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 .
1. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, and 18-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 8, 13, 15, and 18 are amended as filed on 03/02/2026.
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) 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0305708 A1), in view of Khan et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0151489 A1), hereinafter Khan, and in further view of Coleman (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018/0140180 A1).
2. With respect to claims 1 and 15, Krueger taught a system for determining one or more characteristics of a user based on an image of the user's retina (0111), said system comprising: a headset having a camera configured to acquire an image of the user's retina (figure 9, item 482, 414); a computing device communicatively coupled to said camera (figure 9, item 406) and configured to: receive the image of the user's eye (figure 13b, item 414); and determine one or more characteristics of the user based on the received image (0111. See also, 0178).
However, Krueger did not explicitly state that the headset had a head-mounted display and at least one fundus camera mounted to the headset, wherein when the user is wearing the headset with the at least one fundus camera, the system is configured to determine the one or more characteristics of the user based on the received image the computing device is configured to: segment the image of the user’s retina into multiple segments and extract features from the segmented image, the extracted features including features at a retina/vitreous gel interface. On the other hand, Khan did teach that the headset had a head-mounted display and at least one fundus camera mounted to the headset (0010), wherein when the user is wearing the headset with the at least one fundus camera, the system is configured to determine the one or more characteristics of the user based on the received image the computing device is configured to: segment the image of the user’s retina into multiple segments and extract features from the segmented image, the extracted features including features at a retina/vitreous gel interface (0133). Both of the systems of Krueger and Knighton are directed towards ocular monitoring and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Krueger, to utilize superimposing geometric patterns for ocular analysis, as taught by Khan, in order to provide an accurate manner at determining ocular segments.
However, Krueger did not explicitly state taking an image including the optic nerve head and an area around the optic-nerve head; determining the age of a user based on the image of the user’s eye including the optic-nerve head and surrounding retina within +/- 45 degrees of the macula and that the headset was configured to acquire the image of the user’s eye including the optic-nerve head and surrounding retina within +/- 45 degrees of the macula, and to use the extracted features to determine the age of the user. On the other hand, Coleman did teach taking an image including the optic nerve head and an area around the optic-nerve head (0031); determining the age of a user based on the image of the user’s eye including the optic-nerve head and surrounding retina within +/- 45 degrees of the macula and that the headset was configured to acquire the image of the user’s eye including the optic-nerve head and surrounding retina within +/- 45 degrees of the macula (0029, 0058, where within 45 degrees can be seen in 0066 & 0100), and to use the extracted features to determine the age of the user (0002). Both of the systems of Krueger and Coleman are directed towards eye scanning and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Krueger, to utilize identity a user’s age by scanning the user’s retina, as taught by Coleman, in order to better determine useful health characteristics.
3. As for claim 2, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Krueger taught wherein said headset comprises: a substantially helmet-like headset that is configured to encapsulate at least a portion of the user's head; or a pair of glasses (figures 8 and 9 show each respectively).
4. As for claim 3, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Krueger taught wherein the one or more other characteristics chosen from: the identity of the user, gender of the user, one or more health characteristics of the user (0111, where this teaches the health characteristics of the user limitation).
5. As for claim 4, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Krueger taught wherein said headset comprises an augmented reality or virtual reality headset (figure 9, where the augmented reality feature can be seen in 0080).
7. As for claim 7, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 3. In addition, Krueger taught wherein said computing device is further configured to provide the one or more determined characteristics to the user (0111).
8. As for claim 8, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Krueger taught wherein said display is configured to visually display the one or more determined characteristics to the user; and/or wherein said computing device comprises a display configured to visually display the one or more determined characteristics to the user (0080, the augmented reality display).
9. As for claim 9, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 3. In addition, Krueger taught wherein said computing device is configured to acquire a plurality of images of the user’s eye at predetermined intervals (0087 & 0102, where comparing the blink data implicitly teaches the plurality of images).
10. As for claim 10, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Krueger taught wherein said computing device is configured to compare the determined characteristics of the user across the plurality of images and alert the user to one or more changes in the one or more determined characteristics over a period of time (0080, where the user threshold are based on the sensed/interpreted images of the user in accordance with 0353).
11. As for claims 13 and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 15 (respectively). In addition, Khan taught wherein said at least one fundus camera is mounted at the top, bottom and/or a side of the head-mounted display of the headset, and wherein fundus images acquired by said at least one fundus camera are projected with one or more optical elements onto projection optics of said headset (0010, where the camera mount is moveable. See also: 0024).
13. As for claim 19, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 15. In addition, Krueger taught determining one or more other characteristics of the user based on the acquired image of the eye (0111); acquiring a plurality of images of the user’s retina at predetermined intervals (0087 & 0102, where comparing the blink data implicitly teaches the plurality of images); comparing the determined characteristics of the user across the plurality of images; and alerting the user to one or more changes in their determined characteristics over a period of time (0080, where the user threshold are based on the sensed/interpreted images of the user in accordance with 0353).
14. As for claim 20, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 15. In addition, Coleman taught the use of a headset for determining one or more characteristics of a user based on an image of the user’s eye including the optic-nerve head and surrounding retina within +/- 45 degrees of the macula (0029, 0058, where within 45 degrees can be seen in 0066 & 0100).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Li et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0165418 A1), 0051, 0104.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443