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 filed on 7/11/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082).
Claim 1 of this application
claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271
1. A display system comprising:
a wearable display configured to be worn on a head of a user;
at least one light source configured to output light;
a movable reflector configured to reflect the light that is outputted by the at least one light source, the moveable reflector further configured such that an orientation of the moveable reflector is adjustable;
a plurality of light detectors configured to detect light that is reflected by an eye of the user; and
one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising:
causing adjustment of the orientation of the moveable reflector such that the light reflected by the moveable reflector is scanned across the eye according to a scan pattern, wherein the scan pattern comprises a first leg and a second leg, wherein the first leg extends vertically in a first direction and the second leg extends vertically in a second direction, and wherein the first direction crosses the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern;
obtaining respective light intensity patterns detected by the light detectors, wherein a light intensity pattern represents light detector signals determined during scanning of the reflected light across the eye; and
determining, based on the light intensity patterns, at least one property of the eye.
1. A display system configured to present virtual content to a user, the display system comprising:
a light source configured to output polychromatic light;
a movable reflector configured to reflect the outputted polychromatic light to the eye of the user according to a scan pattern, wherein the scan pattern comprises:
a first leg; and
a second leg, wherein the first leg extends vertically in a first direction and the second leg extends vertically in a second direction, wherein the first direction crosses the second direction, and wherein the first and second legs are formed by light of different wavelengths;
a plurality of light detectors configured to detect reflections of the light scanned across the eye; and
one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising:
causing adjustment of the orientation of the moveable reflector, such that the reflected light is scanned across the eye according to the scan pattern;
obtaining respective light intensity patterns detected by the light detectors, wherein a light intensity pattern represents light detector signals determined at different times during scanning of the reflected light across the eye; and
determining, based on the light intensity patterns, a speed of rotation of the eye.
As can be seen from the above comparison, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 anticipates each feature of claim 1 of this application except the following ones:
1) the display system comprising: a wearable display configured to be worn on a head of a user;
2) the first direction crosses the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern.
As for differentiating feature 1), it is not new applying the claimed eye property determining technique to a wearable display configured to be worn on a head of a user.
Aleem, for instance, teaches in Figs. 1-3 wearable heads-up display 100, 200, 300 with capability of determining a eye gaze direction based on the similar technique as this instant application.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 to a wearable display taught by Aleem to increase market share of the technique.
As for differentiating limitation 2, Aleem teaches in [0032] and [0064] a scan pattern including a first leg extending vertically in a first direction and second leg extending vertically in a second direction ([0032]: "the infrared laser diode may be modulated to provide an illumination pattern (e.g., a grid, a set of parallel lines, or any other shape/pattern) on eye 190"; [0064]: "the full area of the eye may be completely illuminated or portions of the eye may be illuminated in any of various patterns”). Aleem, however, does not further teach the first direction crosses the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern.
However, it is not new in related art using a V-shape scan pattern as a unit pattern for being reflected from a user’s eye to achieve eye gaze direction determination.
Greenwald, for instance, teaches in Fig. 11 a V-shape unit pattern (i.e., V-shape unit pattern in display images 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104) being reflected from a user’s eye (i.e., reflections 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124 from a cornea of the eye) and imaged to achieve eye gaze direction determination.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to further modify the technique of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 in view of Aleem with Greenwald’s technique configuring the first direction to cross the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern.
As pointed out by Aleem in [0032] and [0064] any other shape/pattern could be used as the scan pattern. One ordinary skill in the art would try Greenwald’s V-shape unit pattern as a scan pattern to study possibility of optimization of the eye gaze detection.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082).
Claim 1 of this application
claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099
1. A display system comprising:
a wearable display configured to be worn on a head of a user;
at least one light source configured to output light;
a movable reflector configured to reflect the light that is outputted by the at least one light source, the moveable reflector further configured such that an orientation of the moveable reflector is adjustable;
a plurality of light detectors configured to detect light that is reflected by an eye of the user; and
one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising:
causing adjustment of the orientation of the moveable reflector such that the light reflected by the moveable reflector is scanned across the eye according to a scan pattern, wherein the scan pattern comprises a first leg and a second leg, wherein the first leg extends vertically in a first direction and the second leg extends vertically in a second direction, and wherein the first direction crosses the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern;
obtaining respective light intensity patterns detected by the light detectors, wherein a light intensity pattern represents light detector signals determined during scanning of the reflected light across the eye; and
determining, based on the light intensity patterns, at least one property of the eye.
A display system configured to present virtual content to a user, the display system comprising:
a light source configured to output polychromatic light;
a movable reflector configured to reflect the outputted polychromatic light to the eye of the user according to a scan pattern, wherein the scan pattern comprises:
a first leg; and
a second leg, wherein the first leg extends vertically in a first direction and the second leg extends vertically in a second direction, wherein the first direction crosses the second direction, and wherein the first and second legs are formed by light of different wavelengths;
a plurality of light detectors configured to detect reflections of the light scanned across the eye; and
one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising:
causing adjustment of the orientation of the moveable reflector, such that the reflected light is scanned across the eye according to the scan pattern;
obtaining respective light intensity patterns detected by the light detectors, wherein a light intensity pattern represents light detector signals determined at different times during scanning of the reflected light across the eye; and
determining, based on the light intensity patterns, at least one physiological characteristic of the eye.
As can be seen from the above comparison, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 anticipates each feature of claim 1 of this application except the following ones:
1) the display system comprising: a wearable display configured to be worn on a head of a user;
2) the first direction crosses the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern.
As for differentiating feature 1), it is not new applying the claimed eye property determining technique to a wearable display configured to be worn on a head of a user.
Aleem, for instance, teaches in Figs. 1-3 wearable heads-up display 100, 200, 300 with capability of determining a eye gaze direction based on the similar technique as this instant application.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 to a wearable display taught by Aleem to increase market share of the technique.
As for differentiating limitation 2, Aleem teaches in [0032] and [0064] a scan pattern including a first leg extending vertically in a first direction and second leg extending vertically in a second direction ([0032]: "the infrared laser diode may be modulated to provide an illumination pattern (e.g., a grid, a set of parallel lines, or any other shape/pattern) on eye 190"; [0064]: "the full area of the eye may be completely illuminated or portions of the eye may be illuminated in any of various patterns”). Aleem, however, does not further teach the first direction crosses the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern.
However, it is not new in related art using a V-shape scan pattern as a unit pattern for being reflected from a user’s eye to achieve eye gaze direction determination.
Greenwald, for instance, teaches in Fig. 11 a V-shape unit pattern (i.e., V-shape unit pattern in display images 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104) being reflected from a user’s eye (i.e., reflections 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124 from a cornea of the eye) and imaged to achieve eye gaze direction determination.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to further modify the technique of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 in view of Aleem with Greenwald’s technique configuring the first direction to cross the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern.
As pointed out by Aleem in [0032] and [0064] any other shape/pattern could be used as the scan pattern. One ordinary skill in the art would try Greenwald’s V-shape unit pattern as a scan pattern to study possibility of optimization of the eye gaze detection.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 (resulting from App. No. 17/102,326) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082).
Claim 1 of this application
claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362
1. A display system comprising:
a wearable display configured to be worn on a head of a user;
at least one light source configured to output light;
a movable reflector configured to reflect the light that is outputted by the at least one light source, the moveable reflector further configured such that an orientation of the moveable reflector is adjustable;
a plurality of light detectors configured to detect light that is reflected by an eye of the user; and
one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising:
causing adjustment of the orientation of the moveable reflector such that the light reflected by the moveable reflector is scanned across the eye according to a scan pattern, wherein the scan pattern comprises a first leg and a second leg, wherein the first leg extends vertically in a first direction and the second leg extends vertically in a second direction, and wherein the first direction crosses the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern;
obtaining respective light intensity patterns detected by the light detectors, wherein a light intensity pattern represents light detector signals determined during scanning of the reflected light across the eye; and
determining, based on the light intensity patterns, at least one property of the eye.
1. A display system configured to present virtual content to a user, the display system comprising:
a light source configured to output polychromatic light;
a movable reflector configured to reflect the outputted polychromatic light to the eye of the user to scan a pattern formed of the light across the eye, wherein the pattern comprises:
a first leg; and
a second leg, wherein the first leg extends vertically in a first direction and the second leg extends vertically in a second direction, wherein the first direction crosses the second direction, and wherein the first and second legs are formed by light of different wavelengths;
a plurality of light detectors configured to detect reflections of the light scanned across the eye; and
one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising:
causing adjustment of the orientation of the moveable reflector, such that the reflected light is scanned across the eye;
obtaining, via the light detectors, respective light intensity patterns, wherein a light intensity pattern represents light detector signals at different times, the light detector signals being obtained during scanning of the reflected light across the eye; and
determining, based on the light intensity patterns, an eye pose of the eye, the eye pose representing an orientation of the eye.
As can be seen from the above comparison, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 anticipates each feature of claim 1 of this application except the following ones:
1) the display system comprising: a wearable display configured to be worn on a head of a user;
2) the first direction crosses the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern.
As for differentiating feature 1), it is not new applying the claimed eye property determining technique to a wearable display configured to be worn on a head of a user.
Aleem, for instance, teaches in Figs. 1-3 wearable heads-up display 100, 200, 300 with capability of determining a eye gaze direction based on the similar technique as this instant application.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 to a wearable display taught by Aleem to increase market share of the technique.
As for differentiating limitation 2, Aleem teaches in [0032] and [0064] a scan pattern including a first leg extending vertically in a first direction and second leg extending vertically in a second direction ([0032]: "the infrared laser diode may be modulated to provide an illumination pattern (e.g., a grid, a set of parallel lines, or any other shape/pattern) on eye 190"; [0064]: "the full area of the eye may be completely illuminated or portions of the eye may be illuminated in any of various patterns”). Aleem, however, does not further teach the first direction crosses the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern.
However, it is not new in related art using a V-shape scan pattern as a unit pattern for being reflected from a user’s eye to achieve eye gaze direction determination.
Greenwald, for instance, teaches in Fig. 11 a V-shape unit pattern (i.e., V-shape unit pattern in display images 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104) being reflected from a user’s eye (i.e., reflections 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124 from a cornea of the eye) and imaged to achieve eye gaze direction determination.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to further modify the technique of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 in view of Aleem with Greenwald’s technique configuring the first direction to cross the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern.
As pointed out by Aleem in [0032] and [0064] any other shape/pattern could be used as the scan pattern. One ordinary skill in the art would try Greenwald’s V-shape unit pattern as a scan pattern to study possibility of optimization of the eye gaze detection.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 teaches the feature(s) of claim 2 of this instant application.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 (resulting from App. No. 17/102,326) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 teaches claim 2 of this instant application.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271teaches the feature(s) of claim 4 of this instant application.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 teaches the feature(s) of claim 4 of this instant application.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 (resulting from App. No. 17/102,326) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 teaches claim 4 of this instant application.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 teaches the feature(s) of claim 5 of this instant application.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 teaches the feature(s) of claim 5 of this instant application.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 (resulting from App. No. 17/102,326) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 teaches claim 5 of this instant application.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 teaches the feature(s) of claim 6 of this instant application.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 teaches s the feature(s) of claim 6 of this instant application.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 (resulting from App. No. 17/102,326) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 teaches claim 6 of this instant application.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 teaches the feature(s) of claim 7 of this instant application.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 teaches the feature(s) of claim 7 of this instant application.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 (resulting from App. No. 17/102,326) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 teaches claim 7 of this instant application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 teaches the feature(s) of claim 8 of this instant application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 teaches the feature(s) of claim 8 of this instant application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 (resulting from App. No. 17/102,326) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 teaches claim 8 of this instant application.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 teaches the feature(s) of claim 9 of this instant application.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 teaches the feature(s) of claim 9 of this instant application.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 (resulting from App. No. 17/102,326) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 teaches claim 9 of this instant application.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 teaches the feature(s) of claim 10 of this instant application.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 teaches the feature(s) of claim 11 of this instant application.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082), for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1 of this instant application.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082), for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1 of this instant application.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 (resulting from App. No. 17/102,326) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082), for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1 of this instant application.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 teaches the feature(s) of claim 13 of this instant application.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082), because claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 teaches the feature(s) of claim 13 of this instant application.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 teaches the feature(s) of claim 15 of this instant application.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082), because claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 teaches the feature(s) of claim 15 of this instant application.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 (resulting from App. No. 17/102,326) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082), because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 teaches the feature(s) of claim 15 of this instant application.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 teaches the feature(s) of claim 16 of this instant application.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082) because claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 teaches the feature(s) of claim 17 of this instant application.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082), because claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 teaches the feature(s) of claim 18 of this instant application.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,271 (resulting from App. No. 18/736,908) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082), for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1 of this instant application.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,099 (resulting from App. No. 18/309,787) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082), for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1 of this instant application.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,362 (resulting from App. No. 17/102,326) in view of Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483), and further in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082), for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1 of this instant application.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483) in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082).
Regarding claim 1, Aleem teaches a display system (Abstract: “wearable heads-up displays”) comprising:
a wearable display (Figs. 1-3: wearable heads-up displays 100, 200 and 300) configured to present virtual content to a user (Examiner’s Note: “to present virtual content to a user” is merely some intended use of the claimed apparatus; because the claim body is self-contained, the intended use of the preamble is given no patentable weight) configured to be worn on a head of a user;
at least one light source (Fig. 1: laser module 111; Fig. 2: integrated infrared laser diode and RGB laser diodes in laser projector 210; Fig. 3: infrared laser diode and RGB laser diodes included laser projector 310 in view of [0050]) configured to output light;
a movable reflector (Fig. 1: scan mirror 112; Figs. 2-3: scan mirror the same as the one in Fig. 1) configured to reflect the light that is outputted by the at least one light source, the moveable reflector further configured such that an orientation of the moveable reflector is adjustable (Figs. 1-3: scan mirror being caused to have its orientation adjusted; Fig. 4: step 401);
a plurality of light detectors (Fig. 3: photodetectors 341, 342; [0010]; [0016]; [0033]) configured to detect light that is reflected by an eye of the user; and
one or more processors (Fig. 3: at least one digital processor 361; [0010]; [0044]) configured to perform operations comprising:
causing adjustment of the orientation of the moveable reflector (Figs. 1-3: scan mirror being caused to have its orientation adjusted; Fig. 4: step 401) such that the light reflected by the moveable reflector is scanned across the eye according to a scan pattern (Figs. 1-2: IR light pattern associated with IR laser diode; Fig. 4: step 401; [0032]: “the infrared laser diode may be modulated to provide an illumination pattern (e.g., a grid, a set of parallel lines, or any other shape/pattern) on eye 190”; [0064]: “the full area of the eye may be completely illuminated or … portions of the eye may be illuminated in any of various patterns”), wherein the scan pattern comprises a first leg and a second leg ([0032]: “the infrared laser diode may simply be on at all times to scan over the entire area of eye 190 with infrared laser light 122 or the infrared laser diode may be modulated to provide an illumination pattern (e.g., a grid, a set of parallel lines, or any other shape/pattern) on eye 190”; Examiner’s Note: a grid pattern includes at least a first leg and a second leg), wherein
obtaining respective light intensity patterns detected by the light detectors (Fig. 2A-2C; Fig. 3: each photodetector obtains a respective light intensity pattern), wherein a light intensity pattern represents light detector signals determined during scanning of the reflected light across the eye (Figs. 2A-2C); and
determining, based on the light intensity patterns, at least one property of the eye (Fig. 4: steps 405-406; Examiner’s Note: an eye pose/orientation is inherently associated with a gaze direction).
Aleem does not further teach:
wherein the first leg extends vertically in a first direction and the second leg extends vertically in a second direction, and wherein the first direction crosses the second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern.
The differentiating limitation indicates a specific V-shape unit light-pattern being scanned across an eye for being reflected by the eye to provide light intensity patterns detected by the light detectors. However, the approach of using V-shape unit light-patterns that illuminate an eye for providing reflected light intensity patterns in detecting an eye gaze direction is not new in the related art.
Greenwald, for instance, teaches in Fig. 11 a V-shape unit light-pattern (i.e., V-shape unit pattern in display images 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104) being reflected from a user’s eye (i.e., reflections 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124 from a cornea of the eye) to provide light intensity patterns that are imaged to determine an eye gaze direction.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to further modify the technique of Aleem with Greenwald’s technique configuring the first leg extending vertically in a first direction to cross the second leg extending vertically in a second direction at a non-perpendicular angle such that the scan pattern is a V-shape scan pattern.
As pointed out by Aleem in [0032] and [0064] any other shape/pattern could be used as the scan pattern. One ordinary skill in the art would try Greenwald’s V-shape unit lightpattern as a scan pattern to study possibility of optimization of the eye gaze detection.
Regarding claim 2, Aleem teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein the at least one property of the eye includes one or more of an eye pose of the eye (Fig. 4: steps 405-406; Examiner’s Note: an eye pose/orientation is inherently associated with a gaze direction)
Regarding claim 9, Aleem further teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein the at least one light source includes two light sources (Figs. 1-2: IR laser diode as invisible light source providing IR light 122 and visible RGB laser diodes as visible light source providing visible light 121) configured to output light to the movable reflector, wherein each of the light sources is configured to form a respective portion of the pattern of the light for scanning across the eye (Examiner’s Note: IR light source for forming eye-tracking portion of the pattern of the light; visible light source for forming a displayed image as another portion of the pattern of the light).
Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Claims 5-8, 10-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483) in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082), and further in view of Sarkar (US 2017/0276934).
Regarding claim 5, Aleem in view of Greenwald does not further teach the display system of claim 1, wherein the movable reflector comprises a diffractive grating that is configured to convert at least one incident beam of the light from the at least one light source into the scan pattern.
Although Aleem teaches in paras. [0032] “the infrared laser diode may be modulated to provide an illumination pattern (e.g., a grid, a set of parallel lines, or any other shape/pattern)”, Aleem fails to teach that the pattern results from a diffractive grating included in the movable reflector. However, it is not new in the related art configuring the movable reflector to comprise a diffractive grating.
Sarkar, for instance, teaches in para. [0020] that “the scanning mirror includes an optical element that converts the input signal into a light pattern” and that “[I]n some of these embodiments, the optical element is a diffractive element, such as a Fresnel lens, holographic element, etc., which is formed on the surface of the scanning mirror” and in para. [0094] that “[S]ome alternative embodiments in accordance with the present invention include a movable mirror that includes an optical element, such as one or more diffractive lenses (e.g., a one- or two-dimensional Fresnel lens, a holographic lens, etc.), one or more refractive lenses, an active optical source, one or more diffraction gratings”. One exemplary light pattern resulting from Sarkar’s movable scanner is a cross-shaped light pattern 618 (Fig. 6C), which includes multiple lines.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to modify the technique of Aleem with the technique of Sarkar, forming one or more diffraction gratings in the movable reflector to modulate the light from the light source of Aleem’s display system to obtain a light pattern comprising multiple lines of light as desired.
Because to achieve a light pattern in scan light to track an eye pose, either directly modulating the light source itself or modulating some optical component (e.g., moveable reflector) in the optical path has to be implemented, one ordinary skill in the art would try any of the approaches to optimize the result. Furthermore, Sarkar’s technique is established to solve the same problem addressed by the instant invention. One ordinary skill in the art would try Sarkar’s technique for a predictable success.
Regarding claim 6, Aleem in view of Greenwald does not further teach the display system of claim 1, wherein the movable reflector comprises a plurality of diffractive gratings, each diffractive grating configured to form a different light pattern for scanning across the eye.
Although Aleem teaches in paras. [0032] “the infrared laser diode may be modulated to provide an illumination pattern (e.g., a grid, a set of parallel lines, or any other shape/pattern)”, Aleem fails to teach that the pattern results from a diffractive grating included in the movable reflector. However, it is not new in the related art configuring the movable reflector to comprise a diffractive grating.
Sarkar, for instance, teaches in para. [0020] that “the scanning mirror includes an optical element that converts the input signal into a light pattern” and that “[I]n some of these embodiments, the optical element is a diffractive element, such as a Fresnel lens, holographic element, etc., which is formed on the surface of the scanning mirror” and in para. [0094] that “[S]ome alternative embodiments in accordance with the present invention include a movable mirror that includes an optical element, such as one or more diffractive lenses (e.g., a one- or two-dimensional Fresnel lens, a holographic lens, etc.), one or more refractive lenses, an active optical source, one or more diffraction gratings”. One exemplary light pattern resulting from Sarkar’s movable scanner is a cross-shaped light pattern 618 (Fig. 6C), which includes multiple lines.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to modify the technique of Aleem with the technique of Sarkar, forming a plurality of diffraction gratings in the movable reflector to modulate the light from the light source of Aleem’s display system to obtain a light pattern as desired. As for the limitation “each diffractive grating configured to form a different light pattern for scanning across the eye”, it is inherent that each diffractive grating cannot form an exactly same light pattern. That being said, the limitation inherently exists for the modified movable reflector including a plurality of diffraction gratings.
Because to achieve a light pattern in scan light to track an eye pose, either directly modulating the light source itself or modulating some optical component (e.g., moveable reflector) in the optical path has to be implemented, one ordinary skill in the art would try any of the approaches to optimize the result. Furthermore, Sarkar’s technique is established to solve the same problem addressed by the instant invention. One ordinary skill in the art would try Sarkar’s technique for a predictable success.
Regarding claim 7, Aleem in view of Greenwald does not further teach the display system of claim 1, wherein the light detectors include one or more photodiodes.
However, it is not new in the related art that photodiode is one type of photodetectors. Sarkar, for instance, teaches in paras. [0163]-[0166] that a photodiode used for detecting reflected light from the surface of a user’s cornea to track eye movement.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to apply Sarkar’s technique to Aleem’s technique using photodiodes as photodetectors in Aleem’s technique.
Because there are limited options for small photodetectors suitable to be used in a wearable head-up display, among which is photodiodes, one ordinary skill in the art would try any one of the limited options to optimize the result.
Regarding claim 8, Aleem in view of Greenwald does not further teach the display system of claim 1, wherein each light intensity pattern represents a plot of electrical current versus position information associated with a position of the movable reflector.
The limitation indicates one or more photodiodes, which inherently generate respective electrical signal, are used as the light detectors.
It is not new in the related art that one or more photodiodes are used as photodetectors. Sarkar, for instance, teaches in paras. [0163]-[0166] that a photodiode used for detecting reflected light from the surface of a user’s cornea to track eye movement.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to apply Sarkar’s technique to Aleem’s technique using photodiodes as photodetectors in Aleem’s technique. Sarkar’s technique uses light intensity pattern representing a plot of electrical voltage versus position information associated with a position of the movable reflector (Fig. 13).
Because there are limited options for small photodetectors suitable to be used in a wearable head-up display, among which is photodiodes, one ordinary skill in the art would try any one of the limited options to optimize the result.
Examiner takes Official notice that it is common knowledge using electrical current from a photodiode as a detection signal.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to further modify the technique of Aleem in view of Sarkar such that electrical currents from photodiodes are used for eye tracking.
Because only two forms of signals result from a photodiode, either an electrical current or an electrical voltage, one ordinary skill in the art would try one of the two forms of signals to optimize the result.
Regarding claim 10, Aleem in view of Greenwald does not further teach the display system of claim 1, wherein determining at least one property of the eye includes determining a speed of rotation of the eye based on a difference between successively determined eye poses of the eye that are determined based on at least two successive scans of the eye using the scan pattern.
However, it is known in the related art that determining a speed of rotation related to an eye saccadic movement, which involves a difference between successive eye poses of the eye, is included in determining an eye pose of the eye during an eye tracking.
Sarkar, for instance, teaches an eye tracking system interrogating a scan region on the surface of an eye of a subject with an optical input signal that is characterized by a far-field pattern having a global intensity maximum region ([0016]-[0020]) for tracking a gaze/pose of the eye ([0048]). The eye tracking system is capable of implementing high speed measurements for enabling the observation of saccadic eye movements with high fidelity ([0168]-[0169]; Figs. 15-16), which would result in the final position of the eye after the saccade (i.e., eye pose related to a gaze) being estimated with a high degree of accuracy.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Aleem in view of Greenwald with Sarkar's technique including a step of determining a speed of rotation of the eye so as to make determining an eye pose of the eye more accurate.
Regarding claim 11, Aleem in view of Greenwald does not further teach the display system of claim 1, wherein determining at least one property of the eye includes determining a speed of rotation of the eye based on a movement of one or more physiological features of the eye that is detected based on at least two successive scans of the eye using the scan pattern.
However, it is known in the related art that determining a speed of rotation related to an eye saccadic movement, which involves a difference between successive eye poses (i.e. one type of physiological feature) of the eye, is included in determining an eye pose of the eye during an eye tracking.
Sarkar, for instance, teaches an eye tracking system interrogating a scan region on the surface of an eye of a subject with an optical input signal that is characterized by a far-field pattern having a global intensity maximum region ([0016]-[0020]) for tracking a gaze/pose of the eye ([0048]). The eye tracking system is capable of implementing high speed measurements for enabling the observation of saccadic eye movements with high fidelity ([0168]-[0169]; Figs. 15-16), which would result in the final position of the eye after the saccade (i.e., eye pose related to a gaze) being estimated with a high degree of accuracy.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Aleem in view of Greenwald with Sarkar's technique including a step of determining a speed of rotation of the eye so as to make determining an eye pose of the eye more accurate.
Regarding claim 16, Aleem in view of Greenwald does not further teach the method of claim 12, wherein determining at least one property of the eye includes determining a saccadic velocity of the eye.
However, it is known in the related art determining an eye saccadic velocity of an eye.
Sarkar, for instance, teaches an eye tracking system interrogating a scan region on the surface of an eye of a subject with an optical input signal that is characterized by a far-field pattern having a global intensity maximum region ([0016]-[0020]) for tracking a gaze/pose of the eye ([0048]). The eye tracking system is capable of implementing high speed measurements for enabling the observation of saccadic eye movements with high fidelity ([0168]-[0169]; Figs. 15-16), which would result in the final position of the eye after the saccade (i.e., eye pose related to a gaze) being estimated with a high degree of accuracy.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Aleem in view of Greenwald with Sarkar's technique including a step of determining a saccadic velocity of the eye so as to make determining an eye pose of the eye more accurate.
Regarding claim 17, Sarkar further teach the method of claim 16, wherein determining at least one property of the eye further includes predicting a pose of the eye based on the saccadic velocity ([0168]-[0169]; Figs. 15-16).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleem et al. (US 2017/0115483) in view of Greenwald (US Patent No. 9,898,082), and further in view of Yang (US 2019/0204912).
Regarding claim 18, Aleem in view of Greenwald does not further teach the method of claim 12, wherein determining at least one property of the eye includes determining at least one physiological characteristic of the eye that includes one or more of a position of one or more physiological features of the eye, a size of one or more physiological features of the eye, or a location of a boundary between physiological features of the eye.
The differentiating feature is not new, however.
Yang, for instance, teaches in Figs. 2-6 and [0061]-[0071] and [0102]-[0103] an eye- tracking system for determining at least one physiological characteristic of the eye that includes one or more of a position of one or more physiological features of the eye, a size of one or more physiological features of the eye, or a location of a boundary between physiological features of the eye ([0061]: "By appropriately adjusting the threshold, systems, method, and structures according to the present disclosure - in addition to identifying glints - may advantageously identify quite subtle eye features such as interface between iris and pupil or other feature(s)"; [0102]: "systems, methods, and structures according to aspects of the present disclosure may advantageously detect reflections resulting from other eye features/structures such as the edge of the pupil reflection as well as sclera reflections"; [0103]: "systems, methods, and structures according to aspects of the present disclosure will set a threshold at a predetermined point such that edges of structures are detected and then determine the shape of the pupil from the timings of threshold crossing in any (arbitrary) directions").
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to modify the technique of Aleem in view of Greenwald with Yang's technique to further improve eye-tracking performance of the display system and find widespread applicability in different fields (Yang: [0004]-[0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US Patent No. 9,916,005 teaches in Col. 7, 13-39 “An illustration of a quadrilateral reflection pattern 232, 234, 236, and 238 is presented in FIG. 2. In other embodiments, the reflections may take the form of other shapes, e.g., elliptical, circular, triangular, polygonal, etc.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30 pm-6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Lee can be reached at 571-272-2963. 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.
/XUEMEI ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights