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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Najer et al. (hereinafter “Najer”), WO2022/243027 (provided by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Najer teaches A processing device configured to receive a first tracking signal from a first receiving unit (page 6, lines 11-24: first laser configured to emit a beam of light for illuminating a user's eye when in use and to receive light redirected from the user's eye, such that self-mixing interference occurs within the laser cavity between light generated by the first laser and the light redirected from the user's eye; a measurement apparatus configured to measure the self-mixing interference"), to receive a second tracking signal from a second receiving unit (page 8, line 26-page 9, line 7: "The second laser may operate in a similar manner to the first laser. The device may further comprise a second measurement apparatus configured to measure the self- mixing interference of the second laser. "; page 9, lines 9-13: "The device may comprise a second pair of lasers the second pair of lasers may comprise a third laser and a fourth laser."), each of the first and the second tracking signals being a function of a speed of rotation and a position of a user's cornea (page 6, lines 19-21: "a processing unit configured to determine a direction of movement of the user's eye from the measured self-mixing interference, wherein the processing unit is further configured to estimate a future gaze direction"; page 7, lines 1-2: The processing unit may be further configured to determine speed of movement of the user's eye from the measured self-mixing interference."; page 8, line 33: "The second laser may operate in a similar manner to the first laser."), the processing device being further configured to determine the position of the user's cornea from the first and the second tracking signals (page 6, lines 18-21: a processing unit configured to determine a direction of movement of the user's eye from the measured self-mixing interference, wherein the processing unit is further configured to estimate a future gaze direction from the determined direction of movement of the user's eye"; page 14, line 31-page 15, line 2: "The location of the cornea 7, used to determine which velocity measurements to disregard, can be determined from the gaze direction.”)
Regarding claim 2, Najer teaches being further configured to determine the speed of rotation of the user's cornea from the first and the second tracking signals (page 7, lines 1-2; page 15, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Najer teaches wherein the first and the second tracking signals are self-mixing interference ("SMI") signals (page 6, lines 14-17; page 8, line 34 – page 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 9, Najer teaches being configured to further receive a third tracking signal from a third receiving unit, the third tracking signal being a function of the speed of rotation and the position of the user's cornea, the processing device being configured to determine the position of the user's cornea from the first, the second and the third tracking signals (page 9, lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 10, it is an eye tracking system of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claims 11, 12, 14, and 15, Najer teaches wherein the first laser and the second laser device is configured to emit the first and second laser beam at a first and second frequency (page 7, lines 4-8).
Regarding claims 13, it is a method of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 16 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, either singularly or in combination, fairly teaches or suggests “to determine a first plurality of candidate positions from the first tracking signal, to determine a second plurality of candidate positions from the second tracking signal and to select the candidate position that matches best to the first and the second tracking signals as the position of the user's cornea.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Scheller et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0299761) teaches multi-wavelength self-mixing interferometry.
Vidal et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0205876) teaches proximity based eye-tracking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3147. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/KENNETH B LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights