DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2025 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“process eye-tracking data, collected by the eye-tracking means, for determining a gaze direction of the first eye and a gaze direction of a second eye of the user; determine a given optical depth of a gaze point at which the user is gazing, based on at least one of: sensor data collected by a depth sensor, a pre-known optical depth of the gaze point; detect when a given criterion for convergence insufficiency with respect to the gaze point is satisfied, wherein the given criterion is satisfied when at least one of the following is true: the gaze direction of the first eye and the gaze direction of the second eye converge at another optical depth that is different from the given optical depth of the gaze point, a user input for activating a convergence insufficiency correction mode of the optical apparatus is received; and when it is detected that the given criterion is satisfied, activate the convergence insufficiency correction mode of the optical apparatus; determine a first prismatic correction to be applied by the first active optical element, based on the given optical depth, the another optical depth, and at least one of: an actual angle of convergence of the gaze direction of the first eye and the gaze direction of the second eye for the another optical depth, an expected angle of convergence for the given optical depth, a correction error between the actual angle and the expected angle for the given optical depth; and generate a first drive signal to drive the first active optical element for at least applying the first prismatic correction, to optically shift light incident thereupon and emanating from the gaze point, to be incident on a fovea of the first eye” in claim 1
“when it is detected that the given criterion is satisfied, determine a second prismatic correction to be applied by the second active optical element, based on the given optical depth, the another optical depth, and at least one of: the actual angle of convergence, the expected angle of convergence, the correction error; and generate a second drive signal to drive the second active optical element for at least applying the second prismatic correction, to optically shift light incident thereupon and emanating from the gaze point, to be incident on a fovea of the second eye” in claim 2
“the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether the first prismatic correction is greater than a predefined prismatic correction, wherein the second prismatic correction is applied by the second active optical element when it is determined that the first prismatic correction is greater than the predefined prismatic correction” in claim 3
“processing eye-tracking data, collected by the eye-tracking means, for determining a gaze direction of the first eye and a gaze direction of a second eye of the user; determining a given optical depth of a gaze point at which the user is gazing, based on at least one of: sensor data collected by a depth sensor, a pre-known optical depth of the gaze point; detecting when a given criterion for convergence insufficiency with respect to the gaze point is satisfied, wherein the given criterion is satisfied when at least one of the following is true: the gaze direction of the first eye and the gaze direction of the second eye converge at another optical depth that is different from the given optical depth of the gaze point, a user input for activating a convergence insufficiency correction mode of the optical apparatus is received; and when it is detected that the given criterion is satisfied, activating the convergence insufficiency correction mode of the optical apparatus; determining a first prismatic correction to be applied by the first active optical element, based on the given optical depth, the another optical depth, and at least one of: an actual angle of convergence of the gaze direction of the first eye and the gaze direction of the second eye for the another optical depth, an expected angle of convergence for the given optical depth, a correction error between the actual angle and the expected angle for the given optical depth; and generating a first drive signal to drive the first active optical element for at least applying the first prismatic correction, to optically shift light incident thereupon and emanating from the gaze point, to be incident on a fovea of the first eye” in claim 8
“when it is detected that the given criterion is satisfied, determining a second prismatic correction to be applied by the second active optical element, based on the given optical depth, the another optical depth, and at least one of: the actual angle of convergence, the expected angle of convergence, the correction error; and generating a second drive signal to drive the second active optical element for at least applying the second prismatic correction, to optically shift light incident thereupon and emanating from the gaze point, to be incident on a fovea of the second eye” in claim 9
“determining whether the first prismatic correction is greater than a predefined prismatic correction, wherein the second prismatic correction is applied by the second active optical element when it is determined that the first prismatic correction is greater than the predefined prismatic correction” in claim 10
“the first drive signal is generated to drive the first active optical element for also producing at least one first optical power” in claim 11
“at the step of generating a first drive signal to drive the first active optical element, controlling an active material of the first active optical element to implement at least one of: a wedge prism, a Fresnel prism” in claim 14
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tran et al. (US 20210290053 A1), hereinafter Tran.
Regarding independent claim 1, Tran discloses an optical apparatus comprising:
a first active optical element (108b; Fig. 1; ¶0074, ¶0096) for a first eye of a user (Fig. 1; ¶0074);
eye-tracking means (¶0126); and
at least one processor (¶0101-¶0108, ¶0214-¶0215) configured to:
process eye-tracking data, collected by the eye-tracking means, for determining a gaze direction of the first eye and a gaze direction of a second eye of the user (¶0108);
determine a given optical depth of a gaze point at which the user is gazing, based on at least one of: sensor data collected by a depth sensor, a pre-known optical depth of the gaze point (¶0195, ¶0114);
detect when a given criterion for convergence insufficiency with respect to the gaze point is satisfied, wherein the given criterion is satisfied when at least one of the following is true: the gaze direction of the first eye and the gaze direction of the second eye converge at another optical depth that is different from the given optical depth of the gaze point, a user input for activating a convergence insufficiency correction mode (¶0160-¶0161) of the optical apparatus is received (402; Fig. 4; ¶0141); and
when it is detected that the given criterion is satisfied, activate the convergence insufficiency correction mode of the optical apparatus (402) (Fig. 4; ¶0141); determine a first prismatic correction to be applied by the first active optical element (408; Fig. 4; ¶0144, ¶0186), based on the given optical depth, the another optical depth (¶0144), and at least one of: an actual angle of convergence of the gaze direction of the first eye and the gaze direction of the second eye for the another optical depth (406; Fig. 4; ¶0143), an expected angle of convergence for the given optical depth, a correction error between the actual angle and the expected angle for the given optical depth (¶0186-¶0188); and generate a first drive signal to drive the first active optical element (108b) for at least applying the first prismatic correction (¶0074, ¶0096, ¶0141-¶0161, ¶0186-¶0188), to optically shift light incident thereupon and emanating from the gaze point, to be incident on a fovea of the first eye (¶0178, ¶0186-¶0188).
Regarding claim 2, Tran discloses the optical apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Tran further discloses the optical apparatus further comprises a second active optical element (108b; Fig. 1; ¶0074, ¶0096) for the second eye of the user (Fig. 1; ¶0074), and wherein the at least one processor (¶0101-¶0108, ¶0214-¶0215) is configured to: when it is detected that the given criterion is satisfied (¶0141),
determine a second prismatic correction to be applied by the second active optical element (408; Fig. 4; ¶0144, ¶0186), based on the given optical depth, the another optical depth (¶0144), and at least one of: the actual angle of convergence, the expected angle of convergence, the correction error (¶0143, ¶0186-¶0188); and
generate a second drive signal to drive the second active optical element (108b) for at least applying the second prismatic correction (¶0074, ¶0096, ¶0141-¶0161, ¶0186-¶0188), to optically shift light incident thereupon and emanating from the gaze point, to be incident on a fovea of the second eye (¶0178, ¶0186-¶0188).
Regarding claim 4, Tran discloses the optical apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Tran further discloses the first drive signal is generated to drive the first active optical element for also producing at least one first optical power (¶0096), wherein the at least one first optical power to be produced depends on the given optical depth (¶0096, ¶0144, ¶0186-¶0188).
Regarding claim 5, Tran discloses the optical apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Tran further discloses the given optical depth lies in a range of 20 centimetres to 200 centimetres (example given is 50 cm to 150 cm; ¶0195).
Regarding claim 6, Tran discloses the optical apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Tran further discloses an optical shift provided by the first prismatic correction lies in a range of 0.5 degrees to 10 degrees (example given is 8 degrees; ¶0071, ¶0202).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 11-13, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) see MPEP 2112.02. Since claims 8-9 and 11-13 recite the normal use of the device in claims 1-2 and 4-6, respectively, claims 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected as inherent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 & 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 3, 7, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tran (US 20210290053 A1), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20210290053 A1) in view of Black (US 20250208433 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tran discloses the optical apparatus of claim 2, as set forth above. Tran further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether the first prismatic correction is greater than a predefined prismatic correction (a processor is capable of performing this function, for example see step 418), wherein the second prismatic correction is applied by the second active optical element (108b) when it is determined that the first prismatic correction is greater than the predefined prismatic correction (implicit from ¶0127 and ¶0145 since one eye can be tested at a time and calibrated at a time that the test for the second eye would be performed only after the test for the first eye meets a predefined condition, i.e. only after the first correction is greater than a predefined correction).
In the alternative, since Tran does not explicitly disclose the second prismatic correction is applied by the second active optical element when it is determined that the first prismatic correction is greater than the predefined prismatic correction, Black additionally teaches a similar optical apparatus comprising a first and second active optical element (705, 710; Fig. 7) both configured to apply a prismatic correction (Fig. 7; ¶0014, ¶0057), wherein the second prismatic correction is applied by the second active optical element when it is determined that the first prismatic correction is greater than the predefined prismatic correction (the second prism correction stage for the second eye is done after the first prism correction stage for the first eye, indicating the first correction met some threshold value before the second correction was applied; ¶0014, ¶0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical apparatus of Tran to have the second prismatic correction applied by the second active optical element when it is determined that the first prismatic correction is greater than the predefined prismatic correction as suggested by Black for the purpose of eliminating the vergence angle (¶0039 of Black).
Regarding claim 7, Tran discloses the optical apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Tran further discloses when the first active optical element is driven using the first drive signal, an active material of the first active optical element (108b) is controlled to implement at least one of: a wedge prism, a Fresnel prism (¶0096-¶0098 indicates the lens can be a liquid crystal lens, which can be tuned to implement a wedge prism or a Fresnel prism).
In the alternative, since Tran does not explicitly disclose the active material of the first active optical element is controlled to implement at least one of a wedge prism and a Fresnel prism, Black additionally teaches a similar optical apparatus comprising a first and second active optical element (705, 710; Fig. 7) both configured to apply a prismatic correction (Fig. 7; ¶0014, ¶0057) by driving the first and second active optical elements (705, 710) using a first and second drive signal (¶0006), wherein the active optical element (710) is a wedge prism (Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical apparatus of Tran to have the active material of the first active optical element controlled to implement a wedge prism as suggested by Black for the purpose of redirecting light and eliminating the vergence angle (¶0013-¶0014, ¶0039 of Black).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) see MPEP 2112.02. Since claims 10 and 14 recite the normal use of the device in claims 3 and 7, respectively, claims 10 and 14 are rejected as inherent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zarrei (US 20230210438 A1) discloses a method of measuring convergence between two eyes by examining a first eye followed by a second eye separately. Krall et al. (US 20230414100 A1) discloses a method of measuring vergence using prisms and eye tracking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 31st, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights