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 Status
This Office Action responds to application 18/952477 filed on 4/9/26. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a provisional application filed on 11/29/24.
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 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 of this title, 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.
1. Claims 1 - 6 and 12 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al., US 2018/0140187 A1 (from IDS) (hereinafter Watanabe) in view of Richards, US 2001/0055152 A1 (hereinafter Richards).
As for claim 1, Watanabe discloses a near-eye device, comprising: a linearly-polarized ([0041], e.g., polarization directions, note the Fig. 5 shows linear polarization) infrared (IR) light source ([0039], e.g., infrared light sources and polarizers) to project linearly-polarized IR light onto an eye ([0040], e.g., eyeball); a polarization-sensitive IR light sensor ([0039], e.g., imaging device) to receive IR light, including projected linearly-polarized eye/face IR light reflected back from the eye, and to sense a polarization state ([0048], e.g., an image captured by the imaging device and [0081], e.g., degrees of polarization, note the polarization state in the image) of the received IR light; and a controller ([0041], e.g., arithmetic device) to receive and process the received IR light and the sensed polarization state of the received IR light, said controller comprising a processor ([0101], e.g., central processing unit) and a non-transitory computer-readable memory ([0101], e.g., memory) storing instructions to: compute polarization metrics ([0081], e.g., degrees of polarization) for pixels in a two-dimensional (2D) image ([0048], e.g., an image) formed from the received IR light using the sensed polarization state of the received IR light; compute a light origin probability map ([0083], e.g., classifies the bright spots … into real corneal reflection images and outliers) using the computed polarization metrics; reduce stray light ([0081], e.g., removes the outlier) in the 2D image using the computed light origin probability map, wherein stray light ([0081], e.g., the outlier) comprises any IR light not originating ([0082], e.g., sunlight) from the linearly-polarized IR light source; and using the 2D image ([0083], e.g., a real corneal reflection image) with reduced stray light.
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose, but Richards teaches eye/face tracking ([0012], e.g., eye-tracking) IR light using the 2D image to perform eye/face tracking ([0012], e.g., eye-tracking).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Watanabe and Richards before him/her to modify the eyeball observation device eyewear terminal, line-of-sight detection method, and program of Watanabe with the teaching of multi-mode display device of Richards with a motivation to determine the direction that the eye is pointing in 3-D as taught by Richards ([0012]) by using the infrared LED, filter, and/or camera.
As for claim 2, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach, but Richards teaches an IR filter to minimize stray light in the IR light received by the polarization-sensitive IR light sensor ([0012], e.g., infrared filters are used to block stray light).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Watanabe and Richards before him/her to modify the eyeball observation device eyewear terminal, line-of-sight detection method, and program of Watanabe with the teaching of multi-mode display device of Richards with a motivation to determine the direction that the eye is pointing in 3-D as taught by Richards ([0012]) by using the infrared LED, filter, and/or camera.
As for claim 3, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 2.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach, but Richards teaches the IR filter comprises at least one of: an in-frame IR filter integrated into a frame of the near-eye device (Fig. 1, e.g., the outer frame of the device); an in-lens IR filter integrated into a lens of the near-eye device; or a coupling IR filter disposed adjacent to a coupling of a waveguide of the near-eye device.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Watanabe and Richards before him/her to modify the eyeball observation device eyewear terminal, line-of-sight detection method, and program of Watanabe with the teaching of multi-mode display device of Richards with a motivation to determine the direction that the eye is pointing in 3-D as taught by Richards ([0012]) by using the infrared LED, filter, and/or camera.
As for claim 4, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Watanabe further discloses the polarization-sensitive IR light sensor is disposed behind a lens of the near-eye device (Fig. 2, element 13, note the sensor is behind the lens in a camera).
As for claim 5, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Watanabe further discloses the polarization-sensitive IR light sensor comprises at least one of a camera ([0044], e.g., camera and/or [0098], e.g., camera), an imaging sensor ([0039], e.g., imaging device), or a non-imaging sensor.
As for claim 6, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Watanabe further discloses the polarization-sensitive IR light sensor comprises a polarization element which has a polarization state orthogonal to a polarization state of a stray light source ([0082], e.g., sunlight, note the sunlight has polarization in all directions, thus a sensor with a particular polarization direction is orthogonal to one of the polarization directions of the sunlight).
As for claim 12, the claim recites a method for stray light reduction for an eye/face tracking system in a near-eye device of the device of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 13, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 12. In addition, Watanabe further discloses the computing, by the processor of the near-eye device, polarization metrics of pixels in the 2D image formed from the received IR light using the sensed polarization state of the received IR light, comprises: computing at least one of the angle of linear polarization (AOLP) or the degree ([0081], e.g., degree of polarization) of linear polarization (DOLP) of pixels in the 2D image.
As for claim 14, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 12. In addition, Watanabe further discloses computing, by the processor, other light metrics ([0081], e.g., Imax and/or Imin) of pixels in the 2D image formed from the received IR light, wherein the computing, by the processor, of the light origin probability map also uses the computed other light metrics ([0081], e.g., Imax and/or Imin).
As for claim 15, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 12. In addition, Watanabe further discloses segmenting ([0083], e.g., classifies), by the processor, the 2D image formed from the received IR light using the computed polarization metrics, wherein the computing, by the processor, of the light origin probability map uses the segmented 2D image ([0083], e.g., classifies).
As for claim 16, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 12. In addition, Watanabe further discloses the receiving and sensing, by the IR light sensor of the near-eye device, the IR light and the polarization state of the received IR light comprises: capturing the 2D image formed from the received IR light ([0039], e.g., infrared and imaging device).
As for claim 17, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 12. In addition, Watanabe further discloses forming, by the processor, the 2D image from the received IR light ([0039], e.g., infrared and imaging device).
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Richards, Bell et al., US 2005/0110964 A1 (hereinafter Bell), and further in view of Lai et al., US 2021/0127051 A1 (hereinafter Lai).
As for claim 7, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Watanabe as modified by Richards does not explicitly teach, but Bell teaches polarization-sensitive IR light sensor comprises: a linear polarization filter ([0069], e.g., infrared linear polarizing filters) to filter the received IR light, wherein the linear polarization filter ([0069], e.g., infrared linear polarizing filters) suppresses the stray light reflected from any optics in the near-eye device in the captured filtered reflection.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Watanabe, Richards, and Bell before him/her to modify the eyeball observation device eyewear terminal, line-of-sight detection method, and program of Watanabe with the teaching of interactive video window display system of Bell with a motivation to reduce glare as taught by Bell ([0069]) by using the infrared linear polarizing filters.
In addition, Watanabe further discloses wherein the linear polarization filter has a polarization state orthogonal ([0082], e.g., sunlight, note the sunlight has polarization in all directions, thus a filter with a particular polarization direction is orthogonal to a polarization direction of the sunlight) to a polarization state of stray light reflected from any optics in the near-eye device.
Watanabe as modified by Richards and Bell does not explicitly teach, but Lai teaches a grayscale IR camera ([0038], e.g., monochrome (gray) image captured by a monochrome camera sensor) to capture the filtered received IR light.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Watanabe, Richards, Bell, and Lai before him/her to modify the eyeball observation device eyewear terminal, line-of-sight detection method, and program of Watanabe with the teaching of camera fusion and illumination for an in-cabin monitoring system of a vehicle of Lai with a motivation to allow a low cost and/or efficient implementation system using the gray camera.
3. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Richards, and further in view of Meitav et al., US 2021/0294106 A1 (hereinafter Meitav).
As for claim 8, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Watanabe as modified by Richards does not explicitly teach, but Meitav teaches polarization-sensitive IR light sensor comprises: an active polarization rotator to switch between polarization states while filtering the received IR light ([0179], e.g., polarization rotator); and an IR light sensor to capture successive images of the filtered received IR light at each polarization state of the active polarization rotator ([0179], e.g., imaging device).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Watanabe, Richards, and Meitav before him/her to modify the eyeball observation device eyewear terminal, line-of-sight detection method, and program of Watanabe with the teaching of systems and methods for retinal imaging and tracking of Meitav with a motivation to provide a properly oriented polarization as taught by Meitav ([0179]) by using the polarization rotator.
As for claim 18, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 12. In addition, Watanabe further discloses linearly-polarized IR light ([0039], e.g., infrared light sources and polarizers).
Watanabe as modified by Richards does not explicitly teach, but Meitav teaches the projected linearly-polarized light passes through an optical stack ([0179], e.g., waveguide) of the near-eye device to reach the eye, and a reflection of the projected linearly-polarized light from the eye passes back through the optical stack ([0179], e.g., waveguide) to reach the IR light sensor.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Watanabe, Richards, and Meitav before him/her to modify the eyeball observation device eyewear terminal, line-of-sight detection method, and program of Watanabe with the teaching of systems and methods for retinal imaging and tracking of Meitav with a motivation to provide a properly oriented polarization as taught by Meitav ([0179]) by using the polarization rotator.
4. Claims 9 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Richards, and further in view of Richards et al., US 11022809 B1 (hereinafter Richards 2).
As for claim 9, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Watanabe as modified by Richards does not explicitly teach, but Richards 2 teaches a display screen; and an optical stack (Fig. 4, e.g., elements 400 and 480 and/or col. 11, ll. 3-13, e.g., lenses) between the display screen (Fig. 4, e.g., element 490 and/or col. 11, ll. 3-13, e.g., display) and the eye (Fig. 4, e.g., element 340 and/or col. 11, ll. 3-13, e.g., eye).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Watanabe, Richards, and Richards 2 before him/her to modify the eyeball observation device eyewear terminal, line-of-sight detection method, and program of Watanabe with the teaching of display devices with wavelength-dependent reflectors for eye tracking of Richards 2 with a motivation to provide an image that is easy to watch by using adjusting the image using the optical element.
As for claim 10, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 9.
Watanabe as modified by Richards does not explicitly teach, but Richards 2 teaches the polarization-sensitive IR light sensor (Fig. 4, e.g., element 460 and/or col. 11, ll. 3-13, e.g., sensors) is disposed between the display screen and the optical stack.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Watanabe, Richards, and Richards 2 before him/her to modify the eyeball observation device eyewear terminal, line-of-sight detection method, and program of Watanabe with the teaching of display devices with wavelength-dependent reflectors for eye tracking of Richards 2 with a motivation to provide an image that is easy to watch by using adjusting the image using the optical element.
As for claim 11, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 9.
Watanabe as modified by Richards does not explicitly teach, but Richards 2 teaches the linearly-polarized IR light source (Fig. 4, e.g., element 400 and/or col. 11, ll. 3-13, e.g., infrared light sources) is disposed in the optical stack.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Watanabe, Richards, and Richards 2 before him/her to modify the eyeball observation device eyewear terminal, line-of-sight detection method, and program of Watanabe with the teaching of display devices with wavelength-dependent reflectors for eye tracking of Richards 2 with a motivation to provide an image that is easy to watch by using adjusting the image using the optical element.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. US 2001/0054989 discloses color sequential display panels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SUH whose telephone number is 571-270-7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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 SUH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights