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 .
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 17427956, filed 08/03/2021, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. The application is currently filed as a divisional.
A divisional application should claim subject matter directed toward an independent and distinct invention from the prior application, along with naming the inventor or at least one joint inventor from the prior application. This application does NOT appear to claim subject matter directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from that claimed in the prior application. As such, this application should be filed as a continuation. Attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “fronm” should read “from”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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.
Regarding claims 1-17, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claims 1-10, 12-13, the phrases “depending from” and “depends from” renders each of the claims indefinite because the scope of the term is not clear. Specifically, the words “depending” and “depends” don’t seem to be used in a grammatically correct way, and/or according to the plain and ordinary meaning of the word.
Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending from at least claim 1, which is indefinite.
Due to the indefinite nature of the claims, prior art has been applied as best understood by the examiner as outlined in the sections below.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation "the method for projecting" in the last two lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim has been interpreted as depending from claim 16.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11986668. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim in the application can be drawn to claim(s) in the published patent, as detailed in the table below.
18623256 (This Application)
11986668 (Published Patent)
Claim 1: A method for filtering an initial image by a filter depending from a direction gaze of a part of an eye to obtain an image to be projected.
Claim 1: A… method for controlling a device adapted for projecting an image on at least a part of an eye of a wearer… determining at least a filter depending from the provided gaze direction; filtering the initial image using the determined filter…
Claim 2: The method for filtering according to claim 1, wherein the part of the eye comprises at least one portion, the filter also depending from a maximum light intensity for each portion.
Claim 6: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein the determined filter depends from at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of a maximum light intensity for the part of the eye
Claim 3: The method for filtering according to claim 1, wherein the part of the eye comprises at least one portion, the filter also depending from a minimum light intensity for each portion.
Claim 6: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein the determined filter depends from at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of a maximum light intensity for the part of the eye and a minimum light intensity for the part of the eye.
Claim 4: The method for filtering according to claim 1, wherein the filter further depends from at least one parameter selected fronm the group consisting of a relative position of a pupil and a light beam, and a size of a pupil.
Claim 10: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein… the determined filter depends from at least one parameter selected from the group of the relative position of the pupil and the light beam and the size of the pupil.
Claim 5: The method for filtering according to claim 1, wherein the filter also depends from at least one parameter linked to a disease of the eye.
Claim 3: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein at the determining, the determined filter depends from at least one additional parameter, the additional parameter selected from the group consisting of: parameters linked to a disease of the eye…
Claim 6: The method for filtering according to claim 1, wherein the filter also depends from at least one parameter linked to the eye.
Claim 3: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein at the determining, the determined filter depends from at least one additional parameter, the additional parameter selected from the group consisting of:… parameters linked to the eye…
Claim 7: The method for filtering according to claim 1, wherein the filter also depends from at least one parameter linked to an implant in the eye.
Claim 3: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein at the determining, the determined filter depends from at least one additional parameter, the additional parameter selected from the group consisting of:… parameters linked to an implant in the eye…
Claim 8: The method for filtering according to claim 1, wherein the filter also depends from a shape of the eye.
Claim 8: The method for controlling according to claim 1… wherein at the determining, the filter depends from the shape of the part of the eye…
Claim 9: The method for filtering according to claim 1, wherein the filter also depends from a location of the part of the eye.
Claim 9: The method for controlling according to claim 1… wherein at the determining, the determined filter depends from the location of the part of the eye…
Claim 10: The method for filtering according to claim 1, wherein a center is defined for the filter, a position of the center depending from the direction gaze in accordance with a function.
Claim 4: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein, at the determining, the determined filter comprises at least a pattern for which a center is defined, the location of the center of a pattern of the filter being a linear function of the direction gaze.
Claim 11: The method for filtering according to claim 10, wherein the function is a linear function.
Claim 4: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein, at the determining, the determined filter comprises at least a pattern for which a center is defined, the location of the center of a pattern of the filter being a linear function of the direction gaze.
Claim 12: The method for filtering according to claim 1, wherein the filter comprises at least a pattern, or at least one parameter of the pattern, depending from the direction of gaze.
Claim 2: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein at the determining, at least one of the characteristics of the filter is determined, the characteristic of the filter selected from the group consisting of: the location of a pattern of the filter, the size of a pattern of the filter, the shape of a pattern of the filter, and the values of a pattern of the filter.
Claim 13: The method for filtering according to claim 12, wherein the at least one parameter of the pattern further depends from at least one parameter linked to the eye.
Claim 8: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein the filter comprises at least a pattern and wherein at the determining, the filter depends from the shape of the part of the eye so that the shape of the at least one pattern depends from the shape of the part.
Claim 9: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein the determined filter comprises at least a pattern, and wherein at the determining, the determined filter depends from the location of the part of the eye so that the location of the at least one pattern depends from the location of the part.
Claim 14: The method for filtering according to claim 12, wherein the at least one parameter of the pattern is selected from the group consisting of a shape of the pattern, a location of the pattern, a size of the pattern, and a value of the pattern.
Claim 2: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein at the determining, at least one of the characteristics of the filter is determined, the characteristic of the filter selected from the group consisting of: the location of a pattern of the filter, the size of a pattern of the filter, the shape of a pattern of the filter, and the values of a pattern of the filter.
Claim 15: The method for filtering according to claim 13, wherein the at least one parameter of the pattern is selected from the group consisting of a shape of the pattern, a location of the pattern, a size of the pattern, and a value of the pattern.
Claim 8: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein the filter comprises at least a pattern and wherein at the determining, the filter depends from the shape of the part of the eye so that the shape of the at least one pattern depends from the shape of the part.
Claim 9: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein the determined filter comprises at least a pattern, and wherein at the determining, the determined filter depends from the location of the part of the eye so that the location of the at least one pattern depends from the location of the part.
Claim 2: The method for controlling according to claim 1, wherein at the determining, at least one of the characteristics of the filter is determined, the characteristic of the filter selected from the group consisting of: the location of a pattern of the filter, the size of a pattern of the filter, the shape of a pattern of the filter, and the values of a pattern of the filter.
Claim 16: A method for projecting an image to be projected, the image to be projected being obtained by carrying out the method for filtering according to claim 1.
Claim 15: A wearable device adapted for projecting an image on at least a part of an eye of a wearer of said wearable device, the wearable device comprising: a module adapted to provide the direction gaze of an eye of the wearer; a camera providing an initial image to be projected; a data processing unit adapted to determine at least a filter depending from the provided direction gaze and adapted to filter the initial image using the determined filter, and a command module adapted to send a command to the device for projecting the filtered image in the eye.
Claim 17: A method for treating a disease comprising projecting a therapeutically effective image on at least a part of an eye of a wearer by carrying out the method for projecting according to claim 15.
Claim 16: A method for treating a disease comprising projecting a therapeutically effective image on at least a part of an eye of a wearer using a wearable device adapted for projecting an image on at least a part of an eye of a wearer of said wearable device, the wearable device comprising: a module adapted to provide the direction gaze of an eye of the wearer; a camera providing an initial image to be projected; a data processing unit adapted to determine at least a filter depending from the provided direction gaze and adapted to filter the initial image using the determined filter, and a command module adapted to send a command to the device for projecting the filtered image in the eye.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chayet et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0238362), hereinafter ‘Chayet’, in view of Neven (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0290401), hereinafter ‘Neven’.
Regarding claim 1, Chayet teaches a method for controlling a device for projecting an image on at least part of the eye [0027], the method comprising:
filtering an initial image by a filter depending from a position of a part of an eye (155) [0078] to obtain an image to be projected (Fig. 7, Stages 4-5).
Chayet does not teach that the filter depends on a direction gaze of a part of an eye.
Neven teaches a method and system for gaze tracking [0003], wherein the gaze direction may be generated based on the location of a pupil of an eye [0037].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chayet to incorporate the teachings of Neven to include a filter dependent on gaze direction. Doing so would allow for an image of an eye to be used to generate gaze direction to determine where the user is looking, as recognized by Neven [0004].
Regarding claim 2, Chayet and Neven teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the part of the eye comprises at least one portion (151, pupil) [0027], the filter also depending from a maximum light intensity [0032-0034] for each portion (215, intensity monitor unit) (206, light attenuator).
Regarding claim 3, Chayet and Neven teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the part of the eye comprises at least one portion, the filter also depending from a minimum light intensity for each portion [0034, different intensity required for each color’s wavelength].
Regarding claim 4, Chayet and Neven teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the filter further depends from at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of a relative position of a pupil (151) and a light beam, and a size of a pupil [0051] (160, eye tracking system).
Regarding claim 5, Chayet and Neven teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the filter also depends from at least one parameter linked to a disease of the eye [0068].
Regarding claim 6, Chayet and Neven teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the filter also depends from at least one parameter linked to the eye [0044].
Regarding claim 8, Chayet and Neven teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the filter also depends from a shape of the eye [0048].
Regarding claim 9, Chayet and Neven teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the filter also depends from a location of the part of the eye [0051].
Regarding claim 10, Chayet and Neven teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein a center is defined for the filter, a position of the center depending from the direction gaze in accordance with a function [0058].
Regarding claim 11, Chayet and Neven teach the method of claim 10. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the function is a linear function (Figs. 1, 2, see below) [0042].
PNG
media_image1.png
389
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Chayet and Neven teach a method for filtering according to claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
A method for projecting an image to be projected, the image to be projected being obtained by carrying out the method for filtering according to claim 1 (Fig. 1) (140, projection optics).
Regarding claim 17, Chayet and Neven teach a method for projecting according to claim 16. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
A method for treating a disease [0002] comprising projecting a therapeutically effective image on at least a part of an eye of a wearer (140, projection optics) by carrying out the method for projecting according to claim 16 (Fig. 1).
Claims 7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chayet et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0238362) in view of Neven (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0290401), further in view of Friend et al. (US Patent No. 8,956,396), hereinafter ‘Friend’.
Regarding claim 7, Chayet and Neven teach the method of claim 1, but do not teach the filter depending on factors linked to an eye implant.
Friend teaches an eye tracking system and method (col. 38, ll. 21-23), the method further comprising:
wherein the filter also depends from at least one parameter linked to an implant in the eye (200, Fig. 2) (col. 21, ll. 12-17).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chayet and Neven to incorporate the teachings of Friend to include a filter dependent on eye implant parameters. Doing so would allow for treatment that takes into consideration the presence of an eye implant, as recognized by Friend (col. 10, ll. 30-36).
Regarding claim 12, Chayet and Neven teach the method according to claim 1, but do not teach the filter comprising a pattern depending on the gaze direction.
Friend teaches an eye tracking system and method (col. 38, ll. 21-23), the method further comprising:
wherein the filter comprises at least a pattern, or at least one parameter of the pattern, depending from the direction of gaze (col. 13, ll. 7-12) (col. 18, ll. 63-67) (col. 21, ll. 35-44).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chayet and Neven to incorporate the teachings of Friend to include a filter that comprises a pattern dependent on the gaze direction. Doing so would allow for the enhancement/optimization of the system to allow the user to see, as recognized by Friend (col. 12, ll. 62-67 – col. 13, ll. 1-5).
Regarding claim 13, Chayet, Neven, and Friend teach the method according to claim 12. Friend teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the at least one parameter of the pattern further depends from at least one parameter linked to the eye (col. 19, ll. 28-35).
Regarding claim 14, Chayet, Neven, and Friend teach the method according to claim 12, further comprising:
wherein the at least one parameter of the pattern (Friend, 130) is selected from the group consisting of a shape of the pattern (Chayet, Fig. 5), a location of the pattern (Friend, col. 21, ll. 35-44), a size of the pattern (Chayet, Fig. 5), and a value of the pattern (Chayet, Fig. 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chayet and Neven to incorporate the teachings of Friend to include a parameter of the pattern including shape, location, size, and value. Doing so would allow for the enhancement/optimization of the system to allow the user to see, as recognized by Friend (col. 12, ll. 62-67 – col. 13, ll. 1-5).
Regarding claim 15, Chayet, Neven, and Friend teach the method according to claim 13, further comprising:
wherein the at least one parameter of the pattern (Friend, 130) is selected from the group consisting of a shape of the pattern (Chayet, Fig. 5), a location of the pattern (Friend, col. 21, ll. 35-44), a size of the pattern (Chayet, Fig. 5), and a value of the pattern (Chayet, Fig. 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chayet and Neven to incorporate the teachings of Friend to include a parameter of the pattern including shape, location, size, and value. Doing so would allow for the enhancement/optimization of the system to allow the user to see, as recognized by Friend (col. 12, ll. 62-67 – col. 13, ll. 1-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ryan et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0247119) teaches a method for eye tracking.
Pugh et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0354326) teaches a method for medical monitoring of an eye gaze.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH L OKONAK whose telephone number is (571)272-1594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. 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.
/E.L.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792