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 .
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 1-2 and 4-20 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 1 recites “processing the image data produced by the eye tracker camera to detect at least one of a spacing of spots within a Purkinje image of the image data or a shape of the Purkinje image.” However, it is unclear how the processor can “detect at least one of a spacing of spots within a Purkinje image of the image data or a shape of the Purkinje image.” Specifically, as a spacing of dots is a portion of the shape, it is unclear if a detection of the spacing of spots would also read on the shape of the image. Moreover, it is unclear if any spots must positively be required to be a part of the image data. As such, the structure of the claimed system is unclear. For the purposes of examination, any processor that detects an image will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 2 and 4-7 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claims 6 and 7 each recites that “the eye position and the eye movement, which are detected for producing the topography map of the user’s cornea, are induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map.” However, it is unclear how the detected eye position and eye movement can be “induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map” as it is unclear if any ophthalmic examination is positively required. Specifically, the claims do not recite any positive ophthalmic examination step, and as such, the limitations appear to be an intended use, and it is unclear what detection would read on the claimed limitation. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, any system that detects eye position and movement will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitations as no examination step is required by the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “processing the image data produced by the eye tracker camera to detect at least one of a spacing of spots within a Purkinje image of the image data or a shape of the Purkinje image.” However, it is unclear how the processing can “detect at least one of a spacing of spots within a Purkinje image of the image data or a shape of the Purkinje image.” Specifically, as a spacing of dots is a portion of the shape, it is unclear if a detection of the spacing of spots would also read on the shape of the image. Moreover, it is unclear if any spots must positively be required to be a part of the image data. As such, the structure of the claimed system is unclear. For the purposes of examination, any processor that detects an image will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 9-14 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 8 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 12 recites that “the eye position and the eye movement, which are detected for producing the topography map of the user’s cornea, are induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map.” However, it is unclear how the detected eye position and eye movement can be “induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map” as it is unclear if any ophthalmic examination is positively required. Specifically, the claims do not recite any positive ophthalmic examination step, and as such, the limitations appear to be an intended use, and it is unclear what detection would read on the claimed limitation. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, any system that detects eye position and movement will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitations as no examination step is required by the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “process the image data for the eye to detect at least one of a spacing of spots within a Purkinje image of the image data or a shape of the Purkinje image.” However, it is unclear how the processing can “detect at least one of a spacing of spots within a Purkinje image of the image data or a shape of the Purkinje image.” Specifically, as a spacing of dots is a portion of the shape, it is unclear if a detection of the spacing of spots would also read on the shape of the image. Moreover, it is unclear if any spots must positively be required to be a part of the image data. As such, the structure of the claimed system is unclear. For the purposes of examination, any processor that detects an image will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 16-20 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 15 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 18 recites that “the eye position and the eye movement, which are detected for producing the topography map of the user’s cornea, are induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map.” However, it is unclear how the detected eye position and eye movement can be “induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map” as it is unclear if any ophthalmic examination is positively required. Specifically, the claims do not recite any positive ophthalmic examination step, and as such, the limitations appear to be an intended use, and it is unclear what detection would read on the claimed limitation. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, any system that detects eye position and movement will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitations as no examination step is required by the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cavin et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0042842; hereinafter – “Cavin”).
Regarding claim 1, Cavin teaches a system for performing corneal topography, the system comprising:
a device including an eye tracker camera (224, 320) and a near infrared (NIR) illumination source (222, 340) adapted to produce a NIR light pattern on an eye of a user of the eye tracking device (See e.g. Figs. 2-3; Paragraphs 0020-0029, 0033-0036, and 0064-0065); and
a processor (330) coupled to memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the system to perform operations including: i) processing image data produced by the eye tracker camera to detect eye position and eye movement of the user (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0069: “The eye tracking system determines 550 an orientation of the eye based upon the identified glints from the captured images”), ii) processing the image data produced by the eye tracker camera to detect at least one of a spacing of spots within a Purkinje image (420, 425) of the image data or a shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0067: “The eye tracking system identifies 540 one or more glints from the images captured by the image capture device over the first and second time periods, based upon the first light pattern and the second light pattern”), and iii) producing a topography map of a cornea of the user based on the detected spacing or the detected shape of the Purkinje image obtained from the eye tracker camera and based on the detected eye position and eye movement determined from the image data obtained from the eye tracker camera (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0031: “In some embodiments, the controller 226 is configured to determine a shape of the cornea of the eye 245 based upon the identified glints from the captured images. The controller 226 may then determine an orientation of the eye 245 based upon the determined cornea shape and the locations of the identified glints in subsequent captured images” and Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”).
Regarding claim 2, Cavin teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Cavin further teaches that the illumination source (222, 340) comprises an array of NIR light emitting diodes, LEDs, and the light pattern is an array of spots (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0023-0028, 0034, and 0064-0065, e.g. Paragraph 0026: “An illumination source may be, e.g., a light emitting diode, a microLED, an organic LED, some other light source that can generate light safe for incidence on human eyes”).
Regarding claim 4, Cavin teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Cavin further teaches that producing the topography map comprises: tracking movement of the eye, and time-aligning the tracked eye movement with the detected changes in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0031: “In some embodiments, the controller 226 is configured to determine a shape of the cornea of the eye 245 based upon the identified glints from the captured images. The controller 226 may then determine an orientation of the eye 245 based upon the determined cornea shape and the locations of the identified glints in subsequent captured images” and Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”).
Regarding claim 5, Cavin teaches the system of claim 4, as above.
Cavin further teaches that producing the topography map further comprises: determining a point on the cornea, based on the detected eye position at the time of a given detected change in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image, and computing curvature at said point based on the given detected change (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”).
Regarding claim 6, Cavin teaches the system of claim 5, as above.
Cavin further teaches that the eye position and the eye movement, which are detected for producing the topography map of the user’s cornea, are induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071).
Regarding claim 7, Cavin teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Cavin further teaches that the eye position and the eye movement, which are detected for producing the topography map of the user’s cornea, are induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071).
Regarding claim 8, Cavin teaches a method for performing corneal topography, the method comprising:
processing image data (530) produced by an eye tracker camera that is integrated into an eye tracking virtual reality device, to detect eye position and movement during an ophthalmic examination of a user of the eye tracking virtual reality device (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0069: “The eye tracking system determines 550 an orientation of the eye based upon the identified glints from the captured images”);
processing the image data (540) produced by the eye tracker camera to detect at least one of a spacing of spots within a Purkinje image of the image data or a shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0067: “The eye tracking system identifies 540 one or more glints from the images captured by the image capture device over the first and second time periods, based upon the first light pattern and the second light pattern”); and
producing a topography map (550) of a cornea of the user based on the detected spacing or the detected shape of the Purkinje image obtained from the eye tracker camera and based on the detected eye position and movement determined from the image data obtained from the eye tracker camera (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0031: “In some embodiments, the controller 226 is configured to determine a shape of the cornea of the eye 245 based upon the identified glints from the captured images. The controller 226 may then determine an orientation of the eye 245 based upon the determined cornea shape and the locations of the identified glints in subsequent captured images” and Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”).
Regarding claim 9, Cavin teaches the method of claim 8, as above.
Cavin further teaches that the Purkinje image is a result of a NIR light pattern impinging on and reflecting off the eye of the wearer user and comprises a plurality of spots (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0023-0028, 0034, and 0064-0065).
Regarding claim 10, Cavin teaches the method of claim 9, as above.
Cavin further teaches that producing the topography map comprises tracking movement of the eye, and time-aligning the tracked eye movement with detected changes in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0031: “In some embodiments, the controller 226 is configured to determine a shape of the cornea of the eye 245 based upon the identified glints from the captured images. The controller 226 may then determine an orientation of the eye 245 based upon the determined cornea shape and the locations of the identified glints in subsequent captured images” and Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”).
Regarding claim 11, Cavin teaches the method of claim 10, as above.
Cavin further teaches that producing the topography map comprises: a) determining a point on the cornea, based on the detected eye position at a time of a given detected change in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image; b) computing curvature at said point based on the given detected change; and repeating a)-b) for a plurality of points on the cornea to produce the topography map for an entire surface of the cornea (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”).
Regarding claim 12, Cavin teaches the method of claim 11, as above.
Cavin further teaches that the eye position and the eye movement, which are detected for producing the topography map of the user’s cornea, are induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071).
Regarding claim 13, Cavin teaches the method of claim 8, as above.
Cavin further teaches that producing the topography map comprises tracking movement of the eye, and time-aligning the tracked eye movement with detected changes in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0031: “In some embodiments, the controller 226 is configured to determine a shape of the cornea of the eye 245 based upon the identified glints from the captured images. The controller 226 may then determine an orientation of the eye 245 based upon the determined cornea shape and the locations of the identified glints in subsequent captured images” and Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”).
Regarding claim 14, Cavin teaches the method of claim 8, as above.
Cavin further teaches that producing the topography map comprises: a) determining a point on the cornea, based on the detected eye position at the time of a given detected change in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image; b) computing curvature at said point based on the given detected change; and repeating a)-b) for a plurality of points on the cornea to produce the topography map for an entire surface of the cornea (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”).
Regarding claim 15, Cavin teaches an article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored therein instructions that when executed by a processor:
acquire data of an eye of a person with an eye tracker camera (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0069: “The eye tracking system determines 550 an orientation of the eye based upon the identified glints from the captured images”);
detect (530) eye position and eye movement of the eye during ophthalmic examination of the person based on the image data (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0069: “The eye tracking system determines 550 an orientation of the eye based upon the identified glints from the captured images”);
process (540) the image data for the eye to detect at least one of a spacing of spots within a Purkinje image of the image data or a shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0067: “The eye tracking system identifies 540 one or more glints from the images captured by the image capture device over the first and second time periods, based upon the first light pattern and the second light pattern”); and
produce (550) a topography map of the person's cornea based on the detected spacing or the detected shape of the Purkinje image obtained from the eye tracker camera and based on the detected eye position and movement determined from the image data obtained from the eye tracker camera (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0067: “The eye tracking system identifies 540 one or more glints from the images captured by the image capture device over the first and second time periods, based upon the first light pattern and the second light pattern”).
Regarding claim 16, Cavin teaches the article of manufacture of claim 15, as above.
Cavin further teaches that the non-transitory machine-readable medium has stored therein instructions that, when executed by the processor, produce the topography map by tracking movement of the eye, and time-aligning the tracked eye movement with the detected changes in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0031: “In some embodiments, the controller 226 is configured to determine a shape of the cornea of the eye 245 based upon the identified glints from the captured images. The controller 226 may then determine an orientation of the eye 245 based upon the determined cornea shape and the locations of the identified glints in subsequent captured images” and Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”).
Regarding claim 17, Cavin teaches the article of manufacture of claim 15, as above.
Cavin further teaches that the non-transitory machine-readable medium has stored therein instructions that when executed by the processor produce the topography map by: a) determining a point on the cornea, based on the detected eye position at the time of a given detected change in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image; b) computing curvature at said point based on the given detected change; and repeating a)-b) for a plurality of points on the cornea to produce the topography map for an entire surface of the cornea (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”).
Regarding claim 18, Cavin teaches the article of manufacture of claim 15, as above.
Cavin further teaches that the eye position and the eye movement, which are detected for producing the topography map of the user’s cornea, are induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071).
Regarding claim 19, Cavin teaches the article of manufacture of claim 18, as above.
Cavin further teaches that the non-transitory machine-readable medium has stored therein instructions that, when executed by the processor, produce the topography map by tracking movement of the eye, and time-aligning the tracked eye movement with the detected changes in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0031: “In some embodiments, the controller 226 is configured to determine a shape of the cornea of the eye 245 based upon the identified glints from the captured images. The controller 226 may then determine an orientation of the eye 245 based upon the determined cornea shape and the locations of the identified glints in subsequent captured images” and Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”).
Regarding claim 20, Cavin teaches the article of manufacture of claim 18, as above.
Cavin further teaches that the non-transitory machine-readable medium has stored therein instructions that when executed by the processor produce the topography map by: a) determining a point on the cornea, based on the detected eye position at the time of a given detected change in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image; b) computing curvature at said point based on the given detected change; and repeating a)-b) for a plurality of points on the cornea to produce the topography map for an entire surface of the cornea (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marcos Munoz (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2015/0173610).
Regarding claim 1, Marcus Munoz teaches a system for performing corneal topography, the system comprising:
a device including an eye tracker camera (6, 10) and a near infrared (NIR) illumination source (7, 8) adapted to produce a NIR light pattern on an eye of a user of the eye tracking device (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0024-0031, 0035, 0038-0039, and 0045-0047); and
a processor (5) coupled to memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the system to perform operations including i) processing image data produced by the eye tracker camera to detect eye position and eye movement of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0043), ii) processing the image data produced by the eye tracker camera to detect at least one of a spacing of spots within a Purkinje image of the image data or a shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0045-0048), and iii) producing a topography map of a cornea of the user based on the detected spacing or the detected shape of the Purkinje image obtained from the eye tracker camera and based on the detected eye position and eye movement determined from the image data obtained from the eye tracker camera (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0048-0050 and 0052-0053).
Regarding claim 2, Marcus Munoz teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that the illumination source (7, 8) comprises an array of NIR light emitting diodes, LEDs, and the light pattern is an array of spots (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0026-0029).
Regarding claim 4, Marcus Munoz teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that producing the topography map comprises: tracking movement of the eye, and time-aligning the tracked eye movement with the detected changes in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 5, Marcus Munoz teaches the system of claim 4, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that producing the topography map further comprises: determining a point on the cornea, based on the detected eye position at the time of a given detected change in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image, and computing curvature at said point based on the given detected change (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 6, Marcus Munoz teaches the system of claim 5, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that the eye position and the eye movement, which are detected for producing the topography map of the user’s cornea, are induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0024 and 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 7, Marcus Munoz teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that the eye position and the eye movement, which are detected for producing the topography map of the user’s cornea, are induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0024 and 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 8, Marcus Munoz teaches a method for performing corneal topography, the method comprising:
processing image data produced by an eye tracker camera that is integrated into an eye tracking virtual reality device, to detect eye position and movement during an ophthalmic examination of a user of the eye tracking virtual reality device (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0043);
processing the image data produced by the eye tracker camera to detect at least one of a spacing of spots within a Purkinje image of the image data or a shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0045-0048); and
producing a topography map of a cornea of the user based on the detected spacing or the detected shape of the Purkinje image obtained from the eye tracker camera and based on the detected eye position and movement determined from the image data obtained from the eye tracker camera (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0048-0050 and 0052-0053).
Regarding claim 9, Marcus Munoz teaches the method of claim 8, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that the Purkinje image is a result of a NIR light pattern impinging on and reflecting off the eye of the wearer user and comprises a plurality of spots (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0026-0029).
Regarding claim 10, Marcus Munoz teaches the method of claim 9, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that producing the topography map comprises tracking movement of the eye, and time-aligning the tracked eye movement with detected changes in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 11, Marcus Munoz teaches the method of claim 10, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that producing the topography map comprises: a) determining a point on the cornea, based on the detected eye position at a time of a given detected change in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image; b) computing curvature at said point based on the given detected change; and repeating a)-b) for a plurality of points on the cornea to produce the topography map for an entire surface of the cornea (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 12, Marcus Munoz teaches the method of claim 11, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that the eye position and the eye movement, which are detected for producing the topography map of the user’s cornea, are induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0024 and 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 13, Marcus Munoz teaches the method of claim 8, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that producing the topography map comprises tracking movement of the eye, and time-aligning the tracked eye movement with detected changes in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 14, Marcus Munoz teaches the method of claim 8, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that producing the topography map comprises: a) determining a point on the cornea, based on the detected eye position at the time of a given detected change in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image; b) computing curvature at said point based on the given detected change; and repeating a)-b) for a plurality of points on the cornea to produce the topography map for an entire surface of the cornea (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 15, Marcus Munoz teaches an article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored therein instructions that when executed by a processor:
acquire image data of an eye of a person with an eye tracker camera (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0043);
detect eye position and eye movement of the eye during ophthalmic examination of the person based on the image data (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0043);
process the image data for the eye to detect at least one of a spacing of spots within a Purkinje image of the image data or a shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0045-0048); and
produce a topography map of the person's cornea based on the detected spacing or the detected shape of the Purkinje image obtained from the eye tracker camera and based on the detected eye position and movement determined from the image data obtained from the eye tracker camera (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0048-0050 and 0052-0053).
Regarding claim 16, Marcus Munoz teaches the article of manufacture of claim 15, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that the non-transitory machine-readable medium has stored therein instructions that, when executed by the processor, produce the topography map by tracking movement of the eye, and time-aligning the tracked eye movement with the detected changes in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 17, Marcus Munoz teaches the article of manufacture of claim 15, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that the non-transitory machine-readable medium has stored therein instructions that when executed by the processor produce the topography map by: a) determining a point on the cornea, based on the detected eye position at the time of a given detected change in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image; b) computing curvature at said point based on the given detected change; and repeating a)-b) for a plurality of points on the cornea to produce the topography map for an entire surface of the cornea (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 18, Marcus Munoz teaches the article of manufacture of claim 15, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that the eye position and the eye movement, which are detected for producing the topography map of the user’s cornea, are induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0024 and 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 19, Marcus Munoz teaches the article of manufacture of claim 18, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that the non-transitory machine-readable medium has stored therein instructions that, when executed by the processor, produce the topography map by tracking movement of the eye, and time-aligning the tracked eye movement with the detected changes in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0053).
Regarding claim 20, Marcus Munoz teaches the article of manufacture of claim 18, as above.
Marcus Munoz further teaches that the non-transitory machine-readable medium has stored therein instructions that when executed by the processor produce the topography map by: a) determining a point on the cornea, based on the detected eye position at the time of a given detected change in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image; b) computing curvature at said point based on the given detected change; and repeating a)-b) for a plurality of points on the cornea to produce the topography map for an entire surface of the cornea (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041-0053).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 8, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended language is definite. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that it is unclear if a detection of the spacing of spots would also read on the shape of the image and it is unclear if any spots must positively be required to be a part of the image data, as detailed previously and above. That is, a spacing of spots in a Purkinje image is a shape of the image, and as such, it is unclear how the two should be interpreted.
Additionally, Examiner maintains that it is unclear how the detected eye position and eye movement can be “induced by virtue of one or more ophthalmic examinations that are contemporaneously taking place while acquiring the image data for producing the topography map” as it is unclear if any ophthalmic examination is positively required.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections in view of Cavin have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Although Cavin refers to determining corneal ‘shape’ or constructing an eye model indicating corneal shape, this is not equivalent to producing a topography map of a cornea.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would recognize and appreciate that the shape of the cornea determined in Cavin reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “topography map of the cornea.” As explicitly argued by Applicant on page 10 of the arguments filed 03/31/2026, “a topography map is a measurement of the corneal surface.” Thus, a measurement of the curvature of the corneal surface reads on the claimed topography map.
No special definition of “topography map” is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a topography map of a cornea”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “a topography map,” which states/seems to imply that the topography map must have some spatially resolved features and additional details beyond simply describing the shape of the cornea. Rather, Examiner maintains that a system that determines a shape of a cornea necessarily produces a topography map of the cornea, namely, the shape of the cornea.
Moreover, Cavin explicitly teaches the requisite steps claimed by Applicant in, e.g., claims 4-5, for forming the topography map. Specifically, Cavin teaches tracking movement of the eye, time-aligning the tracked eye movement with the detected changes in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0031: “In some embodiments, the controller 226 is configured to determine a shape of the cornea of the eye 245 based upon the identified glints from the captured images. The controller 226 may then determine an orientation of the eye 245 based upon the determined cornea shape and the locations of the identified glints in subsequent captured images” and Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”), determining a point on the cornea, based on the detected eye position at the time of a given detected change in the spacing or shape of the Purkinje image, and computing curvature at said point based on the given detected change (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0037-0039, 0041-0043, 0046, 0052-0055, 0057-0062, and 0064-0071, e.g. Paragraph 0070: “the eye tracking system may also be able to determine a shape of the cornea of the user's eye. For example, a first light pattern projected towards an eye of a first user in a first orientation may produce a first pattern of glints, while the first light pattern projected towards an eye of a second user in the first orientation may produce a second, different pattern of glints, due to different cornea shapes of the eyes of the first and second users”). Thus, Examiner maintains that the cornea shape and eye model determined by Cavin read on Applicant’s claimed “topography map.”
It is unclear what distinguishing features Applicant believes that a “topography map” of a cornea should have compared to a determination of a shape of the cornea, as a topography map is generally known to describe a shape of a surface. Thus, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the determination of an “eye model” does not read on a topography map as an eye model is a “functional approximation.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Cavin explicitly teaches in Paragraph 0039 that “each eye model indicating a cornea shape of an eye of a particular user” which reads on the claimed “topography map.” Thus, Examiner maintains that Cavin anticipates the claims.
Applicant's arguments, see page 11, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections in view of Marcos Munoz have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Marcos Munoz does not disclose generating a topography map of a cornea with image data produced from an eye tracker camera that is used to both detect eye position and eye movement and produce a topography map.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the claims do not require that the “eye tracker camera” must only comprise a single camera or detector and Marcos Munoz teaches a combination of camera (6) and receiver (10) that reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an eye tracker camera” as required by the claims (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0024-0031, 0035, 0038-0039, and 0045-0047). To be clear, the camera (6) and receiver (10) each receive image data including reflected light from a NIR light pattern on an eye (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0024-0031, 0035, 0038-0039, and 0045-0047), and detect eye position and eye movement, thus meeting all the requirements of the claimed “eye tracker camera.”
More compellingly, Marcos Munoz explicitly teaches that “The system for tracking (1) the direction of gaze (D) of the eyes (2) and the inspection system (3) may be made up of the same elements, such that there may be one single element that receives the light reflections produced on the cornea (4), the camera functioning as the receiver assembly (10)” (Paragraph 0038). Thus, Marcos Munoz clearly teaches an eye tracker camera that is used to both detect eye position and eye movement and produce a topography map, contrary to Applicant’s assertion. As such, Examiner maintains that Marcos Munoz anticipates the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights