Ex Parte VanBlon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2017

14258372 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2017)

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