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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on a Patent Applications filed on 12/8/22. It is noted that Applicant has filed a certified copy of the application as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
MPEP 2181(I) discloses that a claim limitation will be presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
the claim limitation uses the phrase “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder;
the phrase “means” or “step” or the substitute term is modified by functional language, typically linked by the transition word “for” or another linking word; and
the phrase “means” or “step” or the substitute term is not modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claim 13 disclose limitations which are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as said limitations meet said 3-prong analysis.
Regarding Claim 13, a control module for adjusting a value is considered to read on Fig. 1 unit 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. In regard to said claims which are directed towards ‘a control module’, it is noted that both the claims and specification are silent as to the capability of said ‘control module’ reading on software and as such does not fall into any statutory class of invention. Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” to be performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointingout and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as theinvention.
Claims 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites ‘when the behaviour of the user matches with the predetermined behaviour the control module being configured to realize the adjustment’ whereby it is unclear what happens or how to construe the claim when ‘behaviour matches’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites ‘a second contrast’ whereby ‘a first contrast’ was not previously defined. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2):
(a) Novelty; Prior Art.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122 (b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(b) Exceptions: (2) Disclosures appearing in applications and patents.— A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if: (A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over GRUNDHOEFER (US Patent. No: 11,366,321).
As per Claim 1 GRUNDHOEFER discloses A control module for adjusting a value of a parameter of a functionality of an optical element, the control module being configured (Figs. 1-7 units 110/344 – optical elements L and R of ‘smart sunglasses’ with dimming value adjustments – HMD controller [col. 3 lines 47-55, line 61] [col. 5 lines 30-36] [col. 6 lines 7-10]):
to obtain a value of a parameter of a light coming from a region of interest viewed by a user through the optical element (Figs. 1-7 obtain current ‘dimmed’ value for gaze FOV of smart glasses – current ‘passthrough’ light [col. 3 lines 34-49, 47-55] [col. 5 lines 30-36] [col. 8 lines 55-62]),
to obtain a value of a parameter of an ambient light surrounding the region of interest (Figs. 1-7 obtain ambient to dictate current dimming need [col. 3 lines 34-49, 47-55] [col. 4 lines 11-23] [col. 5 lines 30-36])
and, to realize an adjustment of the value of the parameter of the functionality, the adjustment being according to the value of the parameter of the light coming from the region of interest and the value of the parameter of the ambient light (Figs. 1-7 a controllable dimming level, dims light passing through the optical passthrough display by controlling the dimming level that automatically dim according to ambient light levels using an eye measurement of a gaze direction or pupil dilation - the control module can be mapped to unit 110 / 344 for the dimming module of the HMD [col. 3 lines 34-49, 47-55] [col. 4 lines 11-23] [col. 5 lines 30-36]),
so as to take account of at least one specificity of the region of interest with respect to at least one specificity of a surrounding of the region of interest (Figs. 1-7 [col. 3 lines 34-49, 47-55] [col. 4 lines 11-23] "smart sunglasses" automatically dim according to ambient light levels or predicted ambient light level at a future time as when approaching a tunnel or heading outdoors to include an eye measurement [col. 5 lines 30-36]).
As per Claim 2 GRUNDHOEFER discloses The control module according to claim 1, wherein the control module is further configured (See said analysis for Claim 1):
to obtain a first area of the optical element, across which the region of interest is viewed by the user (Figs. 1-7 [col. 3 lines 34-49, 47-55] [col. 4 lines 11-23] automatically dim according to ambient light levels or predicted ambient light level at a future time as when approaching a tunnel or heading outdoors to include an eye measurement [col. 5 lines 30-36]), and to realize the adjustment of at least one of: a value of the parameter of the functionality on the first area (Figs. 1-7 light passing through the optical passthrough display to automatically dim according to ambient light levels of the first area and using an eye measurement of a gaze direction or pupil dilation [col. 3 lines 34-49, 47-55] [col. 4 lines 11-23] [col. 5 lines 30-36]), and a value of the parameter of the functionality on a second area of the optical element, the second area being adjacent to the first area (one of).
As per Claim 3 GRUNDHOEFER discloses The control module according to claim 1 wherein, when
realizing the adjustment, the value of the parameter of the light coming from the region of interest being is treated differently from the value of the parameter of the ambient light (Figs. 1-7 ‘smart sunglasses’ treat ambient light different than ROI for the dimming value adjustments via dimmer 344 for the HMD [col. 3 lines 47-55, line 61] [col. 5 lines 30-36] for ‘treatments’ [col. 9 lines 3-7] [col. 10 lines 4-8]).
As per Claim 7 GRUNDHOEFER discloses The control module according to claim 1, wherein the control module is further configured (See said analysis for Claim 1):
to determine a first contrast using the value of the parameter of the light coming from the region of interest and the value of the parameter of the ambient light (Figs. 1-7 ROI for the dimming value adjustments parameter value for the incoming light vs ambient light [col. 3 lines 47-51, line 61] [col. 5 lines 30-36] contrast effects [col. 15 lines 53-60]), and to determine, by using the first contrast, when to realize the adjustment (Figs. 1-7 compensating adjustments via light differential and contrast effects [col. 3 lines 47-51, line 61] [col. 5 lines 30-36] [col. 15 lines 53-60]).
As per Claim 8 GRUNDHOEFER discloses The control module according to claim 1, wherein the control module is further configured (See said analysis for Claim 1):
to determine a second contrast using the value of the parameter of the light coming from the region of interest and the value of the parameter of the ambient light, the adjustment being realized according to the second contrast (Figs. 1-7 compensating adjustments via light differential and contrast effects – first and subsequent contrast values with related sequential measurements – at least second time in a second direction [col. 4 lines 53-57] – and see [col. 3 lines 47-51, line 61] [col. 15 lines 53-60]).
As per Claim 10 GRUNDHOEFER discloses The control module according to claim 1, wherein the parameter of the functionality is at least one of a transmittance level of the optical element (Figs. 1-7 transmission coefficient [col 19 lines 5-15]), a reflectance level of the optical element (Figs. 1-7 reflect and polar [col. 3 lines 47-51] [col. 6 lines 7-10] present in the pass-through/collected values for display 312 [col. 8 lines 20-23, lines 45-54]), and of at least one parameter of a polarization of the optical element (one of).
As per Claim 11 GRUNDHOEFER discloses The control module according to claim 1, wherein the control module is further configured to at least one of (See said analysis for Claim 1):
obtaining obtain, from a first light detection module, the value of the parameter of the ambient light (Figs. 1-7 light detection accompanying dimming level of the globally dimmable layer 360 of the CGR display 312 via the HMD 120 operating as "smart sunglasses" that automatically dim according to ambient light levels [col. 10 lines 48-57] - and see [col. 3 lines 47-51]),
and obtaining obtain, from a second light detection module, the value of the parameter of the light coming from the region of interest (at least one of)
As per Claim 12 GRUNDHOEFER discloses The control module claim 1, wherein the region of interest comprises an object for example a screen of an electronic device (Figs. 1-7 [col. 3 lines 47-51, line 61] ROI gaze tracking using the HMD display of virtual object 115 OOI on the screen thereof [col. 6 lines 7-10] [col. 25 lines 33-37]).
As per Claim 13 GRUNDHOEFER discloses An optical device intended to be worn by a user, the optical device comprising (Figs. 1-7 HMD 120 [col. 6 lines 25-26] – See said analysis for Claim 1)
an optical element and a control module for adjusting a value of a parameter of a functionality of the optical element (See said analysis for Claim 1), the control module configured (See said analysis for Claim 1):
to obtain a value of a parameter of a light coming from a region of interest viewed by a user through the optical element to obtain a value of a parameter of an ambient light surrounding the region of interest (See said analysis for Claim 1), and to realize an adjustment of the value of the parameter of the functionality (See said analysis for Claim 1), the adjustment being according to the value of the parameter of the light coming from the region of interest and (See said analysis for Claim 1) the value of the parameter of the ambient light, so as to take account of at least one specificity of the region of interest with respect to at least one specificity of a surrounding of the region of interest (See said analysis for Claim 1).
As per Claim 14 GRUNDHOEFER discloses A computer implemented method (Figs. 1-7 [col. 3 lines 23-25]) for adjusting a value of a parameter of a functionality of an optical element, the method comprising (See said analysis for Claim 1): obtaining a value of a parameter of a light coming from a region of interest viewed by a user through an optical element (See said analysis for Claim 1); obtaining a value of a parameter of an ambient light surrounding the region of interest (See said analysis for Claim 1), and realizing an adjustment of the value of the parameter of the functionality (See said analysis for Claim 1), the adjustment being according to the value of the parameter of the light coming from the region of interest (See said analysis for Claim 1) and the value of the parameter of the ambient light, so as to take account of at least one specificity of the region of interest with respect to at least one specificity of a surrounding of the region of interest (See said analysis for Claim 1).
As per Claim 15 GRUNDHOEFER discloses A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a control module cause the control module to (Figs. 1-7 CRM [Abstract] [col. 4 lines 45-48])
carry out a method for adjusting a value of a parameter of a functionality of an optical element, the method comprising (See said analysis for Claim 1): obtaining a value of a parameter of a light coming from a region of interest viewed by a user through the optical element (See said analysis for Claim 1); obtaining a value of a parameter of an ambient light surrounding the region of interest (See said analysis for Claim 1); and realizing an adjustment of the value of the parameter of the functionality (See said analysis for Claim 1), the adjustment being according to the value of the parameter of the light coming from the region of interest and the value of the parameter of the ambient light (See said analysis for Claim 1), so as to take account of at least one specificity of the region of interest with respect to at least one specificity of a surrounding of the region of interest (See said analysis for Claim 1).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GRUNDHOEFER (US Patent. No: 11,366,321) in view of CASTLEMAN (US Pub. No.: 2018-0004285).
As per Claim 4 GRUNDHOEFER discloses The control module according to claim 1, wherein the control module is further configured (See said analysis for Claim 1): to obtain a behaviour of the user (Figs. 1-7 gaze and dimming behaviour [col. 16 lines 15-24]), the control module being configured to realize the adjustment (Figs. 1-7 dimmer 344 [col. 3 lines 47-55, line 61] [col. 5 lines 30-36] [col. 9 lines 3-7] [col. 10 lines 4-8])
GRUNDHOEFER does not disclose but CASTLEMAN discloses to compare the behaviour of the user with a predetermined behaviour, when the behaviour of the user matches with the predetermined behaviour (Figs. 1-3, 5-6 gaze behavior and matching the user profile [0024-0025] [0047])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include to compare the behaviour of the user with a predetermined behaviour, when the behaviour of the user matches with the predetermined behaviour as taught by CASTLEMAN into the system of GRUNDHOEFER because of the benefit taught by CASTLEMAN to teach improvements in gaze tracking behaviour for assistance in future predictions of gaze/behaviour which both supplements and complements GRUNDHOEFER system of compensating for ambient light changes for a user of an HMD with tracker capabilities that are improved by the related features of CASTLEMAN.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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, and but for the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. section 101.
Claims 5-6, 9 is/are allowed, but for the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. section 101. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 5 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The control module according to claim 4, wherein the predetermined behaviour is chosen among: a movement of an eye of the user, a movement of a head of the user, an activity of the user, and a gaze axis of the user toward a specific region" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 6 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The control module according to claim 4 wherein the behaviour being is a first behaviour, the predetermined behaviour being is a first predetermined behaviour, the adjustment being is a first adjustment, and the control module is further configured: to obtain a second behaviour of the user, and to compare the second behaviour with a second predetermined behaviour, when the second behaviour of the user matches with the second predetermined behaviour the control module configured to realize a second adjustment of the value of the parameter of the functionality, the second adjustment being according to only one among the value of the parameter of the light coming from the region of interest and the value of the parameter of the ambient light" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 9 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The control module according to claim 1, wherein the parameter of the ambient light is chosen among: an amount of the ambient light, a spectral density of the ambient light, an amount of the ambient light on a plurality of frequency bands, and a polarization distribution of the ambient light, and/or the parameter of the light coming from the region of interest is chosen among an amount of the light coming from the region of interest, a spectral density of the light coming from the region of interest, an amount of the light coming from the element on a plurality of frequency bands, and a polarization distribution of the light coming from the region of interest" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record GRUNDHOEFER for Claims 5-6, 9 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. GRUNDHOEFER only discloses adjusting a value of a parameter of a functionality of an optical element to obtain a value of a parameter of a light coming from a region of interest viewed by a user through the optical element, to obtain a value of a parameter of an ambient light surrounding the region of interest and, to realize an adjustment of the value of the parameter of the functionality, the adjustment being according to the value of the parameter of the light coming from the region of interest and the value of the parameter of the ambient light, so as to take account of at least one specificity of the region of interest with respect to at least one specificity of a surrounding of the region of interest.
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 EILEEN M ADAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
