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) submitted on 1/25/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Examiner notes that for purpose of examination the Drawings present in the WIPO publication (WO 2023/06557 A1) were utilized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et. al. (US 10,606,349 B1) in view of Lindig et. al. (US 2017/0150882 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a vision device for detecting eye movement comprising:
a stimuli display screen (202; col.4, lines 11-24);
and at least one camera for tracking the movement of the eyes in wavelengths outside the visible spectrum through the panel (col. 5, lines 34-42),
the camera being able to track the movement of the eyes under an effect of stimuli in the configurations of the panel allowing the vision and blocking the vision (col. 5, lines 34-42).
Ouderkirk does not teach an LCD panel for selectively blocking the vision of one eye and/or the other of the stimuli displayed on the screen,
the panel being able to be in several configurations, including a configuration blocking the vision of one eye and/or the other and a configuration allowing the vision of one eye and/or the other.
Lindig teaches (fig. 16) an LCD panel for selectively blocking the vision of one eye and/or the other of the stimuli displayed on the screen (160, 161) the panel being able to be in several configurations, including a configuration blocking the vision of one eye and/or the other and a configuration allowing the vision of one eye and/or the other (para. 0145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the eye tracking system as taught by Ouderkirk with the vision blocking display as taught by Lindig for the benefit of individual eye examination during refractive testing.
Regarding claim 2 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a vision device for detecting eye movement, where the wavelengths are those of infrared wavelengths (col. 4, lines 41-50).
Regarding claim 3 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a vision device for detecting eye movement, further comprising emitters for illuminating the panel in the wavelengths off infrared wavelengths (col. 4, lines 33-41).
Regarding claim 4 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a vision device for detecting eye movement, except where the panel comprises at least one LCD area per eye.
Lindig teaches where the panel comprises at least one LCD area per eye (para. 0145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the eye tracking system as taught by Ouderkirk with the vision blocking display as taught by Lindig for the benefit of individual eye examination during refractive testing.
Regarding claim 5 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a vision device for detecting eye movement, except where the panel is continuous for both eyes, the panels comprising pixels selectively blocked for the vision of one eye or the other.
Lindig teaches where the panel is continuous for both eyes, the panels comprising pixels selectively blocked for the vision of one eye or the other (para. 0145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the eye tracking system as taught by Ouderkirk with the vision blocking display as taught by Lindig for the benefit of individual eye examination during refractive testing.
Regarding claim 6 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a vision device for detecting eye movement, except where the panel comprises pixels associated with a colour filter, the pixels being selectively blocked.
Lindig teaches where the panel comprises pixels associated with a colour filter, the pixels being selectively blocked (para. 0145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the eye tracking system as taught by Ouderkirk with the vision blocking display as taught by Lindig for the benefit of individual eye examination during refractive testing.
Regarding claim 7 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a vision device for detecting eye movement, comprising:
a vision cone with a chamber having a first end and a second end (col. 3, lines 14-19);
a processing unit at one end of the chamber (224; col. 6, lines 24-31),
the processing unit comprising the screen for displaying visual stimuli and the camera or cam for tracking the eye movement (col. 6, lines 24-44) and an opening at the other end of the chamber for the vision of the visual stimuli on the display screen (col. 3, lines 14-19),
the camera or cameras being able to track the movement of the eyes through the panel in configurations allowing the vision and blocking the vision (222; col. 6, lines 24-31).
Regarding claim 8 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a vision device for detecting eye movement, where the configuration of the panel is controlled by the processing unit (224; col. 6 lines 24-31).
Regarding claim 10 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a vision device for detecting eye movement, comprising at least one camera filming both eyes (222; col. 6, lines 24-31).
Regarding claim 11 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a vision device for detecting eye movement, where the screen provides backlighting for the panel (215; col/ 6, lines 12-23).
Regarding claim 12 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a method for detecting eye movement, comprising:
providing a vision device, the vision device comprising:
a stimuli display screen (202; col.4, lines 11-24);
and at least one camera for tracking the movement of the eyes in the wavelengths outside the visible spectrum through the panel (col. 5, lines 34-42);
displaying stimuli on the screen (col.4, lines 11-24);
Ouderkirk does not teach an LCD panel for selectively blocking the vision of one eye and/or the other of the stimuli displayed on the screen, the panel being able to be in several configurations, including a configuration blocking the vision of one eye and/or the other and a configuration allowing the vision of one eye and/or the other selectively blocking the vision of one eye and/or the other from the stimuli displayed on the screen.
Lindig teaches an LCD panel for selectively blocking the vision of one eye and/or the other of the stimuli displayed on the screen, the panel being able to be in several configurations, including a configuration blocking the vision of one eye and/or the other and a configuration allowing the vision of one eye and/or the other selectively blocking the vision of one eye and/or the other from the stimuli displayed on the screen (para. 0145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the eye tracking system as taught by Ouderkirk with the vision blocking display as taught by Lindig for the benefit of individual eye examination during refractive testing.
Ouderkirk as modified by Lindig further teaches tracking of the eye movement by at least one camera in the wavelengths outside the visible spectrum through the panel, the camera tracking the eye movement under an effect of stimuli in configurations of the panel allowing the vision and blocking the vision (col. 4, lines 41-50).
Regarding claim 13 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a method for detecting eye movement, further comprising:
a vision cone with a chamber having a first end and a second end (col. 3, lines 14-19);
and a processing unit at one end of the chamber, the processing unit comprising the screen for displaying visual stimuli and the camera or cameras for tracking the eye movement (222; col. 6, lines 24-31),
the processing unit controlling the display of visual stimuli on the screen and coordinating the display of stimuli and the configuration of the panel (col. 3, lines 14-19).
Ouderkirk does not teach where the configurations of the panel allowing the vision and blocking the vision are different for each eye.
Lindig teaches the configurations of the panel allowing the vision and blocking the vision are different for each eye (para. 0145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the eye tracking system as taught by Ouderkirk with the vision blocking display as taught by Lindig for the benefit of individual eye examination during refractive testing.
Regarding claim 14 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a method for detecting eye movement, except for further comprising recording scenarios in the processing unit that coordinates the display on the screen and allowing the vision and blocking the vision of each eye through the panel.
Lindig taches recording scenarios in the processing unit that coordinates the display on the screen and allowing the vision and blocking the vision of each eye through the panel (para. 0145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the eye tracking system as taught by Ouderkirk with the vision blocking display as taught by Lindig for the benefit of individual eye examination during refractive testing.
Regarding claim 15 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a method for detecting eye movement, except where the configurations of the panel allowing the vision and blocking the vision are different for each eye.
Lindig teaches where the configurations of the panel allowing the vision and blocking the vision are different for each eye (para. 0145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the eye tracking system as taught by Ouderkirk with the vision blocking display as taught by Lindig for the benefit of individual eye examination during refractive testing.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et. al. (US 10,606,349 B1) in view of Lindig et. al. (US 2017/0150882 A1) in further view of Zidan et. al. (US 2020/0397288 A1).
Regarding claim 9 Ouderkirk teaches (figs. 1-2, 4, and 6) a vision device for detecting eye movement except where the panel is removably positioned in the vision cone.
Zidan teaches where the panel is removably positioned in the vision cone (par. 0167).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the eye tracking system as taught by Ouderkirk with the removable display as taught by Zidan for the benefit of repair and alignment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further VR eye movement and eye examination systems include Lin et. al. (US 10,488,920 B2), Krall et. al. (US 2016/0000317 A1), Kinderman et. al. (US 9,039,632 B2) and Newman et. al. (US 7,575,321 B2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m..
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/Robert E. Tallman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872