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 Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant arguments/Remarks made in amendment in which the rejection of the claims traversed. Claims 14, 28, and 29 are amended; the rejection of claims traversed; and claims 1 – 13 remain cancelled. Claims 14 – 30 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, Applicants argue Aleem does not disclose at least “wherein the at least one laser projector includes RGB laser diodes for emitting the at least one visible laser signal and at least one infrared laser diode for emitting the at least one infrared laser signal, the at least one infrared laser diode being positioned downstream of the RGB laser diodes and at a diode position in the at least one laser projector closest to a beam output of the at least one laser projector.
However, the Office respectfully disagrees for those reasons discussed below in the rejection of the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14 – 21, 23, and 28 - 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleem et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0142479 A1), hereafter Aleem.
Regarding claim 14:
Aleem discloses an eye tracking device for detecting and/or tracking a pupil position in a pair of data glasses (Aleem Figure 10 600; see also Figure 11 100; [0059]), the eye tracking device comprising:
at least one virtual retinal scan display having at least one laser projector configured at least to emit a laser beam bundle which includes at least one visible laser signal, and at least one infrared laser signal, and which projects at least one image to be displayed (Aleem Figure 10 projector 608; [0100]), and
having at least one optical system including at least one replicating optical element configured at least to reproduce the image to be displayed, for outputting into a plurality of exit pupils of the optical system, the exit pupils being spaced apart from one another at least in a pupil plane of the virtual retinal scan display (Aleem Figure 10 632; [0100]),
wherein the optical system includes a wavelength-selective optical element configured to manipulate only the infrared laser signal of the laser beam bundle and to allow the visible laser signal of the laser beam bundle to pass through at least substantially unchanged (Aleem [0066 - 0067] infrared hologram; In another example not shown, an infrared hologram with an optical function may be applied to the entire output side 139), wherein the at least one laser projector RGB laser diodes for emitting the at least one visible laser signal and at least one infrared laser diode for emitting the at least one infrared laser signal (Aleem Figure 10 and [0100] laser module 608 include red, green, and blue laser diode and on IR (infrared) laser diode).
Aleem does not expressly disclose the at least one infrared laser diode being positioned downstream of the RGB laser diodes and at a diode position in the at least one laser projector closest to a beam output of the at least one laser projector.
However, it would have been obvious to modify Aleem such that the at least one infrared laser diode being positioned downstream of the RGB laser diodes and at a diode position in the at least one laser projector closest to a beam output of the at least one laser projector, as claimed, because such a combination would be based on simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More particularly, substituting the position of the IR element from a position farthest from the output of the laser module 608, as illustrated in Figure 10, to a position closest to the output of the laser module is known to yield the predictable result of providing a laser projector capable of projecting RGB light and infrared light to the eye of the user. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 15:
Aleem (as modified above) discloses the eye tracking device according to claim 14, wherein the at least one visible laser signal is an RGB laser signal, and the at least one image is an RGB image (Aleem [0100]).
Regarding claim 16:
Aleem (as modified above) discloses the eye tracking device according to claim 14, wherein the wavelength-selective optical element of the optical system is configured, using a predistortion of the infrared laser signal, to compensate at least substantially for a distortion of the infrared laser signal that is produced by the replicating optical element (Aleem [0063]).
Regarding claim 17:
Aleem (as modified above) discloses the eye tracking device according to claim 14, wherein the wavelength-selective optical element is a holographic-optical element (Aleem [0063]).
Regarding claim 18:
Aleem (as modified above) discloses the eye tracking device according to one of claims 14, wherein the wavelength- selective optical element is arranged in the optical system and in an optical path of the laser beam bundle upstream of the replicating optical element (Aleem Figure 10 632).
Regarding claim 19:
Aleem (as modified above) discloses the eye tracking device according to claim 14, wherein the wavelength-selective optical element of the optical system and the replicating optical element of the optical system are connected to one another in a firmly bonded manner (Aleem [0063] optical adhesive).
Regarding claim 20:
Aleem (as modified above) discloses the eye tracking device according to claim 19, wherein the wavelength-selective element and the replicating optical element are glued to one another or laminated to one another (Aleem [0063] [0066]).
Regarding claim 21:
Aleem (as modified above) discloses the eye tracking device according to claim 14, wherein an optical function of the wavelength-selective optical element and an optical function of the replicating optical element are combined in a common optical element of the optical system (Aleem [0063][0066]).
Regarding claim 23:
Aleem (as modified above) discloses the eye tracking device according to claim 14, wherein the eye tracking device is configured at least to detect the pupil position using a bright pupil effect (Aleem [0065] glint tracking).
Regarding claim 28:
Claim 18 directed to data glasses is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 14 (and additional Aleem Figure 11).
Regarding claim 29:
Claim 29 directed to the method is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 14.
Regarding claim 30:
Aleem (as modified above) discloses the eye tracking method according to claim 29, wherein at least one distortion of the infrared laser signal that is produced in multiple exit pupils in a reproduction process of the image to be displayed is compensated at least substantially by the wavelength-selective optical element of the optical system (Aleem [0063] surface modifications such as aberration corrections).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleem in view of Efimov et al; (Publication number: US 2002/0045104 A1), hereafter Efimov.
Regarding claim 22:
Aleem discloses the common optical element of the optical system is formed as a segment lens (Aleem [0063]), but does not disclose the tracking device according to claim 21, wherein the segment lens is made of photo-thermo-refractive glass.
However, Efimov discloses high efficiency volume diffractive elements in photo-thermo-refractive glass. More particularly, Efimov discloses volume holographic elements made from photo-thermo-refractive (PTR) glass (Efimov ABSTRACT) may include beam splitter (Efimov [0115]).
It would have been obvious to modify Aleem wherein the segment lens is made of photo-thermo-refractive glass, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate having low losses and high optical quality (Efimov [0011]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleem in view of PETERSON et al; (Publication number: US 2021/0373659 A1), hereafter PETERSON.
Regarding claim 24:
Aleem does not disclose the eye tracking device according to claim 23, wherein at least for detecting a bright pupil signal, the laser projector includes an integrated laser feedback interferometry sensor at least for sensing a reflection of the infrared laser signal of the laser beam.
However, PETERSON discloses a method for operating a pair of smart glasses. More particularly, PETERSON discloses a laser feedback interferometry sensor (PETERSON [0011]) configured to detect a bright pupil signal (PETERSON [0026]).
It would have been obvious to modify Aleem wherein at least for detecting a bright pupil signal, the laser projector includes an integrated laser feedback interferometry sensor at least for sensing a reflection of the infrared laser signal of the laser beam, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the advantage of a high sampling rate, thereby improving eye tracking (PETERSON [0014]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleem in view of PETERSON et al; (Publication number: US 2021/0373659 A1), hereafter PETERSON, in view of Eash et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0026350 A1), hereafter Eash.
Regarding claim 25:
Aleem (in view of PETERSON) does not disclose the eye tracking device according to claim 24, wherein at least for detecting a bright pupil signal, the laser projection includes an integrated laser feedback interferometry sensor at least for sensing an infrared laser speckle pattern reflected by a retina of a user eye.
However, Eash discloses relative position based eye-tracking system. More particularly, Eash discloses wherein at least for detecting a bright pupil signal, the laser projection includes an integrated laser feedback interferometry sensor at least for sensing an infrared laser speckle pattern reflected by a retina of a user eye (Eash [0034][0036]).
It would have been obvious to further modify Aleem (n view of PETERSON) wherein at least for detecting a bright pupil signal, the laser projection includes an integrated laser feedback interferometry sensor at least for sensing an infrared laser speckle pattern reflected by a retina of a user eye, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate utilizing a relative motion tracking in a small field of view, non-centric to the eye provides a more flexible system, which has lower power consumption and can provide accurate data at a reduced cost (Eash [0025]).
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleem in view of Bhakta et al; (Publication number: US 2022/0011496 A1), hereafter Bhakta.
Regarding claim 26:
Aleem does not disclose the eye tracking device according to claim 14, wherein the wavelength-selective optical element of the optical system is configured, using a distortion of the infrared laser signal, to compensate at least substantially for a distortion of the infrared laser signal that is produced by a vision defect of a user eye.
However, Bhakta discloses optical systems having gradient index optical structure. More particularly, Bhakta discloses wherein the wavelength-selective optical element of the optical system is configured, using a distortion of the infrared laser signal, to compensate at least substantially for a distortion of the infrared laser signal that is produced by a vision defect of a user eye (Bhakta [0017][0052]).
It would have been obvious to modify Aleem wherein the wavelength-selective optical element of the optical system is configured, using a distortion of the infrared laser signal, to compensate at least substantially for a distortion of the infrared laser signal that is produced by a vision defect of a user eye, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate provide appropriate vision correction for the user, thereby ensuring proper image display.
Regarding claim 27:
Aleem (in view of Bhakta) discloses the eye tracking device according to claim 26, wherein the vision defect includes myopia of the user eye or hyperopia of the user eye (Bhakta [0052]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5pm (EST).
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7063. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 7 October 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights