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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/373,921 filed on September 27, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Continuation-In-Part
The present application is a continuation-in-part of applications 17/344046 and 16/234293. As explained in MPEP §2133.01, any claim that only contains subject matter that is fully supported in compliance with the statutory requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, by the parent application of a CIP will have the effective filing date (EFD) of the parent application. On the other hand, any claim that contains a limitation that is only supported as required by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, by the disclosure of the CIP application will have the effective filing date of the CIP application. See, e.g., Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In the current instance, the effective filing date was also be considered with respect to the provisional application filed 12/28/2017. The effective filing date of each claim is listed in the table below:
claims
EFD: 12/28/2017
EFD: 9/27/2023
exemplary newly presented limitation
1
X
2
X
(claim 2) “define a first plane that includes the first location, the second location, and the first scanner-to-glint vector”
3-9
X
(claim 3) “a second detector configured to detect a second glint from a second reflection point in the scan region at a second time, the second glint including a second portion of the first scan beam, wherein the second detector is a discrete detector and is located at a third location; wherein the processor is further configured to (2) determine a second orientation of the first MEMS scanner at the second time”
10-15
X
(claim 10) “a second detector that is located at a third location, the second detector being a discrete detector; a second MEMS scanner for steering a second scan beam in a second two- dimensional pattern over the scan region, the second MEMS scanner being located at a fourth location;… (2) define a second plane based on a second orientation of the second MEMS scanner at the second time, the second location, and the fourth location.”
16
X
17-22
X
(claim 17) “detecting a second glint from a second reflection point in the scan region at a second time at a second detector, wherein the second glint includes a second portion of the first scan beam, and wherein the second detector is a discrete detector and is located at a third location; determining a second orientation of the first MEMS scanner at the second time; … defining a second plane that includes the first location, the third location, and a second scanner-to-glint vector based on the second orientation; and identifying a corneal center for the eye based on the first and second planes”
23
X
(claim 23) “applying a refractive correction to the first reflection point”. Note that the parent application supports applying a correction factor to compensate for the refractive index of the cornea/lens, however does not specify that this is a correction of the first reflection point.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on September 27, 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 9/27/2023 and 1/31/2024 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarkar US 2016/0166146 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Sarkar).
Regarding claim 1, Sarkar teaches “A system for timer-based eye-tracking (eye-tracking system 100), the system comprising:
a first microelectromechanical system (MEMS) scanner (transmit module 102 with MEMS-based scanning mirror 406 see e.g. paragraph [0071] and Fig. 5A) for steering a first scan beam in a first two-dimensional pattern over a scan region of an eye (e.g. paragraph [0136]: “Scanning paths suitable for use in embodiments of the present invention include, without limitation, Lissajous patterns, rhodonea curves, circular paths, elliptical paths, and the like… two-dimensional pattern over the eye.”), the first MEMS scanner being located at a first location (see location of transmit module in Fig. 2A);
a first detector (detect module 104) configured to detect a first glint from a first reflection point in the scan region at a first time (e.g. paragraph [0016]: “a first peak in the intensity of the reflected signal arises when the input signal is incident on at least a portion of the cornea of the eye at which the curvature of the cornea directs the reflected signal towards the detector.”), the first glint including a first portion of the first scan beam (e.g. paragraph [0016]: “the scanning mirror, which sweeps the input signal over the scan region of the eye over which the cornea is located… The cornea reflects the input signal as a reflected signal, which is incident on the detector.”), wherein the first detector is a discrete detector (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “detector 204 of detect module 104, where detector 204 is a discrete detector.”) and is located at a second location (see location of 104 in Fig. 2A); and
a processor (processor 106) configured to (1) determine a first orientation of the first MEMS scanner at the first time (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “When input signal 116 is aligned with this point, the angular positions of scanner 202 within transmit module 102 are indicative of the location of this point of maximum reflection within scan region 122, which is indicative of the corneal vector for the eye.”).”
Regarding claim 16, Sarkar teaches “A method (see steps below) for eye tracking (eye-tracking system 100), the method comprising:
steering a first scan beam (input signal 116) through the effect of a first microelectromechanical system (MEMS) scanner (transmit module 102 with MEMS-based scanning mirror 406 see e.g. paragraph [0071] and Fig. 5A) through a first two-dimensional pattern over a scan region on an eye (e.g. paragraph [0136]: “Scanning paths suitable for use in embodiments of the present invention include, without limitation, Lissajous patterns, rhodonea curves, circular paths, elliptical paths, and the like… two-dimensional pattern over the eye.”), the first MEMS scanner being located at a first location (see location of transmit module in Fig. 2A);
detecting a first glint from a first reflection point in the scan region at a first time (e.g. paragraph [0016]: “a first peak in the intensity of the reflected signal arises when the input signal is incident on at least a portion of the cornea of the eye at which the curvature of the cornea directs the reflected signal towards the detector.”) at a first detector (detect module 104), wherein the first glint includes a first portion of the first scan beam (e.g. paragraph [0016]: “the scanning mirror, which sweeps the input signal over the scan region of the eye over which the cornea is located… The cornea reflects the input signal as a reflected signal, which is incident on the detector.”), and wherein the first detector is a discrete detector (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “detector 204 of detect module 104, where detector 204 is a discrete detector.”) and is located at a second location (see location of 104 in Fig. 2A); and
determining a first orientation of the first MEMS scanner at the first time (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “When input signal 116 is aligned with this point, the angular positions of scanner 202 within transmit module 102 are indicative of the location of this point of maximum reflection within scan region 122, which is indicative of the corneal vector for the eye.”).”
Claims 2-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vostrikov et al. US 2021/0055792 A1 (hereafter Vostrikov).
Regarding claim 2, Vostrikov teaches (claim 1) “A system (Fig. 5) for timer-based eye-tracking (paragraph [0002]: “a method and an electronic device for eye-tracking… determining the direction of the gaze based on a time when the electric pulses are generated respectively by the at least two photodetectors and a generation time interval.”), the system comprising:
a first microelectromechanical system (MEMS) scanner (scanner mirror 230, paragraph [0064]: “The drive may be a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device”) for steering a first scan beam (beam from light source 210) in a first two-dimensional pattern over a scan region of an eye (see Fig. 5 and e.g. paragraph [0071]: “The single-axis scanner mirror 230 may rotate around one axis and reflect the scanning line converted by the optical element 220 in the direction of the cornea. The scanner 200 may completely scan the eye by moving the scanning area by moving the scanning area through rotation of the single-axis scanner mirror 230.), the first MEMS scanner being located at a first location (see location in Fig. 5);
a first detector (photodetector 310) configured to detect a first glint from a first reflection point in the scan region (paragraph [0098]: “reflected from the corneas 500… is incident on the photodetectors 310”) at a first time (paragraph [0099]: “The photodetectors 310 and 320 may generate electric pulses when the scanning line reflected from the corneas 500 and 510 is incident.” emphasis added), the first glint including a first portion of the first scan beam (see Fig. 5), wherein the first detector is a discrete detector (310 is a photodetector that generates an electric pulse not an image sensor) and is located at a second location (see location in Fig. 5); and
a processor (processor 325) configured to (1) determine a first orientation of the first MEMS scanner at the first time (e.g. paragraph [0078]: “The angle of incidence of the scanning line is determined by the angle of rotation of the scanner 200. Therefore, each of the photodetectors 310 and 320 may detect a scanning line incident at the angle of rotation of the scanner 200 according to the position of the cornea.”).”
(claim 2) “The system of claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to:
(2) establish a first scanner-to-glint vector (paragraph [0078] “The angle of incidence of the scanning line”) based on the first orientation (paragraph [0078]: “The angle of incidence of the scanning line is determined by the angle of rotation of the scanner 200”); and
(3) define a first plane that includes the first location, the second location, and the first scanner-to-glint vector (see paragraphs [0076]-[0078] the first location of the scanner, the second location of the detector and the angle of incidence of the scanning line onto the cornea are all known or determined. Because the law of reflection applies, each of these elements are within the same plane. Therefor determining these three elements defines the claimed first plane).”
Regarding claim 3, Vostrikov teaches (claim 1) “A system (Fig. 5) for timer-based eye-tracking (paragraph [0002]: “a method and an electronic device for eye-tracking… determining the direction of the gaze based on a time when the electric pulses are generated respectively by the at least two photodetectors and a generation time interval.”), the system comprising:
a first microelectromechanical system (MEMS) scanner (scanner mirror 230, paragraph [0064]: “The drive may be a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device”) for steering a first scan beam (beam from light source 210) in a first two-dimensional pattern over a scan region of an eye (see Fig. 5 and e.g. paragraph [0071]: “The single-axis scanner mirror 230 may rotate around one axis and reflect the scanning line converted by the optical element 220 in the direction of the cornea. The scanner 200 may completely scan the eye by moving the scanning area by moving the scanning area through rotation of the single-axis scanner mirror 230.), the first MEMS scanner being located at a first location (see location in Fig. 5);
a first detector (photodetector 310) configured to detect a first glint from a first reflection point in the scan region (paragraph [0098]: “reflected from the corneas 500… is incident on the photodetectors 310”) at a first time (paragraph [0099]: “The photodetectors 310 and 320 may generate electric pulses when the scanning line reflected from the corneas 500 and 510 is incident.” emphasis added), the first glint including a first portion of the first scan beam (see Fig. 5), wherein the first detector is a discrete detector (310 is a photodetector that generates an electric pulse not an image sensor) and is located at a second location (see location in Fig. 5); and
a processor (processor 325) configured to (1) determine a first orientation of the first MEMS scanner at the first time (e.g. paragraph [0078]: “The angle of incidence of the scanning line is determined by the angle of rotation of the scanner 200. Therefore, each of the photodetectors 310 and 320 may detect a scanning line incident at the angle of rotation of the scanner 200 according to the position of the cornea.”).”
(claim 3) The system of claim 1 further comprising:
a second detector (photodetector 320) configured to detect a second glint (paragraph [0098]: “reflected from the corneas … 510 and is incident on the photodetectors… 320”) from a second reflection point (510) in the scan region at a second time (paragraph [0099]: “The photodetectors 310 and 320 may generate electric pulses when the scanning line reflected from the corneas 500 and 510 is incident.” emphasis added), the second glint including a second portion of the first scan beam (see Fig. 5), wherein the second detector is a discrete detector (320 is a photodetector that generates an electric pulse not an image sensor) and is located at a third location (see position in Fig. 5);
wherein the processor is further configured to (2) determine a second orientation of the first MEMS scanner at the second time (e.g. paragraph [0078]: “The angle of incidence of the scanning line is determined by the angle of rotation of the scanner 200. Therefore, each of the photodetectors 310 and 320 may detect a scanning line incident at the angle of rotation of the scanner 200 according to the position of the cornea.” The time at which 320 generates an electric pulse is the second time.).”
Regarding claim 4, Vostrikov teaches “The system of claim 3 wherein the processor is further configured to:
(3) define a first plane that includes the first location, the second location, and a first scanner-to-glint vector that is based on the first orientation (see paragraphs [0076]-[0078] the first location of the scanner, the second location of the detector and the angle of incidence of the scanning line onto the cornea are all known or determined. Because the law of reflection applies, each of these elements are within the same plane. Therefor determining these three elements defines the claimed first plane);
(4) define a second plane that includes the first location, the third location, and a second scanner-to-glint vector that is based on the second orientation (see paragraphs [0076]-[0078] the first location of the scanner, the third location of the secpmd detector and the angle of incidence of the scanning line onto the cornea are all known or determined. Because the law of reflection applies, each of these elements are within the same plane. Therefor determining these three elements defines the claimed second plane); and
(5) identify a first line of intersection between the first and second planes (the line of intersection between two planes is uniquely defined by the orientation of the two planes. Therefore, identifying the first and second planes also identifies the line of intersection between them, even if the processor does not specifically calculate the equation thereof.).”
Regarding claim 5, Vostrikov teaches “The system of claim 4 wherein the processor is further configured to:
(6) identify a corneal center for a cornea of the eye based on the first line of intersection (This is met in at least two ways. Firstly, Vostrikov paragraph [0080] discloses “As described above, each of the photodetectors 310 and 320 may detect a scanning line incident at a specific angle of rotation of the scanner 200 that satisfies the law of reflection. Accordingly, when the angles of rotation of the scanner 200 detected by the photodetectors 310 and 320 are used in combination with each other, information about the direction of the gaze may be obtained in one scan (or one period).” Thus Vostrikov uses the first and second planes to identify the corneal center of the eye, and therefor also uses their line of intersection because their line of intersection is part of those planes. Secondly, the processor of Vostrikov is configured to identify a corneal center for a cornea of the eye based on the first line of intersection in that it is a processor which contains the requisite information and thus is fully capable of identifying the corneal center for a cornea of the eye based on the first line of intersection.).”
Regarding claim 17, Vostrikov teaches (claim 16) “A method for eye tracking (paragraph [0002]: “a method and an electronic device for eye-tracking”), the method comprising:
steering a first scan beam (beam from light source 210) through the effect of a first microelectromechanical system (MEMS) scanner (scanner mirror 230, paragraph [0064]: “The drive may be a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device”) through a first two-dimensional pattern over a scan region on an eye(see Fig. 5 and e.g. paragraph [0071]: “The single-axis scanner mirror 230 may rotate around one axis and reflect the scanning line converted by the optical element 220 in the direction of the cornea. The scanner 200 may completely scan the eye by moving the scanning area by moving the scanning area through rotation of the single-axis scanner mirror 230.), the first MEMS scanner being located at a first location (see location in Fig. 5);
detecting a first glint from a first reflection point in the scan region (paragraph [0098]: “reflected from the corneas 500… is incident on the photodetectors 310”) at a first time (paragraph [0099]: “The photodetectors 310 and 320 may generate electric pulses when the scanning line reflected from the corneas 500 and 510 is incident.” emphasis added)at a first detector(photodetector 310), wherein the first glint includes a first portion of the first scan beam (see Fig. 5), and wherein the first detector is a discrete detector (310 is a photodetector that generates an electric pulse not an image sensor) and is located at a second location (see location in Fig. 5); and
determining a first orientation of the first MEMS scanner at the first time (e.g. paragraph [0078]: “The angle of incidence of the scanning line is determined by the angle of rotation of the scanner 200. Therefore, each of the photodetectors 310 and 320 may detect a scanning line incident at the angle of rotation of the scanner 200 according to the position of the cornea.”).”
(claim 17) The method of claim 16 further comprising:
detecting a second glint from a second reflection point (510) in the scan region (paragraph [0098]: “reflected from the corneas … 510 and is incident on the photodetectors… 320”) at a second time (paragraph [0099]: “The photodetectors 310 and 320 may generate electric pulses when the scanning line reflected from the corneas 500 and 510 is incident.” emphasis added) at a second detector (photodetector 320), wherein the second glint includes a second portion of the first scan beam (see Fig. 5), and wherein the second detector is a discrete detector (320 is a photodetector that generates an electric pulse not an image sensor) and is located at a third location (see position in Fig. 5);
determining a second orientation of the first MEMS scanner at the second time (e.g. paragraph [0078]: “The angle of incidence of the scanning line is determined by the angle of rotation of the scanner 200. Therefore, each of the photodetectors 310 and 320 may detect a scanning line incident at the angle of rotation of the scanner 200 according to the position of the cornea.” The time at which 320 generates an electric pulse is the second time.);
defining a first plane that includes the first location, the second location, and a first scanner-to-glint vector based on the first orientation (see paragraphs [0076]-[0078] the first location of the scanner, the second location of the detector and the angle of incidence of the scanning line onto the cornea are all known or determined. Because the law of reflection applies, each of these elements are within the same plane. Therefor determining these three elements defines the claimed first plane);
defining a second plane that includes the first location, the third location, and a second scanner-to-glint vector based on the second orientation (see paragraphs [0076]-[0078] the first location of the scanner, the third location of the secpmd detector and the angle of incidence of the scanning line onto the cornea are all known or determined. Because the law of reflection applies, each of these elements are within the same plane. Therefor determining these three elements defines the claimed second plane); and
identifying a corneal center for the eye based on the first and second planes (paragraph [0080]: “As described above, each of the photodetectors 310 and 320 may detect a scanning line incident at a specific angle of rotation of the scanner 200 that satisfies the law of reflection. Accordingly, when the angles of rotation of the scanner 200 detected by the photodetectors 310 and 320 are used in combination with each other, information about the direction of the gaze may be obtained in one scan (or one period).” see position of the cornea in Fig. 1).”
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar US 2016/0166146 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Sarkar) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Petersch et al. WO 2020/244971 A1 (hereafter Petersch).
Regarding claim 23, Sarkar teaches “The method of claim 16” however, Sarkar is silent regarding “further comprising applying a refractive correction to the first reflection point.”
Petersch teaches an eye-tracking method. Petersch further teaches “applying a refractive correction to the first reflection point (e.g. paragraph [0084]: “The computing and control unit may be configured to use a stored correction function taking into account corneal refraction to determine in real-time a corrected value for one or more parameters of one or more eyes, such as the center of an eyeball, the expected gaze direction, the expected optical axis, the expected orientation, the expected visual axis, and the expected size or radius of the pupil of the eye and/or a further eye.” see also claim 14).”
Petersch further teaches (paragraph [00169]): “Systematic errors due to corneal refraction may be accounted for by means of empirical correction function(s).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a step of applying a refractive correction to any of the derived eye parameters as taught by Petersch in the method of Sarkar, because Petersch teaches that there exist systematic errors due to corneal refraction that can be corrected by means of an empirical correction function (Petersch paragraph [00169]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vostrikov et al. US 2021/0055792 A1 (hereafter Vostrikov) in view of Petersch et al. WO 2020/244971 A1 (hereafter Petersch).
Regarding claim 23, Vostrikov teaches (claim 16) “A method for eye tracking (paragraph [0002]: “a method and an electronic device for eye-tracking”), the method comprising:
steering a first scan beam (beam from light source 210) through the effect of a first microelectromechanical system (MEMS) scanner (scanner mirror 230, paragraph [0064]: “The drive may be a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device”) through a first two-dimensional pattern over a scan region on an eye(see Fig. 5 and e.g. paragraph [0071]: “The single-axis scanner mirror 230 may rotate around one axis and reflect the scanning line converted by the optical element 220 in the direction of the cornea. The scanner 200 may completely scan the eye by moving the scanning area by moving the scanning area through rotation of the single-axis scanner mirror 230.), the first MEMS scanner being located at a first location (see location in Fig. 5);
detecting a first glint from a first reflection point in the scan region (paragraph [0098]: “reflected from the corneas 500… is incident on the photodetectors 310”) at a first time (paragraph [0099]: “The photodetectors 310 and 320 may generate electric pulses when the scanning line reflected from the corneas 500 and 510 is incident.” emphasis added)at a first detector(photodetector 310), wherein the first glint includes a first portion of the first scan beam (see Fig. 5), and wherein the first detector is a discrete detector (310 is a photodetector that generates an electric pulse not an image sensor) and is located at a second location (see location in Fig. 5); and
determining a first orientation of the first MEMS scanner at the first time (e.g. paragraph [0078]: “The angle of incidence of the scanning line is determined by the angle of rotation of the scanner 200. Therefore, each of the photodetectors 310 and 320 may detect a scanning line incident at the angle of rotation of the scanner 200 according to the position of the cornea.”).”
However, Vostrikovic is silent regarding (claim 23) “further comprising applying a refractive correction to the first reflection point.”
Petersch teaches an eye-tracking method. Petersch further teaches “applying a refractive correction to the first reflection point (e.g. paragraph [0084]: “The computing and control unit may be configured to use a stored correction function taking into account corneal refraction to determine in real-time a corrected value for one or more parameters of one or more eyes, such as the center of an eyeball, the expected gaze direction, the expected optical axis, the expected orientation, the expected visual axis, and the expected size or radius of the pupil of the eye and/or a further eye.” see also claim 14).”
Petersch further teaches (paragraph [00169]): “Systematic errors due to corneal refraction may be accounted for by means of empirical correction function(s).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a step of applying a refractive correction to any of the derived eye parameters as taught by Petersch in the method of Vostrikov, because Petersch teaches that there exist systematic errors due to corneal refraction that can be corrected by means of an empirical correction function (Petersch paragraph [00169]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Reference will be made to Sarkar US 2016/0166146 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Sarkar), Vostrikov et al. US 2021/0055792 A1 (hereafter Vostrikov) and Zahirovic et al. US 2022/0261074 A1 (hereafter Zahirovic).
Claims 6-9 and 18-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “a second MEMS scanner for steering a second scan beam in a second two- dimensional pattern over the scan region, the second MEMS scanner being located at a fourth location;
wherein the first detector is further configured to detect a third glint from a third reflection point in the scan region at a third time, the third glint including a first portion of the second scan beam; and
wherein the processor is further configured to:
(6) determine a third orientation of the second MEMS scanner at the third time;
(7) define a third plane that includes the fourth location, the second location, and a third scanner-to-glint vector that is based on the third orientation; and
(8) identify a corneal center for a cornea of the eye based on an intersection point of the first, second, and third planes.”
In particular, Vostrikov does not disclose a second MEMs scanner. Zahirovic teaches in paragraph [0130]: “Although system 100, as described herein, includes a single transmit module that provides only one input signal, in some embodiments, multiple MEMS scanners, each providing a different input signal are used with multiple detectors to augment the capabilities of an eye-tracking system. For example, three-dimensional sensing is enabled by the use of two or more input signals in conjunction with a plurality of detectors.” However, Zahirovic fails to teach that the first detector detects a glint from the second scan beam of a second MEMs scanner.
Claims 7-9 depend from claim 6 and are allowable for at least the reason stated above.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “steering a second scan beam through the effect of a second MEMS scanner through a second two-dimensional pattern over the scan region, the second MEMS scanner being located at a fourth location;
detecting a third glint from a third reflection point in the scan region at a third time at the first detector, wherein the third glint includes a first portion of the second scan beam;
determining a third orientation of the second MEMS scanner at the third time;
defining a third plane that includes the first location, the fourth location, and a third scanner-to-glint vector based on the third orientation; and
identifying the corneal center based further on the third plane.”
In particular, Vostrikov does not disclose a second MEMs scanner. Zahirovic teaches in paragraph [0130]: “Although system 100, as described herein, includes a single transmit module that provides only one input signal, in some embodiments, multiple MEMS scanners, each providing a different input signal are used with multiple detectors to augment the capabilities of an eye-tracking system. For example, three-dimensional sensing is enabled by the use of two or more input signals in conjunction with a plurality of detectors.” However, Zahirovic fails to teach that the first detector detects a glint from the second scan beam of a second MEMs scanner.
Claim 19-22 depend from claim 18 and are allowed for at least the reason stated above.
Claims 10-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “wherein the first detector is configured to detect a first glint from a first reflection point in the scan region at a first time and a second glint from a second reflection point in the scan region at a second time, the first glint including a first portion of the first scan beam, and the second glint including a first portion of the second scan beam;
wherein the second detector is configured to detect a third glint from a third reflection point in the scan region at a third time, the third glint including a second portion of the first scan beam; and
wherein the processor is configured to:
(1) define a first plane based on a first orientation of the first MEMS scanner at the first time, the first location, and the second location; and
(2) define a second plane based on a second orientation of the second MEMS scanner at the second time, the second location, and the fourth location.”
In particular, Vostrikov does not disclose a second MEMs scanner. Zahirovic teaches in paragraph [0130]: “Although system 100, as described herein, includes a single transmit module that provides only one input signal, in some embodiments, multiple MEMS scanners, each providing a different input signal are used with multiple detectors to augment the capabilities of an eye-tracking system. For example, three-dimensional sensing is enabled by the use of two or more input signals in conjunction with a plurality of detectors.” However, Zahirovic fails to teach that the first detector detects a glint from the second scan beam of a second MEMs scanner.
Claims 11-15 depend from claim 10 and are allowed for at least the reason stated above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872