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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurauskas et al. (US 2024/0355148) in view of Meyer et al. (US 2023/0122222).
In regard to claim 1, Zurauskas et al. teach a method comprising: at an electronic device having a processor and a tracking component (fig. 4B): determining, by the tracking component, an expected position of a portion of an eye relative to the tracking component; based on the expected position of the portion of the eye, selectively activating a subset of the plurality of lasers to project light towards the portion of the eye (paragraph 94, feedback is used to determine which of the VCSEL to be activated based on eye position), wherein reflected light of the projected light are sensed via a subset of the one or more image sensors (element 320 and paragraph 71); and determining a current position of the portion of the eye based on coherence-based measurements using the projected light and the reflected light (fig. 4B, paragraphs 53 and 81) but does not teach wherein the tracking component comprises an integrated circuit that includes a plurality of lasers and one or more photodiodes.
Meyer et al. teach wherein the tracking component comprises an integrated circuit that includes a plurality of lasers and one or more photodiodes (element 130 and paragraph 53. Meyer et al. teach the use of a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser, integrated photodiode).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of eye sensing in head mounted devices.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. with the integrated light emitter and photodiode of Meyer et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. with the integrated light emitter and photodiode of Meyer et al. because the integrated device of Meyer et al. would work equally as well as the separate devices of Zurauskas et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that integrating the devices would reduce manufacturing complexity.
In regard to claim 2, Zurauskas et al. teach wherein determining the expected position of the portion of the eye relative to the tracking component is based on a previous tracked position of the eye (paragraph 94, Zurauskas et al. teach using feedback to determine the appropriate zones for light emitting. Feedback inherently takes time and the position is previous to the current position).
In regard to claim 3, Zurauskas et al. teach wherein determining the expected position of the portion of the eye relative to the tracking component is based on sensor data received from one or more sensors, the sensor data corresponding to a plurality of reflections of light produced by the plurality of lasers or another light source and reflected from the eye (paragraph 94, the expected position is based on feedback from the eye tracking system).
In regard to claim 4, Meyer et al. teach wherein the tracking component further comprises an integrated self-mixing interferometer (SMI) array (paragraph 16).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. with the self-mixing interference of Meyer et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. with the self-mixing interference of Meyer et al. because the self-mixing interference of Meyer et al. would work equally as well as the eye tracking of Zurauskas et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize self-mixing interference would work preditably and offers a compact and highly reliable eye tracking system.
In regard to claim 7, Zurauskas et al. teach wherein selectively activating the subset of the plurality of lasers is based on a scanning mode of the tracking component (see paragraphs 92-95. Zurauskas et al. teach multiple modes for using the VCSEL to determine gaze position).
In regard to claim 13, Zurauskas et al. teach IR sensing (paragraph 126, the illumination is in the infrared spectrum).
Meyer et al. teach IR photodiodes (paragraphs 53 and 54. Meyer et al. teach using photodiodes and infrared radiation).
In regard to claim 15, Zurauskas et al. teach wherein the plurality of lasers are vertical cavity surface-emitting lasers (VCSELs) (fig. 5).
In regard to claim 16, Meyer et al. teach wherein the one or more photodiodes comprise a photodiode array (fig. 1 element 130).
In regard to claim 17, Zurauskas et al. teach wherein the projected light of the plurality of lasers comprises infrared (IR) light (paragraph 126).
In regard to claim 18, Zurauskas et al. teach wherein the electronic device is a head-mounted device (HMD) (fig. 2A and paragraph 63).
In regard to claim 19, Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. teach all the elements of claim 19 (see claim 1 rejection above which is the method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 19) including a frame (Zurauskas et al. fig. 2A), a transparent substrate coupled to the frame and a waveguide (paragraph 41, transparent substrate and waveguide display), wherein the waveguide is configured to display an projected image (paragraph 41).
In regard to claim 20, Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. teach all the elements of claim 20 (see claim 1 rejection above which is the method corresponding to the storage medium and program of claim 20) including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing program instructions (paragraph 158).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurauskas et al. in view of Meyer et al. further considered with Ashok (US 2023/0309826).
In regard to claim 8, Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. teach all the elements of claim 8 except OCT.
Ashok teaches OCT (fig. 5).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of eye sensing.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. with the OCT of Ashok. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. with the OCT of Ashok because it would allow for imaging of structures deep within the eye and improve gaze detection accuracy.
In regard to claim 9, Ashok teaches wherein the coherence-based measurements comprises sub-surface information associated with an features below a surface of the eye (paragraph 68, imaging the retina).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurauskas et al. in view of Meyer et al. further considered with Gronenborn (US 2022/0107077).
In regard to claim 10, Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. teach all the elements of claim 10 except wherein the integrated circuit comprises a semiconductor material having a non-planar surface shape configured to direct the projected light from each of the plurality of lasers in a plurality of different directions.
Gronenborn teaches wherein the integrated circuit comprises a semiconductor material having a non-planar surface shape configured to direct the projected light from each of the plurality of lasers in a plurality of different directions (paragraphs 41 and 61).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of eye sensing.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. with the diffusor lens of Gronenborn. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. with the diffusor lens of Gronenborn because providing the diffusor into the semiconductor substrate, as shown in Gronenborn, would improve the light profile of the device while integrating the diffusor into the substrate and simplifying manufacturing.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurauskas et al. in view of Meyer et al. further considered with Grigo et al. (US 2024/0044675).
In regard to claim 11, Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. teach all the elements of claim 11 except wherein at least one of the one or more photodiodes are integrated in a back-side of the tracking component.
Grigo et al. teach wherein at least one of the one or more photodiodes are integrated in a back-side of the tracking component (paragraph 29).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of image sensing.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. with the photosensor of Grigo et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. with the photosensor of Grigo et al. because the the backside-illuminated sensor of Grigo et al. would operate at much greater efficiency due to the light sensor not being obfuscated by electronic components (paragraph 31).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurauskas et al. in view of Meyer et al. further considered with Gütle et al. (US 2023/0080848).
In regard to claim 12, Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. teach all the elements of claim 12 except wherein the one or more photodiodes are integrated in a front-side of the tracking component in a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) die.
Gütle et al. teach wherein the one or more photodiodes are integrated in a front-side of the tracking component in a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) die (fig. 11A and paragraph 129).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of image sensing.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. with the photosensor of Gütle et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. with the with the photosensor of Gütle et al. because the CMOS sensor Gütle et al. would allow for reliable high-quality measurements while allowing for a small sensor.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurauskas et al. in view of Meyer et al. further considered with Dong (US 2015/0378100).
In regard to claim 14, Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. teach all the elements of claim 14 except wherein the plurality of lasers are monolithic silicon light sources that are integrated on the integrated circuit.
Dong teaches wherein the plurality of lasers are monolithic silicon light sources that are integrated on the integrated circuit (see title and paragraph 20).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of image sensing.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. with the monolithic laser of Dong. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Zurauskas et al. and Meyer et al. with the with the monolithic laser of Dong because the laser of Dong would allow for the integration of the laser directly onto the substrate and improve manufacturing efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In regard to claim 5, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious switching scanning modes based on an SMI switching technique in combination with the claim’s other features.
In regard to claim 6, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the first and second scanning modes in combination with the claim’s other features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights