Exactlt 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the objection of claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 6, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 6, with respect to the non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. No Terminal Disclaimer was filed with the application. Therefore, the non-statutory double patenting rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 7-8, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-17, specifically relating to Chayet disclosing “filtering an initial image by a filter depending on a position of a part of an eye” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Chayet discloses in [0027]: “The video processor 170 then generates a… modulation signal 173 according which light beam 110 is intensity modulated. The intensity modulated beam of light 110 as emitted from scanner 130 through optics 140 raster scans the retina 152” and Fig. 7, [0078]: “In stage 4, the video signals are adjusted according to the position of the eye… The instantaneous position of the pupil is also feedback to the video processor, such that only the video signal associated to the visible window as determined by the instantaneous position of the pupil is transferred to logic unit and multiplied according to the RSST and its associated sync signals are fed to the scanner mirrors. In stage 5, light is projected onto the retina according to the transformed video signals.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the filter of the instant application is equivalent to the adjustment process (including the spatial translation) in Chayet (stage 4, Fig. 7). Chayet states that the video signals are adjusted according to the position of the eye; therefore, Chayet meets the limitation, “filtering an initial image by a filter depending on a position of a part of an eye”.
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 8-9, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-17, specifically relating to improper hindsight analysis have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 6-9, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-17, specifically relating to the amendments to claim 1 have been fully considered. The amendments to independent claim 1 to include the added limitations: “wherein said filter comprises a set of coefficients and at least one pattern, and wherein the set of coefficients and the at least one pattern depend on the gaze direction of the part of the eye” overcomes the rejection detailed in the non-final filed 01/23/2026. Since independent claim 1 was amended to include new limitations, new grounds for rejection are warranted for independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-16. See prior art rejections below.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Lines 4-5 of independent claim 1 discloses “a set of coefficients”. There is no mention of coefficients in the specification, or the drawings, and therefore there is no support for the filter comprising a set of coefficients that depend on the gaze direction of the eye, as claimed.
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 and 8-17 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’, further in view of Samec et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0270656), hereinafter ‘Samec’.
Regarding claim 1, Chayet teaches a method for filtering an initial image (Fig. 7, [0018], incoming image, external video signal 175, Fig. 1) by a filter (video processor 170, Fig. 1), said method comprising:
filtering an initial image of a part of an eye to obtain an image to be projected (Fig. 7, Stages 4-5), wherein determination of said filter depends on a position of a part of an eye (pupil 151, Fig. 1) ([0078], video signals adjusted according to the position of the eye) (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].
Chayet and Neven do not explicitly teach that the filter comprises a pattern and a set of coefficients that depend on the gaze direction.
Samec teaches a health system for projecting images (Fig. 1, [1458]), further comprising:
wherein said filter comprises a set of coefficients (1104, Fig. 11, [1564], mapping table with focal depths) and at least one pattern (pinhole 1735a, Fig. 17B), and wherein the set of coefficients and the at least one pattern depend on the gaze direction of the part of the eye ([1564], determine focal depth based on gaze orientation/direction) (Fig. 17D, [1775], select region of eye for occluding program such as a central viewing region).
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 Samec to include a filter comprising a pattern and a set of coefficients that depend on the gaze direction. Doing so would account for different prescription corrections due to gaze/head orientation and to test various areas of the eye, as recognized by Samec ([1558], [1775]).
Regarding claim 2, Chayet, Neven, and Semec teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the part of the eye comprises at least one portion (pupil 151, Fig. 1) ([0027], light beam is relayed through the pupil of the user’s eye), and wherein said filter also depends from a maximum light intensity ([0032-0034], light attenuator to keep light source within eye-safe intensity level) for each portion (light attenuators 206, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Chayet, Neven, and Samec teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the part of the eye comprises at least one portion, and wherein said filter also depends from a minimum light intensity for each portion ([0034], different intensity required for each color’s wavelength).
Regarding claim 4, Chayet, Neven, and Samec 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 and a light beam, and a size of a pupil ([0051], position of pupil provides feedback to offset scanner to deflect in the direction of the pupil).
Regarding claim 5, Chayet, Neven, and Samec 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], diseased and damaged retinas).
Regarding claim 6, Chayet, Neven, and Samec 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], compensate for aberrations).
Regarding claim 8, Chayet, Neven, and Samec teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the filter also depends from a shape of the eye ([0048], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Chayet, Neven, and Samec 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], position of pupil provides feedback to offset scanner to deflect in the direction of the pupil).
Regarding claim 10, Chayet, Neven, and Samec teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
wherein a center is defined for the filter, and a position of the center depends from the direction gaze in accordance with a function ([0058], central part of frame corresponds to the center of the pupil).
Regarding claim 11, Chayet, Neven, and Samec teach the method of claim 1. 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 12, Chayet, Neven, and Samec teach the method of claim 1. Samec teaches the method further comprising:
wherein the filter further comprises at least a pattern, or at least one parameter of the pattern, depending from the direction of gaze (Fig. 17D, [1775], select region of eye for occluding program such as a central viewing region).
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 Samec to include a pattern that depends on the gaze direction. Doing so would allow for the system to test various areas of the eye, as recognized by Samec ([1775]).
Regarding claim 13, Chayet, Neven, and Samec teach the method of claim 12. Samec 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 ([1761], different shapes of region according to different types of eye testing).
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 Samec to include a pattern that depends on a parameter linked to an eye. Doing so would allow for different types of testing (including vision acuity and reduced vision), as recognized by Samec ([1761]).
Regarding claim 14, Chayet, Neven, and Samec teach the method of claim 12. Samec teaches the method further comprising:
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 ([1761], different shapes of region including circular, square, oval, rectangular, any other shape).
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 Samec to include a pattern parameter that includes one of shape/location/size/value. Doing so would allow for different types of testing (including vision acuity and reduced vision), as recognized by Samec ([1761]).
Regarding claim 15, Chayet, Neven, and Samec teach the method of claim 13. Samec teaches the method further comprising:
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 ([1761], different shapes of region including circular, square, oval, rectangular, any other shape, according to different types of eye testing).
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 Samec to include a pattern parameter that includes one of shape/location/size/value. Doing so would allow for different types of testing (including vision acuity and reduced vision), as recognized by Samec ([1761]).
Regarding claim 16, Chayet, Neven, and Samec teach the method of claim 1. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
A method for projecting an image to be projected, wherein said method comprises projecting an image to be projected, and wherein said image is obtained by carrying out the method for filtering according to claim 1 (Fig. 1) (140, projection optics).
Regarding claim 17, Chayet, Neven, and Samec teach a method for projecting according to claim 16. Chayet teaches the method further comprising:
A method for treating a disease ([0002], [0006], aiding vision of visually impaired) 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 is 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 Samec et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0270656), further in view of Friend et al. (US Patent No. 8,956,396), hereinafter ‘Friend’.
Regarding claim 7, Chayet, Neven, and Samec 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 (implanted ocular unit 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, Neven and Samec 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).
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.
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
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights