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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2025 is/are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Office Action Summary
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10-14, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al (US 2024/0393207 A1) in view of Torneus et al (US 2022/0261079 A1).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al (US 2024/0393207 A1) in view of Torneus et al (US 2022/0261079 A1), further in view of Lo et al (US 2020/0342022 A1).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al (US 2024/0393207 A1) in view of Torneus et al (US 2022/0261079 A1), further in view of HanBen et al (US 2020/0183193 A1).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al (US 2024/0393207 A1) in view of Torneus et al (US 2022/0261079 A1), further in view of Contet et al (US 9,360,684 B2).
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10-14, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al (US 2024/0393207 A1) in view of Torneus et al (US 2022/0261079 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 11, Zaky teaches a computing system, comprising:
a processor (Figure 9; and Paragraph [0054]); and
a storage device (Figure 9; and Paragraph [0054]) holding instructions executable by the processor to:
emit illumination light from a plurality of illumination light sources toward an eyeglass lens (Figure 1; Figure 2; and Paragraph [0023]: “the light sources 122 create light that reflects off the front surface and/or the back surface of the lens 150”);
detect, via a camera, detected glint positions of one or more glints on a surface of the eyeglass lens caused by the illumination light (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0031]: “the pattern of the reflections (e.g., arrangement of pairs of reflections) used to determine the lens characteristic (e.g., diopter) of the lens 150 is based on a center point or a centroid of each of the reflections”; and Paragraph [0026]: “Pairs of reflections corresponding to a single light source may be detected based on their spatial relationship (e.g., nearness) to one another in the image 250”);
calculate (Paragraph [0028]: “a pattern of the reflections of the light sources 122 caused by the lens 150 […] used to determine the prescription parameters (e.g., nearsighted, farsighted, diopter, etc.) of the lens 150”; Paragraph [0029]: “Because different lens diopters will result in different patterns of reflections, a detected pattern can be used to detect the diopter of the lens 150”; Paragraph [0030]: “a first pattern of pairs of reflections […] for an example lens having a first diopter. A second different pattern of pairs of reflections […] for an example lens having a second different diopter”; Paragraph [0031]: “the pattern of the reflections […] used to determine the lens characteristic (e.g., diopter) of the lens 150 is based on a center point or a centroid of each of the reflections”; and Paragraph [0042]: “a nominal position of an attached lens is used to simulate a pattern of reflections (e.g., simulated reflection positions) […] the lens surface assignment calculates a first vector […] and a second vector […] for comparison to the simulated vector from the simulated back surface reflection to the simulated front surface reflection. Either the first vector or the second vector will match or correspond to the simulated vector and therefore may be used to correctly assign […] closest simulated reflection position is paired with the single reflection”);
(Paragraph [0028]: “a pattern of the reflections of the light sources 122 caused by the lens 150 […] used to determine the prescription parameters (e.g., nearsighted, farsighted, diopter, etc.) of the lens 150”; Paragraph [0029]: “Because different lens diopters will result in different patterns of reflections, a detected pattern can be used to detect the diopter of the lens 150”; and Paragraph [0030]: “a first pattern of pairs of reflections […] for an example lens having a first diopter. A second different pattern of pairs of reflections […] for an example lens having a second different diopter”); and
output a set of one or more optical parameters corresponding to the selected reference optical prescription (Figure 8; Paragraph [0028]: “a pattern of the reflections of the light sources 122 caused by the lens 150 […] used to determine the prescription parameters (e.g., nearsighted, farsighted, diopter, etc.) of the lens 150”; Paragraph [0029]: “Because different lens diopters will result in different patterns of reflections, a detected pattern can be used to detect the diopter of the lens 150”; and Paragraph [0044]: “[…] a lens characteristic (e.g., prescription, position, orientation, etc.) of an attachable lens using reflections”).
Zaky fails to teach to calculate a plurality of match loss values quantifying differences between the detected glint positions on the surface of the eyeglass lens, and reference glint positions that correspond to a plurality of different reference optical prescriptions; and based on the match loss values, select a selected reference optical prescription of the plurality of different reference optical prescriptions as being a best match for the detected glint positions.
However, Torneus teaches to calculate a plurality of match loss values quantifying differences between the detected glint positions on the surface of the eyeglass lens, and reference glint positions that correspond to a plurality of different reference optical prescriptions (Figure 7; Paragraph [0051]: “a first plurality of glints are shown in a first image and a second plurality of glints are shown in a second image. Pattern matching may be used to identify glint patterns shown in the images and determine correspondences between the glints based on the glint patterns”; Paragraph [0052]: “a first glint 710 may be shown in the first image and its position in that image may be computed. The second image may show second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d and their positions may also be computed. To match the first glint 710 with one of the second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d, each second glint may be set as a potential match. The distance between the first glint 710 and each potential match is measured given the corresponding positions computed from the two images. The potential match corresponding to the smallest distance or to a distance smaller than a threshold, is selected as the match of the first glint 710 in the second image”; and Paragraph [0053]: “Based on a comparison of the first distance 720 and the second distance 730, the second glint 750a is selected as matching the first glint 710 (e.g., because the first distance 720 is the smallest of the two distances 720 and 730)”);
based on the match loss values, select a selected reference optical prescription of the plurality of different reference optical prescriptions as being a best match for the detected glint positions (Paragraph [0052]: “a first glint 710 may be shown in the first image and its position in that image may be computed. The second image may show second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d and their positions may also be computed. To match the first glint 710 with one of the second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d, each second glint may be set as a potential match. The distance between the first glint 710 and each potential match is measured given the corresponding positions computed from the two images. The potential match corresponding to the smallest distance or to a distance smaller than a threshold, is selected as the match of the first glint 710 in the second image”; and Paragraph [0053]: “Based on a comparison of the first distance 720 and the second distance 730, the second glint 750a is selected as matching the first glint 710 (e.g., because the first distance 720 is the smallest of the two distances 720 and 730)”).
Zaky teaches a system for determining optical prescriptions by illuminating an eyeglass lens, detecting reflection patterns produced by the illuminated lens, and determining lens characteristics, including prescription parameters such as diopter, nearsighted, and farsighted, based on the detected reflection patterns. Zaky further teaches that different optical prescriptions produce different reflection patterns, thereby providing a plurality of reference optical prescriptions corresponding to different reflection-position patterns. Furthermore, Torneus teaches comparing detected glint positions with a plurality of candidate glint positions by calculating respective positional difference values (distances) for each candidate glint and selecting the candidate corresponding to the smallest calculated distance as the best matching candidate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zaky to incorporate the positional matching technique taught by Torneus in order to calculate respective positional difference values between detected reflection (glint) positions and reference reflection positions associated with different optical prescriptions and to select the best matching reference optical prescription based on the calculated positional difference values. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to improve the robustness and accuracy of matching detected reflection positions to reference reflection positions associated with different optical prescriptions by employing Touneus’ positional distance based matching technique, thereby improving the reliability of determining the appropriate optical prescription. This motivation for the combination of Zaky and Torneus is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 12, Zaky as modified by Torneus teaches the method of claim 1, where Zaky teaches wherein the surface is a first surface of the eyeglass lens and the detected glint positions are first-surface glint positions, wherein the method further comprises detecting second-surface glint positions on a second surface of the eyeglass lens, and wherein the reference glint positions include reference first-surface glint positions and reference second-surface glint positions (Figure 2; Figure 8; Paragraph [0028]: “one or more lens 150 is to detect reflections of the one or more light sources 122 caused by a first surface (e.g., front surface) and/or a second surface (e.g., back surface) of the lens 150”; Paragraph [0042]: “the 3D spatial arrangement between the light sources 122, the image sensor 124, and a nominal position of an attached lens is used to simulate a pattern of reflections (e.g., simulated reflection positions)”; Paragraph [0043]: “simulated pattern of reflections including simulated reflection positions with simulated front surface reflections shown by a circle and simulated back surface reflections […] used to identify front surface reflections […] and back surface reflections […]”; and Paragraph [0044]: “an image sensor captures an image of the attachable lens including reflections caused by light being reflected from a front surface and a back surface of the lens”).
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 13, Zaky as modified by Torneus teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the match loss values are calculated based at least in part on first-surface position loss values and second-surface position loss values, wherein the first-surface position loss values quantify differences between the first-surface glint positions and the reference first-surface glint positions, and wherein the second-surface position loss values quantify differences between the second-surface detected glint positions and the reference second-surface glint positions (where Zaky teaches in Paragraph [0042]: “the electronic device 100 determines a front surface reflection and a back surface reflection for each pair of reflections using a lens surface assignment process”; and Paragraph [0043]: “simulated pattern of reflections including simulated reflection positions with simulated front surface reflections shown by a circle and simulated back surface reflections […] used to identify front surface reflections […] and back surface reflections […]”; and where Torneus teaches in Figure 7; Paragraph [0051]: “a first plurality of glints are shown in a first image and a second plurality of glints are shown in a second image. Pattern matching may be used to identify glint patterns shown in the images and determine correspondences between the glints based on the glint patterns”; Paragraph [0052]: “a first glint 710 may be shown in the first image and its position in that image may be computed. The second image may show second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d and their positions may also be computed. To match the first glint 710 with one of the second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d, each second glint may be set as a potential match. The distance between the first glint 710 and each potential match is measured given the corresponding positions computed from the two images. The potential match corresponding to the smallest distance or to a distance smaller than a threshold, is selected as the match of the first glint 710 in the second image”; and Paragraph [0053]: “Based on a comparison of the first distance 720 and the second distance 730, the second glint 750a is selected as matching the first glint 710 (e.g., because the first distance 720 is the smallest of the two distances 720 and 730)”).
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 14, Zaky as modified by Torneus teaches the method of claim 3, where Zaky teaches wherein the match loss values are further calculated based at least in part on relative position loss values, which compare detected differences in relative positioning between the first-surface glint positions and the second-surface glint positions, to reference differences in relative positioning between the reference first-surface and the second-surface glint positions (where Zaky teaches in Paragraph [0042]: “the lens surface assignment calculates a first vector (from a first reflection to a second reflection of the pair of reflections) and a second vector (from the second reflection to the first reflection of the pair of reflections) for comparison to the simulated vector from the simulated back surface reflection to the simulated front surface reflection. Either the first vector or the second vector will match or correspond to the simulated vector and therefore may be used to correctly assign the front surface reflection and the back surface reflection for each pair of reflections in the pattern of reflections”; and where Torneus teaches in Figure 7; Paragraph [0051]: “a first plurality of glints are shown in a first image and a second plurality of glints are shown in a second image. Pattern matching may be used to identify glint patterns shown in the images and determine correspondences between the glints based on the glint patterns”; Paragraph [0052]: “a first glint 710 may be shown in the first image and its position in that image may be computed. The second image may show second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d and their positions may also be computed. To match the first glint 710 with one of the second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d, each second glint may be set as a potential match. The distance between the first glint 710 and each potential match is measured given the corresponding positions computed from the two images. The potential match corresponding to the smallest distance or to a distance smaller than a threshold, is selected as the match of the first glint 710 in the second image”; and Paragraph [0053]: “Based on a comparison of the first distance 720 and the second distance 730, the second glint 750a is selected as matching the first glint 710 (e.g., because the first distance 720 is the smallest of the two distances 720 and 730)”).
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 16, Zaky as modified by Torneus teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the camera is a first camera, and the method further comprises detecting a second set of detected glint positions via a second camera, wherein a second plurality of match loss values are calculated for the second set of detected glint positions, and wherein the selected reference optical prescription is further selected based at least in part on the second plurality of match loss values (where Zaky teaches in Paragraph [0047]: “the image may be one or more images […] the image sensor includes one or more image sensors that comprise a visible light image sensor, an IR image sensor, an NIR image sensor, and/or a UV image sensor”; Paragraph [0057]: “the one or more interior or exterior facing sensor systems 914 include an image capture device or array […] may include one or more RGB cameras […] monochrome cameras, IR cameras, or the like”; Paragraph [0018] – Paragraph [0020]: “Different diopters (e.g., prescriptions) of the attachable lens will result in distinct arrangements of the reflections. Accordingly, the arrangement of reflections captured by one or more images of a given lens may be used to determine the diopter (e.g., prescription) of the lens […] The one or more light sources 122 emit light onto the eye of the user 115 that reflects as a light pattern (e.g., one or more glints such as a circle) that can be detected by the image sensor”; and where Torneus teaches in Figure 7; Paragraph [0025]: “more or less any number of illuminators 111 and 112 and image sensors 113 may be employed for eye tracking, and that such illuminators 111 and 112 and image sensors 113 may be distributed in many different ways relative to displays watched by the user”; Paragraph [0051]: “a first plurality of glints are shown in a first image and a second plurality of glints are shown in a second image. Pattern matching may be used to identify glint patterns shown in the images and determine correspondences between the glints based on the glint patterns”; Paragraph [0052]: “a first glint 710 may be shown in the first image and its position in that image may be computed. The second image may show second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d and their positions may also be computed. To match the first glint 710 with one of the second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d, each second glint may be set as a potential match. The distance between the first glint 710 and each potential match is measured given the corresponding positions computed from the two images. The potential match corresponding to the smallest distance or to a distance smaller than a threshold, is selected as the match of the first glint 710 in the second image”; and Paragraph [0053]: “Based on a comparison of the first distance 720 and the second distance 730, the second glint 750a is selected as matching the first glint 710 (e.g., because the first distance 720 is the smallest of the two distances 720 and 730)”).
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 17, Zaky as modified by Torneus teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to selecting the selected reference optical prescription, applying a tilt adjustment and a translation adjustment to the detected glint positions to reduce one or more match loss values of the plurality of match loss values (where Zaky teaches in Paragraph [0034]: “The actual position and/or orientation of the lens 150 may be determined based on the optical elements in the imaging system (e.g., a factory calibration). The actual position and/or orientation of the lens 150 may be determined based on determining a light path or light ray tracing between each of the light sources 122 reflected by front/back surfaces of the lens 150 to the image sensor […] the actual position and/or orientation calculation for the lens relative to the electronic device is used as an input in training the ML model to detect lens characteristics. In some implementations, the actual position and/or orientation calculation for the lens relative to the electronic device is used to modify an input image to the trained the ML model, for example, by adjusting the positions of reflections in the input image to correspond to the reflections that would have been captured given an intended device configuration”; and where Torneus teaches in Paragraph [0052]: “The distance between the first glint 710 and each potential match is measured given the corresponding positions computed from the two images. The potential match corresponding to the smallest distance or to a distance smaller than a threshold, is selected as the match of the first glint 710 in the second image”; and Paragraph [0053]: “Based on a comparison of the first distance 720 and the second distance 730, the second glint 750a is selected as matching the first glint 710 (e.g., because the first distance 720 is the smallest of the two distances 720 and 730)”).
Regarding claim(s) 10, Zaky as modified by Torneus teaches the method of claim 1, where Zaky teaches wherein the illumination light sources and camera are components of an eye-tracking system of a head-mounted display device (HMD) (Figure 1; Paragraph [0019]: “the electronic device 100 is a head-mounted device (HMD) and the housing 101 is configured to rest against a face of a user 115 to keeps the electronic device 100 in a relatively fixed position on the face of the user”; and Paragraph [0020]: “The housing 101 also houses a tracking system including one or more light sources 122, image sensor 124, and a controller 180. The one or more light sources 122 emit light onto the eye of the user 115 that reflects as a light pattern (e.g., one or more glints such as a circle) that can be detected by the image sensor”).
Regarding claim(s) 20, Zaky teaches a method for automatically detecting an optical prescription of an eyeglass lens at a head-mounted display device (HMD), the method comprising:
emitting illumination light from a plurality of illumination light sources of an eye-tracking system toward an eyeglass lens (Figure 1; Figure 2; and Paragraph [0023]: “the light sources 122 create light that reflects off the front surface and/or the back surface of the lens 150”);
detecting, via a camera of the eye-tracking system, detected glint positions of one or more glints on a surface of the eyeglass lens caused by the illumination light (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0031]: “the pattern of the reflections (e.g., arrangement of pairs of reflections) used to determine the lens characteristic (e.g., diopter) of the lens 150 is based on a center point or a centroid of each of the reflections”; and Paragraph [0026]: “Pairs of reflections corresponding to a single light source may be detected based on their spatial relationship (e.g., nearness) to one another in the image 250”);
calculating a (Paragraph [0028]: “a pattern of the reflections of the light sources 122 caused by the lens 150 […] used to determine the prescription parameters (e.g., nearsighted, farsighted, diopter, etc.) of the lens 150”; Paragraph [0029]: “Because different lens diopters will result in different patterns of reflections, a detected pattern can be used to detect the diopter of the lens 150”; Paragraph [0030]: “a first pattern of pairs of reflections […] for an example lens having a first diopter. A second different pattern of pairs of reflections […] for an example lens having a second different diopter”; Paragraph [0031]: “the pattern of the reflections […] used to determine the lens characteristic (e.g., diopter) of the lens 150 is based on a center point or a centroid of each of the reflections”; and Paragraph [0042]: “a nominal position of an attached lens is used to simulate a pattern of reflections (e.g., simulated reflection positions) […] the lens surface assignment calculates a first vector […] and a second vector […] for comparison to the simulated vector from the simulated back surface reflection to the simulated front surface reflection. Either the first vector or the second vector will match or correspond to the simulated vector and therefore may be used to correctly assign […] closest simulated reflection position is paired with the single reflection”);
applying a tilt adjustment and a translation adjustment to the detected glint positions (Paragraph [0034]: “The actual position and/or orientation of the lens 150 may be determined based on the optical elements in the imaging system (e.g., a factory calibration). The actual position and/or orientation of the lens 150 may be determined based on determining a light path or light ray tracing between each of the light sources 122 reflected by front/back surfaces of the lens 150 to the image sensor […] the actual position and/or orientation calculation for the lens relative to the electronic device is used as an input in training the ML model to detect lens characteristics. In some implementations, the actual position and/or orientation calculation for the lens relative to the electronic device is used to modify an input image to the trained the ML model, for example, by adjusting the positions of reflections in the input image to correspond to the reflections that would have been captured given an intended device configuration”);
(Paragraph [0028]: “a pattern of the reflections of the light sources 122 caused by the lens 150 […] used to determine the prescription parameters (e.g., nearsighted, farsighted, diopter, etc.) of the lens 150”; Paragraph [0029]: “Because different lens diopters will result in different patterns of reflections, a detected pattern can be used to detect the diopter of the lens 150”; and Paragraph [0030]: “a first pattern of pairs of reflections […] for an example lens having a first diopter. A second different pattern of pairs of reflections […] for an example lens having a second different diopter”); and
outputting a set of one or more optical parameters corresponding to the selected reference optical prescription (Figure 8; Paragraph [0028]: “a pattern of the reflections of the light sources 122 caused by the lens 150 […] used to determine the prescription parameters (e.g., nearsighted, farsighted, diopter, etc.) of the lens 150”; Paragraph [0029]: “Because different lens diopters will result in different patterns of reflections, a detected pattern can be used to detect the diopter of the lens 150”; and Paragraph [0044]: “[…] a lens characteristic (e.g., prescription, position, orientation, etc.) of an attachable lens using reflections”).
Zaky fails to teach to calculate a plurality of match loss values quantifying differences between the detected glint positions on the surface of the eyeglass lens, and reference glint positions that correspond to a plurality of different reference optical prescriptions; and based on the match loss values, select a selected reference optical prescription of the plurality of different reference optical prescriptions as being a best match for the detected glint positions.
However, Torneus teaches to calculate a plurality of match loss values quantifying differences between the detected glint positions on the surface of the eyeglass lens, and reference glint positions that correspond to a plurality of different reference optical prescriptions (Figure 7; Paragraph [0051]: “a first plurality of glints are shown in a first image and a second plurality of glints are shown in a second image. Pattern matching may be used to identify glint patterns shown in the images and determine correspondences between the glints based on the glint patterns”; Paragraph [0052]: “a first glint 710 may be shown in the first image and its position in that image may be computed. The second image may show second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d and their positions may also be computed. To match the first glint 710 with one of the second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d, each second glint may be set as a potential match. The distance between the first glint 710 and each potential match is measured given the corresponding positions computed from the two images. The potential match corresponding to the smallest distance or to a distance smaller than a threshold, is selected as the match of the first glint 710 in the second image”; and Paragraph [0053]: “Based on a comparison of the first distance 720 and the second distance 730, the second glint 750a is selected as matching the first glint 710 (e.g., because the first distance 720 is the smallest of the two distances 720 and 730)”);
based on the match loss values, select a selected reference optical prescription of the plurality of different reference optical prescriptions as being a best match for the detected glint positions (Paragraph [0052]: “a first glint 710 may be shown in the first image and its position in that image may be computed. The second image may show second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d and their positions may also be computed. To match the first glint 710 with one of the second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d, each second glint may be set as a potential match. The distance between the first glint 710 and each potential match is measured given the corresponding positions computed from the two images. The potential match corresponding to the smallest distance or to a distance smaller than a threshold, is selected as the match of the first glint 710 in the second image”; and Paragraph [0053]: “Based on a comparison of the first distance 720 and the second distance 730, the second glint 750a is selected as matching the first glint 710 (e.g., because the first distance 720 is the smallest of the two distances 720 and 730)”).
Zaky teaches a system for determining optical prescriptions by illuminating an eyeglass lens, detecting reflection patterns produced by the illuminated lens, and determining lens characteristics, including prescription parameters such as diopter, nearsighted, and farsighted, based on the detected reflection patterns. Zaky further teaches that different optical prescriptions produce different reflection patterns, thereby providing a plurality of reference optical prescriptions corresponding to different reflection-position patterns. Furthermore, Torneus teaches comparing detected glint positions with a plurality of candidate glint positions by calculating respective positional difference values (distances) for each candidate glint and selecting the candidate corresponding to the smallest calculated distance as the best matching candidate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zaky to incorporate the positional matching technique taught by Torneus in order to calculate respective positional difference values between detected reflection (glint) positions and reference reflection positions associated with different optical prescriptions and to select the best matching reference optical prescription based on the calculated positional difference values. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to improve the robustness and accuracy of matching detected reflection positions to reference reflection positions associated with different optical prescriptions by employing Touneus’ positional distance based matching technique, thereby improving the reliability of determining the appropriate optical prescription. This motivation for the combination of Zaky and Torneus is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al (US 2024/0393207 A1) in view of Torneus et al (US 2022/0261079 A1), further in view of Lo et al (US 2020/0342022 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 15, Zaky as modified by Torneus teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selected reference optical prescription is selected based at least in part on a match loss value calculated for the selected reference optical prescription (where Zaky teaches in Figure 8; Paragraph [0028]: “a pattern of the reflections of the light sources 122 caused by the lens 150 […] used to determine the prescription parameters (e.g., nearsighted, farsighted, diopter, etc.) of the lens 150”; Paragraph [0029]: “Because different lens diopters will result in different patterns of reflections, a detected pattern can be used to detect the diopter of the lens 150”; and Paragraph [0044]: “[…] a lens characteristic (e.g., prescription, position, orientation, etc.) of an attachable lens using reflections”; and where Torneus teaches in Figure 7; Paragraph [0051]: “a first plurality of glints are shown in a first image and a second plurality of glints are shown in a second image. Pattern matching may be used to identify glint patterns shown in the images and determine correspondences between the glints based on the glint patterns”; Paragraph [0052]: “a first glint 710 may be shown in the first image and its position in that image may be computed. The second image may show second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d and their positions may also be computed. To match the first glint 710 with one of the second glints 750a, 750b, 750c, and 750d, each second glint may be set as a potential match. The distance between the first glint 710 and each potential match is measured given the corresponding positions computed from the two images. The potential match corresponding to the smallest distance or to a distance smaller than a threshold, is selected as the match of the first glint 710 in the second image”; and Paragraph [0053]: “Based on a comparison of the first distance 720 and the second distance 730, the second glint 750a is selected as matching the first glint 710 (e.g., because the first distance 720 is the smallest of the two distances 720 and 730)”).
Zaky and Torneus fail to teach being less than a match threshold. However, Lo teaches being less than a match threshold (Figure 1; Paragraph [0004]: “computing, for example, a match score representing a correspondence between the distinctive feature points of the search image and reference image […] determine that a reference image represents a match candidate for a search image based on the match score of the reference image satisfies a predetermined threshold of similarity”; Paragraph [0036]: “The template comparator 120 compares the search template 108 to each reference template within the reference templates 106A to identify a best-matched reference template or a set of best-matched reference templates 112 that meet a matched score threshold”; and Paragraph [0046]: “A best-matched reference template […] can refer to any matched template whose matching score is greater than a matched score threshold”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical prescription determination technique of Zaky, as enhanced by the positional difference calculations of Torneus, to further employ the threshold based match acceptance technique taught by Lo. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to improve the accuracy and reliability of selecting a reference optical prescription by applying a threshold based acceptance criterion to calculated positional matching values, thereby rejecting unreliable candidate matches before selecting the reference optical prescription. This motivation for the combination of Zaky, Torneus, and Lo is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al (US 2024/0393207 A1) in view of Torneus et al (US 2022/0261079 A1), further in view of HanBen et al (US 2020/0183193 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 8 and 18, Zaky as modified by Torneus teaches the method of claim 7, but do not specifically teach further comprising iteratively applying additional tilt adjustments and translation adjustments to the detected glint positions until a match loss value of the plurality of match loss values is less than a match threshold.
However, HanBen teaches further comprising iteratively applying additional tilt adjustments and translation adjustments to the detected glint positions until a match loss value of the plurality of match loss values is less than a match threshold (Figure 9; Paragraph [0187]: “FIG. 9 shows an iterative method for determining location and orientation”; Paragraph [0188]: “The method in FIG. 9 uses a submethod (not explicitly illustrated in FIG. 9), which is used repeatedly in the course of the method in FIG. 9”; Paragraph [0190]: “In step 91, all parameters (decentration, torsion, tilting) of the current pose are varied by small values and SR calculates what influence that has on the error vector”; Paragraph [0194]: “Step 95 involves checking an accuracy criterium as to whether the, e.g., weighted sum of the squares of the deviations indicated by the error vector has fallen below a predefined threshold […]”; and Paragraph [0196]: “[…] the method jumps back to step 91 for a renewed pass”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zaky as modified by Torneus by incorporating the iterative location and orientation determination technique taught by HanBen. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to improve the accuracy of determining the location and orientation of the eyeglass lens by incorporating an iterative refinement process that repeatedly varies pose parameters until a predefined accuracy criterion is satisfied. This motivation for the combination of 1st ref and 2nd ref is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al (US 2024/0393207 A1) in view of Torneus et al (US 2022/0261079 A1), further in view of Contet et al (US 9,360,684 B2).
Regarding claim(s) 9 and 19, Zaky as modified by Torneus teaches the method of claim 1, where Zaky teaches wherein the set of one or more optical parameters for the selected reference optical prescription includes a diopter parameter (Paragraph [0028]: “the pattern of the reflections in the image 250 may be used to determine the prescription parameters (e.g., nearsighted, farsighted, diopter, etc.) of the lens 150”).
Zaky fails to teaches wherein the set of one or more optical parameters for the selected reference optical prescription includes a diopter parameter Contet teaches wherein the set of one or more optical parameters for the selected reference optical prescription includes (Col. 1, Lines 36-39: “The ophthalmic prescription can include an astigmatism prescription. Such a prescription is produced by the ophthalmologist in the form of a pair formed by an axis value (in degrees) and an amplitude value (in diopters)”; and Col. 1, lines 57-61: “the prescribed power and astigmatism of a wearer are usually called sphere, cylinder and axis. Ophthalmic lenses correcting the astigmatism prescription of a wearer may be composed of sphero-cylindrical surfaces”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zaky and Torneus by incorporating the ophthalmic prescription parameters taught by Contet. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to provide a more complete ophthalmic prescription by including astigmatism information in addition to the diopter parameter, thereby enabling determination of additional prescription parameters commonly used for corrective lenses. This motivation for the combination of Zaky, Torneus, and Contet is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Mimoun et al (US 2025/0148519 A1) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Mimoun discloses computer implemented method for determining a similarity score between a reference eyeglasses frame (F) and a plurality of model eyeglasses frames (F), the method comprising a step of generating (201) a picture using values of a first subset of physical parameters of the reference eyeglasses frame (F), a step of selecting (202) at least one of the model eyeglasses frames (F), based on values of a second subset of the physical parameters and by comparison of the values of the second subset of the physical parameters of the reference eyeglasses frame (F) with the values of the second subset of the physical parameters of each of the model eyeglasses frames (F), a step of determining (203) a similarity score for each of the selected model eyeglasses frames (F), using a convolutional neural network, by comparing the picture of the eyeglasses frame (F) with a picture of the selected model eyeglasses frames (F).
Muse et al (US 2023/0177876 A1) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Muse discloses a method comprising: obtaining, by processing circuity, an image depicting a face of a person wearing eyewear and a reflection pattern generated by projecting light onto a lens of the eyewear; determining, by the processing circuitry, an optical parameter of the lens based on the image; receiving, by the processing circuitry and from an electronic database, a personal characteristic data relating to a previously identified person; comparing, by the processing circuitry, the optical parameter of the lens to the personal characteristic data; and determining, by the processing circuitry and based on the comparison, a score indicative of a match between the person wearing eyewear and the previously identified person.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONGBONG NAH whose telephone number is (571) 272-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, ONEAL MISTRY can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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.
/JONGBONG NAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights