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 .
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-14, 16-19 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ROBLEDO (HAAG-STREIT AG) (WO 2021/144036 A1), cited by applicant submitted IDS dated 03/19/2024.
As to claim 1, ROBLEDO discloses a method (see page 7, A-scan analysis) comprising: at an electronic device (see figure 1, and see pages 5-7, i.e., ophthalmologic device, and control unit 32) having a processor (see page 7, i.e., microprocessor 34a): obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) representation of an eye (see page 8, i.e., identifying reflections of eye-structure, fitting a model descriptive of the shape of the structure, such as 3D location and coordinates, parameters obtained and determine the location of structures in the eye, see page 8, paragraphs 1-5); generating a scan (i.e., “A-scan 28”, see page 7, par. 1 under the heading A-scan analysis) comprising information about thickness or 3D volumetric structure of a portion of an eye (i.e., eye, see figure 1, eye 30, see page 6, par. 4 and 6, peaks at depths z1, z2, z3, see page 7, last three paragraphs and figures 3-4), wherein generating the scan comprises detecting coherent interference (see “optical coherence tomography interferometer 10-26” and the “light detector 20”, see figure 1 and see page 7, par 4 and page 6 par 1) between a split off wave (i.e., “reference arm 14”, see page 6, par 1) of a projected wave (i.e., “light from light source 10”) and a reflection or scattering of the projected wave (i.e., “sample arm 16”, see page 6, par 2); and tracking the eye (i.e., “determine the location of various structures in the eye”) based on the scan by comparing (i.e., by fitting) the scan (“locations of the identified reflections” in the A-scan) with the 3D representation of the eye (i.e., the model descriptive of the shape of the structure, see page 8, pars 2, 5 and 10, i.e., fitting a model descriptive, determine the locations of various structures in the eye, and fitting a model of a typical retina reflection).
As to claim 2, ROBLEDO discloses wherein tracking the eye comprises determining a 3D position and orientation of the eye (see page 8, at paragraphs 3 and 5, i.e., “translating the OCT measurements, and in particular the incident coordinates xi, yi as well as the z-coordinates obtained from the A-scan, into a coordinate system that is fixed with the frame of the eye” and “determine the location of various structures in the eye”.).
As to claim 3, ROBLEDO discloses continuing to track the 3D position and orientation of the eye over time based on coherence-based measurements (see page 8, at paragraph 2, i.e., “fitting a model descriptive of the shape of the structure and of the motion of the structure”, and “motion parameters (such as the three-dimensional location and velocity in x-, y-, and z- coordinates.)”.
As to claim 4, ROBLEDO discloses wherein tracking the eye comprises determining a state of accommodation of the eye (see page 8, at par 5, i.e., “determine the location of … the anterior and … posterior surfaces 40, 42 of lens 38”).
As to claim 5, ROBLEDO discloses wherein tracking the eye comprises determining a dilation state of a pupil of the eye (see page 4, par 6, “determining the diameter of the pupil … from the A-scans”).
As to claim 6, ROBLEDO discloses wherein the coherence-based measurement comprises optical coherence tomography (OCT) (see pages 5-7, i.e., optical coherence tomograph interferometer 10-26 and light detector 20).
As to claim 7, ROBLEDO discloses wherein the coherence measurement comprises: projecting light using a plurality of wavelengths, wherein a first portion of the light is directed to the eye and a second portion of the light is split off from the first portion; and determining sub-surface information based on interference between: a reflection or scattering of the first portion of the light from a sub-surface structure of the eye; and the second portion of the light (see page 6, par 7 and figure 1, i.e., central wavelength of light source 10 is turned over a given wavelength range, which wavelength range is typically much broader than the spectral width of the light from light source 10).
As to claim 8, ROBLEDO discloses wherein the sub-surface information comprises depth information, a cross section of the eye, or a volumetric representation of the eye (see page 8, par 5 and figs 3-4).
As to claim 9, ROBLEDO discloses wherein generating the scan comprises: performing a first scan to sample a set of points of the eye; performing a second scan based on the first scan, wherein the first scan and second scan have different scan types (i.e., “various A-scans”, “a plurality of A-scans”, “two such A-scans”, “two A-scans”, “two A-scans with different focal positions”, “scans for different lateral cornea locations”, see page 1, par 7, figure 4, page 6, par 7, fig. 2, page 7, par 5, page 9, pars 3 and 6).
As to claim 10, ROBLEDO discloses wherein the scan produces a sparse set of points based on a grid, wherein an orientation or density of the grid is based on prior eye location information (see page 12, par 1, “density distribution” and see page 10, par 6, “2D grid”).
As to claim 11, ROBLEDO discloses wherein the scan identifies a set of points corresponding to a portion of the eye comprising: a cornea (36); a crystallin lens (38); an iris (46); a retina (44); a ciliary muscle (is inherently in the eye); or a choroid (is inherently in the eye) (see page 8, par 5 and figs 3-4, page 11, par 1).
As to claim 12, ROBLEDO discloses wherein the 3D representation was generated based on a prior scan of the eye (see page 8, pars 1-11, i.e., three-dimensional location and velocity and i.e., A-scans of the eye-structure).
As to claim 13, ROBLEDO discloses wherein the prior scan is denser than the scan (see page 8, pars 1-11, and page 12, par 1, “density distribution of the points”, “incident coordinates”, “A-scans”).
As to claim 14, ROBLEDO discloses wherein the 3D representation is an eye model generated based on population mean eye parameters (see page 8, pars 1-11, i.e., three-dimensional location and velocity”, “eye-structure”, “fitting a model”, and “geometric parameters of the structure”, “location of various structures” and “fitting a model”).
As to claim 16, ROBLEDO discloses further comprising providing content based on the eye tracking (see i.e., “display 34c” … used for showing the data determined, see page 7, par 3 and fig. 1).
As to claim 17, ROBLEDO discloses wherein the eye tracking is further based on a glint-reflection or retinal imaging technique (see page 7, par 7, i.e., “peak at z4 to the retina 44 and see figs 3-4, i.e., reflection values).
As to claim 18, ROBLEDO discloses an electronic device (see figure 1, i.e., control unit 32, see pages 5-7) comprising: a wave source (i.e., optical coherence tomography interferometer 10-26) configured to project waves using a plurality of wavelengths, wherein the wave source is configured to direct a first portion of the waves toward the eye and split off a second portion of the waves (see interferometer 10-26 and light detector 20, reference arm 14); a sensor configured to capture the waves reflected or scattered (i.e., sample arm 16) by the eye; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., memory 34b); and one or more processors (i.e., microprocessor 34a) coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (34b, see page 7, 3rd paragraph), wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (34b) comprises program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors (34a), cause the device (32) to perform operations comprising: obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) representation of an eye (see page 8, i.e., identifying reflections of eye-structure, fitting a model descriptive of the shape of the structure, such as 3D location and coordinates, parameters obtained and determine the location of structures in the eye, see page 8, paragraphs 1-5); generating a scan (i.e., “A-scan 28”, see page 7, par. 1 under the heading A-scan analysis) comprising information about thickness or 3D volumetric structure of a portion of an eye (i.e., eye, see figure 1, eye 30, see page 6, par. 4 and 6, peaks at depths z1, z2, z3, see page 7, last three paragraphs and figures 3-4), wherein generating the scan comprises detecting coherent interference (see “optical coherence tomography interferometer 10-26” and the “light detector 20”, see figure 1 and see page 7, par 4 and page 6 par 1) between a split off wave (i.e., “reference arm 14”, see page 6, par 1) of a projected wave (i.e., “light from light source 10”) and a reflection or scattering of the projected wave (i.e., “sample arm 16”, see page 6, par 2); and tracking the eye (i.e., “determine the location of various structures in the eye”) based on the scan by comparing (i.e., by fitting) the scan (“locations of the identified reflections” in the A-scan) with the 3D representation of the eye (i.e., the model descriptive of the shape of the structure, see page 8, pars 2, 5 and 10, i.e., fitting a model descriptive, determine the locations of various structures in the eye, and fitting a model of a typical retina reflection).
As to claim 19, ROBLEDO discloses wherein tracking the eye comprises determining a 3D position and orientation of the eye (see page 8, at paragraphs 3 and 5, i.e., “translating the OCT measurements, and in particular the incident coordinates xi, yi as well as the z-coordinates obtained from the A-scan, into a coordinate system that is fixed with the frame of the eye” and “determine the location of various structures in the eye”.).
As to claim 35, ROBLEDO discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (34b, see page 7, 3rd paragraph) storing instructions executable on electronic device (32) to perform operations comprising: obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) representation of an eye (see page 8, i.e., identifying reflections of eye-structure, fitting a model descriptive of the shape of the structure, such as 3D location and coordinates, parameters obtained and determine the location of structures in the eye, see page 8, paragraphs 1-5); generating a scan (i.e., “A-scan 28”, see page 7, par. 1 under the heading A-scan analysis) comprising information about thickness or 3D volumetric structure of a portion of an eye (i.e., eye, see figure 1, eye 30, see page 6, par. 4 and 6, peaks at depths z1, z2, z3, see page 7, last three paragraphs and figures 3-4), wherein generating the scan comprises detecting coherent interference (see “optical coherence tomography interferometer 10-26” and the “light detector 20”, see figure 1 and see page 7, par 4 and page 6 par 1) between a split off wave (i.e., “reference arm 14”, see page 6, par 1) of a projected wave (i.e., “light from light source 10”) and a reflection or scattering of the projected wave (i.e., “sample arm 16”, see page 6, par 2); and tracking the eye (i.e., “determine the location of various structures in the eye”) based on the scan by comparing (i.e., by fitting) the scan (“locations of the identified reflections” in the A-scan) with the 3D representation of the eye (i.e., the model descriptive of the shape of the structure, see page 8, pars 2, 5 and 10, i.e., fitting a model descriptive, determine the locations of various structures in the eye, and fitting a model of a typical retina reflection).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROBLEDO (HAAG-STREIT AG) (WO 2021/144036 A1), cited by applicant submitted IDS dated 03/19/2024, in view of Walsh et al. (US 2019/0090733 A1), cited in applicant submitted IDS dated 03/19/2024.
As to claim 15, ROBLEDO does not disclose, teach or suggest wherein the device is a head-mounted device (HMD).
Walsh et al. discloses an optical coherence tomography-based ophthalmic (see title and abstract), wherein the device is a head-mounted device (HMD) (see par 0211 object 1010 may include a head-mounted object, see fig. 10D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ROBLEDO to include: wherein the device is a head-mounted device (HMD).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ROBLEDO by the teaching of Walsh et al. to include: wherein the device is a head-mounted device (HMD), because of the following reasons: HMDs over many advantages such as hands free, high-precision, enhanced surgical precision, high fidelity simulations, 3D visualizations, visual enhancement, portable and hands-free.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oggier et al. (US 2025/0213110 A1) teaches coherence-based eye tracking (see the title and abstract).
Nistico et al. (US 12,518,566 B1) teaches coherence-based measurements (e.g., OCT) (see the title and abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOV POPOVICI whose telephone number is (571)272-4083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am- 4:30 pm.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at 571-270-3438. 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.
/DOV POPOVICI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681