Ex Parte Prokofieva et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

14496538 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/496,538 09/25/2014
144365 7590 11/01/2018
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anna Prokofieva
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
355819-US-NP
(1777.238US 1
CONFIRMATION NO.
4478
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANNA PROKOFIEV A, FETHIYE ASLI CELIKYILMAZ,
DILEK Z. HAKKANI-TUR, LARRY HECK,
and MALCOLM SLANEY
Appeal2018-002964
Application 14/496,538
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-21, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002964
Application 14/496,538
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure describes a method, a device, and a system for
"detecting gaze, recognizing speech, and interpreting a user's intent with
respect to visual elements in a visual context based at least in part on eye
gaze features and lexical features extracted from user input ( e.g., gaze,
speech, etc.)." Spec. ,r 2. Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying a plurality of visual elements available for
user interaction in a visual context;
receiving speech input including one or more words
spoken by a user;
extracting lexical features from the speech input;
computing a lexical similarity between the lexical
features and a particular visual element of the plurality of visual
elements;
receiving, from a tracking component, a gaze input;
determining, from the gaze input, a heat map based at
least in part upon a probabilistic model;
determining, based at least in part upon the heat map, that
the gaze input is also associated with the particular visual
element and that the gaze input is received during the receiving
of the speech input;
determining, by one or more processors, that the speech
input comprises a command directed to the particular visual
element based at least in part on the determining that the gaze
input is also associated with the particular visual element and
that the gaze input is received during the receiving of the
speech input; and
causing an action associated with the particular visual
element to be performed.
App. Br. 24 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-002964
Application 14/496,538
Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stekkelpak (US 2013/0346085 Al, published Dec. 26,
2013), Teller (US 2013/0304479 Al; published Nov. 14, 2013), Hennessey
(US 2014/0184550 Al; published July 3, 2014), and Victor
(US 2010/0033333 Al, published Feb. 11, 2010). See Final Act. 3-36.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in Appellants' Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner
has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions and concur with
the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner as explained below.
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellants contend Victor was
improperly relied on to disclose a "heat map," which was determined to be
missing in Stekkelpak. App. Br. 12. Appellants argue:
Thus, since Stekkelpak as allegedly modified by Teller
does not teach use of a heat map in determining that the gaze
input is received during the receiving of the speech input, the
combination of Hennessey with Stekkelpak as allegedly
modified by Teller does not disclose "determining, based at
least in part upon the heat map, that the gaze input is also
associated with the particular visual element and that the gaze
input is received during the receiving of the speech input," as
recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 12. Additionally, Appellants argue "[t]he combination of
Stekkelpak, Teller, and Hennessey does not correlate a heat map with the
gaze input being received during the receiving of the speech input, since
none of these references disclose use of heat map in this manner." App. Br.
12-13. Appellants assert that Victor, which was relied on by the Examiner
3
Appeal2018-002964
Application 14/496,538
as disclosing the missing limitation (see Final Act. 9 ( citing Victor ,r 21) ),
"does not teach determining a heat map and using the heat map, as recited in
claim 1." App. Br. 13. Further referring to paragraph 21 of Victor,
Appellants assert:
Victor appears to recite a listing of measurements similarly
recited in the Abstract and claim 2 of WO 2003070093 Al. In
an electronic scan of Victor, no further discussion of measuring
or using a driver's facial temperature image was found. In
addition, Victor does not disclose a driver's facial temperature
image determined using gaze input. Victor appears void of any
discussion regarding details of measuring a driver's facial
temperature image.
App. Br. 14. Additionally, Appellants refer to Figure 30 and paragraph 238
of Victor and argue:
Figure 30 of Victor shows a density surface, where the time the
driver looks in a certain direction is described by the gaze
density in terms of gaze yaw and gaze pitch in this area. Cited
paragraph [0013] relates to noting that there is significant work
in eye tracking related research and that this technology is
expanding though some methods in one approach do not work
well in other systems. Paragraphs [0278]-[0288] of Victor
cited in the Final Office Action mention probabilistic
approaches to identifying fixation and eye movements with
respect to eye tracking, but not to a heat map. From an
electronic review of Victor, Victor did not appear to provide
any correlation of a probabilistic analysis in the determination
of a most likely identification of eye fixation and movement to
a driver' [ s] facial temperature image. Therefore, the
combination of Figure 30 and paragraphs [0013] and [0278]-
[0288] also does not teach determining, from a gaze input, a
heat map, and the combination also does not teach determining
a heat map based on upon a probabilistic model. Further, the
combination of Figure 30 and paragraphs [0013] and [0278]-
[0288] does not disclose determining, based at least in part
upon a heat map, that a gaze input is also associated with a
4
Appeal2018-002964
Application 14/496,538
particular visual element and that the gaze input is received
during the receiving of a speech input.
App. Br. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions. First, one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCP A 1981 ). Appellants' argument that the combination of
Stekkelpak, Teller, and Hennessey fails to teach "determining, based ...
upon the heat map, that the gaze input is also associated with the particular
visual element" fails to address the Examiner's specific finding that Victor
discloses determining a heat map using the gaze input. See Final Act. 9,
Ans. 4 (citing Victor,r,r 13, 21,267, 278-288). As Appellant's arguments
do not specifically address the Examiner's findings supporting the rejection,
they are not persuasive.
Second, as explained by the Examiner, the rejection is based on
combining Victor with the teachings of Stekkelpak, Teller, and Hennessey.
Victor discloses the recited "determining, from the gaze input, a heat map
based at least in part upon a probabilistic model" as the measurement of the
driver's eye-gaze direction and using an algorithm for determining the
probability of an eye tracker. See Final Act. 9, Ans. 2-5. Contrary to
Appellants' discussion of Victor (see Reply Br. 2-3), we observe that Victor
is directed to "analyzing data based on the physiological orientation of a
driver ... [the data being] descriptive of a driver's gaze-direction" wherein
the data is processed to determine a "location of driver interest." See Victor
Abstract. More specifically, Victor discloses eye-tracking methods and data
5
Appeal2018-002964
Application 14/496,538
analysis based on the driver's eye-gaze direction, head position/orientation,
and facial movements. See Victor ,r,r 13, 21-27. As correctly found by the
Examiner (Ans. 4), Victor determines the location and position of facial
features using "a template-matching algorithm" that is further used in an
eye-gaze direction algorithm. See Victor ,r,r 267-268.
Lastly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' assertion that the Examiner
has altered the basis of the rejection as Victor's paragraphs 13 and 278-288
to identify a probabilistic approach to eye tracking. See Reply Br. 4. We
agree with the Examiner's finding (Ans. 4) that Victor's disclosure of using
an algorithm for probabilistic analysis, which identifies the areas of most
likely positions of the eye tracker for maximizing the probabilities of the
areas where the eye-gaze is directed, meets the recited "determining, from
the gaze input, a heat map." See Victor ,r,r 267, 238, Fig. 30. This finding is
consistent with Appellants' description of "heat map" as "a probabilistic
model of what a user 102 may be looking at in a visual context" which is
calculated from "gaze input 112 ( e.g., eye gaze, head pose, etc.)." Spec.
,r 51.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1 and independent claims 9 and 15, and their dependent claims, which
Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 16-22;
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-21.
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).
6
Appeal2018-002964
Application 14/496,538
AFFIRMED
7