DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6-9, 13-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shoushtari et al. (US 2020/0326777).
As to claims 1, 6, 8 and 16, Shoushtari discloses a head-mounted device (Figs. 3A, (200A) and 3C, (200B) [0038, 0039] comprising a head-mounted frame [0039], wherein the head-mounted frame comprises a gaze tracking system [0038] comprising a controller (Fig. 3A, (260) [0040]; a lens with a reflective surface (Fig. 3A, (250) [0039]; a camera (Fig. 3A, 12B, 12C (240, 1540)[0039], with a field of view that includes at least a portion of a surface of an eye (Figs. 12B, 12C, (Vj)[0064-0068](field of view of camera clearly includes a portion of a surface of the eye (1592) and at least a portion of the reflective surface of the lens that includes at least a portion of a reflection of the eye (Figs. 12B, 12C. (rj, pj)[0069-0073](field of view of camera clearly includes at least a portion of the reflective surface of the lens (1550); one or more light sources (Figs. 3A, (230)[0038, 0039], wherein the one or more light sources are configured to emit light that reaches the surface of the eye [0039]; and wherein the controller is configured to cause the camera to capture one or more images while the one or more light sources emit light [0050, 0053, 0069], wherein the controller is further configured to perform a gaze tracking technique using the one or more captured images (see abstract, 0043, 0044].
As to claims 2, 9, and 17, further, Shoushtari discloses the light emitted from the one or more light sources is infrared light [0034] and wherein the reflective surface is a hot mirror [0033].
As to claims 7, 13 and 20, Shoushtari, further, discloses a further camera [0040, 0041, 0082], with a further field of view that includes at least a further portion of the surface of the eye [0041] and at least a further portion of the reflective surface of the lens that includes at least a further portion of the reflection of the eye [0082]; and wherein the controller is further configured to cause the further camera to capture a further one or more images while the one or more light sources emit light [0040, 0041, 0043, 0082].
As to claim 14, Shoushtari discloses, further, the head-mounted device is a headset-type device [0028].
As to claim 15, further, Shoushtari, discloses the head-mounted device is a glasses-type device [0028].
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.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoushtari et al. (US 2020/0326777) in view of Lamvik et al. (US 2004/0227703).
As to claims 3, 10 and 18, further, Shoushtari does not specifically disclose the camera comprises an anamorphic lens.
Lamvik discloses the camera comprises an anamorphic lens [0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the anamorphic lens, as taught by Lamvik, in Shoushtari, in order to provide a full image on a continuous display of varying pixel sizes [0013].
7. Claim(s) 4, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoushtari et al. (US 2020/0326777) in view of Sharma et al. (US. Patent 11,237,628).
As to claims 4, 11, and 19, further, Shoushtari does not specifically disclose the lens is curved.
Sharma discloses a hot mirror having a curved surface (col. 23, line 53-col. 24, line 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the curved lens, as taught by Sharma, in Shoushtari, in order to obtain a more precise glint location determination and more accurate eye tracking (col. 23, lines 63-65).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoushtari et al. (US 2020/0326777) in view of Torkos et al. (US 2019/0354175).
As to claims 5 and 12, further, Shoushtari does not specifically disclose an eye enrollment technique for gaze tracking using the one or more captured images.
Torkos discloses an eye enrollment technique for gaze tracking using the one or more captured images[0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the curved lens, as taught by Torkos, in Shoushtari, since eye enrollment procedure is largely automated and can be completed quickly [0019].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO OSORIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 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, LunYi Lao can be reached at 571-272-7671. 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.
/RICARDO OSORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621