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
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)(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, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abou Shousha (US 20220125299 A1) herein referred to as Abou.
Regarding Claims 1, 15, 16, Abou teaches an information processing apparatus (Abou, Figs. 2 and 3) comprising:
circuitry configured (Abou, Figs. 2 and 3) to:
receive captured images comprising at least one eye of a user when while the user is viewing display images displayed by a head mounted display “HMD” (Abou, Fig. 1C 1D, paragraph [0094]); and
detect one or more eye properties for the user based on at least some of the captured images and generate eye information indicative of the one or more of the eye properties of the user (Abou, paragraph [0084]);
control, based on the eye information, image brightness associated with one or more eye tracking calibration images respectively comprising one or more calibration targets having known positions to be displayed to the user by the HMD (Abou, paragraph [0112]);
adjust the image brightness associated with the one or more eye calibration images, in real time, based on the detected change in a physical eye property of the user while the calibration image is being displayed (Abou, paragraph [0118], Figs. 31A-31F); and
output one or more of the eye tracking calibration images for display by the HMD (Abou, paragraph [0112, 0117, 0118], Figs. 31A-31F).
Regarding Claim 2, Abou teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to control a maximum image brightness associated with one or more of the eye tracking calibration images based on the eye information (Abou, paragraph [0124, 0152] white for contrast & brightness may be changed/reduced, also maximum contrast is reference which must inherently change either the black or the white [0357]).
Regarding Claim 4, Abou teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to generate one or more of the eye tracking calibration images for display according to a predetermined image brightness setting (Abou, paragraph [0118], Figs. 31A-31F), and the circuitry is configured to determine whether to reduce a maximum image brightness associated with the predetermined image brightness setting based on the eye information (Abou, paragraph [0124, 0152] white for contrast & brightness may be changed/reduced, also maximum contrast is reference which must inherently change either the black or the white [0357]).
Regarding Claim 7, Abou further teaches wherein the one or more eye properties comprise at least one of one or more physical eye properties and one or more behavioral eye properties (Abou paragraph [0084, 0090] size, pupil, retina, movement, reaction, etc can all be tracked).
Regarding Claim 8, Abou further teaches wherein the one or more physical eye properties comprise one or more from a list consisting (Abou paragraph [0084, 0090] size, pupil, retina, movement, reaction, etc can all be tracked) of:
a detected iris color;
a detected pupil size of the at least one eye;
a detected greatest pupil size of the at least one eye;
a detected smallest pupil size of the at least one eye; and
one or more detected internal refractive properties of the at least one eye;
one or more detected types of eye condition associated with photophobia; and
a detected secularity associated with an exterior surface of the eye.
Regarding Claim 12, Abou further teaches wherein the one or more behavioural eye properties comprises one or more (Abou paragraph [0084, 0090] size, pupil, retina, movement, reaction, etc can all be tracked) of:
a detected blinking rate associated with the at least one eye of the user; and
a detected gaze aversion with respect to a display unit or a portion of the display unit of the HMD;
a detected gaze aversion with respect to a display unit or a portion of the display unit of the HMD during display of one or more images exceeding a threshold image brightness;
a detected closed eye duration within a set time interval; and
a detected at least partially closed eye duration within the set time interval.
Regarding Claim 13, Abou further teaches wherein the information processing apparatus is a head mounted display apparatus comprising one or more image sensors to capture the images comprising the at least one eye of the user when viewing display images of different image brightness displayed by the HMD (Abou, Fig. 1C 1D, paragraph [0094, 0118], Figs. 31A-31F).
Regarding Claim 14, Abou further teaches wherein the one or more image sensors comprise at least one of an infra-red image sensor and a visible image sensor (Abou, paragraph [0094]).
Regarding Claim 17, Abou further teaches wherein the calibration images correspond to entertainment content (Abou, Fig. 31E & 31F calibration image can be combined with an “entertainment” content for example an image of a city).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abou Shousha (US 20220125299 A1) in view of Bradski (US 20160026253 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Abou fails to teach controlling a backlight in order to control image brightness. Bradski explicitly teaches that HMDs can adjust brightness according to observed reactions to user eye characteristics through backlight adjustment (Bradski, paragraph 0273, backlight for HMDs]).
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize backlight adjustment to provide universal and targeted brightness control as taught by Bradski to the system of Abou.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abou Shousha (US 20220125299 A1) in view of Yuki (US 20180093381 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Abou fails to teach eye tracking calibration image based on a magnitude of a difference between a detected greatest pupil size and a detected smallest pupil size. Yuki teaches where in a display image is based on a magnitude of a difference between a detected greatest pupil size and a detected smallest pupil size (Yuki, paragraph [0075] brightness associated with time of day and pupil size).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further adjust according to maximum and minimum values of eye attributes as taught by Yuki in order to provide a baseline for limiting the adjustment needed and to better accommodate for different attributes of the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5, 6, 10, 11 are allowable.
Regarding Claim 5, Prior art fails to teach multiple modes of calibration as claimed.
“a first calibration mode associated with at least two eye tracking calibration images having different image brightness; and at least one of:
a second calibration mode associated with at least two eye tracking calibration images having different image brightness and for which a maximum image brightness is less than a maximum image brightness for the first calibration mode; and
a third calibration mode associated with one or more eye tracking calibration images having a same respective image brightness less than the maximum image brightness for the first calibration mode”
Claims 6, 10 and 11 are dependent directly or indirectly from 5 and are therefore allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ke Xiao whose telephone number is 571-272-7776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri from 6AM-2PM.
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.
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.
/KE XIAO/SPE, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights