DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. Applicant’s Preliminary Amendments to the Claims, Specification, and Abstract filed November 18, 2024 are received and entered.
2. Claims 1 – 10 are amended. Claims 1 – 10 are pending and are under examination in this action.
3. 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 § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “further comprising . . . a user control interface, so that the system for automatically controlling brightness of the digital display also use . . . a user control to automatically control said brightness of the digital display” is indefinite for at least the following reasons.
This feature is described on page 7, lines 12 – 13 of Applicant’s Specification as originally filed. There, Applicant states that the user gives instructions via the user control interface to control brightness “manually”. It is unclear how a manual input to a “user control” would “automatically control” display brightness, as required by claim 3.
For at least these reasons, claim 3 is indefinite because the particular language cited above is contradictory to what is described in the specification.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is directed to both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus and are therefore indefinite. See IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also, Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Claim 10 is directed to both an apparatus and a method based simultaneously requiring the physical structure of an apparatus (lines 1 – 2) and method steps (lines 3 – 13) simultaneously. Specifically, claim 10 is a method claim that depends from an apparatus claim. A recitation claiming both an apparatus and a method simultaneously is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to neither a "process" nor a "machine," but rather embracing / overlapping two different statutory classes for at least the reasons stated above with regard to the rejection of this claim under 35 USC 112. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548, 1551 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claims 1 – 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imamura et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0035478).
Regarding claim 1, Imamura teaches: an image display device having adaptive brightness (FIG. 11; paragraphs [0093], [0161]; eye wear display 2000 displays images having a brightness that is adjusted to present a desirable lightness of an image to the user) and comprising
an eyepiece configured to accommodate at least one eye of a user (FIG. 11; paragraphs [0161], [0162]; eye wear display 2000 includes a left lens [eyepiece] that is configured to accommodate and align with a left eye 2007 of a user),
a digital display in a visible range positioned behind the eyepiece (FIG. 11; paragraph [0161]; housing 2001, which is positioned behind the left lens [eyepiece], includes an image display light irradiation section [digital display] that outputs display content to a lens for a user to view),
an illuminator configured to illuminate the eye of the user accommodated by the eyepiece (FIG. 11; paragraph [0161]; IR light source 2002 [illuminator] irradiates infrared rays to a user’s left eye 2007),
an image sensor configured to collect an image of the eye of the user accommodated by the eyepiece (FIG. 11; paragraph [0161]; IR camera 2003 [image sensor] captures an image of the user’s left eye 2007 as irradiated by IR light source 2002 [illuminator]), and
a system configured for the automatic control of the brightness of the digital display on a basis of at least one physiological variable resulting from the image of the eye of the user (FIGS. 5, 7, 11; paragraphs [0061], [0064], [0107], [0136], [0140], [0162]; control section 110 [system] includes output control section 103 determines the size or area of the pupil 2006 of a user’s eye. When the size or area of the pupil 2006 [physiological variable] changes as detected in step s203 by IR camera 2003, an output brightness of the image display light irradiation section [digital display] is modified in step s204).
Regarding claim 2, Imamura teaches: wherein the automatic control system comprises a module configured to detect and to measure a pupil diameter of the eye of the user on an image of the eye of the user (FIGS. 7, 11; Abstract; the size or area of the pupil 2006 of the user’s eye may correspond to a diameter of the pupil 2006), and/or
a module configured to detect a condition and a stress level of the user comprising a module configured to recover a temperature of the user and/or
a module configured to recover a heart rate of the user (These elements are optional due to the use of the term “and/or” and are therefore not required elements of this claim),
the at least one physiological variable being selected from the pupil diameter of the eye (As set forth above with regard to claim 1, the “physiological variable” corresponds to a size or area of the pupil 2006 which may correspond to a diameter of the pupil 2006), temperature, and heart rate of the user (These elements are optional due to the use of the phrase “at least one” and are therefore not required elements of this claim).
Regarding claim 10, Imamura teaches: a method for adapting brightness of a display device according to claim 1, the method comprising the steps of:
acquiring an image of the eye of the user (FIGS. 5, 7, 11; paragraphs [0064], [0131], [0161], [0162]; in step s202, pupil information acquisition section 101, which includes IR camera 2003, monitors pupil information by capturing an image of the pupil 2006 of user’s left eye 2007);
measuring an initial pupil diameter of the eye of the user from the image of the eye of the user and defining an initial brightness setpoint for the digital display (FIGS. 7, 11; Abstract; paragraphs [0132]; in the first iteration of step s203, the pupil information is analyzed to determine a size or area corresponding to a diameter of the pupil 2006 in order to determine an “initial” brightness at which to display an image to a user);
adjusting brightness of the digital display with the initial brightness setpoint (FIGS. 7, 11; paragraphs [0140], [0141]; an output brightness of the image display light irradiation section [digital display] is modified in step s204 to correspond to the “initial” brightness which is then output in step s205);
acquiring a series of images of the eye of the user (FIG. 7; paragraphs [0064], [0091]; it is inherent that the image projection method of FIG. 7 is repeated over time in order to maintain a desirable level of brightness having adequate contrast with regard to the external scene / environment. Accordingly, the later iterations of step s202 would acquire a series of images of the pupil 2006 of user’s left eye 2007);
measuring pupil diameter of the eye of the user for each image of the series of images (FIGS. 7, 11; Abstract; paragraphs [0132]; in later iterations of step s203, the pupil information is analyzed in each of the series of images to determine a size or area corresponding to a diameter of the pupil 2006 in each image in order to determine changes in brightness at which to display an image to a user);
adjusting brightness of the digital display on a basis of a course of the measurement of the pupil diameter of the eye of the user (FIGS. 7, 11; paragraphs [0140], [0141]; in later iterations of step s204 and s205, an output brightness of the image display light irradiation section [digital display] is modified and output to correspond to changes in brightness).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 3 – 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bonnier et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0134245).
Regarding claim 3, Imamura fails to explicitly disclose: further comprising an ambient brightness sensor and/or a lighting ambience sensor and/or a user control interface so that the system for automatically controlling brightness of the digital display also uses ambient brightness and/or lighting ambience and/or a user control to automatically control said brightness of the digital display.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Bonnier discloses: an display that displays virtual reality content and which adapts a brightness of the display based, in part, on physiological attributes including pupil size (Abstract).
With regard to claim 3, Bonnier teaches: further comprising an ambient brightness sensor and/or a lighting ambience sensor (FIG. 1; paragraph [0028]; ambient light sensor 22) and/or a user control interface (This element is optional due to the use of the term “and/or” and is therefore not a required element of this claim) so that the system for automatically controlling brightness of the digital display also uses ambient brightness and/or lighting ambience (FIG. 1; Abstract; paragraphs [0028], [0058]; a brightness of displayed content is automatically adjusted based on a detected ambient light from ambient light sensor 22 in addition to physiological attributes including pupil size) and/or a user control to automatically control said brightness of the digital display (This element is optional due to the use of the term “and/or” and is therefore not a required element of this claim).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Imamura and Bonnier to yield predictable results. More specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the brightness adjustment in response to multiple factors [pupil area / size and gaze direction] of Imamura to include ambient light detection as an additional factor for determining brightness adjustments, as taught by Bonnier. Such a modification only requires using multiple factors to determine brightness adjustments, as taught by both Imamura and Bonnier. Accordingly, this combination requires nothing more than a simple substitution of one automatic brightness adjustment factor for another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Imamura and Bonnier to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Imamura fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the illuminator and the image sensor operate in a near infrared spectral range.
However, Imamura teaches that the IR light source 2002 [illuminator] and IR camera 2003 [image sensor] operate in the infrared spectral range (FIG. 11; paragraphs [0064], [0161]). The infrared spectral range includes the near infrared spectral range.
Additionally, Bonnier discloses using near infrared light wavelengths to illuminate a user’s eye and capture an image thereof for determining pupil size (paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Imamura and Bonnier to yield predictable results. More specifically, it would have been obvious to utilize infrared light in the near infrared spectral range, as taught by Bonnier, for illuminating and capturing images of a user’s pupil, as taught by Imamura. Such a modification only requires further specificity of the particular wavelengths of infrared light disclosed by Imamura and Bonnier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Imamura and Bonnier to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Imamura fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the brightness automatic control system further comprises a colorimetry control module.
However, Bonnier teaches: wherein the brightness automatic control system further comprises a colorimetry control module (FIG. 1; paragraphs [0026], [0028], [0046]; ambient light sensor 22 measures color, color temperature, and color coordinate measurements. The control circuitry 42 utilizes this information to control tone mapping circuitry 14 to adjust tone of display content so that bright colors are perceived brighter and dark colors are perceived darker. Tone mapping circuitry 14 therefore operates as a “colorimetry control module”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Imamura and Bonnier to yield predictable results. More specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the brightness adjustment in response to multiple factors [pupil area / size and gaze direction] of Imamura to include ambient light detection as an additional factor for determining brightness adjustments which include tone adjustments as well, as taught by Bonnier. Such a modification provides improved display content by adjusting brightness and tone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Imamura and Bonnier to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
12. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bhakta et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0094534).
Regarding claim 5, Imamura fails to explicitly disclose: further comprising an optical system comprising a set of focusing and/or collimating lenses configured to guide light from the digital display and from the illuminator to the eye of the user and from the eye of the user to the image sensor, the optical system further comprising a dichroic filter.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Bhakta discloses: a head-mounted display device that includes an infrared emitter and infrared image sensor for illuminating and capturing images of a user’s eyes (FIG. 2; paragraphs [0005], [0022]).
With regard to claim 5, Bhakta teaches: further comprising an optical system comprising a set of focusing and/or collimating lenses configured to guide light from the digital display and from the illuminator to the eye of the user and from the eye of the user to the image sensor (FIGS. 3, 4; paragraphs [0030], [0031], [0042], [0047], [0052], [0050]; collimating optics 34, which may include one or more lenses, directs image light 22 from illumination optics 36 and display panel 60 [together the “display”] to a user’s eye. Collimating optics 34 also directs infrared light 74 from infrared emitter 70 to a user’s eye. Collimating optics 34 also directs infrared light 66 that has been reflected off a user’s eye toward infrared image sensor 58), the optical system further comprising a dichroic filter (FIGS. 3, 4; paragraph [0043]; partially reflective coating 64 may reflect visible light 38 while transmitting infrared light. Accordingly, partially reflective coating 64 functions as a dichroic filter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Imamura and Bhakta to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a display device that projects visible and infrared light to a user’s eye and detects reflected infrared light off a user’s eye, as taught by Imamura, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a display device that projects visible and infrared light to a user’s eye through collimating optics and detects reflected infrared light off a user’s eye through the collimating optics, as taught by Bhakta, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Imamura and Bhakta would yield the predictable result of a display device that projects visible and infrared light to a user’s eye through collimating optics and detects reflected infrared light off a user’s eye through the collimating optics. Such a combination only requires a simple substitution of one optics arrangement for another that performs the same function. Both Imamura and Bhakta disclose similar visible light transmission, infrared light transmission, and infrared light reception. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to simply substitute the optics arrangement of Bhakta for that of Imamura. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Imamura and Bhakta to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Imamura fails to explicitly disclose: a free-form optical element comprising the dichroic filter and a set of lenses.
However, Bhakta teaches: further comprises a free-form optical element comprising the dichroic filter and a set of lenses (FIGS. 3, 4; paragraph [0043]; prism 62 prism 65, reflective surface 61, and partially reflective coating 64 together are interpreted as an “optical element”. This “optical element” may be freeform because of the freeform curvature of reflective surface 61. This “optical element” includes partially reflective coating 64 [dichroic filter] and a set of lenses [prisms 62 and 65]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Imamura and Bhakta to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 5.
13. Claim 7 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Villalpando et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0043278).
Regarding claim 7, Imamura fails to explicitly disclose: further comprising a user eye proximity sensor configured to operate the image display device when the eye of the user is in proximity.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Villalpando disclose: an eye wear display device (Abstract).
With regard to claim 7, Villalpando teaches: further comprising a user eye proximity sensor configured to operate the image display device when the eye of the user is in proximity (FIGS. 15, 16, 20; paragraphs [0086], [0133] – [0135]; eyewear device includes a display 1520 and sensors 1528 such as proximity sensor 1618. Eyewear device operates [state 2006] when the user is in proximity of the eyewear display, as determined by proximity sensor 1618, and turns off [state 2010] when the user is not in proximity of the eyewear, as determined by proximity sensor 1618).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Imamura and Villalpando to yield predictable results. More specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the proximity sensor to only operate the wearable / heads-up display when it is being worn by a user as determined by a proximity sensor, as taught by Villalpando, into the device of Imamura. Such a modification of Imamura only requires adding an additional sensor and corresponding functionality, as disclosed by Villalpando, to preserve power when the device of Imamura is not being worn on a head of a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Imamura and Villalpando to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626