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. The amended claims submitted April 15, 2026 in response to the office action mailed January 15, 2026 are under consideration. Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 10-15 are amended in a manner which does not affect the scope of the claims. Claims 1-9 and 16-23 are amended at least by the amendments to independent claims 1 and 16. Notably, because the additions to claims 1 and 16 are not supported by the application as filed as explained in the 35 USC §112(a) rejection below, they are also not supported in the parent application. Thus, in light of the amendments, Vostrikov is now prior art for claims 1-9 and 16-23.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the Applicant has pointed to paragraphs [0008], [0009], [0054], and [0056] as examples of where the amended claim is supported. The examiner cannot see any language related to or resembling the current claim language in these paragraphs nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation (claim 1) “the first glint including a first portion of the first scan beam and corresponding to detection of light reflected from the first reflection point when the first scan beam is directed to the first reflection point at a corresponding orientation of the first MEMS scanner,” or (claim 16) “the first glint includes a first portion of the first scan beam and corresponds to detection of light reflected from the first reflection point when the first scan beam is directed to the first reflection point at a corresponding orientation of the first MEMS scanner,” in the application as filed. (see MPEP §2163.04, Sec. I). Quite to the contrary, no such correspondence is explicitly stated in the instant application, and the applicant has argued that such a limitation is not inherent to either their own work Sarkar US 2016/0166146 (paragraph spanning pages 11 and 12 of 16 of the remarks filed 4/15/2026) or Vostrikov 2021/0055792 (fourth paragraph of page 14 of 16 of the remarks filed 4/15/2026). The applicant has failed to explain how this feature could not be inherent to these extraordinarily similar systems and yet still be inherent to the present application, nor can the examiner imagine any possible way these two things could both be true. Although the examiner takes the position below that this feature is inherent to both Sarkar and Vostrikov, if this position is somehow in error, claims 1-9 and 16-23 cannot be allowable because they lack written description support.
Claims 2-9 and 17-23 depend from claims 1 or 16 and inherit and do not mitigate the above written description issue from claims 1 and 16.
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.”), and corresponding to detection of light reflected from the first reflection point when the first scan beam is directed to the first reflection point at a corresponding orientation of the first MEMS scanner (see Figs. 1 and 10, the reflection of light from the first reflection point is when the first MEMS scanner 102 is at an orientation corresponding to the first reflection point, and the light reflects off the first reflection point to be detected by the detect module 104. That these angles correspond to one another is due to the physics of the reflection. That this only occurs at the first reflection point can be seen in the graph of Fig. 10),
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 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 corresponds to detection of light reflected from the first reflection point when the first scan beam is directed to the first reflection point at a corresponding orientation of the first MEMS scanner (see Figs. 1 and 10, the reflection of light from the first reflection point is when the first MEMS scanner 102 is at an orientation corresponding to the first reflection point, and the light reflects off the first reflection point to be detected by the detect module 104. That these angles correspond to one another is due to the physics of the reflection. That this only occurs at the first reflection point can be seen in the graph of Fig. 10),
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 1-5 and 16-17 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 1, Vostrikov teaches “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), and corresponding to detection of light reflected from the first reflection point when the first scan beam is directed to the first reflection point at a corresponding orientation of the first MEMS scanner (see Fig. 5, the reflection of light from the first reflection point is when the first MEMS scanner 230 is at an orientation corresponding to the first reflection point, and the light reflects off the first reflection point to be detected by the detect module 310. That these angles correspond to one another is due to the physics of the reflection. That this only occurs at the first reflection point can be seen in the graph of Fig. 10),
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.”).”
Regarding claim 2, Vostrikov teaches “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 “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 16, Vostrikov teaches “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 corresponds to detection of light reflected from the first reflection point when the first scan beam is directed to the first reflection point at a corresponding orientation of the first MEMS scanner (see Fig. 5, the reflection of light from the first reflection point is when the first MEMS scanner 230 is at an orientation corresponding to the first reflection point, and the light reflects off the first reflection point to be detected by the detect module 310. That these angles correspond to one another is due to the physics of the reflection. That this only occurs at the first reflection point can be seen in the graph of Fig. 10),
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.”).”
Regarding claim 17, Vostrikov teaches “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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first paragraph of page 9 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant the has pointed to paragraphs [0008], [0009], [0054], and [0056] as examples of where the amended claim is supported. As noted above, the examiner cannot see any language related to or resembling the current claim language in these paragraphs. Furthermore, if this feature is not inherent to the prior art systems as argued by the applicant, then it would also not be inherent to the present system. Thus, if the applicant were correct regarding the prior art, then the newly added limitation would lack written description support.
In the second paragraph of page 9 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes the claims that stand allowed or objected to. The status of these claims is unchanged from the previous office action.
Under the heading “35 U.S.C. §102 Rejection of Claims 1 and 16” on page 9 of 16 through the first four lines of page 10 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant reproduces the entirety of claim 1 as amended and expounds on the standards for anticipation. No specific argument is made in these passages.
From the first full paragraph of page 10 of 16 through the first full paragraph of page 11 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant reproduces two of the paragraphs relied upon in the previous rejection with respect to the limitation “a first detector configured to detect a first glint”. However, the applicant does not attempt to rebut this determination, but rather simply notes that the Office has not established that these passages teach the newly added limitation “the first glint including a first portion of the first scan beam and corresponding to detection of light reflected from the first reflection point when the first scan beam is directed to the first reflection point at a corresponding orientation of the first MEMS scanner”. Given that this was not previously claimed, there is no reason why the previous rejection would have needed to explain how this is taught.
In the second and third paragraphs of page 11 of 16, the applicant touches on the teachings of paragraphs [0016] and [0048] of Sarkar as if to imply that the new feature isn’t taught, but actually is only criticizing the previous rejection for failing to show how the newly added feature is taught. Notably, the applicant does not actually explain how the cited passages are deficient.
In the fourth paragraph of page 11 of 16, the applicant concludes that the prior office action has failed to establish that the newly added limitation is taught in the prior art. Given that the newly added limitation was not previously recited, it is unreasonable of the applicant to expect such an explanation to have been present in the previous office action.
In the paragraph spanning pages 11 of 16 and 12 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the newly claimed limitation is not inherent to the teachings of Sarkar, because “the Office has not shown that these teachings require that the detected signal correspond to the beam being directed to a specific reflection point at a corresponding orientation, rather than being merely indicative of a location inferred from signal characteristics.” This argument is not persuasive. The reflection from the first glint being detected by the detector is, in fact, determined by the laws of specular reflection, and thus dependent on the orientation of the MEMs scanner from which light is directed onto the surface of the eye. Thus, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s allegation that this feature could fail to be inherent.
In the remaining lines of this section of page 12 of 16 the applicant concludes that accordingly, claims 1 and 16 are novel. The arguments underlying this conclusion have been addressed above.
Under the heading “35 U.S.C. §102 Rejection of Claims 2-5 and 17” on page 12 of 16 through the first full paragraph of page 13 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant again reproduces the entirety of claim 1 as amended and expounds on the standards for anticipation. No specific argument is made in these passages.
In the second full paragraph of page 13 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant alleges that Vostrikov fails to disclose the newly added feature of “a first detector configured to detect a first glint… corresponding to detection of light reflected from the first reflection point when the first scan beam is directed to the first reflection point at a corresponding orientation of the first MEMS scanner.” The arguments underlying this allegation follow.
In the third full paragraph of page 13 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant summarizes portions of Vostrikov relied upon in the previous rejection. No specific argument is made in this paragraph.
In the paragraph spanning pages 13 of 16 and 14 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant acknowledges that Vostrikov teaches detection of light reflected from the eye and that such reflections are based on the law of reflection. The applicant then alleges that Vostrikov fails to disclose “that the detection event itself corresponds to detection of light reflected from a specific reflection point when the scan beam is directed to that reflection point at a corresponding orientation of the MEMS scanner.” No explanation for how this could be true is provided in this paragraph, rather this paragraph appears to merely be introducing what it is that the applicant will be arguing.
In the first full paragraph of page 14 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues:
“In particular, Vostrikov determines gaze direction or corneal position based on electrical pulses and timing relationships associated with detected signals, including, in some embodiments, timing differences between signals detected at different photodetectors. See, e.g., Vostrikov at paragraphs [0017], [0077], and [0121]. These disclosures describe determining angular position or gaze direction from detected signals and their timing. However, Vostrikov does not disclose that the detection event itself is defined by the scan beam being directed to a specific reflection point at a corresponding scanner orientation, as required by claim 1. Nowhere does Vostrikov disclose that a detected signal corresponds to such a directed-beam condition, rather than being used as input to determine position or angle.”
To the extent that the examiner can decipher the argument being made, it is not persuasive. The similarities between Vostrikov and the instant application are inescapable. The applicant notes that the angular position in Vosrtikov is determined based on the timing. The title of the instant application is “timer-based eye tracking”. The applicant alleges that Vostrikov does not disclose a correspondence between the scanner orientation and the detection event. This is not physically possible. In both the instant application and Vostrikov it is the knowledge of the orientation of the MEMs scanner as a function of time that enables the deduction of the position of the glint using the laws of reflection.
In the second full paragraph of page 14 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues:
“Moreover, although Vostrikov describes that certain points may lie in a common plane when reflection conditions are satisfied (see Vostrikov at paragraph [0059]), this disclosure does not establish the claimed correspondence between the detected glint and the scan beam being directed to a specific reflection point at a corresponding scanner orientation. The description of geometric relationships based on reflection does not disclose that the detection event itself corresponds to the scan beam being directed to a specific reflection point, as required by claim 1.”
Again, to the extent that the examiner can decipher the argument being made, it is not persuasive. An ordinary skilled artisan looking at Figs. 5 and 10 of Vostrikov can tell that the detection event corresponds to a specific orientation of the MEMs mirror that results in a detectable glint at the detector, as dictated by the laws of reflection. Notably, the applicant has not attempted to explain how the newly added limitation could be inherent to the instant application and yet not true of Vostrikov or Sarkar. This omission suggests that applicant is fully aware that an explanation of how the new limitation is supported by the application as filed would equally apply to its inherent presence in Sarkar and Vostrikov.
The examiner has considered closely the arguments in the remainder of page 14 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks. While it might appear that the applicant is arguing that Vostrikov fails to teach the newly presented limitation, a close reading thereof shows that the applicant is actually only noting the failure of the previous Office Action to address the new limitation. As noted in MPEP §706.07(a) “an examiner cannot be expected to foresee whether or how an applicant will amend a claim… except in very limited circumstances.”
In the remainder of this section on page 15 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that claims 2-5 and 16-17 are patentable for the reasons argued above. These arguments have been addressed above.
In the remainder of page 15 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Petersch fails to remedy the deficiencies of Sarkar and Vostrikov. This argument is moot because Petersch is not relied upon for the argued features.
The request for an interview with the examiner in lines 7-11 of page 16 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks is denied. The nature and number of the outstanding issues of patentability are such that it does not appear that an interview would result in expediting allowance of the application at this time. See MPEP §713.01 (IV) “An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application. … Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aleem et al. US 2020/0142479 A1 “EYE TRACKING METHOD AND SYSTEM AND INTEGRATION OF THE SAME WITH WEARABLE HEADS-UP DISPLAYS” paragraph [0077]: “he timing signals allow the position of the optical scanner 112 in the scan space to be correlated to the samples of infrared detector output. In one implementation, the intensities of reflections detected by infrared detector 144 and mirror position timing signals from scan mirror driver 148 make up reflection-position data 168.” Pertinent to at least claims 1 and 16.
Fix et al. US 11,120,258 B1 “Apparatuses, Systems, And Methods For Scanning An Eye Via A Folding Mirror” col. 12 lines 54-60: Identifying module 108 may determine the primary normal angle based on a position of a point of rotation associated with scanning device 140 (e.g., point of rotation 234), an angle of a projection of line of light 204 from point of rotation 234 at a time of detection of initial reflection 222, and a position of photodetector 160 relative to point of rotation 234. Pertinent to at least claims 1 and 16.
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 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, Ricky L 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights