boundaries to determine if the user is looking at the device or not. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 15. Moreover, Appellants argue that Bozarth only identifies that the user did touch the display, but does not identify a screen location associated with the touch input event. App. Br. 13. We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, as the Examiner finds, Bozarth describes how, in addition to using an imaging element to determine a user’s gaze, additional elements, such as “touch-sensitive elements,” “can assist in applying context to a user’s gaze direction.” Final Act. 3 (citing Bozarth, 2:43—40). Bozarth describes tracking a user’s gaze to a particular “portion of the display,” such as a text entry position. Ans. 3 (citing Bozarth, 4:29—57). Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants that 3 Appeal 2017-004089 Application 14/258,372 Bozarth does not disclose identifying a screen location associated with the touch input event. We also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Bozarth describes that the device has an eye gaze position tracking system that tracks the movement of the user’s eyes over time. Ans. 2. When a user types on a touch sensitive display element, the device interprets the user’s gaze as looking at the characters or text being entered. Id.', Final Act. 4; Bozarth 10:11—29. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Bozarth’s disclosure of its “calibration” system discloses the calibration of the gaze tracking system as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4 (citing Bozarth 10:11—29); Ans. at 2—3 (citing Bozarth 10:45—51). Dependent Claim 4 Appellants argue that Edwards fails to teach “wherein the identifying a screen location associated with the touch input event comprises coordinating timing information of the determining an occurrence of the touch input event and the capturing of the image data of the user.” App Br. 14—15. The Examiner responds that [wjhile the contextual information used in the calibration of Bozarth necessarily required timing information based on when the typing or user interaction occurred, Edwards was relied upon to determine the explicit acquisition and application of 4 Appeal 2017-004089 Application 14/258,372 timing information of a selection or input of a device in an eye tracking system for user eye gaze inferences and interpretations. Ans. 3. We agree with the Examiner that Bozarth necessarily requires timing information, and that Edwards explicitly describes coordinating the timing information of determining an occurrence of the touch input event and the capture of the image data. Edwards, for example in paragraph 29, explains that when the system receives a user input, such as clicking a small region of a computer screen, the subject’s gaze direction is assumed to be in a known direction towards the on-screen cursor location at a certain point in time such as the time of selection. Edwards 129. We agree with the Examiner that Edwards in combination with Bozarth therefore teaches or suggests the claimed “wherein the identifying a screen location associated with the touch input event comprises coordinating timing information of the determining an occurrence of the touch input event and the capturing of the image data of the user,” as recited in claim 4. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4. Remaining pending claims With respect to the remaining pending claims, Appellants merely make general allegations as to the teachings of the cited references, or reiterate substantially the same patentability arguments as those previously discussed for the above claims. See App. Br. 2—12. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertions. Consequently, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 8—15, and 18—23. 5 Appeal 2017-004089 Application 14/258,372 DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1—5, 8—15, and 18—23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation