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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 12/13/2023 in which Applicant lists claims 15, 21-24 as being cancelled, claims 14, 18-19 as being original, and claims 1-13, 16-17, 20, 25 as being currently amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-14, 16-20, 25 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the United Kingdom on 6/14/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB 2108459.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 12/13/2023 was considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14, 16-20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an optical system for eye tracking including a light source, a light detector, and an HOE arrangement having an object space numerical aperture (NA) of at least 0.1 and no more than 0.8 (see at least page 5, lines 25-31 of the specification; page 15, lines 2-7 of the specification; page 19, lines 20-31 of the specification), does not reasonably provide enablement for a HOE arrangement with no lower limit and no upper limit on an undefined numerical aperture (e.g. Is the NA referring to an HOE NA, an object space NA or an image space NA?). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims, wherein the person must perform undue experimentation to determine what specific numerical aperture values for the HOE arrangement would result in an NA sufficient so that the NA of the HOE arrangement would be considered to be large enough so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector.
The factors considered when determining if the disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is undue include, but are not limited to: 1) nature of the invention, 2) state of the prior art, 3) relative skill of those in the art, 4) level of predictability, 5) existence of working samples, 6) breadth of claims, 7) amount of direction or guidance by the inventor, and 8) quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The nature of the invention is drawn to eye tracking optical systems including Holographic Optical Elements (HOE) with a large enough numerical aperture (NA) so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector.
The state of the art discloses eye tracking optical systems including Holographic Optical Elements (HOE) wherein the NA of the HOE does not appear to be at least 0.2 (see at least the citations provided in the Other Related Art section below).
The level of skill in the art is related to the area of head-mounted eye tracking optical systems including Holographic Optical Elements. The skill level is generally high (e.g. masters or PhD level) due to level of complexity in designing head-mounted eye tracking optical systems.
The working models described by the specification have a NA for the HOE on the order of 0.5 (see at least figures 1-2B, specification page 15, lines 2-7; and figure 10, specification page 29, lines 9-16).
Applicants’ claims are excessively broad due, in part, to the complex and diverse nature of determining what specific structure for a Holographic Optical Element arrangement would have a configuration which would have a numerical aperture which could be considered “large enough” so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector.
Experimentation would be necessary for a skilled artisan to determine what specific structure for a Holographic Optical Element arrangement would have a configuration suitable for directing light from a light source towards an eye and receiving glint light from the eye and directing the glint light to be in focus at a light detector (e.g. Would a single HOE be suitable or would multiple HOEs be suitable, would at least one lens be necessary with the HOE to direct and receive the light?). However, the skilled artisan would need to resort to undue experimentation to determine what NA is being measured/determined to satisfy the limitations of claim 1 (i.e. an HOE NA, an object space NA or an image space NA), and what range of numerical aperture values would be “large enough” such that the NA is considered sufficient so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector (e.g. Is an NA of 0.01 sufficient, is an NA of 0.1 sufficient, is an NA of 0.2 sufficient, is an NA of 0.9 required?).
Due to the large quantity of experimentation necessary to determine which NA, such as an HOE NA, an object space NA and/or an image space NA, and what value for the NA would be “large enough” such that the NA is considered sufficient so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector, the complex nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the breadth of the claims which fail to recite a range with an upper and lower limit for which NA would be sufficient so that the HOE arrangement would be considered to be large enough so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector, undue experimentation would be required of the skilled artisan to make and/or use the claimed invention in its full scope.
Claims 2-14, 16-20 and 25 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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 1-14, 16-20 and 25 are 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.
Claim 1 recites a Holographic Optical Element (HOE) arrangement wherein the HOE arrangement is configured with a large enough numerical aperture (NA) so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector. However, there are no limitations which describe how the HOE arrangement is “configured” such that an NA of the HOE arrangement may be judged to be “large enough”. For example, the NA of the HOE arrangement is dependent on multiple factors such as the size of the holographic element and an eye relief distance of the hologram, but the claim is not clear as to if these factors are other factors are what would make the HOE arrangement “configured” to be “large enough”. Additionally, the claim has not described what numerical aperture is being determined to be large enough so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector. Is the NA for which this determination is made with respect to an HOE NA, an object space NA or an image space NA, and how is the NA determined (see for example specification page 14, line 8 through page 15, line 15 of the specification)? Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite since the metes-and-bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 2-14, 16-20 and 25 are rejected for inheriting the indefiniteness of claim 1 from which they depend.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Popovich et al., US 2018/0232048 A1, discloses an optical system for eye tracking including a light source, a light detector, and a Holographic Optical Element (HOE) arrangement (see at least the title, figure 1, elements 112, 113, 101, 102, para. [0168]), but is silent as to the HOE arrangement being configured with a large enough numerical aperture so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector;
Torneus et al., US 2019/0253700 A1, discloses an optical system for eye tracking including a light source, a light detector, and a Holographic Optical Element (HOE) arrangement (see at least the abstract, figure 22, elements 2213, 2216, 2230, paras. [0170]-[0182]), but is silent as to the HOE arrangement being configured with a large enough numerical aperture so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector;
Kim et al., US 2020/0192279 A1, discloses an optical system for eye tracking including a light source, a light detector, and a Holographic Optical Element (HOE) arrangement (see at least the title, abstract, figures 6A-6D, elements 402, 602, 404, paras. [0115]-[0124 ]), but is silent as to the HOE arrangement being configured with a large enough numerical aperture so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector;
Held et al., US 2022/0413603 A1, discloses an optical system for eye tracking including a light source, a light detector, and a Holographic Optical Element (HOE) arrangement (see at least the title, abstract, figures 1, 3-4, 6-7, elements 108, 110, 304, 314, 404, 414, 601, 604, 701, 704, paras. [0025], [0033]-[0035], [0041]-[0042]), but is silent as to the HOE arrangement being configured with a large enough numerical aperture so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector; and
Yu et al., US 2023/0194882 A1, discloses an optical system for eye tracking including a light source, a light detector, and a Holographic Optical Element (HOE) arrangement (see at least the title, abstract, figures 3-5, elements 430, 440, 512, 514 paras. [0098]-[0106]), but is silent as to the HOE arrangement being configured with a large enough numerical aperture so that ambient or stray light directed by the HOE arrangement is out of focus at the light detector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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 B. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 4/16/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights