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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed with the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 26 March 2025 and 27 February 2026 were received and the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment to the drawings, specification, and claims filed on 7 January 2025 is accepted and entered. Claims 9, 12, and 13 are amended. Claim 11 is canceled. Claims 14-21 are added. Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending in this action.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 lines 2 and 4, the wording "in response to that the target user" is convoluted and confusing. The original wording of claim 9 was clearer and more concise.
Claim 21 lines 2 and 4, the wording "in response to that the target user" is convoluted and confusing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-9 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation "the target eyewear" in lines 3-4 and line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what the target eyewear is or where it originated. Further it is unclear if perhaps the target eyewear is referring to the VR device as a VR device could be interpreted as eyewear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “the target eyewear” as “the target glasses”. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and is likewise rejected for failing to remedy the ambiguity of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation "the target user" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what user this is referring to or where the user originates. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands the user as a user of the VR device.
Further regarding claim 9, claim 9 appears to skip an essential step causing the claim to be unclear. The claim recites in line 2 “in response to that the target user is detected to be wearing the VR device”. However, there is no step in the claim for detecting whether the target use is wearing the VR device. In other words, in order for there to be a response to a trigger the trigger (detecting whether the target use is wearing the VR device) must be claimed prior to the response. The scope of the claim is unclear due to the missing step. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets there to be a step of determining that the target user is wearing the VR device prior to the claimed response.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitation "the target eyewear" in line 4 and line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what the target eyewear is or where it originated. Further it is unclear if perhaps the target eyewear is referring to the VR device as a VR device could be interpreted as eyewear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “the target eyewear” as “the target glasses”. Claim 21 is dependent on claim 20 and is likewise rejected for failing to remedy the ambiguity of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites the limitation "the target user" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what user this is referring to or where the user originates. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands the user as a user of the VR device.
Further regarding claim 21, claim 21 appears to skip an essential step causing the claim to be unclear. The claim recites in line 2 “in response to that the target user is detected to be wearing the VR device”. However, there is no step in the claim for detecting whether the target use is wearing the VR device. In other words, in order for there to be a response to a trigger the trigger (detecting whether the target use is wearing the VR device) must be claimed prior to the response. The scope of the claim is unclear due to the missing step. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets there to be a step of determining that the target user is wearing the VR device prior to the claimed response.
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)(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, 3-4, 10, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zaky et al. (US 20240393207 A1; hereafter, Zaky).
Regarding claim 1, Zaky discloses:
A glasses diopter identification method, comprising: acquiring an image to be processed ([0044] and Fig. 8, "an image sensor captures an image of the attachable lens");
the image to be processed is obtained by performing image acquisition on a lens of target glasses under irradiation of a light source ([0044] and Fig. 8, "including reflections caused by light being reflected from a front surface and a back surface of the lens. The light may be from a plurality of light sources (e.g., an arrangement of LEDs)."), and the image to be processed comprises an optical feature generated when the light source emits light to the lens of the target glasses ([0044] and Fig. 8, the image includes "reflections caused by light being reflected" which is understood as an optical feature generated by the light source);
and inputting input data comprising the image to be processed to a glasses diopter identification model ([0044] and Fig. 8, "an algorithm or ML model inputs an image of the reflections and outputs the lens characteristic.") to obtain a glasses diopter of the target glasses ([0048] and Fig. 8, the diopter is determined, see also [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Zaky discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Zaky further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the optical feature comprises one or a combination of: light spots, lens texture, or lens thickness information ([0046] and Fig. 8, reflections are detected in the image which are understood as light spots).
Regarding claim 4, Zaky discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Zaky further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprises: training a first preset model with a plurality of first type of training samples to obtain the glasses diopter identification model ([0032] the machine learning model is trained using ground truth images which are understood as a first type of training samples), wherein the first type of training samples comprise lens images of preset glasses ([0032] the ground truth data includes "a specific lens" which is understood as preset glasses), the lens images comprise optical feature generated when the light source emits light to the preset glasses ([0032] the ground truth data includes a specific arrangement of known light sources which is understood as light source emits light to the preset glasses), and the training samples carry corresponding glasses diopters ([0032] the ground truth data has "a range of lens characteristics (e.g., diopters)" which is understood as corresponding glasses diopters with the ground truth images).
Regarding claim 10, Zaky discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Zaky further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprises: acquiring a plurality of images to be processed of the target glasses ([0004] "In one implementation, a sequence of images is obtained" which is understood as a plurality of images);
based on the plurality of images to be processed, respectively obtaining a plurality of groups of glasses diopters of the target glasses through the glasses diopter identification model ([0004] each image depicts the reflections and may be used to determine the diopter of the image. As this is done for a plurality of images it is understood as a plurality of groups of diopters. [0044] the calculation of the diopter may be by a machine learning model);
wherein each group of glasses diopter comprises a first lens diopter and a second lens diopter of the target glasses ([0030] and Fig. 4, an example of plural images is images 450A and 450 B which comprise two different lenses with different diopter measurements. Therefore, a calculation from a plurality of images comprises a first lens diopter and a second lens diopter);
and obtaining a target glasses diopter of the target glasses based on the plurality of groups of glasses diopters ([0030] and Fig. 4, a person of ordinary skill would understand two lenses to form a target glasses, therefore it is understood as a calculation of diopter of glasses, see also [0002]).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 1. Finally, Zaky further discloses:
An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor ([0054] and Fig. 9, a processor is used in the method);
a memory for storing instruction that is executable by the at least one processor ([0059] and Fig. 9, a memory stores instructions to perform a method);
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions with steps corresponding to the steps recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 1. Finally, Zaky further discloses:
A non-transient computer-readable storage medium ([0059] and Fig. 9, a non-transitory computer-readable medium), wherein instructions in the computer-readable storage medium, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, enable the electronic device to perform glasses diopter identification method, comprising ([0059] and Fig. 9, the medium stores instructions which may be executed by a processor to perform the method):
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 3. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 4. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 4.
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.
Claims 2, 5, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al. (US 20240393207 A1; hereafter, Zaky) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111325698 A; hereafter, Zhang).
Regarding claim 2, Zaky discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Zaky further discloses:
to obtain a feature image comprising the optical feature ([0044] and Fig. 8, the input image comprises the optical feature, therefore it may be understood as a feature image), and taking the feature image as at least part of the input data ([0044] and Fig. 8, the image is input into the machine learning model).
Zaky does not disclose expressly performing image segmentation on the image to be processed.
Zhang discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprises: performing image segmentation on the image to be processed (pg. 3 para. 4, a segmentation model performs segmentation of a "reflecting area" of the lens image which is understood as an optical feature)
Zaky and Zhang are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of processing images of lenses (Zaky, [0001]; Zhang, pg. 2 para. 4 "summary of the invention”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image segmentation of Zhang with the invention of Zaky.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve an image by determining and removing glare from a lens (see Zhang, pg. 2 para. 4 “summary of the invention”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang with Zaky to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Zaky in view of Zhang discloses the subject matter of claim 2.
Zaky further discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the feature image comprises a lens image ([0044] and Fig. 8, the acquired image is of a lens which is understood as a lens image) and a light spot image ([0044] and Fig. 8, the acquired image includes the reflections which are light spots. Therefore, the acquired image, i.e. the feature image, is both a lens image and a light spot image),
Zaky does not disclose expressly performing image segmentation by inputting the image into a segmentation model to obtain the lens image and the light spot image wherein the segmentation model is obtained by training a second preset model with a second type of training sample that comprises an image synthesized with different user images and present feature images.
Zhang discloses:
and the performing image segmentation on the image to be processed comprises: inputting the image to be processed into an image segmentation model (pg. 3 para. 4, the segmentation model receives the "target image" which is understood as input)
to obtain the lens image (pg. 5 para. 4, the reflecting area is detected and removed from a "glasses lens" therefore the image is understood as a lens image) and the light spot image (pg. 3 para. 4, the segmentation model determines the reflecting area which is understood as a light spot image);
the image segmentation model is obtained by training a second preset model with a second type of training sample, wherein the second type of training sample comprises an image obtained by synthesizing different user images and different preset feature images (pg. 8 para. Last through pg. 9 para. 1, the training samples are prepared with marked reflecting areas on lenses of "staff wearing glasses and not wearing glasses" in "two situations acquiring an image with light reflecting region and non-reflection" which is understood as different user images, e.g. images of "staff", and different preset features, e.g. with light reflecting and without light reflecting), and the preset feature images comprise pre-marked light spot areas and pre-marked lens areas (pg. 3 para. 4, the model is trained on images with pre-marked reflecting areas on lenses which is understood to include pre-marked lens areas as the reflecting area is on the lens, i.e. the lens is also marked).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the training of a segmentation model of Zhang with the invention of Zaky.
The motivation for doing so would have been “repeating the training step, until the iteration times reach the preset times, reflecting obtained after training the model” (Zhang, pg. 9 para. 1). In other words, to obtain a trained model.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang with Zaky to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 2. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 5. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 5.
Claims 8, 9, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al. (US 20240393207 A1; hereafter, Zaky) in view of Rana et al. (US 10288879 B1; hereafter, Rana).
Regarding claim 8, Zaky discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Zaky does not disclose expressly acquiring an image by an image acquisition device located on a VR device comprising an acquisition device to capture a first lens and an acquisition device to capture a second lens and the VR device having a light source.
Rana discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the image to be processed is acquired by an image acquisition device located on a VR device (col. 7 line 48-51 and Fig. 3a, cameras 320 are located in a VR device);
wherein the image acquisition device comprises at least a first image acquisition device configured to capture an image of a first lens of the target eyewear and a second image acquisition device configured to capture an image of a second lens of the target eyewear (col. 7 line 48-51 and Fig. 3a, cameras 320 are located with one on each side capturing images of each eye. Col. 8 line 53-60 and Fig. 4, the system may capture images of the eyes of the user when the user is wearing spectacles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the two cameras to capture images of a first lens and a second lens), the VR device having at least one light source disposed thereon (col. 7 line 45-47 and Fig. 3a, illuminators are used to shine light onto eyes).
Rana is combinable with Zaky because it is from the same field of endeavor of processing images of lenses (Rana, col. 9 line 37-39).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the VR device of Rana with the invention of Zaky.
The motivation for doing so would have been to overcome the difficulty of tracking eyes when user spectacles are present (see Rana col. 8 line 23-26 and col. 10 line 25-29 and Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rana with Zaky to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Zaky in view of Rana discloses the subject matter of claim 8.
Zaky does not disclose expressly determining that a user is wearing glasses in response to wearing the VR device and emitting light and capturing images in response to determining that a user is wearing glasses.
Rana discloses:
The method of claim 8, further comprises: in response to that the target user is detected to be wearing the VR device, determining whether the target user is wearing the target glasses (col. 9 line 37-43 and Fig. 5, the system detects the reflected light on the glasses of the user which is understood as detecting that the user is wearing glasses. A person or ordinary skill in the art would understand this step to only occur after the VR device is worn by the user, i.e. in response to that the target user is detected to be wearing the VR device);
in response to that the target user is wearing the target glasses, emitting light to the lenses of the target glasses through the light source on the VR device (col. 9 line 48-50 and Fig. 5, "Furthermore, glints 540 resulting from light from the plurality of illuminators being reflected from the lens of the spectacles" therefore light is emitted to the lenses from the VR device light sources), and acquiring the images of the lenses of the target glasses by the image acquisition device on the VR device (col. 9 line 43-45 and Fig. 5, "the image 500 of the eye of the user is then received in a processing circuitry from the image sensor" which is understood to disclose acquiring images of the lenses of the target glasses by the image acquisition device of the VR device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the VR device of Rana with the invention of Zaky.
The motivation for doing so would have been to overcome the difficulty of tracking eyes when user spectacles are present (see Rana col. 8 line 23-26 and col. 10 line 25-29 and Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rana with Zaky to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 8. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 8.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 9. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 18, and 19 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the closest prior art, Zaky et al. (US 20240393207 A1; hereafter, Zaky), discloses the subject matter of claims 2 and 14 respectively. The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest splicing the image to be processed, the lens image, and the light spot image in a channel and taking the spliced image as input into the glasses diopter identification model.
The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including:
splicing the image to be processed, the lens image and the light spot image in a channel dimension, and taking the spliced image as an input of the glasses diopter identification model.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the closest prior art, Zaky et al. (US 20240393207 A1; hereafter, Zaky), discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 12 respectively. Zaky discloses acquiring a first lens image and a second lens image of the glasses. The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest splicing the first lens image and the second lens image in a horizontal direction and taking the spliced image as the image to be processed.
The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including:
and splicing the first lens image and the second lens image in a horizontal direction, and taking the spliced image as the image to be processed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aschwanden (US 20220373805 A1) discloses a VR headset for determining optical characteristics of a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA B CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-7989. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-5pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/JOSHUA B. CROCKETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights