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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second spatial regions “configured to separate or transition smoothly into one another,” as claimed in claim 6, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-12 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite that “the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint.”
Similarly, claim 12 recites “when the scanned infrared laser beam passes through or is diverted by the optical element, the collimation of the laser beam is maintained in a first spatial or temporal region of the optical element to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein when the scanned infrared laser beam passes through or is diverted by the optical element, the laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, in a second spatial or temporal region of the optical element, to generate a glint.”
However, it is unclear how to construct an optical element such that “in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern” or “to generate a glint.” Specifically, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the optical element performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the optical element to perform the function of generating “a bright pupil effect and/or retina speckle pattern” or “a glint.” As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Furthermore, it is unclear how the optical element can focus the laser beam “on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye” and it is unclear if the iris, center, or cornea of the eye should be should be different from the region that generates a bright pupil effect or retina speckle pattern. Moreover, it is unclear if the laser beam being “focused” on the region is intended to be a focal point or focal plane at the region, or if the claim merely intends for the laser beam to be directed to that region.
For the purposes of examination, any optical element that directs the infrared laser beam to a pupil and an iris or cornea position away from the pupil will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Additionally, claims 1, 11, and 12 recite that “the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector.” However, it is unclear what constitutes “back reflections of the infrared laser beam.” Specifically, it is unclear if “back reflections” are intended to be reflections from an eye or an additional element. For the purposes of examination, any laser feedback interferometry sensor that detects any reflected infrared laser beam will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 4 recites “at least two first spatial regions and at least two second spatial regions are distributed in the HOE, regularly and/or alternately, over the entire surface extent of the HOE.” However, it is unclear how the spatial regions can be arranged “regularly and/or alternately, over the entire surface extent of the HOE.” Specifically, it is unclear what constitutes a “regular” arrangement and how such an arrangement can be different from an arrangement that would be considered “alternately.”
For the purposes of examination, any plurality of first and plurality of second spatial regions arranged over a surface of the HOE will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 4 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 5 recites “the first spatial regions and the second spatial regions are distributed over the HOE in the manner of a checkerboard, or in a strip-shaped manner, or in a regular polygonal pattern, or in a hexagonal pattern, or in another area-filling repeat pattern.” However, it is unclear what constitutes “a strip-shaped manner” as any polygonal shape could be considered “strip-shaped.” Moreover, given that a hexagonal pattern is a polygonal pattern, it is unclear how the regions can be provided in either a polygonal pattern or a hexagonal pattern. Furthermore, it is unclear what constitutes “another area-filling repeat pattern” as it is unclear what structures form such a pattern. Given that a polygonal pattern does not repeat in any manner, it is unclear if other shapes would be considered an “area-filling repeat pattern” and there is no limit on such an “area-filling repeat pattern.”
For the purposes of examination, any spatial regions forming a polygonal or repeating pattern structure will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “a sensor configured to capture back reflections of the infrared laser beam from the first and second regions.” However, claim 7 depends upon claim 1 which recites “a laser feedback interferometry sensor.” It is unclear if claim 7 is intended to require an additional sensor, or if the laser feedback interferometry sensor of claim 1 should be the sensor of claim 7. For the purposes of examination, any device with a sensor will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites that “the optical element forms a third spatial or temporal region in which the infrared laser beam is focused on the iris of the user’s eye, or on the center of the user’s eye, or on the cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a further glint, wherein the second region and the third region form focal points that are spatially separate from one another.” However, it is unclear how to construct an optical element in order “to generate a further glint.” Specifically, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the optical element performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the optical element to perform the function of generating “a bright pupil effect and/or retina speckle pattern” or “a glint.” As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Furthermore, it is unclear how the optical element can focus the laser beam “on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye” and it is unclear if the iris, center, or cornea of the eye should be should be different from the region that generates a bright pupil effect or retina speckle pattern. Moreover, it is unclear if the laser beam being “focused” on the region is intended to be a focal point or focal plane at the region, or if the claim merely intends for the laser beam to be directed to that region.
For the purposes of examination, any optical element that includes multiple spatial or temporal regions that direct the infrared laser beam to a pupil and an iris or cornea position away from the pupil will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites that “the optical element is configured as a multifocal lens.” However, claim 9 depends upon claim 1 which requires that the optical element have multiple spatial and temporal regions to direct a laser beam to different locations on the eye with different collimation or focusing characteristics. Thus, the optical element of claim 1 is already “configured as a multifocal lens” and it is unclear what additional structure is required by claim 9. It is unclear if the claim is intended to require a specific lens device that adjusts its focal length, or if the claim requires any element with multiple focal lengths, etc.
For the purposes of examination, any optical element having multiple focal lengths will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 10 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 9 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 10 recites that “the multifocal lens is adjusted and/or configured such that the scanned infrared laser beam passing through the multifocal lens is focused during a scan in a scanning direction in a forward scanning direction, and such that the scanned infrared laser beam remains collimated during a scan in a further scanning direction in an opposite direction to the scanning direction including a backward scanning direction.” However, it is unclear how a multifocal lens can be “adjusted and/or configured” to achieve the claimed function. Specifically, it is unclear what constitutes the lens being “adjusted” and how such an adjustment differs from the lens being “configured” for a specific structure.
Moreover, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the optical element performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the optical element “such that the scanned infrared laser beam passing through the multifocal lens is focused during a scan in a scanning direction in a forward scanning direction, and such that the scanned infrared laser beam remains collimated during a scan in a further scanning direction in an opposite direction to the scanning direction including a backward scanning direction.” As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Furthermore, it is unclear what constitutes “a further scanning direction in an opposite direction to the scanning direction including a backward scanning direction.” Specifically, it is unclear if any opposite direction is “a backward scanning direction” or if the claim actually requires a specific scan pattern to be considered “backward.”
For the purposes of examination, any multifocal lens and device that scans the beam in multiple directions will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
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(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleem et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/0142479; hereinafter – “Aleem”) in view of Sverdrup et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2012/0105310; hereinafter – “Sverdrup”) and Lanman (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0187482).
Regarding claim 1, Aleem teaches a device for monitoring an eye position of a user’s eye in a virtual retinal display, comprising:
at least one laser projector (104) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1, 5-6, and 9-10; Paragraphs 0059-0062 and 0076);
at least one optical system (132, 136, 138, 140, 142, 540) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region (132a, 136a, 138a) in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region (132b, 132c, 132d, 136b, 136c, 136d, 138b) in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099).
Aleem fails to explicitly disclose that the laser projector unit generates a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and that the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern.
However, Sverdrup teaches a dynamic foveal vision display comprising at least one laser projector unit configured to at least generate a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and at least one optical system (“EPE”, “Display Mirror”) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 2, 8-9, 11, and 16-17; Paragraphs 0046, 0048-0052, and 0069-0071).
Sverdrup teaches this collimated scanned infrared laser beam such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” (Paragraph 0046) to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements” (Paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the collimated beam of Sverdrup such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements,” as taught by Sverdrup (Paragraphs 0008 and 0046).
Aleem and Sverdrup fail to explicitly disclose that the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector.
However, Lanman teaches an integrated augmented reality head-mounted display for pupil steering comprising at least one laser projector (408) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam wherein the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor (1138) configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraphs 0178-0180, 0187-0188, 0314-0316, and 0324-0326).
Lanman teaches this laser feedback interferometry sensor as a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” (Paragraph 0189) to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” (Paragraph 0057) in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays” (Paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman to provide a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays,” as taught by Lanman (Paragraphs 0007, 0057, and 0189).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a laser feedback interferometry sensor) with other component(s) (i.e., an infrared reflection sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth and described by Lanman. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting a laser feedback interferometry sensor for an infrared reflection sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a device with a laser feedback interferometry sensor) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman for the infrared reflection sensor of Aleem, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Aleem in view of Sverdrup and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches that wherein the virtual retina display include data glasses (102) (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 3, Aleem in view of Sverdrup and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the optical element is configured as a holographic optical element (HOE) segmented two-dimensionally at least into the two spatial regions (See e.g. Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 4, Aleem in view of Sverdrup and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 3, as above.
Aleem further teaches that at least two first spatial regions and at least two second spatial regions (132a, 132b, 132c, 132d, 138a, 138b) are distributed in the HOE, regularly and/or alternately, over the entire surface extent of the HOE (See e.g. Fig. 3C; Paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 5, Aleem in view of Sverdrup and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 4, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the first spatial regions and the second spatial regions are distributed over the HOE in the manner of a checkerboard, or in a strip-shaped manner, or in a regular polygonal pattern, or in a hexagonal pattern, or in another area-filling repeat pattern (See e.g. Fig. 3C; Paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 6, Aleem in view of Sverdrup and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 4, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the first spatial regions and the second spatial regions are configured to separate or transition smoothly into one another (See e.g. Fig. 3C; Paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 7, Aleem in view of Sverdrup and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches a sensor (144) configured to capture back reflections of the infrared laser beam from the first and second regions; and a computer (128) configured to determine the eye position of the user’s eye including at least a gaze vector of the user’s eye, from the captured back reflections from a pupil center position of the user’s eye ascertained from the back reflection of the user’s eye, and from a glint position of the user’s eye ascertained from the back reflection of the user’s eye (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-10; Paragraphs 0068-0070, 0076-0082, 0086-0090, and 0099-0101).
Regarding claim 8, Aleem in view of Sverdrup and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the optical element forms a third spatial or temporal region in which the infrared laser beam is focused on the iris of the user’s eye, or on the center of the user’s eye, or on the cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a further glint, wherein the second region and the third region form focal points that are spatially separate from one another (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 9, Aleem in view of Sverdrup and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches that wherein the optical element is configured as a multifocal lens (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 9-10; Paragraphs 0011, 0032, and 0065-0067).
Regarding claim 10, Aleem in view of Sverdrup and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 9, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the multifocal lens is adjusted and/or configured such that the scanned infrared laser beam passing through the multifocal lens is focused during a scan in a scanning direction in a forward scanning direction, and such that the scanned infrared laser beam is scanned in a further scanning direction in an opposite direction to the scanning direction including a backward scanning direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099).
Aleem fails to explicitly disclose that the scanned infrared laser beam remains collimated during a scan in a further scanning direction in an opposite direction to the scanning direction including a backward scanning direction.
However, Sverdrup teaches a dynamic foveal vision display comprising at least one laser projector unit configured to at least generate a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and at least one optical system (“EPE”, “Display Mirror”) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 2, 8-9, 11, and 16-17; Paragraphs 0046, 0048-0052, and 0069-0071).
Sverdrup teaches this collimated scanned infrared laser beam such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” (Paragraph 0046) to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements” (Paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the collimated beam of Sverdrup such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements,” as taught by Sverdrup (Paragraphs 0008 and 0046).
Regarding claim 11, Aleem teaches a pair of smart glasses (102), comprising:
a device (100) for monitoring an eye position of a user’s eye in a virtual retinal display (See e.g. Figs. 1-11; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, 0098-0099, and 0102), including:
at least one laser projector unit (104) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1, 5-6, and 9-10; Paragraphs 0059-0062 and 0076);
at least one optical system (132, 136, 138, 140, 142, 540) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region (132a, 136a, 138a) in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region (132b, 132c, 132d, 136b, 136c, 136d, 138b) in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099).
Aleem fails to explicitly disclose that the laser projector unit generates a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and that the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern.
However, Sverdrup teaches a dynamic foveal vision display comprising at least one laser projector unit configured to at least generate a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and at least one optical system (“EPE”, “Display Mirror”) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 2, 8-9, 11, and 16-17; Paragraphs 0046, 0048-0052, and 0069-0071).
Sverdrup teaches this collimated scanned infrared laser beam such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” (Paragraph 0046) to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements” (Paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pair of smart glasses of Aleem with the collimated beam of Sverdrup such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements,” as taught by Sverdrup (Paragraphs 0008 and 0046).
Aleem and Sverdrup fail to explicitly disclose that the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector.
However, Lanman teaches an integrated augmented reality head-mounted display for pupil steering comprising at least one laser projector (408) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam wherein the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor (1138) configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraphs 0178-0180, 0187-0188, 0314-0316, and 0324-0326).
Lanman teaches this laser feedback interferometry sensor as a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” (Paragraph 0189) to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” (Paragraph 0057) in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays” (Paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman to provide a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays,” as taught by Lanman (Paragraphs 0007, 0057, and 0189).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a laser feedback interferometry sensor) with other component(s) (i.e., an infrared reflection sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth and described by Lanman. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting a laser feedback interferometry sensor for an infrared reflection sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a device with a laser feedback interferometry sensor) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman for the infrared reflection sensor of Aleem, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Aleem teaches a method for monitoring an eye position of a user’s eye in a virtual retinal display, comprising the following steps:
generating a scanned infrared laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1, 5-6, and 9-10; Paragraphs 0059-0062 and 0076);
guiding the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye via at least one optical system (132, 136, 138, 140, 142, 540), wherein the optical system includes an optical element through which the scanned infrared laser beam passes or by which the scanned infrared laser beam is diverted (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099);
wherein, when the scanned infrared laser beam passes through or is diverted by the optical element, the laser beam is maintained in a first spatial or temporal region (132a, 136a, 138a) of the optical element to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099), and
wherein when the scanned infrared laser beam passes through or is diverted by the optical element, the laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, in a second spatial or temporal region (132b, 132c, 132d, 136b, 136c, 136d, 138b ) of the optical element, to generate a glint (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099); and
evaluating a reflection signal reflected by the user’s eye and including: i) the glint, and ii) as a bright pupil pattern and/or a retina speckle pattern, to ascertain the eye position of the user’s eye including a gaze vector of the user’s eye (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-10; Paragraphs 0068-0070, 0076-0082, 0086-0090, and 0099-0101).
Aleem fails to explicitly disclose generating a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and that when the scanned infrared laser beam passes through or is diverted by the optical element, the collimation of the laser beam is maintained in a first spatial or temporal region of the optical element to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern.
However, Sverdrup teaches a dynamic foveal vision display comprising at least one laser projector unit configured to at least generate a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and at least one optical system (“EPE”, “Display Mirror”) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 2, 8-9, 11, and 16-17; Paragraphs 0046, 0048-0052, and 0069-0071).
Sverdrup teaches this collimated scanned infrared laser beam such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” (Paragraph 0046) to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements” (Paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aleem with the collimated beam of Sverdrup such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements,” as taught by Sverdrup (Paragraphs 0008 and 0046).
Aleem and Sverdrup fail to explicitly disclose that the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector.
However, Lanman teaches an integrated augmented reality head-mounted display for pupil steering comprising at least one laser projector (408) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam wherein the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor (1138) configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraphs 0178-0180, 0187-0188, 0314-0316, and 0324-0326).
Lanman teaches this laser feedback interferometry sensor as a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” (Paragraph 0189) to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” (Paragraph 0057) in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays” (Paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman to provide a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays,” as taught by Lanman (Paragraphs 0007, 0057, and 0189).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a laser feedback interferometry sensor) with other component(s) (i.e., an infrared reflection sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth and described by Lanman. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting a laser feedback interferometry sensor for an infrared reflection sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a device with a laser feedback interferometry sensor) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman for the infrared reflection sensor of Aleem, since the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleem et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/0142479; hereinafter – “Aleem”) in view of Topliss et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,122,256; hereinafter – “Topliss”) and Lanman.
Regarding claim 1, Aleem teaches a device for monitoring an eye position of a user’s eye in a virtual retinal display, comprising:
at least one laser projector unit (104) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1, 5-6, and 9-10; Paragraphs 0059-0062 and 0076);
at least one optical system (132, 136, 138, 140, 142, 540) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region (132a, 136a, 138a) in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region (132b, 132c, 132d, 136b, 136c, 136d, 138b) in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099).
Aleem fails to explicitly disclose that the laser projector unit generates a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and that the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern.
However, Topliss teaches a mixed reality system comprising at least one laser projector unit (508) configured to at least generate a collimated scanned laser beam and at least one optical system (550) configured to optically guide the scanned laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the laser beam, the collimation of the laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 5, 7, and 11-14; C. 7, L. 45 – C. 8, L. 10; C. 9, L. 38-49; C. 10, L. 12-37; C. 14, L. 24-50).
Topliss teaches this collimated scanned laser beam to provide “a mixed reality (MR) direct retinal projector system…that may, for example, resolve the convergence-accommodation conflict in head-mounted AR, MR, and VR systems” (C. 4, L. 28-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the collimated beam of Topliss to provide “a mixed reality (MR) direct retinal projector system…that may, for example, resolve the convergence-accommodation conflict in head-mounted AR, MR, and VR systems,” as taught by Topliss (C. 4, L. 28-50).
Aleem and Topliss fail to explicitly disclose that the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector.
However, Lanman teaches an integrated augmented reality head-mounted display for pupil steering comprising at least one laser projector (408) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam wherein the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor (1138) configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraphs 0178-0180, 0187-0188, 0314-0316, and 0324-0326).
Lanman teaches this laser feedback interferometry sensor as a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” (Paragraph 0189) to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” (Paragraph 0057) in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays” (Paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman to provide a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays,” as taught by Lanman (Paragraphs 0007, 0057, and 0189).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a laser feedback interferometry sensor) with other component(s) (i.e., an infrared reflection sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth and described by Lanman. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting a laser feedback interferometry sensor for an infrared reflection sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a device with a laser feedback interferometry sensor) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman for the infrared reflection sensor of Aleem, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Aleem in view of Topliss and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches that wherein the virtual retina display include data glasses (102) (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 3, Aleem in view of Topliss and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the optical element is configured as a holographic optical element (HOE) segmented two-dimensionally at least into the two spatial regions (See e.g. Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 4, Aleem in view of Topliss and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 3, as above.
Aleem further teaches that at least two first spatial regions and at least two of second spatial regions (132a, 132b, 132c, 132d, 138a, 138b) are distributed in the HOE, regularly and/or alternately, over the entire surface extent of the HOE (See e.g. Fig. 3C; Paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 5, Aleem in view of Topliss and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 4, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the first spatial regions and the second spatial regions are distributed over the HOE in the manner of a checkerboard, or in a strip-shaped manner, or in a regular polygonal pattern, or in a hexagonal pattern, or in another area-filling repeat pattern (See e.g. Fig. 3C; Paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 6, Aleem in view of Topliss and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 4, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the first spatial regions and the second spatial regions are configured to separate or transition smoothly into one another (See e.g. Fig. 3C; Paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 7, Aleem in view of Topliss and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches a sensor (144) configured to capture back reflections of the infrared laser beam from the first and second regions; and a computer (128) configured to determine the eye position of the user’s eye including at least a gaze vector of the user’s eye, from the captured back reflections from a pupil center position of the user’s eye ascertained from the back reflection of the user’s eye, and from a glint position of the user’s eye ascertained from the back reflection of the user’s eye (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-10; Paragraphs 0068-0070, 0076-0082, 0086-0090, and 0099-0101).
Regarding claim 8, Aleem in view of Topliss and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the optical element forms a third spatial or temporal region in which the infrared laser beam is focused on the iris of the user’s eye, or on the center of the user’s eye, or on the cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a further glint, wherein the second region and the third region form focal points that are spatially separate from one another (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 9, Aleem in view of Topliss and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches that wherein the optical element is configured as a multifocal lens (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 9-10; Paragraphs 0011, 0032, and 0065-0067).
Regarding claim 10, Aleem in view of Topliss and Lanman teaches the device as recited in claim 9, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the multifocal lens is adjusted and/or configured such that the scanned infrared laser beam passing through the multifocal lens is focused during a scan in a scanning direction in a forward scanning direction, and such that the scanned infrared laser beam is scanned in a further scanning direction in an opposite direction to the scanning direction including a backward scanning direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099).
Aleem fails to explicitly disclose that the scanned infrared laser beam remains collimated during a scan in a further scanning direction in an opposite direction to the scanning direction including a backward scanning direction.
However, Topliss teaches a mixed reality system comprising at least one laser projector unit (508) configured to at least generate a collimated scanned laser beam and at least one optical system (550) configured to optically guide the scanned laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the laser beam, the collimation of the laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 5, 7, and 11-14; C. 7, L. 45 – C. 8, L. 10; C. 9, L. 38-49; C. 10, L. 12-37; C. 14, L. 24-50).
Topliss teaches this collimated scanned laser beam to provide “a mixed reality (MR) direct retinal projector system…that may, for example, resolve the convergence-accommodation conflict in head-mounted AR, MR, and VR systems” (C. 4, L. 28-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the collimated beam of Topliss to provide “a mixed reality (MR) direct retinal projector system…that may, for example, resolve the convergence-accommodation conflict in head-mounted AR, MR, and VR systems,” as taught by Topliss (C. 4, L. 28-50).
Regarding claim 11, Aleem teaches a pair of smart glasses (102), comprising:
a device (100) for monitoring an eye position of a user’s eye in a virtual retinal display (See e.g. Figs. 1-11; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, 0098-0099, and 0102), including:
at least one laser projector unit (104) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1, 5-6, and 9-10; Paragraphs 0059-0062 and 0076);
at least one optical system (132, 136, 138, 140, 142, 540) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region (132a, 136a, 138a) in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region (132b, 132c, 132d, 136b, 136c, 136d, 138b) in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099).
Aleem fails to explicitly disclose that the laser projector unit generates a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and that the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern.
However, Topliss teaches a mixed reality system comprising at least one laser projector unit (508) configured to at least generate a collimated scanned laser beam and at least one optical system (550) configured to optically guide the scanned laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the laser beam, the collimation of the laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 5, 7, and 11-14; C. 7, L. 45 – C. 8, L. 10; C. 9, L. 38-49; C. 10, L. 12-37; C. 14, L. 24-50).
Topliss teaches this collimated scanned laser beam to provide “a mixed reality (MR) direct retinal projector system…that may, for example, resolve the convergence-accommodation conflict in head-mounted AR, MR, and VR systems” (C. 4, L. 28-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pair of smart glasses of Aleem with the collimated beam of Topliss to provide “a mixed reality (MR) direct retinal projector system…that may, for example, resolve the convergence-accommodation conflict in head-mounted AR, MR, and VR systems,” as taught by Topliss (C. 4, L. 28-50).
Aleem and Topliss fail to explicitly disclose that the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector.
However, Lanman teaches an integrated augmented reality head-mounted display for pupil steering comprising at least one laser projector (408) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam wherein the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor (1138) configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraphs 0178-0180, 0187-0188, 0314-0316, and 0324-0326).
Lanman teaches this laser feedback interferometry sensor as a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” (Paragraph 0189) to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” (Paragraph 0057) in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays” (Paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman to provide a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays,” as taught by Lanman (Paragraphs 0007, 0057, and 0189).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a laser feedback interferometry sensor) with other component(s) (i.e., an infrared reflection sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth and described by Lanman. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting a laser feedback interferometry sensor for an infrared reflection sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a device with a laser feedback interferometry sensor) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman for the infrared reflection sensor of Aleem, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Aleem teaches a method for monitoring an eye position of a user’s eye in a virtual retinal display, comprising the following steps:
generating a scanned infrared laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1, 5-6, and 9-10; Paragraphs 0059-0062 and 0076);
guiding the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye via at least one optical system (132, 136, 138, 140, 142, 540), wherein the optical system includes an optical element through which the scanned infrared laser beam passes or by which the scanned infrared laser beam is diverted (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099);
wherein, when the scanned infrared laser beam passes through or is diverted by the optical element, the laser beam is maintained in a first spatial or temporal region (132a, 136a, 138a) of the optical element to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099), and
wherein when the scanned infrared laser beam passes through or is diverted by the optical element, the laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, in a second spatial or temporal region (132b, 132c, 132d, 136b, 136c, 136d, 138b ) of the optical element, to generate a glint (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099); and
evaluating a reflection signal reflected by the user’s eye and including: i) the glint, and ii) as a bright pupil pattern and/or a retina speckle pattern, to ascertain the eye position of the user’s eye including a gaze vector of the user’s eye (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-10; Paragraphs 0068-0070, 0076-0082, 0086-0090, and 0099-0101).
Aleem fails to explicitly disclose generating a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and that when the scanned infrared laser beam passes through or is diverted by the optical element, the collimation of the laser beam is maintained in a first spatial or temporal region of the optical element to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern.
However, Topliss teaches a mixed reality system comprising at least one laser projector unit (508) configured to at least generate a collimated scanned laser beam and at least one optical system (550) configured to optically guide the scanned laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the laser beam, the collimation of the laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 5, 7, and 11-14; C. 7, L. 45 – C. 8, L. 10; C. 9, L. 38-49; C. 10, L. 12-37; C. 14, L. 24-50).
Topliss teaches this collimated scanned laser beam to provide “a mixed reality (MR) direct retinal projector system…that may, for example, resolve the convergence-accommodation conflict in head-mounted AR, MR, and VR systems” (C. 4, L. 28-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aleem with the collimated beam of Topliss to provide “a mixed reality (MR) direct retinal projector system…that may, for example, resolve the convergence-accommodation conflict in head-mounted AR, MR, and VR systems,” as taught by Topliss (C. 4, L. 28-50).
Aleem and Topliss fail to explicitly disclose that the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector.
However, Lanman teaches an integrated augmented reality head-mounted display for pupil steering comprising at least one laser projector (408) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam wherein the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor (1138) configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraphs 0178-0180, 0187-0188, 0314-0316, and 0324-0326).
Lanman teaches this laser feedback interferometry sensor as a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” (Paragraph 0189) to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” (Paragraph 0057) in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays” (Paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman to provide a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays,” as taught by Lanman (Paragraphs 0007, 0057, and 0189).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a laser feedback interferometry sensor) with other component(s) (i.e., an infrared reflection sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth and described by Lanman. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting a laser feedback interferometry sensor for an infrared reflection sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a device with a laser feedback interferometry sensor) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman for the infrared reflection sensor of Aleem, since the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleem in view of Sverdrup, Lanman, and Fullam (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2016/0080720).
Regarding claim 1, Aleem teaches a device for monitoring an eye position of a user’s eye in a virtual retinal display, comprising:
at least one laser projector unit (104) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1, 5-6, and 9-10; Paragraphs 0059-0062 and 0076);
at least one optical system (132, 136, 138, 140, 142, 540) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region (132a, 136a, 138a) in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region (132b, 132c, 132d, 136b, 136c, 136d, 138b) in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099).
Aleem fails to explicitly disclose that the laser projector unit generates a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and that the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern.
However, Sverdrup teaches a dynamic foveal vision display comprising at least one laser projector unit configured to at least generate a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and at least one optical system (“EPE”, “Display Mirror”) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 2, 8-9, 11, and 16-17; Paragraphs 0046, 0048-0052, and 0069-0071).
Sverdrup teaches this collimated scanned infrared laser beam such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” (Paragraph 0046) to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements” (Paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the collimated beam of Sverdrup such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements,” as taught by Sverdrup (Paragraphs 0008 and 0046).
Aleem and Sverdrup fail to explicitly disclose that the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector.
However, Lanman teaches an integrated augmented reality head-mounted display for pupil steering comprising at least one laser projector (408) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam wherein the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor (1138) configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraphs 0178-0180, 0187-0188, 0314-0316, and 0324-0326).
Lanman teaches this laser feedback interferometry sensor as a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” (Paragraph 0189) to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” (Paragraph 0057) in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays” (Paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman to provide a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays,” as taught by Lanman (Paragraphs 0007, 0057, and 0189).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a laser feedback interferometry sensor) with other component(s) (i.e., an infrared reflection sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth and described by Lanman. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting a laser feedback interferometry sensor for an infrared reflection sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a device with a laser feedback interferometry sensor) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman for the infrared reflection sensor of Aleem, since the result would have been predictable.
While Aleem teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed at least one optical system configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint, given the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above and in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further submits reference Fullam.
Fullam teaches a display with eye-discomfort reduction comprising at least one optical system configured to optically guide an infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, generates a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0014-0016).
Fullam teaches this bright pupil effect and glint “to adjust an operating parameter of the display system in response to the sensed ocular condition, in order to relieve eye discomfort that the viewer may be experiencing” (Paragraph 0002).
Therefore, even if Aleem did not disclose the requisite optical element, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem such that the optical element generates a bright pupil effect and glint as in Fullam “to adjust an operating parameter of the display system in response to the sensed ocular condition, in order to relieve eye discomfort that the viewer may be experiencing,” as taught by Fullam (Paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 2, Aleem in view of Sverdrup, Lanman, and Fullam teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches that wherein the virtual retina display include data glasses (102) (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 3, Aleem in view of Sverdrup, Lanman, and Fullam teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the optical element is configured as a holographic optical element (HOE) segmented two-dimensionally at least into the two spatial regions (See e.g. Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 4, Aleem in view of Sverdrup, Lanman, and Fullam teaches the device as recited in claim 3, as above.
Aleem further teaches that at least two first spatial regions and at least two second spatial regions (132a, 132b, 132c, 132d, 138a, 138b) are distributed in the HOE, regularly and/or alternately, over the entire surface extent of the HOE (See e.g. Fig. 3C; Paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 5, Aleem in view of Sverdrup, Lanman, and Fullam teaches the device as recited in claim 4, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the first spatial regions and the second spatial regions are distributed over the HOE in the manner of a checkerboard, or in a strip-shaped manner, or in a regular polygonal pattern, or in a hexagonal pattern, or in another area-filling repeat pattern (See e.g. Fig. 3C; Paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 6, Aleem in view of Sverdrup, Lanman, and Fullam teaches the device as recited in claim 4, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the first spatial regions and the second spatial regions are configured to separate or transition smoothly into one another (See e.g. Fig. 3C; Paragraphs 0066-0067 and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 7, Aleem in view of Sverdrup, Lanman, and Fullam teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches a sensor (144) configured to capture back reflections of the infrared laser beam from the first and second regions; and a computer (128) configured to determine the eye position of the user’s eye including at least a gaze vector of the user’s eye, from the captured back reflections from a pupil center position of the user’s eye ascertained from the back reflection of the user’s eye, and from a glint position of the user’s eye ascertained from the back reflection of the user’s eye (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-10; Paragraphs 0068-0070, 0076-0082, 0086-0090, and 0099-0101).
Regarding claim 8, Aleem in view of Sverdrup, Lanman, and Fullam teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the optical element forms a third spatial or temporal region in which the infrared laser beam is focused on the iris of the user’s eye, or on the center of the user’s eye, or on the cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a further glint, wherein the second region and the third region form focal points that are spatially separate from one another (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 9, Aleem in view of Sverdrup, Lanman, and Fullam teaches the device as recited in claim 1, as above.
Aleem further teaches that wherein the optical element is configured as a multifocal lens (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 9-10; Paragraphs 0011, 0032, and 0065-0067).
Regarding claim 10, Aleem in view of Sverdrup, Lanman, and Fullam teaches the device as recited in claim 9, as above.
Aleem further teaches that the multifocal lens is adjusted and/or configured such that the scanned infrared laser beam passing through the multifocal lens is focused during a scan in a scanning direction in a forward scanning direction, and such that the scanned infrared laser beam is scanned in a further scanning direction in an opposite direction to the scanning direction including a backward scanning direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099).
Aleem fails to explicitly disclose that the scanned infrared laser beam remains collimated during a scan in a further scanning direction in an opposite direction to the scanning direction including a backward scanning direction.
However, Sverdrup teaches a dynamic foveal vision display comprising at least one laser projector unit configured to at least generate a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and at least one optical system (“EPE”, “Display Mirror”) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 2, 8-9, 11, and 16-17; Paragraphs 0046, 0048-0052, and 0069-0071).
Sverdrup teaches this collimated scanned infrared laser beam such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” (Paragraph 0046) to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements” (Paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the collimated beam of Sverdrup such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements,” as taught by Sverdrup (Paragraphs 0008 and 0046).
Regarding claim 11, Aleem teaches a pair of smart glasses (102), comprising:
a device (100) for monitoring an eye position of a user’s eye in a virtual retinal display (See e.g. Figs. 1-11; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, 0098-0099, and 0102), including:
at least one laser projector unit (104) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1, 5-6, and 9-10; Paragraphs 0059-0062 and 0076);
at least one optical system (132, 136, 138, 140, 142, 540) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region (132a, 136a, 138a) in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region (132b, 132c, 132d, 136b, 136c, 136d, 138b) in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099).
Aleem fails to explicitly disclose that the laser projector unit generates a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and that the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern.
However, Sverdrup teaches a dynamic foveal vision display comprising at least one laser projector unit configured to at least generate a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and at least one optical system (“EPE”, “Display Mirror”) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 2, 8-9, 11, and 16-17; Paragraphs 0046, 0048-0052, and 0069-0071).
Sverdrup teaches this collimated scanned infrared laser beam such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” (Paragraph 0046) to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements” (Paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pair of smart glasses of Aleem with the collimated beam of Sverdrup such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements,” as taught by Sverdrup (Paragraphs 0008 and 0046).
Aleem and Sverdrup fail to explicitly disclose that the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector.
However, Lanman teaches an integrated augmented reality head-mounted display for pupil steering comprising at least one laser projector (408) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam wherein the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor (1138) configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraphs 0178-0180, 0187-0188, 0314-0316, and 0324-0326).
Lanman teaches this laser feedback interferometry sensor as a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” (Paragraph 0189) to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” (Paragraph 0057) in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays” (Paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman to provide a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays,” as taught by Lanman (Paragraphs 0007, 0057, and 0189).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a laser feedback interferometry sensor) with other component(s) (i.e., an infrared reflection sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth and described by Lanman. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting a laser feedback interferometry sensor for an infrared reflection sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a device with a laser feedback interferometry sensor) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman for the infrared reflection sensor of Aleem, since the result would have been predictable.
While Aleem teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed at least one optical system configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint, given the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above and in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further submits reference Fullam.
Fullam teaches a display with eye-discomfort reduction comprising at least one optical system configured to optically guide an infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, generates a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0014-0016).
Fullam teaches this bright pupil effect and glint “to adjust an operating parameter of the display system in response to the sensed ocular condition, in order to relieve eye discomfort that the viewer may be experiencing” (Paragraph 0002).
Therefore, even if Aleem did not disclose the requisite optical element, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pair of smart glasses of Aleem such that the optical element generates a bright pupil effect and glint as in Fullam “to adjust an operating parameter of the display system in response to the sensed ocular condition, in order to relieve eye discomfort that the viewer may be experiencing,” as taught by Fullam (Paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 12, Aleem teaches a method for monitoring an eye position of a user’s eye in a virtual retinal display, comprising the following steps:
generating a scanned infrared laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1, 5-6, and 9-10; Paragraphs 0059-0062 and 0076);
guiding the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye via at least one optical system (132, 136, 138, 140, 142, 540), wherein the optical system includes an optical element through which the scanned infrared laser beam passes or by which the scanned infrared laser beam is diverted (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099);
wherein, when the scanned infrared laser beam passes through or is diverted by the optical element, the laser beam is maintained in a first spatial or temporal region (132a, 136a, 138a) of the optical element to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099), and
wherein when the scanned infrared laser beam passes through or is diverted by the optical element, the laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, in a second spatial or temporal region (132b, 132c, 132d, 136b, 136c, 136d, 138b ) of the optical element, to generate a glint (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0003, 0061-0067, 0070-0075, 0080-0081, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0092, 0095, and 0098-0099); and
evaluating a reflection signal reflected by the user’s eye and including: i) the glint, and ii) as a bright pupil pattern and/or a retina speckle pattern, to ascertain the eye position of the user’s eye including a gaze vector of the user’s eye (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-10; Paragraphs 0068-0070, 0076-0082, 0086-0090, and 0099-0101).
Aleem fails to explicitly disclose generating a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and that when the scanned infrared laser beam passes through or is diverted by the optical element, the collimation of the laser beam is maintained in a first spatial or temporal region of the optical element to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern.
However, Sverdrup teaches a dynamic foveal vision display comprising at least one laser projector unit configured to at least generate a collimated scanned infrared laser beam and at least one optical system (“EPE”, “Display Mirror”) configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the collimation of the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 2, 8-9, 11, and 16-17; Paragraphs 0046, 0048-0052, and 0069-0071).
Sverdrup teaches this collimated scanned infrared laser beam such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” (Paragraph 0046) to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements” (Paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aleem with the collimated beam of Sverdrup such that “the retro-reflection magnitude is mapped over the field of view to determine the angular location of peak retro-reflection, which is the gaze direction (with some constant offset determined in a calibration step)” and “the gaze direction will be determined at the display frame rate, which is at least 60 frames per second” to provide “high-resolution vision over a large field of view combined with low bandwidth requirements,” as taught by Sverdrup (Paragraphs 0008 and 0046).
Aleem and Sverdrup fail to explicitly disclose that the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector.
However, Lanman teaches an integrated augmented reality head-mounted display for pupil steering comprising at least one laser projector (408) configured at least to generate a scanned infrared laser beam wherein the at least one laser projector includes a laser feedback interferometry sensor (1138) configured to detect back reflections of the infrared laser beam, the laser feedback interferometry sensor being integrated in the laser projector (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraphs 0178-0180, 0187-0188, 0314-0316, and 0324-0326).
Lanman teaches this laser feedback interferometry sensor as a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” (Paragraph 0189) to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” (Paragraph 0057) in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays” (Paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aleem with the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman to provide a suitable choice with “low power consumption and a low weight” to determine a position of the pupil “to accommodate for the movement of the pupil and reduce vignetting of the projected light” in order to provide “compact, light, and low power-consumption head-mounted displays,” as taught by Lanman (Paragraphs 0007, 0057, and 0189).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a laser feedback interferometry sensor) with other component(s) (i.e., an infrared reflection sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth and described by Lanman. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting a laser feedback interferometry sensor for an infrared reflection sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a device with a laser feedback interferometry sensor) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the laser feedback interferometry sensor of Lanman for the infrared reflection sensor of Aleem, since the result would have been predictable.
While Aleem teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed at least one optical system configured to optically guide the scanned infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the scanned infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is maintained, to generate a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint, given the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above and in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further submits reference Fullam.
Fullam teaches a display with eye-discomfort reduction comprising at least one optical system configured to optically guide an infrared laser beam to the user’s eye, the optical system includes an optical element configured for the infrared laser beam to pass through or is configured for diverting the scanned infrared laser beam, wherein the optical element is configured to form a first spatial or temporal region in which, in an interaction with the infrared laser beam, generates a bright pupil effect and/or a retina speckle pattern, and wherein the optical element is configured to form a second spatial or temporal region in which, in the interaction with the infrared laser beam, the infrared laser beam is focused on an iris of the user’s eye, or on a center of the user’s eye, or on a cornea of the user’s eye, to generate a glint (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0014-0016).
Fullam teaches this bright pupil effect and glint “to adjust an operating parameter of the display system in response to the sensed ocular condition, in order to relieve eye discomfort that the viewer may be experiencing” (Paragraph 0002).
Therefore, even if Aleem did not disclose the requisite optical element, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aleem such that the optical element generates a bright pupil effect and glint as in Fullam “to adjust an operating parameter of the display system in response to the sensed ocular condition, in order to relieve eye discomfort that the viewer may be experiencing,” as taught by Fullam (Paragraph 0002).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 6, filed 11/20/2025, regarding the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Since a person of ordinary skill in the art would properly understand the feature objected to from the present specification and claims, no further illustration is required.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the cited feature. Additionally, 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) states that “conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box)” (emphasis added). Examiner maintains that the claimed feature of spatial regions that “separate or transition smoothly into one another” is not a conventional feature and requires a detailed illustration for proper understanding.
Applicant's arguments, see page 6, filed 11/20/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the claims have been amended herein, rendering moot the present rejection.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that while the instances of language interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been removed, there were additional limitations that were unclear under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as detailed previously and above. As none of these issues have been addressed with amendments and no arguments have been provided regarding the rejection, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made in view of Lanman, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments and detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lychagov et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2022/0155599) teaches an eye accommodation distance measuring device and method for head-mounted display, and head-mounted display comprising a laser feedback interferometry sensor.
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