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 § 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 1, 12-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of USPNs 2018/0299704 to Fonte et al. and 2013/0339043 to Bakar et al.
With regard to claim 1, Fonte discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program instructions that, when executed by a computing system (paragraph [0042], A properly programmed computer is used to perform the steps), cause operations comprising:
obtaining, with a computing system, one or more images of a user wearing eyewear paragraphs [0026], [0056] and [0161] and Fig. 22, In a particular embodiment, the person is imaged wearing eyewear they already own);
detecting, with the computer system, in at least some of the one or more images, with the computing system, a first feature on a right side of the user and a second feature on a left side of the user, wherein the first feature and the second feature are features of [structured] light (paragraphs [0121]-[0124], a plurality of features are identified in the image on both sides of the face and specifically pupils are identified for both eyes. The features of the face are determined using light and depth information for the face is also determined using laser sensors or 3D scanners as described in paragraph [0141]. Fonte does not explicitly disclose structured light, but Bakar does and will be discussed below);
detecting, with the computer system, in at least some of the one or more images, with the computing system, a right pupil location of a pupil of a right eye based on the first feature (paragraphs [0121]-[0124], a plurality of features are identified in the image on both sides of the face and specifically pupils are identified for both eyes and an interpupillary distance is determined as shown in Fig. 7);
detecting, with the computer system, in at least some of the one or more images, with the computing system, a left pupil location of a pupil of a left eye based on the second feature (paragraphs [0121]-[0124], a plurality of features are identified in the image on both sides of the face and specifically pupils are identified for both eyes and an interpupillary distance is determined as shown in Fig. 7); and
storing, with the computer system, in memory, the detected left pupil location and the detected right pupil location (paragraphs [0121]-[0124], a plurality of features are identified in the image on both sides of the face and specifically pupils are identified for both eyes and an interpupillary distance is determined as shown in Fig. 7. The locations of the pupils are considered to be stored as they are used to design custom eyewear based on the measurements and determined locations).
Fonte does not explicitly disclose that the features are features of structured light. Fonte does disclose that the features of the face are determined using light and depth information for the face is also determined using laser sensors or 3D scanners as described in paragraph [0141]. Bakar discloses a system for imaging eyes similar to that of Fonte using 3D scanning and further teaches that the 3D scanner uses structured light to illuminate the surface of the eye (paragraph [0049]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 2 3D scanner using structured light as taught by Bakar in combination of the 3D scanning of Fonte in order to identify eye features.
With regard to claim 12, Fonte discloses wherein at least some of the one or more images of the user comprise images obtained at different angles respective to the user (paragraphs [0110], [0119], [0127]-[0128], [0141] and [0169], The user captures a series of images from different angles as the camera is moved around the user’s head ion order to create a 3D model), the operations further comprising:
generating a three-dimensional representation of the eyewear of the user based on the first feature of the eyewear and the second feature of the eyewear detected in the images obtained at different angles respective to the user (paragraphs [0110], [0119], [0141], [0161] and [0169], The user captures a series of images from different angles as the camera is moved around the user’s head in order to create a 3D model. In one embodiment images are captured of a user wearing eyeglasses); and
determining a Pantoscopic tilt (paragraphs [0124], [0201]-[0203], Pantoscopic angle is calculated using the 3D model of the user’s faces), or a vertex distance from a back surface of a lens to a cornea based on the three-dimensional representation (paragraphs [0047], [0124], [0180] and [0201]-[0203], the vertex distance is determined as the distance between the center of the eye and the inner surface of the lens).
With regard to claim 13, Fonte discloses wherein at least one of the one or more images of the user comprises a profile image of the user, the operations further comprising:
detecting in the profile image a third feature of the eyewear (paragraphs [0110], [0119], [0141], [0161] and [0169], The user captures a series of images from different angles as the camera is moved around the user’s head in order to create a 3D model. In one embodiment images are captured of a user wearing eyeglasses. A third feature is interpreted as the location of the eyewear itself in order to determine relative location to the identified eye features);
determining a Pantoscopic tilt or a vertex distance from a back surface of a lens to a cornea based on the third feature of the eyewear (paragraphs [0124], [0201]-[0203], Pantoscopic angle and vertex distance is calculated using the 3D model of the user’s faces and the eyewear).
With regard to claim 14, Fonte discloses the operations further comprising configuring glasses based on the right pupil location and the left pupil location (Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0124]-[0126], the Pupil locations are considered in configuring the custom eyeglasses).
With regard to claim 15, Fonte discloses wherein the one or more images are depth images and wherein the first feature and the second feature are features of depth (paragraphs [0120] and [0141], depth cameras and 3D scanners are disclosed for capturing depth information related to the detected eye image features).
With regard to claim 16, Fonte discloses the operations further comprising: determining, by the computing system, that a user face is skewed in at least one of the one or more images of the user; based on a determination that the user face is skewed, deskewing the at least one of the one or more images with means for deskewing (Figs. 11 and 24, and paragraphs [0196] and [0248]-[0249], Asymmetries or skew of the eyewear relative to the face image is determined and steps are taken for correction according to the imaging system).
With regard to claim 20, Fonte discloses wherein detecting in at least some of the one or more images the first feature of the eyewear on a right side of the user and a second feature of the eyewear on the left side of the user comprises detecting the first feature in a first image among the one or more images and detecting the second feature in a second image among the one or more images (paragraphs [0110], [0119], [0141], [0161] and [0169], The user captures a series of images from different angles as the camera is moved around the user’s head in order to create a 3D model. In one embodiment images are captured of a user wearing eyeglasses. The various image features such as the pupils of the right and left eyes are considered identified in both first and second, as well as other multiple images used to construct the 3D model).
With regard to claim 21, the discussion of claim 1 applies. The combination of Fonte and Bakar disclose the steps of claim 21 as discussed with regard to the steps performed by the program of claim 1.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of USPNs 2018/0299704 to Fonte et al. and 2013/0339043 to Bakar et al. and USPN 2011/0299033 to Wada et al.
With regard to claim 2, Fonte and Bakar disclose the method of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose determining, with the computing system, a right eye box position and a left eye box position, wherein the right eye box position is determined based on the right pupil location and wherein the left eye box position is determined based on the left pupil location.
Wada discloses a similar eyewear customization system to that of Fonte and further teaches identifying an eye box in the form of an area of a lens deemed to be most important based on the identified location of a user’s pupils (Figs. 1, 4, 10 and 13, and paragraphs [0080]-[0085] and [0088]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify and designate an eye box based on the identified pupil to determine which portions of the lens to focus on as taught by Wada in combination with the custom eyewear design of Fonte in order to generate the information to construct the best eyeglasses.
With regard to claim 3, Wada discloses wherein the operations comprise determining a right eye box size and a left eye box size, wherein the right eye box size is determined based on the first feature of the eyewear and the left eye box size is determined based on the second feature of the eyewear (Figs. 1, 4, 10 and 13, and paragraphs [0080]-[0085] and [0088], Wada discloses a similar eyewear customization system to that of Fonte and further teaches identifying an eye box in the form of an area of a lens deemed to be most important based on the identified location of a user’s pupils).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify and designate an “eye box” based on the identified pupil to determine which portions of the lens to focus on as taught by Wada in combination with the custom eyewear design of Fonte in order to generate the information to construct the best eyeglasses.
Claims 4-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of USPNs 2018/0299704 to Fonte et al. and 2013/0339043 to Bakar et al. and USPN 2011/0299033 to Wada et al. and further in view of USPN 2019/0349576 to Yildiz et al.
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Fonte, Bakar and Wada disclose the medium of claim 2, but does not disclose storing, by the computing system, the right eye box position and the left eye box position in memory; and configuring a head-mounted display based on the right eye box position and the left eye box position.
Yildiz discloses a system for tracking eye position similar to those of Fonte, Bakar and Wada and further teaches a head mounted display that uses located eye position in order to adjust two different displays in front of each eye (Figs. 2, 3, 5A and 5B, and paragraphs [0005]-[0008]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to use the determined eye locations as taught by Wada in order to determine how best to display images on a head mounted display as taught by Yildiz.
With regard to claim 5, Yildiz discloses configuring, by the computing system, one or more displays based on the right eye box position and the left eye box position (Figs. 2, 3, 5A and 5B, and paragraphs [0005]-[0008], Yildiz discloses a system for tracking eye position similar to those of Fonte, Bakar and Wada and further teaches a head mounted display that uses located eye position in order to adjust two different displays in front of each eye). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to use the determined eye locations as taught by Wada in order to determine how best to display images on a head mounted display as taught by Yildiz.
With regard to claim 6, Yildiz discloses wherein configuring the one or more displays comprises configuring at least one position of the one or more displays based on a relationship between the right eye box position and the left eye box position (Figs. 2, 3, 5A, 5B and 7, and paragraphs [0005]-[0008], Yildiz discloses a system for adjusting displays for each eye based on the detected eye position and the relationship between the two eyes as displayed at Fig. 7).
With regard to claim 7, Yildiz discloses wherein configuring the one or more displays comprises determining a right position for a right display and a left position for a left display, wherein the right position is determine based on the right eye box position and the left position is determined based on the left eye box position (Figs. 2, 3, 5A, 5B and 7, and paragraphs [0005]-[0008], Yildiz discloses a system for adjusting displays for each eye based on the detected eye position and the relationship between the two eyes as displayed at Fig. 7).
With regard to claim 8, Yildiz discloses wherein configuring the one or more displays comprises electronically adjusting the one or more displays (Figs. 2, 3, 5A, 5B and 7, and paragraphs [0005]-[0008], Yildiz discloses a system for adjusting displays for each eye based on the detected eye position and the relationship between the two eyes as displayed at Fig. 7).
Fonte discloses considering interpupillary distance wherein the IPD is determined based on a relationship between the right pupil location and the left pupil location. (paragraph [0047]). Likewise Yildiz discloses determining the distance between the ocular center of the left eye and the right eye (paragraph [0005]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art before time of filing to use the interpupillary distance between the left and right eye in order to provide the best display configuration as taught by Yildiz
With regard to claim 9, Yildiz discloses wherein the one or more displays are displays of an augmented reality headset or a virtual reality headset (Figs. 2 and 3).
With regard to claim 10, Fonte discloses wherein detecting the right pupil location and detecting the left pupil location further comprises detecting an interpupillary distance (IPD) based on the right pupil location and the left pupil location . (paragraph [0047]).
Yildiz discloses detecting an ocular center (OC) height based on the right pupil location and the left pupil location, (paragraph [0005], Yildiz discloses determining the distance between the ocular center of the left eye and the right eye and using the ocular ).
Accordingly Yildiz also teaches the operations further comprising configuring an augmented reality or virtual reality headset based on [both the IPD] and OC height (paragraph [0051]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art before time of filing to use the interpupillary distance as well as the ocular center height between the left and right eye in order to provide the best display configuration as taught by Yildiz.
With regard to claim 17, Yildiz discloses configuring a focal depth of a head-mounted display based on the left pupil location or the right pupil location (paragraphs [0052] and [0054]-[0055], Yildiz discloses that the ocular centers for both the left eye and the right eye as well as the pupil locations are used in order to adjust the display to bring the display into focus).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of USPNs 2018/0299704 to Fonte et al. and 2013/0339043 to Bakar et al. and USPN 2019/0349576 to Yildiz et al. and 2016/0041384 to Robbins et al.
With regard to claim 18, the combination of Fonte and Bakar discloses the medium of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose configuring at least a vertical position of a diffractive waveguide grating, a reflective waveguide grating, or a silvered mirror based on the left pupil location or the right pupil location. Robbins discloses an augmented reality head mounted display similar to that of Yildiz and further discloses that the display uses a diffractive waveguide grating, a reflective waveguide grating, and a silvered mirror (paragraph [0032] and Fig. 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to use the diffractive waveguide grating, reflective, waveguide grating and silvered mirror in order to display the AR display and to adjust the position of the display as taught by Yildiz in order to generate an accurate viewable display.
With regard to claim 19, Robbins discloses wherein configuring at least the vertical position of the diffractive waveguide grating, a reflective waveguide grating, or a silvered mirror comprises configuring at least the vertical position (paragraph [0032] and Fig. 2). Yildiz discloses determining an ocular center, wherein the position is determined based on the left pupil location and the right pupil location (paragraph [0005]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to use the ocular center position of the left and right eyes in order to provide the best display configuration as taught by Yildiz based on an ocular center (OC) height, wherein the OC height is determined based on the left pupil location or the right pupil location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No found prior art of record discloses the specific combination of limitations recited in dependent claim 11.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY J TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7427. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM Monday-Friday.
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 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.
/WESLEY J TUCKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights