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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to Claims 1,7-12 in the submission filed 4/30/2026 are acknowledged and accepted.
New Claim 13 is acknowledged and accepted as the subject matter of the claim is similar to the subject matter of the originally filed claims.
The amendments to the Abstract are acknowledged and accepted.
In view of the amendments to the Abstract, objection to Abstract is withdrawn.
Pending Claims are 1-13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, filed 4/30/2026) have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive in view of the amended claims and the new grounds of rejection in view of Aleem et al.
Claims 1-13 are rejected as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3,7-9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkner-Cieslicki et al (US 2021/0041948 A1, of record) in view of Aleem et al (US 2020/0142479 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Berkner teaches (fig 2A) an image display device (VR/AR HMD 200, para 50) comprising:
an image display optical system (display 210, right one of the two eyepieces 220, para 51);
an infrared light source (IR light source 230, para 51) that irradiates an eyeball of a user (user’s eye 292, para 51, as in fig 2A) with infrared light (IR light from IR light source 230);
a hologram element (transmissive diffraction gratings 250, para 51, transmissive diffraction grating implemented as a holographic layer 250, para 52) that transmits infrared light emitted by the infrared light source (IR light source 230, para 51) and reflected by the eyeball of the user (eye 292) (A portion of the IR light is reflected off the user's eyes 292 to the eye-facing surfaces of the eyepieces 220 of the HMD 200”, para 53); and
an infrared light image sensor (“eye tracking camera 240 (e.g. infrared (IR) cameras”, para 51) that images infrared light transmitted through the hologram element (holographic layer 250, para 52), wherein the hologram element (holographic layer 250, para 52) acts on infrared light without acting on visible light (“The transmissive holographic layers 250 integrated in the eyepieces 220 are configured to redirect at least a portion of the IR light received at the eyepieces 220 towards the IR cameras 240, while allowing visible light to pass”, para 53) and emits reproduced infrared light with an intensity distribution in a plane direction corresponding to an eye gaze of the user (“The IR cameras 240, which may for example be located at or near an edge of the display 210, capture images of the user's eyes 292 from the infrared light redirected by the transmissive holographic layers 250”, para 53, redirected IR light from holographic layer 250 has an intensity distribution in a plane direction with respect to user eye 292 as in fig 2A).
However, Berkner does not teach patterned infrared light and an angle-multiplexed hologram.
Berkner and Aleem are related as image display devices using IR light.
Aleem teaches (fig 1)
an infrared light source (“a scanning light projector 104 that is operable to draw a scan pattern over at least a portion of eye 200 using infrared light”, para 59) that irradiates an eyeball of a user with patterned infrared light and an angle-multiplexed hologram (“optical combiner 140 includes a set of multiplexed infrared holograms, such as angle-multiplexed infrared holograms, to redirect the infrared light signals to eye 200”, para 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram and infrared light of Berkner to include the patterned infrared light and an angle-multiplexed hologram of Aleem for the purpose of increasing the accuracy and robustness of eye tracking (para 70).
Regarding Claim 2, Berkner-Aleem teaches the image display device according to claim 1,
wherein the image display optical system (display 210, Right one of the two eye pieces 220, para 51) includes a lens optical system (Right one of the two eyepieces 220, para 51) and an image display element (display 210, para 51).
Regarding Claim 3, Berkner-Aleem teaches the image display device according to claim 2,
wherein the infrared light image sensor (“eye tracking camera 240 (e.g. infrared (IR) cameras”, para 51) is mounted on a substrate (“The IR cameras 240, which may for example be located at or near an edge of the display 210, capture images of the user's eyes 292 from the infrared light redirected by the transmissive holographic layers 250”, para 53, being located at the edge of the display 210, camera 240 is on a substrate constituting the display 210) constituting the image display element (display 210, para 51) together with pixels for displaying an image (“The eyepieces 220 form a virtual image of the displayed content”, para 51).
Regarding Claim 7, Berkner-Aleem teaches the image display device according to claim 1,
wherein the hologram element (transmissive diffraction gratings 250, para 51, transmissive diffraction grating implemented as a holographic layer 250, para 52) is disposed between the image display optical system (display 210, Right one of the two eye pieces 220, para 51) and the eyeball of the user (eye 292).
However, Berkner does not teach an angle-multiplexed hologram.
Berkner and Aleem are related as image display devices using IR light.
Aleem teaches (fig 1)
an angle-multiplexed hologram (“optical combiner 140 includes a set of multiplexed infrared holograms, such as angle-multiplexed infrared holograms, to redirect the infrared light signals to eye 200”, para 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram of Berkner to an angle-multiplexed hologram of Aleem for the purpose of increasing the accuracy and robustness of eye tracking (para 67,68).
Regarding Claim 8, Berkner-Aleem teaches the image display device according to claim 2,
wherein the hologram element (transmissive diffraction gratings 250, para 51, transmissive diffraction grating implemented as a holographic layer 250, para 52) is disposed between the image display optical system (display 210, Right one of the two eye pieces 220, para 51) and the eyeball of the user (eye 292).
However, Berkner does not teach an angle-multiplexed hologram.
Berkner and Aleem are related as image display devices using IR light.
Aleem teaches (fig 1)
an angle-multiplexed hologram (“optical combiner 140 includes a set of multiplexed infrared holograms, such as angle-multiplexed infrared holograms, to redirect the infrared light signals to eye 200”, para 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram of Berkner to an angle-multiplexed hologram of Aleem for the purpose of increasing the accuracy and robustness of eye tracking (para 67,68).
Regarding Claim 9, Berkner-Aleem teaches the image display device according to claim 3,
wherein the hologram element (transmissive diffraction gratings 250, para 51, transmissive diffraction grating implemented as a holographic layer 250, para 52) is disposed between the image display optical system (display 210, Right one of the two eye pieces 220, para 51) and the eyeball of the user (eye 292).
However, Berkner does not teach an angle-multiplexed hologram.
Berkner and Aleem are related as image display devices using IR light.
Aleem teaches (fig 1)
an angle-multiplexed hologram (“optical combiner 140 includes a set of multiplexed infrared holograms, such as angle-multiplexed infrared holograms, to redirect the infrared light signals to eye 200”, para 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram of Berkner to an angle-multiplexed hologram of Aleem for the purpose of increasing the accuracy and robustness of eye tracking (para 67,68).
Claim(s) 4,10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkner-Cieslicki et al (US 2021/0041948 A1, of record) in view of Aleem et al (US 2020/0142479 A1) and further in view of Long et al (US 2022/0091316 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 4, Berkner-Aleem teaches the image display device according to claim 2.
However, Berkner does not teach
wherein the image display element has a region through which infrared light is transmitted, and the infrared light image sensor is disposed on an opposite side of the image display element from a visual recognition side.
Berkner and Long are related as IR sensors and displays.
Long teaches (fig 1)
wherein the image display element (display 50, para 41) has a region through which infrared light is transmitted, and the infrared light image sensor (infrared sensor 80, para 43) is disposed on an opposite side of the image display element (display 50, para 41) from a visual recognition side (“An IR sensor 80 placed beneath the optical stack 100 may remain essentially hidden from view from an observer looking at display 50, but can receive and process infrared light from something in front of (external to) display 50”, para 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image display element and path of infrared light of Berkner to include the image display element and the infrared light image sensor being disposed on an opposite side of the image display element of Long for the purpose of remaining hidden from an observer and still process light from an object such as a finger in devices like smart phones (para 43).
Regarding Claim 10, Berkner-Aleem-Long teaches the image display device according to claim 4,
wherein the hologram element (transmissive diffraction gratings 250, para 51, transmissive diffraction grating implemented as a holographic layer 250, para 52, Berkner) is disposed between the image display optical system (display 210, Right one of the two eye pieces 220, para 51) and the eyeball of the user (eye 292).
However, Berkner does not teach an angle-multiplexed hologram.
Berkner and Aleem are related as image display devices using IR light.
Aleem teaches (fig 1)
an angle-multiplexed hologram (“optical combiner 140 includes a set of multiplexed infrared holograms, such as angle-multiplexed infrared holograms, to redirect the infrared light signals to eye 200”, para 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram of Berkner to an angle-multiplexed hologram of Aleem for the purpose of increasing the accuracy and robustness of eye tracking (para 67,68).
Claim(s) 5,6,11,12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkner-Cieslicki et al (US 2021/0041948 A1, of record) in view of Aleem et al (US 2020/0142479 A1) and further in view of Gruhlke et al (US 2022/0171188 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 5, Berkner-Aleem teaches the image display device according to claim 1.
However, Berkner does not teach
wherein the image display optical system includes an image display element and a light guide plate on which an image displayed by the image display element is incident and through which the image propagates.
Berkner and Gruhlke are related as image display optical systems.
Gruhlke teaches (fig 5)
wherein the image display optical system includes an image display element (display, para 48) and a light guide plate (substrate 260, para 48) on which an image displayed by the image display element (display, para 48) is incident and through which the image propagates (image light from the display propagates to the eye of the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image display optical system of Berkner to include an image display element and a light guide plate of Gruhlke for the purpose of avoiding certain situations and improving the performance of eye tracking (para 17).
Regarding Claim 6, Berkner-Aleem teaches the image display device according to claim 5.
However, Berkner does not teach
wherein the light guide plate is infrared light transmissive, and the image display device further comprises an infrared light mirror that is disposed on an opposite side of the light guide plate from the eyeball of the user and that transmits visible light and reflects infrared light, and the infrared light image sensor receives infrared light reflected by the infrared light mirror.
Berkner and Gruhlke are related as image display optical systems.
Gruhlke teaches (fig 5)
wherein the light guide plate (substrate 260, para 48) is infrared light transmissive (“the substrate may be transparent or semi-transparent to infrared light and visible light”, para 51), and the image display device further comprises an infrared light mirror (light redirecting mechanism 265, para 48, “In some aspects, the light directing mechanism may be a mirror coupled to the substrate”, para 53) that is disposed on an opposite side of the light guide plate (substrate 260, para 48) from the eyeball of the user (as in fig 5) and that transmits visible light (para 50) and reflects infrared light (“the mirror may direct the infrared light reflected from the eye of the user towards the eye tracking camera”, para 53), and the infrared light image sensor (“eye tracking camera 255”, para 48) receives infrared light reflected by the infrared light mirror (light redirecting mechanism 265, para 48. “In some aspects, the light directing mechanism may be a mirror coupled to the substrate”, para 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image display optical system of Berkner to include an image display element and a light guide plate of Gruhlke for the purpose of avoiding certain situations and improving the performance of eye tracking (para 17).
Regarding Claim 11, Berkner-Aleem -Gruhlke teaches the image display device according to claim 5,
wherein the hologram element (transmissive diffraction gratings 250, para 51, transmissive diffraction grating implemented as a holographic layer 250, para 52, Berkner) is disposed between the image display optical system (display 210, Right one of the two eye pieces 220, para 51) and the eyeball of the user (eye 292).
However, Berkner does not teach an angle-multiplexed hologram.
Berkner and Aleem are related as image display devices using IR light.
Aleem teaches (fig 1)
an angle-multiplexed hologram (“optical combiner 140 includes a set of multiplexed infrared holograms, such as angle-multiplexed infrared holograms, to redirect the infrared light signals to eye 200”, para 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram of Berkner to an angle-multiplexed hologram of Aleem for the purpose of increasing the accuracy and robustness of eye tracking (para 67,68).
Regarding Claim 12, Berkner-Aleem -Gruhlke teaches the image display device according to claim 6,
wherein the hologram element (transmissive diffraction gratings 250, para 51, transmissive diffraction grating implemented as a holographic layer 250, para 52, Berkner) is disposed between the image display optical system (display 210, Right one of the two eye pieces 220, para 51) and the eyeball of the user (eye 292).
However, Berkner does not teach an angle-multiplexed hologram.
Berkner and Aleem are related as image display devices using IR light.
Aleem teaches (fig 1)
an angle-multiplexed hologram (“optical combiner 140 includes a set of multiplexed infrared holograms, such as angle-multiplexed infrared holograms, to redirect the infrared light signals to eye 200”, para 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram of Berkner to an angle-multiplexed hologram of Aleem for the purpose of increasing the accuracy and robustness of eye tracking (para 67,68).
Claim(s) 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkner-Cieslicki et al (US 2021/0041948 A1, of record) in view of Aleem et al (US 2020/0142479 A1) and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2020/035529 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Berkner-Aleem teaches the image display device according to claim 1,
wherein a position and an incidence angle of the light beam incident on the hologram element (transmissive diffraction gratings 250, para 51, transmissive diffraction grating implemented as a holographic layer 250, para 52) and encoded signal light incident on the infrared light image sensor (“eye tracking camera 240 (e.g. infrared (IR) cameras”, para 51) from the hologram element (transmissive diffraction gratings 250, para 51, transmissive diffraction grating implemented as a holographic layer 250, para 52) have a one-to-one relationship (a one to one relationship as in fig 2A), and
However, Berkner does not teach an angle-multiplexed hologram.
Berkner and Aleem are related as image display devices using IR light.
Aleem teaches (fig 1)
an angle-multiplexed hologram (“optical combiner 140 includes a set of multiplexed infrared holograms, such as angle-multiplexed infrared holograms, to redirect the infrared light signals to eye 200”, para 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram to an angle-multiplexed hologram of Aleem for the purpose of increasing the accuracy and robustness of eye tracking (para 67,68).
However, Berkner does not teach
wherein the image display device further comprises an image processing unit configured to store a plurality of reference infrared light images, and analyze the encoded signal light captured by the infrared light image sensor by comparing the captured infrared light image with the stored reference infrared light images to determine the direction of the user's eye gaze.
Berkner and Zhang are related as image display devices.
Zhang teaches (fig 1)
wherein the image display device further comprises an image processing unit (processor, para 63)configured to store a plurality of reference infrared light images (eye-tracking module 118 may store a mapping between images captured by eye-tracking system 130 and eye positions to determine a reference eye position from an image captured by eye-tracking system 130, para 69), and analyze the encoded signal light captured by the infrared light image sensor by comparing the captured infrared light image with the stored reference infrared light images to determine the direction of the user's eye gaze (“eye-tracking module 118 may determine an updated eye position relative to a reference eye position by comparing an image from which the reference eye position is determined to an image from which the updated eye position is to be determined.”, para 69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image display device of Berkner to include storing reference images of Aleem for the purpose of using common techniques for gaming, and conferencing applications (para 64).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6/18/2026
Prosecution Insights