DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 08/14/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejection, claim objection and 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection/rejections above have been withdrawn.
Applicant states that the teachings disclose an eye tracking kit that mechanically fastens to a normal pair of eye glasses including prescription glasses, sunglasses, safety glasses or AR/VR glasses {See Remarks Pg. 2}. This is currently not in the independent claims (i.e. normal pair of eye glasses). Furthermore, AR/VR glasses would not be considered a normal pair of eye glasses.
In regards to the prior art arguments, Kassner discloses an eye tracking camera (100’) that is configured to connect/lay down on the user’s nose piece on a AR device or a pair of glasses {Kassner, Fig. 5A}. Furthermore, Kassner discloses a single monolithic unitary structure for the eye tracking device but does not disclose a hanger for attaching the structure to the glasses. However, it would be obvious to utilize Tzvieli, to provide an alternative way of attaching the structure to the glasses.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In regards to claim 8, Sugihara discloses an alternative way of attaching a camera to a pair of eyeglasses via a clamp. It would have been obvious to alter how the camera is being attached to the pair of eyeglasses via the hanger (i.e. for the central portion of the eyeglasses) in Tzvieli with a clamp in Sugihara.
Newly added claim 19 has been objected to as allowable but is rejected under 112.
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 pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 19 is unclear. Independent claim 1 states in part “two arms laying down an inner side face of nose pads” where as claim 19 states “wherein the two arms are separated from the nose pads of the eye glasses”. How are the two arms separated from the nose pads when the two arms are laying down on the nose pads. For example, a definition of “separate” is “not joined or touching physically”. Please clarify.
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 § 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 1-7 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassner et al. (herein after will be referred to as Kassner) (US 20220342224) in view of Tzvieli et al. (herein after will be referred to as Tzvieli) (US 20180103903).
Regarding claim 1, Kassner discloses
An eye tracking kit configured to be fastened and unfastened to and from a pair of eye glasses, thus creating an eye tracking device, said kit comprising: [See Kassner [Figs. 2A-2B and/or 5A-5B] Attaching eye tracking module (100) to glasses.]
a first component comprising a U-shaped portion, the U-shaped portion compatible with a second U-shaped portion of the nose bridge of the eye glasses, [See Kassner [Figs. 2A-2B and/or 5A-5B]
said first component housing at least one left eye camera and one right eye camera, said eye cameras being arranged in the U-shaped portion to detect, in a plurality of images, pupil positions of a user, the U-shaped portion being placed facing inwardly with respect to the eye-glasses, [See Kassner [Figs. 2A-2B and 0123] Module housing for left eye camera and right eye camera.]
said U-shaped portion further comprising two arms laying down an inner side face of nose pads of the eye glasses when the eye tracking kit is fastened to the eye glasses; [See Kassner [Figs. 5A-5C]]
wherein the first component and the second component form a single monolithic unitary structure [See Kassner [Figs. 1A-1D]] Bottom half corresponds to first component and upper half corresponds to second component.]
electronic components configured to connect the kit to a computer device and to send to said computer device eye movement information of the user wearing the eye glasses to which the eye tracking kit is fastened. [See Kassner [0115] Controller determines gaze related parameters of the user. Also, see 0098, sending the dataset to the electric connector. Also, see 0057, the electric connector provides connection between the eye tracking module and the head-wearable device and/or para. 0112, the electric connector is connected with a mobile computing device.]
Kassner does not explicitly disclose
a second component comprising a hanger, configured to stably fasten the kit to a nose bridge of the eye glasses or to a central portion of an upper frame of the eye glasses,
However, Tzvieli does disclose
a second component comprising a hanger, configured to stably fasten the kit to a nose bridge of the eye glasses or to a central portion of an upper frame of the eye glasses, [See Tzvieli [Figs. 15a-15b] Clip on device in the central portion of the eyeglasses. Second component corresponds to clasp (147).]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Kassner to add the teachings of Tzvieli, in order to provide an alternative way of attaching the imaging device to the glasses.
Regarding claim 2, Kassner (modified by Tzvieli) disclose the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Kassner does not explicitly disclose
further comprising a third component having a third component frame, the third component comprising at least a field of view camera configured to detect in a plurality of images a field of view of the wearer.
However, Tzvieli does disclose
further comprising a third component having a third component frame, the third component comprising at least a field of view camera configured to detect in a plurality of images a field of view of the wearer. [See Tzvieli [Fig. 15a-b] Bottom frame (1st component) attaches to front of glasses, clip on (147) (2nd component), and the box (3rd component) holds the camera. Also, see 0051, outward facing camera attached to eyeglass using a clip-on mechanism.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Kassner (modified by Tzvieli) disclose the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, Kassner does not explicitly disclose
wherein the first component, the second component, and the third component form the single monolithic unitary structure.
However, Tzvieli does disclose
wherein the first component, the second component, and the third component form the single monolithic unitary structure. [See Tzvieli [Fig. 15a-b] Clip on device comprises three components.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Kassner (modified by Tzvieli) disclose the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, Kassner does not explicitly disclose
wherein the kit is configured so that the field of view camera in the third component is designed to detect the field of view of the user when in use.
However, Tzvieli does disclose
wherein the kit is configured so that the field of view camera in the third component is designed to detect the field of view of the user when in use. [See Tzvieli [Fig. 15a-b] Bottom frame (1st component) attaches to front of glasses, clip on (147) (2nd component), and the box (3rd component) holds the camera. Also, see 0051, outward facing camera attached to eyeglass using a clip-on mechanism.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Kassner (modified by Tzvieli) disclose the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Kassner does not explicitly disclose
wherein the hanger is configured to unfasten the eye tracking kit from the eye glasses.
However, Tzvieli does disclose
wherein the hanger is configured to unfasten the eye tracking kit from the eye glasses. [See Tzvieli [Figs. 15a-15b] Clip on device in the central portion of the eyeglasses. Second component corresponds to clasp (147).]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kassner (modified by Tzvieli) disclose the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Kassner discloses
wherein at least one of the left eye camera and the right eye camera comprises an objective lens. [See Kassner [0081-0082]. Inherent that a camera includes a lens for directing the light onto a sensor.]
Regarding claim 7, Kassner (modified by Tzvieli) disclose the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Kassner discloses
further comprising a left Infrared LED illuminator and a right Infrared LED illuminator. [See Kassner [0081-0082]]
Regarding claim 9, Kassner (modified by Tzvieli) disclose the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Kassner discloses
further comprising at least a data processing unit, a memory, a data interface, and a power unit or a power interface. [See Kessner [0088-0089] Controller (inherent that a controller needs a memory). Electrical connector provides data (para. 0054) and power (para. 0055) and/or see 0109, a second electric connector for power supply and/or data exchange.]
Regarding claim 10, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, see examiners rejection for claim 7 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, see examiners rejection for claim 6 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, see examiners rejection for claim 7 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, see examiners rejection for claim 3 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, see examiners rejection for claim 4 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 18.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassner (US 20220342224) in view of Tzvieli (US 20180103903) and in further view of Sugihara et al. (herein after will be referred to as Sugihara) (US 20100245757).
Regarding claim 8, Kassner (modified by Tzvieli) disclose the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Kassner does not explicitly disclose
wherein the hanger comprises a seat and a side wall; the seat is configured to receive the nose bridge or the central portion of the upper frame of the glasses; and the side wall is configured to keep the nose bridge or the central portion of the upper frame of the glasses in place when in use.
However, Sugihara does disclose
wherein the hanger comprises a seat and a side wall; the seat is configured to receive the nose bridge or the central portion of the upper frame of the glasses; and the side wall is configured to keep the nose bridge or the central portion of the upper frame of the glasses in place when in use. [See Sugihara [Fig. 1] Clamp (4) for attaching via the bottom.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Kassner to add the teachings of Tzvieli, in order to provide an alternative way of attaching the imaging device to the glasses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights