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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall (US 10311584 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches a method comprising: illuminating an eyebox region (150) with polarized light (col. 5, lines 33-58; col. 18 lines 26-36); capturing a first polarized image of an eye (180) in the eyebox region (150) while the polarized light illuminates the eyebox region (150), wherein the first polarized image is captured with a polarization-sensitive sensor (230); capturing a second polarized image of the eye (180) while the polarized light illuminates the eyebox region (150), wherein the second polarized image is captured with the polarization-sensitive sensor (230; col. 6 line 33-col. 7 line 16; col. 9 line 17-col. 11 line 29; col. 18 line 48-col. 19 line 14); and determining an accommodation state of the eye (180) by comparing the first polarized image and the second polarized image (col. 5, lines 20-32; col. 19 line 65-col. 20 line 8).
Regarding claim 2, Hall further teaches determining the accommodation state of the eye (180) includes comparing a degree of polarization in the first polarized image and the second polarized image (col. 12, lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 3, Hall further teaches determining the accommodation state of the eye (180) includes comparing an angle of polarization in the first polarized image and the second polarized image (col. 12, lines 11-29).
Regarding claim 4, Hall further teaches determining the accommodation state of the eye (180) includes comparing a first iris region in the first polarized image with a second iris region in the second polarized image (col. 6, lines 21-32, col. 8 lines 16-58).
Regarding claim 5, Hall further teaches determining the accommodation state of the eye (180) is determined based on a curvature of an iris of the eye (180), i.e., radius of an eye sphere, in the first polarized image and the second polarized image (col. 6, lines 33-60; col. 8 lines 16-58; col. 15 line 29-col. 16 line 3, col. 19, lines 34-64).
Regarding claim 6, Hall further teaches determining viewing distance (col. 7, lines 17-33) which means, inherently, when the curvature of the iris is flatter, the accommodation state of the eye (180) is far-focus, and when the curvature of the iris is more curved, the accommodation state of the eye (180) is near-focus.
Regarding claim 7, Hall further teaches determining the accommodation state of the eye (180) is determined based on a curvature of a lens of the eye (180) in the first polarized image and the second polarized image (col. 15 line 49-col. 16 line 3).
Regarding claim 8, Hall further teaches determining the accommodation state of the eye (180) is determined based on a radius of a cornea of the eye (180) in the first polarized image and the second polarized image (col. 6, lines 33-60; col. 8 lines 16-58; col. 15 line 29-col. 16 line 3, col. 19, lines 34-64).
Regarding claim 9, Hall further teaches the method is performed by a head mounted device (Fig. 1A, 1B).
Regarding claim 10, Hall further teaches the method is performed by a head mounted display (Fig. 1A, 1B).
Regarding claim 11, Hall further teaches the polarization-sensitive sensor (230) includes a polarization-sensitive camera (175, 230, 304, 415) (230) including pixels configured to image different polarization orientations (col. 9 line 17-col. 11 line 29).
Regarding claim 12, Hall further teaches the polarization-sensitive sensor (230) includes a polarization-sensitive camera (175, 230, 304, 415) (230) including polarization filters that change in time (col. 9 line 17-col. 11 line 29).
Regarding claim 14, Hall further teaches adjusting a virtual image of a head mounted display (HMD) in response to the determined accommodation state of the eye (180; col. 3 lines 34-46; col. 7, lines 53-64).
Regarding claim 15, Hall teaches a head mounted device (100; Fig. 1-6) comprising: an illumination module (176/160, 220, 302, 425) configured to illuminate an eyebox region (150) with polarized light; a camera (175, 230, 304, 415) configured to capture a first polarized image of the eyebox region (150) while the polarized light illuminates the eyebox region (150); and processing logic configured to determine an accommodation state of an eye (180) in the eyebox region (150) by comparing the first polarized image with a second polarized image (col. 5, lines 20-32; col. 19 line 65-col. 20 line 8).
Regarding claim 16, Hall further teaches determining the accommodation state of the eye (180) includes comparing a degree of polarization and an angle of polarization in the first polarized image and the second polarized image (col. 12, lines 11-45).
Regarding claim 17, Hall further teaches the degree of polarization and an angle of polarization are used to determine an eye (180) lens shape to determine the accommodation state of the eye (180; col. 15 line 49-col. 16 line 3).
Regarding claim 18, Hall further teaches determining the accommodation state of the eye (180) is determined is also based on a curvature of an iris of the eye (180), i.e., radius of an eye sphere, in the first polarized image and the second polarized image (col. 6, lines 33-60; col. 8 lines 16-58; col. 15 line 29-col. 16 line 3, col. 19, lines 34-64).
Regarding claim 19, Hall further teaches an active polarization modulator configured to modulate the polarized light between a first polarization orientation and a second polarization orientation, the active polarization modulator receiving the polarized light from the illumination module (176/160, 220, 302, 425; col. 9 line 55-col. 10 line 30).
Claim Rejections - AIA 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Gramatikov (US 20160081547 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hall further teaches illuminating the eyebox region (150) with the polarized light from a point source (col. 3, lines 8-33).
Hall does not teach scanning the polarized light with a point scanner.
Gramatikov teaches a scanning the polarized light with a point scanner (Fig. 1-34; [0048], [0050], [0054], [0076], [0077], [0095]-[0101]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Hall with Gramatikov; because it allows greater coverage of the eye to improve measurement of the eye.
Regarding claim 20, Hall teaches a head mounted device comprising: an illumination module (176/160, 220, 302, 425) configured to illuminate an eye lens (322) within an eyebox region (150) with a polarized beam; a sensor (175, 230, 304, 415) configured to generate a first polarized image by sensing a returning beam received from the lens points within the eyebox region (150), wherein the returning beam is the polarized beam reflecting or scattering from the eyebox region (150; col. 15 line 49-col. 16 line 3; col. 9 line 1-col. 11 line 29); and processing logic configured to determine an accommodation state of an eye (180) in the eyebox region (150) by comparing the first polarized image with a second polarized image that includes second lens points of the eye lens (180; col. 5, lines 20-32; col. 9 line 1-col. 11 line 29; col. 19 line 65-col. 20 line 8).
Hall does not teach a scanner configured to scan lens points of an eye lens (180) within an eyebox region (150) with a polarized beam.
Gramatikov teaches the illumination source being a scanner of polarized light beam (Fig. 1-34; [0048], [0050], [0054], [0076], [0077], [0095]-[0101]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Hall with Gramatikov; because it allows greater coverage of the eye to improve measurement of the eye.
Conclusion
The prior art references cited in PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patent documents, US 20210157401 A1, US 20190266399 A1, US 10417784 B1, US 10108261 B1, US 10013055 B2, US 20140160434 A1, and US 8824779 B1, disclose methods of determine various types of eye tracking information such as a user's gaze direction, vergence angle/depth, and accommodation depth. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882