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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 March 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10 March 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 – 17, 19 – 22, and 24 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 (line 8) and Claim 28 (line 8) each recite the term “directly toward at least one of the user.” It is unclear if it is intended to be one “eye” of a user, one user, or something else associated with the user. For the purposes of examination, the term “directly toward at least one of the user” is deemed to claim “directly toward the at least one eye of the user.” Claims 17, 19 – 22, 24 – 27, and 29 – 30 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claims 16 and 28.
Claim 16 (line 5 - 8) and Claim 28 (line 5 - 8) each recite the term “a diffuser disposed within the cavity in front of the at least one eye of the user to provide a diffused light, said at least one light source emitting light toward the diffuser or directly toward at least one of the user to expose the user to either a homogeneous or punctual light or both simultaneously”. As phrased, if the light source emits light toward the diffuser, it will provide a diffused light. However, if the light source emits the light directly toward the user, it would appear to be indicating an alternative that bypasses the diffused light, such that the diffused light is not provided. It is unclear how the light source could provide either diffuse light or direct light, when it is previously-recited to at least positively provide diffuse light. For the purposes of examination, the term “a diffuser disposed within the cavity in front of the at least one eye of the user to provide a diffused light, said at least one light source emitting light toward the diffuser or directly toward at least one of the user to expose the user to either a homogeneous or punctual light or both simultaneously” is deemed to claim “a diffuser disposed within the cavity in front of the at least one eye of the user and configured to provide a diffused light, said at least one light source configured to emit light toward the diffuser and/or directly toward at least one of the user to expose the user to either a homogeneous light, a punctual light, or both simultaneously.” Claims 17, 19 – 22, 24 – 27, and 29 – 30 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claims 16 and 28.
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.
Claims 16 – 17, 19 – 21, 24, 26 – 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AzimI et. al. (WO 2019/152619 A1), in view of Haq et. al., “Eye-Blink rate detection for fatigue determination”, further in view of Jackson et. al., (US 2020/0093362 A1).
Regarding Claims 16 and 28, Azimi discloses
For Claim 16: A device ([0089] “optical see-through head-mounted display device “) comprising:
For Claim 28: A method ([All of [0003]), the method comprising positioning the device on a head of the user such that said sensing circuit ([0073] “Eye tracking device 820”, Fig 8; [0033] “the eye tracking device may be integrated into or otherwise coupled to the OST-HMD”) faces at least one eye of the user (Fig 2A, shown covering both eyes of the face; [0018] “OST-HMD (e.g., a stereoscopic OST-HMD”; [0003]) (Examiner notes that an OST-HMD is a well-known type of head-mounted display and sensor device);
For the remainder of both Claims 16 and 28:
a casing forming a cavity (Fig. 2A “eye tracking device”; Fig. 3; [0033])(Examiner notes that the headset pictured broadly has a casing that fits over the patient’s eyes, with a cavity that sits on the bridge of the user’s nose in which the eyes can reside.);
at least one light source ([0033] “one or more projectors”) for stimulating at least one eye of the user ([0018] “presenting a pair of two-dimensional perspective images of a three-dimensional virtual scene (e.g., a first perspective image for a left eye and a second perspective image for a right eye).”; [0033] “can create a pattern of infrared or near-infrared light on the user's eyes”), said at least one light source being lodged in the cavity ([0033] “the eye tracking device may include one or more projectors that can create a pattern of infrared or near-infrared light on the user's eyes”),
a sensing circuit ([0073] “Eye tracking device 820”, Fig 8) configured to face at least one eye area of the user ([0018] ”eye”; [0033] “blinks”, which concern the eye and eyelids) when the device is worn by the user ([0089] “a user wearing the optical see-through head-mounted display device”)(Examiner notes that an OST-HMD is glasses-type headwear. The eye-tracking is facing the eye area in order to optically detect signals/capture images of the eye), the sensing circuit ([0073] “Eye tracking device 820”, Fig 8) being configured to remotely acquire at least one signal ([0032] “information obtained by an eye tracking device”; [0033] “high-resolution images of the user's eyes and the pattern created thereon may be used to detect one or more blinks based on the gaze information”, “blink(s) lasting a duration and/or having a peak velocity that satisfies a threshold value”) representative of at least one characteristic ([0032] “detect one or more blinks based on the gaze information”) of said at least one eye area ([0018] ”eye”; [0033] “blinks”, which concern the eye and eyelids), and
a controller ([0033] “one or more algorithms (e.g., machine learning algorithms, image processing algorithms, mathematical algorithms, and/or the like”; “processor 920”, Fig 9, [0078] “eye tracking device 820, positional tracking device 830, and/or calibration platform 840 may include one or more devices 900 and/or one or more components of device 900. As shown in Fig. 9, device 900 may include a bus 910, a processor 920”)(Examiner notes that the presence of the algorithms indicates a controller to implement said algorithms, such as “processor 920”)
wherein said sensing circuit ([0073] “Eye tracking device 820”, Fig 8) further includes a transmitter ([0033] “one or more projectors…”) configured to transmit a first signal toward the at least one eye area ([0033] “…that can create a pattern of infrared or near-infrared light on the user's eyes”), and a receptor ([0033] “one or more cameras”) configured to receive a second signal corresponding to the first signal reflected by the at least one eye area ([0033] “that capture high-resolution images of the user's eyes and the pattern created thereon.”; ([0018] ”eye”; [0033] “blinks”, which concern the eye and eyelids)(Examiner notes that the “pattern created thereon” is the “pattern of infrared light” first signal from the infrared projector transmitter), and
wherein said sensing circuit ([0073] “Eye tracking device 820”, Fig 8) further includes at least one infrared sensor facing the at least one eye area ([0033] “one or more projectors that can create a pattern of infrared or near-infrared light on the user's eyes and one or more cameras that capture high-resolution images of the user's eyes and the pattern created thereon.” (Examiner notes that the cameras are sensors for infrared light when they are capturing the images of the infrared “pattern”) when the device is worn by the user ([0089] “a user wearing the optical see-through head-mounted display device”)(Examiner notes that an OST-HMD is glasses-type headwear. The eye-tracking is facing the eye area in order to optically detect signals/capture images of the eye).
Azimi does not specifically disclose a device for determining a change in a visual comfort of a user, and configured to determine a change in the visual comfort of the user depending on a variation of said at least one signal acquired by the sensing circuit; said at least one light source being combined with a diffuser disposed within the cavity in front of the at least one eve of the user to provide a diffused light, said at least one light source emitting light toward the diffuser or directly toward at least one of the user to expose the user to either a homogeneous or punctual light or both simultaneously; and said at least one infrared sensor being disposed behind the diffuser.
Azimi does broadly disclose at [0037] - [0038] “blink rates, blink speeds, and/or the like can be affected by elements such as fatigue, eye injury, medication, disease, and/or the like,” and “users may become fatigued after several repetitions performing the alignment task, one or more threshold values may be adjusted based on the number of alignment repetitions that the user has performed.” Therefore, Azimi discloses that the threshold for the “Eye tracking device 820” is dependent on a user’s fatigue levels or change in visual comfort over time with the image exposures, and that the threshold will change.
Haq teaches a prior art comparable device (an eye tracking camera) and method that is used to perform a method directly focused on determining a change in a person’s “level of attentiveness” in term of “feeling fatigued or drowsy” via eye blinks data in order to reduce automotive crashes resulting from reductions in drivers’ visual comfort and acuity due to fatigue. Specifically for Claims 16 and 28, Haq teaches a device ([Page 3, IV. Result Section] “the camera”) for determining a change ([Pages 1 – 4], including Abstract: “the eyeblink rate which if varied from the average threshold level determined that the person is fatigued or low on attention.”) in a visual comfort of a user (([Pages 1 – 4], including Abstract: “the person is fatigued or low on attention.” And [Page 1, Right Column] “So it gets clear that depending on the situation the person is in and his focus on the work at hand, his blinking rate is changed.”)(Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification (page 7) describes a “change in the visual comfort” as a “form of a visual discomfort or a modification of visual performance”. An increase in fatigue for a person reduces their visual performance. Per Haq’s teaching, the change in performance due to fatigue is such that it when it occurs while driving, it “has been a cause in 30% of the road accidents that take place” [Page 1, I. Introduction] This is a change in visual performance and a change in a visual comfort of a user ). and
configured to determine a change ([Pages 1 – 4], including Abstract: “the eyeblink rate which if varied from the average threshold level determined that the person is fatigued or low on attention.”) in the visual comfort of the user depending on a variation of said at least one signal ([Pages 1 – 4], including Abstract: “the eyeblink rate which if varied from the average threshold level determined that the person is fatigued or low on attention.”) acquired by the sensing circuit “([Page 2], III. Methodology: “camera is adjusted in such a way that a complete image of the face is available. Once the image of the face in obtained, it is used in the Viola-Jones eye detection. The result is the eye-candidate detected.”).
Regarding the combination of the Azimi’s disclosure and Haq’s teaching for Claims 16 and 28 (and their dependent claims), Haq teaches a prior art comparable device (an eye tracking camera) that is used to perform a method directly focused on determining a change in a person’s “level of attentiveness” in term of “feeling fatigued or drowsy” via eye blinks in order to reduce automotive crashes resulting from reductions in drivers’ visual comfort and acuity due to fatigue. Azimi is open to determine a change in the visual comfort of the user in [0038] when describing their thresholds for determining eye blinks concerning fatigue. Azimi discloses [0038] “users may become fatigued after several repetitions performing the alignment task, one or more threshold values may be adjusted based on the number of alignment repetitions that the user has performed.” Therefore, Azimi discloses that the threshold for the “Eye tracking device 820” is dependent on a user’s fatigue levels or change in visual comfort over time with the image exposures, and that the threshold will change.
Azimi discloses the motivation to combine Azimi’s disclosure for tracking eye-blinks and fatigue-associated thresholds with Haq’s teaching with its method of determining numbers of blinks associated with fatigue (or change in visual comfort of the user), as discussed above. Haq teaches that their calibration yields a “blink rate which varied from the average threshold level determined that the person is fatigued or low on attention”. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that calibrating the eye detection camera and algorithm with a “blink rate” signal target to identify how a person’s visual comfort is changing due to fatigue, as Haq does in the entirety of “Eye-Blink rate detection for fatigue determination”, would be useful to yield an all-in-one device and method to identify changes in visual comfort of a user via blink detection. One skilled in the art would have readily recognized that the eye tracking cameras (Azimi’s “Eye tracking device 820”, and Haq’s “camera” and methodology for blink-rate associated with changes in fatigue or attentiveness) could be targeting blink-rate measurements over time, and that analyzing blink-rate would give a reliable indicator of user visual comfort associated with fatigue.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the “Eye tracking device 820” and algorithm disclosed in Azimi and the “camera” and eye-blinking analysis methodology taught by Haq, creating a single apparatus to determine a change in the visual comfort of a user.
Haq does not disclose said at least one light source being combined with a diffuser disposed within the cavity in front of the at least one eve of the user to provide a diffused light, said at least one light source emitting light toward the diffuser or directly toward at least one of the user to expose the user to either a homogeneous or punctual light or both simultaneously; and said at least one infrared sensor being disposed behind the diffuser.
Jackson teaches methods and systems for performing an ophthalmic diagnostic test using a head-wearable frame with a cavity having a light source within, a diffuser through which the light may pass, and an infrared camera sensor thereon ([Abstract]; Fig. 14A – B; [0050]; [0386] – [0387]; [0050]; [0211]). Specifically for Claims 16 and 28, Jackson teaches a casing forming a cavity ([0386] “a housing 1430…any suitable housing available in the art…”; Fig. 14A and 14B; [0392] “head-wearable device 100 shown in FIG. 1A…”; Fig. 1A), said at least one light source being lodged in the cavity ([0386] “FIGS. 14A-14B illustrate a high-level cross-sectional view 1400, 1400′ of some of the optics that can be used in a head-wearable implementation…”; “…the light sources…can be disposed in a housing 1430…any suitable housing available in the art…fixation light 1405…”; [0386] ““…the light sources…can be disposed in a housing 1430…”; [0392] “head-wearable device 100 shown in FIG. 1A…”; Fig. 1A), said at least one light source being combined with a diffuser disposed within the cavity ([0387] “…the fixation light 1405 can be presented through a diffusor 1406…”; Fig. 14A and 14B; [0392] “head-wearable device 100 shown in FIG. 1A…”; Fig. 1A) in front of the at least one eve of the user to provide a diffused light ([0385] “a neutral density filter and ground glass diffusor are introduced between the LED and image plane”; Fig 14A and 14B), said at least one light source emitting light toward the diffuser ([0387] “fixation light 1405 can be presented through a diffusor 1406”; Figs. 14A- B) or directly toward at least one of the user to expose the user to either a homogeneous or punctual light ([0387] “fixation light 1405 can be presented through a diffusor 1406…image uniformity (e.g. no hot spots)”; Figs. 14A- B; [0388]) or both simultaneously; and said at least one infrared sensor being disposed behind the diffuser ([0050] “an infrared detector mounted in the frame for detecting at least a portion of the infrared light returning from the at least one eye”; “…the infrared detector can comprise an infrared camera...”; [0211] “…infrared light detector IRD of the pupil tracking mechanism 205 can be disposed on any suitable position in the housing 201 and/or the headset 102...such as adjacent to the optical interfaces 122L, 122R, adjacent to the transparent windows 123L, 123R…on the wall of the rear housing inside the eye chamber including the rear housing, eye cups, and/or on the disposable light seal, adjacent to the eye.; Fig. 14A and 14B)
Jackson provides a motivation to combine at [0385] with “Hotspots can be eliminated through use of a ground glass diffusor or other suitable diffuser materials known in the art when the stimulus is presented.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that including a diffuser for the light source would be useful for generating a uniform light stimulus to the user during testing without “hot spots”. Further, Azimi and Jackson both disclose and teach using infrared cameras as infrared sensors for eye data: Azimi with the [Azimi: [0033] “one or more projectors that can create a pattern of infrared or near-infrared light on the user's eyes and one or more cameras that capture high-resolution images of the user's eyes and the pattern created thereon…” and Jackson with the [Jackson: [0050] “infrared detector mounted in the frame…” that is [Jackson: [0289] “an infrared camera…” Jackson particularly discloses a motivation to combine, that the infrared camera is attached to the headset (Jackson: [0050]; [0211]) at “any suitable point”, and that point would be recognized by a person with ordinary skill in the art as being able to be broadly behind the diffuser. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that including the infrared detected on the headset would be useful for ensuring that the sensor can be aligned with the user’s eye while in use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the infrared detector camera(s) disclosed in Azimi in view of Haq with the infrared camera connected at any suitable point on a headset with a diffuser taught by Jackson, creating a single headset apparatus to determine a change in the visual comfort of a user with a diffuser to create a uniform light pattern and an infrared camera mounted to maintain alignment with the subject’s eye.
Regarding Claim 17, Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson discloses, as described above, The device according to claim 16. For the remainder of Claim 17, Azimi discloses wherein said sensing circuit ([0073] “Eye tracking device 820”, Fig 8) is a contactless sensing circuit ([0033] “one or more cameras”) with regard to said at least one eye area for acquisition ([0033] “…that capture high-resolution images of the user's eyes and the pattern created thereon”) of said at least one signal ([0032] “information obtained by an eye tracking device”; [0033] “high-resolution images of the user's eyes and the pattern created thereon may be used to detect one or more blinks based on the gaze information”, “blink(s) lasting a duration and/or having a peak velocity that satisfies a threshold value.”)
Regarding Claim 19, Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson discloses, as described above, The device according to claim 16 wherein said controller (See citation in claim 16). For the remainder of Claim 19, Azimi discloses is further configured to determine a variation of intensity and/or frequency of a second signal [[0033] “high-resolution images of the user's eyes and the pattern created thereon may be used to detect one or more blinks based on the gaze information”, “blink(s) lasting a duration and/or having a peak velocity that satisfies a threshold value”)(Examiner notes that it is determining a differing frequency of detected measurements for blinks) and to correlate said variation to a response ([0038] “users may become fatigued after several repetitions performing the alignment task, one or more threshold values may be adjusted based on the number of alignment repetitions that the user has performed.”;[“alignment task” Process described in 0012] including “a user wearing the OST-HMD is tasked with aligning a virtual feature (e.g., a crosshair) displayed on a screen of the OST-HMD”)(Examiner notes that the variation in the frequency of detected blinks is correlated to a changing in the user’s fatigue levels, necessitating a change in the “threshold” used to detect voluntary blinks, as described in the threshold-setting paragraphs; [0033] – [0038]) of the at least one eye area ([0018] ”eye”; [0033] “blinks”, which concern the eye and eyelids) to a light stimulus ([0012] “a virtual feature (e.g., a crosshair)”; [0018] “presenting a pair of two-dimensional perspective images of a three-dimensional virtual scene (e.g., a first perspective image for a left eye and a second perspective image for a right eye).”) provided by said at least one light source ([Process described in 0012] including “a user wearing the OST-HMD is tasked with aligning a virtual feature (e.g., a crosshair) displayed on a screen of the OST-HMD”; [0018] “left eye projection operator and a right eye projection operator”)(Examiner notes that the images and crosshair are light images displayed on the headmounted display screens.)
Regarding Claim 20, Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson discloses, as described above, The device according to claim 16. For the remainder of Claim 20, Azimi discloses wherein said characteristic of said at least one eye area ([0018] ”eye”; [0033] “one or more blinks”, which concern the eye and eyelids) includes at least one among a position of at least one eyelid ([0033] “blinks”)(Examiner notes that the action of blinking is changing the position of an eyelid), a position of a pupil and a size of the pupil.
Regarding Claim 21, Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson discloses, as described above, The device according to claim 16, wherein said controller. For the remainder of Claim 21, Azimi does not disclose is further configured to perform a calibration of the sensing circuit to obtain a first and a second values of the second signal respectively corresponding to a first and a second states of the eye of the user. Azimi is open to performing a calibration given states of the eye of the user in all of [0035] when it discloses a process of determining thresholds for the user to “register” a “voluntary blink” to interact with the system, including “a double blink, a rapid succession of multiple blinks, and/or the like can be used to register the voluntary blink.” Examiner notes that a “registration” is a calibration process, and the “registration” process of Azimi requires the person to consciously achieve “open” and “closed” states of the eye in a particular sequence such as “double blink” or “multiple blinks”. Azimi does not specifically disclose that an image is obtained in each of these states.
Haq teaches a prior art comparable device (an eye tracking camera) that uses a specific calibration method of baseline images to train its eye detection camera and algorithm to detect “open” and “closed” eyes for “blinks”. Regarding Claim 21, Haq teaches to perform a calibration ([Page 3, IV. Result Section] starting with “The first step is to take an original image from the camera with which the entire set of images or frames from a video has to be compared.” – [Page 3, IV. Result section] “This is our threshold for the comparison.” of the sensing circuit ([Page 3, IV. Result Section] “the camera”) to obtain a first [Result Section, Paragraph 3] “The pixel values of the open eyes gives us the value of the white cornea and the black pupil. The white cornea pixel value varies from 115 to 135 and the pixel value of the black pupil was found to be in the range of 50-65 depending upon the color concentration.”), and a second values [Result Section, Paragraph 3] “closed eyes image the pixel values are found to be in the range of 70 to 80 and more towards the black color concentration”)(Examiner notes that the value corresponding to closed eyes is between 70 and 80) of the second signal ([Page 2, III. Methodology] “ the pixel values of certain coordinates of the region detected” in the image) respectively corresponding to a first (Fig 2 and Fig 3, Image of eyes, and the subject’s eyes are open)(Examiner notes that this is the “eyes open” state) and a second states of the eye of the user (Fig 3, The subject’s eyes are closed)(Examiner notes that this is the “eyes closed” state).
For baseline calibration, Azimi discloses the motivation to combine Azimi’s disclosure with Haq’s teaching with its “registration” process of determining thresholds for voluntary blinks, as discussed above. Haq teaches that their calibration yields a threshold useful for detecting blinks [Page 4, IV. Result, Left column] “…Now the pixel values show a definite change between the closed eyes and the open eyes.” A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that calibrating the eye detection camera and algorithm with a baseline image dataset of statically-identified “open eyes” and “closed eyes”, as Haq does for the eyes in “IV. Result”, would yield a definite, more reliable threshold for determining open vs closed eyes in blink detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the “Eye tracking device 820” and blink calibration disclosed in Azimi and the “camera” and “methodology for eye-detection” baseline eyes “open” and “closed” calibration taught by Haq, creating a single apparatus calibrated with a clear threshold to identify open and closed eyes for detecting blinks.
Regarding Claim 24, Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson discloses, as described above, The device according to claim 16. For the remainder of Claim 24, Azimi discloses wherein said sensing circuit ([0073] “Eye tracking device 820”, Fig 8) includes an image acquisition system ([0033] “one or more cameras”) for acquiring at least one image of said at least one eye area ([0033] “…that capture high-resolution images of the user's eyes and the pattern created thereon”).
Regarding Claim 26, Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson discloses, as described above, The device according to claim 24. For the remainder of Claim 26, Azimi discloses wherein the device ([0089] “optical see-through head-mounted display device “) is a binocular device (Fig 2A, shown covering both eyes of the face; [0018] “OST-HMD (e.g., a stereoscopic OST-HMD”) (Examiner notes that an OST-HMD is an “optical see-through head-mounted display device”), said at least one light source ([0033] “one or more projectors”; also, [0018] “left eye projection operator and a right eye projection operator”) being configured to stimulate at least one eye of the user ([0033] “can create a pattern of infrared or near-infrared light on the user's eyes”; also, [0018] “presenting a pair of two-dimensional perspective images of a three-dimensional virtual scene (e.g., a first perspective image for a left eye and a second perspective image for a right eye).”).
Regarding Claim 27, Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson discloses, as described above, The device according to claim 16. For the remainder of Claim 27, Azimi discloses wherein said at least one eye area ( [0018] ”eye”; [0033] “blinks”, which concern the eye and eyelids) includes at least one among lower and upper eyelids ([0033] “blinks”)(Examiner notes that the action of blinking is changing the position of an eyelid), an eyebrow, an eyelash and an eye ([0033] “the user's eyes”).
Regarding Claim 30, Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson discloses, as described above, The method according to claim 28. For the remainder of Claim 30, Azimi discloses wherein the method is a computer-implemented method (Fig 9; Paragraphs [0078] – [0085] explains computer-implementation, including at [0078] “Fig. 9 is a diagram of example components of a device 900. Device 900 may correspond to display device 810, eye tracking device 820…” and [0083] “Device 900 may perform one or more processes described herein. Device 900 may perform these processes based on processor 920 executing software instructions stored by a nontransitory computer-readable medium, such as memory 930 and/or storage component 940.”)
Claims 22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson, further in view of Zakharov (US 2020/0297206 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson discloses, as described above, The device according to claim 21, wherein the sensing circuit, when at least one user eye area is in a first state, and when an area of the user is in a second state.
Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson does not disclose includes a switch reachable by the user to provide during said calibration to the controller a signal representative of at least one characteristic of said at least one eye area and a signal representative of at least one characteristic of said at least one eye area.
Zakharov teaches a prior art comparable device (a wearable device eye tracking camera) that uses a specific calibration method of user-input button presses to train its eye detection camera and algorithm to detect “open” and “closed” eyes to [0009] “derive a blinking pattern of the user” to assess eye health conditions of the user ([Abstract]). Regarding Claim 22, Zakharov teaches the sensing circuit ([0071] “wearable device 505”) further includes a switch reachable by the user ([0073] “a button on the frame of the wearable device”) to provide during said calibration ([0073] “calibration data”) to the controller ([0073] “by a mapping algorithm”; [0009] “..controller may be adapted to accept an input from the user via buttons…additional sensors adapted to derive a blinking pattern of the user as a reference”) a signal ([0073] “obtaining information about the blink state from an independent reference signal”) representative of at least one characteristic of said at least one eye area ([0073] “eyes”) when at least one user eye area is in a first state ([0073] “(for example single tap means eyes open”)),
and a signal ([0073] “obtaining information about the blink state from an independent reference signal”) representative of at least one characteristic of said at least one eye area ([0073] “eyes”) from the switch ([0073] “…user input may be represented by pressing a button on the frame of the wearable device, tapping on the frame (for example single tap means eyes open, double tap means eyes closed)”) when an area of the user is in a second state ([0073] “(for example…double tap means eyes closed”)).
As discussed in Claim 21, Azimi is open to performing a calibration given states of the eye of the user and conscious input from the user for “double blinks” and “multiple blinks” in a “registration process” in [0035]. Regarding button-press or switch input from the user, Azimi discloses, [0081] “Input component 950 includes a component that permits device 900 to receive information, such as via user input (e.g., a touch screen display, a keyboard, a keypad, a mouse, a button, a switch, and/or a microphone).” It is optional to receive user inputs via button presses to calibrate the device.
For baseline calibration, Azimi discloses the motivation to combine Azimi’s disclosure and Zakharov’s teaching with its “registration” process of determining thresholds for voluntary blinks and optional user “input component 950” “button” or “switch” , as discussed above. Zakharov teaches at [0073] that their user button-press calibration can be used to calibrate a “mapping algorithm” with “raw measurement data, reference data and context data” by “obtaining information about the blink state from an independent reference signal”, which yields information useful to “relate the measured raw signals to the actual eye activity”. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that calibrating the eye detection camera and algorithm with user input of what their eye is consciously doing (“open” or “closed”), as Zakharov does with a button press (or presses), would yield a definite, more reliable threshold for determining open vs closed eyes in blink detection. This is the same goal of the baseline images in Haq, and would serve as an additional, compatible confirmation of “open” and “closed” eye baseline.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the “Eye tracking device 820”, blink calibration, and “input component 950” disclosed in Azimi and the “button on the frame of the wearable device” and user input for ” baseline eyes “open” and “closed” calibration taught by Zakharov, creating a single apparatus calibrated with a clear threshold to identify open and closed eyes for detecting blinks.
Regarding Claim 29, Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson discloses, as described above, The method according to claim 28.
For the remainder of Claim 29, Azimi does not disclose wherein the sensing circuit includes a switch reachable by the user and said method further comprises: implementing a calibration sequence including, prior to the remotely acquiring: receiving a signal representative of at least one characteristic of said at least one eye area from the switch when at least one area of the user is in a first state, remotely acquiring a first calibration signal representative of said first state of said at least one eye area, determining a first value corresponding to the first state of the eye of the user depending on the first calibration signal, receiving a signal representative of at least one characteristic of said at least one eye area from the switch when the area of the user is in a second state, remotely acquiring a second calibration signal representative of said second state of said at least one eye area, determining a second value corresponding to the second state of the eye of the user depending on the second calibration signal, and recording the first and second values.
Haq teaches wherein said method further comprises:
implementing a calibration sequence ([Page 3, IV. Result Section] starting with “The first step is to take an original image from the camera with which the entire set of images or frames from a video has to be compared.” – [Page 3, IV. Result section] “This is our threshold for the comparison.” prior to the remotely acquiring ([Page 3, V. Conclusion] “the original image has to be stored beforehand”):
remotely acquiring ([Result Section, Paragraph 1] “take an original image from the camera”) a first calibration signal representative of said first state (Fig 2 and Fig 3, Image of eyes, and the subject’s eyes are open)(Examiner notes that this is the “eyes open” state) of said at least one eye area (Figure 3, eyes),
determining a first value corresponding to the first state of the eye of the user depending on the first calibration signal ([Result Section, All of Paragraph 4] “Using the pixel values determined above, we can determine whether the eyes are open or closed.”; [Result Section, Paragraph 3] “The pixel values of the open eyes gives us the value of the white cornea and the black pupil. The white cornea pixel value varies from 115 to 135 and the pixel value of the black pupil was found to be in the range of 50-65 depending upon the color concentration.”),
remotely acquiring a second calibration signal representative of said second state (Fig 3, Image of eyes, and the subject’s eyes are closed; ([Page 2, III. Methodology] “ the pixel values of certain coordinates of the region detected” in the image)(Examiner notes that this is the “eyes closed” state) of said at least one eye area (Figure 4, eyes),
determining a second value corresponding to the second state of the eye of the user depending on the second calibration signal ([Result Section, All of Paragraph 4] “Using the pixel values determined above, we can determine whether the eyes are open or closed.”; [Result Section, Paragraph 3] “closed eyes image the pixel values are found to be in the range of 70 to 80 and more towards the black color concentration”)(Examiner notes that the value corresponding to closed eyes is between and
recording the first and second values ([Result Section, All] including “This is our threshold for the comparison.”; and “The output of this portion of the work is taken as input to the microprocessor” (Examiner notes that in order to perform the process described in “Result” the thresholds are recorded as the part of that “output” so that the video can be analyzed against the thresholds for the “eye-blink rate.”)
Haq does not teach the sensing circuit includes a switch reachable by the user and
receiving a signal representative of at least one characteristic of said at least one eye area from the switch when at least one area of the user is in a first state, and receiving a signal representative of at least one characteristic of said at least one eye area from the switch when the area of the user is in a second state.
Zakharov teaches the sensing circuit ([0071] “wearable device 505”) includes a switch ([0073] “a button”) reachable by the user ([0073] “a button on the frame of the wearable device”) and
receiving a signal ([0073] “obtaining information about the blink state from an independent reference signal”) representative of at least one characteristic of said at least one eye area ([0073] “eyes”) from the switch ([0073] “…user input may be represented by pressing a button on the frame of the wearable device, tapping on the frame (for example single tap means eyes open, double tap means eyes closed)”) when at least one area of the user is in a first state ([0073] “(for example single tap means eyes open”)), and receiving a signal ([0073] “obtaining information about the blink state from an independent reference signal”) representative of at least one characteristic of said at least one eye area ([0073] “eyes”) from the switch ([0073] “…user input may be represented by pressing a button on the frame of the wearable device, tapping on the frame (for example single tap means eyes open, double tap means eyes closed)”) when the area of the user is in a second state ([0073] “(for example…double tap means eyes closed”),.
For baseline calibration, Azimi discloses the motivation to combine Azimi’s disclosure and Zakharov’s teaching with its “registration” process of determining thresholds for voluntary blinks and optional user “input component 950” “button” or “switch” ([0035], [0081]), as discussed above. Zakharov teaches at [0073] that their user button-press calibration can be used to calibrate a “mapping algorithm” with “raw measurement data, reference data and context data” by “obtaining information about the blink state from an independent reference signal”, which yields information useful to “relate the measured raw signals to the actual eye activity”. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that calibrating the eye detection camera and algorithm with user input of what their eye is consciously doing (“open” or “closed”), as Zakharov does with a button press (or presses), would yield a definite, more reliable threshold for determining open vs closed eyes in blink detection. This is the same goal of the baseline images in Haq, and would serve as an additional, compatible confirmation of “open” and “closed” eye baseline.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the “Eye tracking device 820”, blink calibration, and “input component 950” disclosed in Azimi and the “button on the frame of the wearable device” and user input for ” baseline eyes “open” and “closed” calibration taught by Zakharov, creating a single apparatus calibrated with a clear threshold to identify open and closed eyes for detecting blinks.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson, and further in view of Chang, et.al., (KR20110077059A).
Regarding Claim 25, Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson discloses, as described above, The device according to claim 24, wherein said image acquisition system is configured to acquire.
For the remainder of Claim 25, Azimi in view of Haq and Jackson does not disclose at least one tridimensional image of said at least one eye area.
Chang teaches a prior art comparable device (a facial recognition camera with eye extraction capabilities) that uses a specific image-capture method of camera arrangement shooting positions and 3d image processing to obtain tridimensional images of a person’s eye area. Regarding Claim 25, Chang teaches wherein said image acquisition system ([Lines 36 - 38] “image capturing unit”, “face recognition system”, and “A three-dimensional image forming unit”) is configured to acquire at least one tridimensional image ([Lines 33 – 35 and 38] “a face recognition system using multiple cameras capable of accurately recognizing a person by forming a three-dimensional image”; of said at least one eye area ([Lines 38 – 40] “a face and facial element extracting unit for extracting facial elements including face and nose, mouth, jaw and eye from a three-dimensional image”).
Chang provides a motivation to combine with [Lines 15 - 17] “stereo matching is commonly used as a 3D image extraction technique in the field of computer vision” and [Line 147] “a very good quality 3-dimensional image can be obtained”. For mapping 3-dimensional features, Azimi discloses mapping capabilities for the outward-facing cameras of the ([0089] “optical see-through head-mounted display device“ and associated “Eye tracking device 820”, at [0026] with “three-dimensional points in a real-world coordinate system tracked by a positional tracking device”. Azimi is open to combine with a 3D mapping method directed toward the face, as taught by Chang, as it already has algorithms and a camera set-up for mapping in the 3D space outward. Chang discloses the motivation to combine Azimi’s disclosure and Chang’s teaching with in that “a very good quality 3-dimensional image can be obtained” and that “stereo matching is commonly used as a 3D image extraction technique in the field of computer vision”. This would yield information useful to determine characteristics associated with an eye area’s activity. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that utilizing a image-capture method of camera arrangement and well-known image processing to obtain tridimensional images of a person’s eye area, as Chang does, would yield a quality 3D image for eye area analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the “Eye tracking device 820” and [0033] “algorithms” disclosed in Azimi and Chang’s image-capture method of camera arrangement and image processing with “image capturing unit”, “face recognition system”, and “A three-dimensional image forming unit”, creating a single apparatus capable of obtaining tridimensional images of an eye area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101
Based on the amendments to Claim 16 with the addition of the casing, light source combined with a diffuser, and infrared sensor disposed behind the diffuser within the device that are more than a well-understood, routine, and conventional structure, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn for Claims 16 – 17, 19 – 22, and 24 – 30.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues at [Page 13, 2ND Full Paragraph] – [Page 14, 1st Paragraph] that no combination of Azimi and Haq discloses or renders obvious the newly-added features of Claim 16. Based on the amendments, the newly-applied reference Jackson has been applied to teach the newly-added limitations of Claim 16. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 14, Paragraph 2] that Azimi does not disclose determining a change in the visual comfort of the user depending on a variation of said at least one signal acquired by the sensor. As described above, Azimi broadly discloses [0038] “users may become fatigued after several repetitions performing the alignment task, one or more threshold values may be adjusted based on the number of alignment repetitions that the user has performed.” Therefore, Azimi discloses that the threshold for the “Eye tracking device 820” is dependent on a user’s fatigue levels or change in visual comfort over time with the image exposures, and that the threshold will change. Further, the limitation is taught by the combination of Azimi and Haq such that Haq teaches (as cited above) ([Haq: Pages 1 – 4], including Abstract: “the person is fatigued or low on attention.” And [Page 1, Right Column] “So it gets clear that depending on the situation the person is in and his focus on the work at hand, his blinking rate is changed.” Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification (page 7) describes a “change in the visual comfort” as a “form of a visual discomfort or a modification of visual performance”. An increase in fatigue for a person reduces their visual performance. Per Haq’s teaching, the change in performance due to fatigue is such that it when it occurs while driving, it “has been a cause in 30% of the road accidents that take place” [Page 1, I. Introduction] This is a change in visual performance and a change in a visual comfort of a user. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 14, Paragraph 3] that Azimi does not disclose a combination of a device providing a diffused light with an infrared sensor as claimed, nor the arrangement of the diffuser and infrared sensor. Based on the amendments, the newly-applied reference Jackson has been applied to teach these elements of amended Claim 1. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 14, Paragraph 4] that Haq discloses a method for determining a level of attention (or fatigue) of a person based on eyeblink data but does not cure the deficiencies of Azimi. Regarding the visual comfort of the user, Haq teaches (as cited above) ([Haq: Pages 1 – 4], including Abstract: “the person is fatigued or low on attention.” And [Page 1, Right Column] “So it gets clear that depending on the situation the person is in and his focus on the work at hand, his blinking rate is changed.” Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification (page 7) describes a “change in the visual comfort” as a “form of a visual discomfort or a modification of visual performance”. An increase in fatigue for a person reduces their visual performance. Per Haq’s teaching, the change in performance due to fatigue is such that it when it occurs while driving, it “has been a cause in 30% of the road accidents that take place” [Page 1, I. Introduction] This is a change in visual performance and a change in a visual comfort of a user. For the light source, diffuser, and infrared sensor elements, the newly-applied reference Jackson has been applied to teach these elements of amended Claim 16. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant summarily argues at [Page 15, Top] – [Page 15, Paragraph 3] that Azimi and Haq do not disclose the limitations of the amended claims, and Zakharov, and Chang do not cure the deficiencies of Azimi and Haq. The 35 U.S.C. 103 analysis above and the discussion above delineate the manner by which Azimi in view of Haq with the newly-applied Jackson in combination disclose the limitations of Claim 16 (without requiring Zakhorov or Chang for Claim 16). The argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA J MONTGOMERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:00 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571) 272 - 4233. 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.
/MELISSA JO MONTGOMERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights