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 .
Applicant' s arguments, filed 8/06/2025, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 8/06/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 27-32, 34, 44-45, and 47 are the currently pending claims hereby under examination. Claims 27-32, 34, 44, and 45 have been amended; claims 33, 35-43, and 46 have been canceled; claim 47 has been newly added.
Claim Objections
Claim 47 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 47, lines 1-2 “…wherein the controller is further configured to to receive data output by the inclinometer and/or accelerometer…” has the repeated words “to to” which should be delete to one instance of “to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 27-32, 34, 44-45, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 27 recites “wherein the rotation is carried out only by the force of an ankle movement of the user standing on the platform” in lines 9-11. The scope of this limitation is unclear because it is not evident what movements are excluded when the claim requires that rotation be caused “only” by the ankle. For example, it is ambiguous whether incidental contributions from other joints (such as knees, hips, or weight-shifting) are excluded, or whether the clause is intended only to distinguish over externally powered rotation. The apparatus limitation attempts to define user biomechanics rather than structural features of the platform, leaving the scope subject to multiple reasonable interpretations. The Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that the rotatable platform is non-motorized and configured to rotate in response to the user’s movement when the subject is standing on it. However, because the claim language recites “only by the force of an ankle movement,” it is indefinite as written: one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty whether a platform that also rotates in response to other bodily forces (e.g., hip sway or body weight shift) falls within the scope of the claim.
Claims 28-32, 34, 45-45, and 47 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 27.
Claim 31 recites “…wherein the vestibular function test comprises presenting the user with a stimulus either through the headset or rotatable platform…” in lines 4-5. However, as set forth in Claim 27, the rotatable platform is described as “…being at least partially rotatable freely about a horizontal axis of rotation without the aid of any external drive and configured to receive a second foot of the user such that … the rotation is carried out only by the force of an ankle movement of the user standing on the platform…”. Because the rotatable platform is only displaced by voluntary ankle movement of the user, it is unclear how the platform itself can be said to “present” a stimulus to the user. Stimuli are typically understood as externally applied signals or perturbations, not voluntary user actions. The scope of the limitation is therefore ambiguous: it is uncertain whether the claim intends (1) the user’s own ankle-driven platform movement to be considered a “stimulus,” or (2) whether some other external mechanism not recited is responsible for producing a stimulus via the platform. Accordingly, the phrase “stimulus either through the headset or rotatable platform” is indefinite because it fails to provide clear boundaries to the scope of the claim.
Claim 47 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 31.
Claim 31 recites “…the portable base unit further comprises an inclinometer and/or accelerometer coupled to the rotatable platform for measuring an angle of incline of the rotatable platform; and wherein … outputs of the inclinometer and/or accelerometer are utilised to determine a deviation of the user’s head from true vertical” in lines 1-7, but it is unclear how a sensor placed on the rotatable platform can determine a deviation of the user’s head from true vertical. A platform inclinometer measures only the angular orientation of the platform surface. However, the human body is not a rigid structure: the head may deviate independently of the platform’s tilt due to knee, hip, or trunk motion. Thus, the claim is ambiguous and the Examiner is interpreting that the platform angle is intended to be any of: (1) a direct measurement of head angle, (2) an estimation or proxy for head angle, or (3) combined with other unrecited measurements to calculate head angle. Because the scope of this limitation is unclear, the claim fails to distinctly define the invention.
Claim 45 recites “…a first portion of the movable platform and a second portion of the movable platform…divided by an axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation for the movable platform…” in lines 2-3. However, Claim 44 already introduces “a first portion of the movable platform and a second portion of the movable platform…divided by the axis of rotation for the movable platform”. Because Claim 44 establishes antecedent basis for the first portion and the second portion, the reintroduction of a first portion and a second portion in Claim 45 is ambiguous. It is unclear whether Claim 45 is referring back to the same platform portions introduced in Claim 44 or whether Claim 45 is attempting to introduce new/different platform portions for the perpendicular orientation. If new platform portions are intended (which is the Examiner’s interpretation) for the perpendicular orientation, Applicant may wish to amend Claim 45 to introduce a third portion and a fourth portion of the movable platform (or otherwise distinguish the portions) to provide proper antecedent basis and clarify the scope of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 29, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 29 depends from claim 28 but does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Instead, claim 29 repeats (verbatim) the limitation of claim 28, that the visual occlusion headset is further configured with a display for presenting instructions to the user responsive to the adjustment made by the adjustable stopping mechanism, without adding any additional limitation.
Claims 30 and 32 are rejected by virtue of their dependance from claim 29.
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.
Claims 27-29, 31, 34, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waddington et al. (Waddington, Gordon, and Roger Adams. “Discrimination of Active Plantarflexion and Inversion Movements after Ankle Injury.” Australian journal of physiotherapy 45.1 (1999): 7–13. Web.) hereto referred as Waddington, and further in view of Biodex (Biodex, Balance System SD, www.suessmed.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/brochure_balance-system-sd.pdf, revised 05/2019, accessed 9/24/2025), hereto referred as Biodex, and further in view of Granata et al. (US 20060030793 A1), hereto referred as Granata, and further in view of Berme et al. (US 10231662 B1), hereto referred as Berme.
Regarding claim 27, Waddington teaches that an apparatus for making combined vestibular and somatosensory function assessments of a user of the apparatus (Waddington, p.8, Method: "The Ankle Movement Extent Discrimination Apparatus (AMEDA)", showing a somatosensory function assessment device; p.12, Conclusion: "task situations requiring discrete movements rather than the continuous movements involved in balancing", showing the assessment involves balance tasks implicitly engaging vestibular contributions; and p.8, Method: subjects had no “history of visual or vestibular disturbance affecting balance”, which acknowledges the role of vestibular function in balance assessments. Thus, while Waddington directly discloses somatosensory assessment and situates the test in a balance context that implicitly involves vestibular contributions, it does not disclose dedicated vestibular hardware. Waddington therefore provides the somatosensory test paradigm, while secondary art such as Berme supplies the vestibular-assessment devices (as shown below), making their combination clearly motivated and complementary) comprises: a fixed platform configured to receive a first foot of the user (Waddington, p.8, Method: “Subjects stood with one foot on a fixed platform”, shows a fixed platform receiving one foot of the user); a rotatable platform being at least partially rotatable freely about a horizontal axis of rotation without the aid of any external drive and configured to receive a second foot of the user such that a long axis of the second foot is aligned with the axis of rotation for the rotatable platform, wherein the rotation is carried out only by the force of an ankle movement of the user standing on the platform (Waddington, FIG. 1; p.8, Method: “with one foot on a fixed platform and the other on a square plate with the pivot axis always through the centre of the footprint”, shows a second foot placed on a plate whose pivot axis is aligned through the footprint, i.e., the foot’s long axis aligned to the rotation axis; p.8, Method: “Identical platform bearings allowing movement in the plantarflexion and inversion directions were used and the torque required to initiate movement of the platform in either direction was found to be 0.01Nm”, shows the platform rotates freely on bearings with very low initiating torque and no external drive; p.9, Method: “Subjects were asked to move the plate in that direction until they felt that they could move no further”, shows rotation performed by the user’s ankle movement); and an adjustable stopping mechanism configured to adjust a maximal angle of rotation for the rotatable platform with respect to a horizontal plane to which the rotatable platform can be rotated by the user of the apparatus (Waddington, p.8, Method: “Nine wooden stop blocks of different height provided the end stops to platform movement. Manually interchanging the stop blocks under the edge of the platform allowed nine different ranges of motion for the platform from horizontal”, shows an adjustable stop mechanism that sets the platform’s maximum rotation from horizontal).
Also regarding claim 27, Waddington does not teach that the apparatus comprises a portable base unit.
Biodex, however, discloses portability of the system, stating that “Transport wheels allow easy relocation” (Biodex, p.7, FIG. 1). This shows that Biodex provides a base unit designed to be portable by including wheels for transport.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Waddington in view of Biodex to provide a portable base unit. Waddington already discloses the ankle movement extent discrimination apparatus as a standalone device, while Biodex teaches the known solution of integrating transport wheels to allow relocation of balance platforms. Incorporating Biodex’s portability feature into Waddington’s device would have been a straightforward and predictable modification. The benefit of this modification would be to improve the usability of the apparatus by allowing easy relocation between clinical or training environments, enhancing practicality and efficiency without altering the core functionality of the ankle discrimination assessment.. This shows that Biodex provides a base unit designed to be portable by including wheels for transport.
Also regarding claim 27, Waddington does not teach that a controller is configured to control various discrete stopping positions of the rotatable platform by controlling the adjustable stopping mechanism to selectively adjust the extent to which the rotatable platform can be rotated by the user by one of a plurality of discrete measurable amounts. Rather, Waddington teaches a free ankle-driven plate with discrete stop blocks but does not teach a controller to automate the stops.
Granata discloses a platform with an electronically controlled system that sets specific angular amplitudes. For example, Granata teaches that “the control system 100 is programmed to cause … pre-specified angular movement amplitudes” (Granata, ¶[0073]). This shows that the platform’s controller is capable of defining and holding discrete angular limits during testing. Although Granata uses a motor to drive motion, the underlying disclosure establishes that the controller regulates angular position and enforces defined end points. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this functionality could be adapted such that the motor and controller act to stop or constrain user-initiated motion, rather than to initiate it. Thus, Granata teaches the missing concept of a controller establishing and maintaining discrete angular stopping positions in the context of ankle-related platform assessments.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined Waddington and Biodex in view of Granata to provide a controller that controls discrete stopping positions by limiting user-initiated ankle movement to pre-specified angular ranges. Granata already uses its motor and controller to set and hold angular amplitudes; applying this stopping capability to a user-driven plate rather than using it to initiate motion is a predictable adaptation within the ordinary skill of the art. The benefit of this modification would be to automate Waddington’s manual stop block selection, providing more standardized, repeatable, and efficient assessments of ankle movement extent and also speeds test setup, and reduces operator error.
Also regarding claim 27, Waddington does not teach a visual occlusion headset worn by the user, the headset comprising a device configured to record a vestibular function response of the user associated with a vestibular function test, wherein the visual occlusion headset comprises a sensing device configured to sense a user response following an adjustment made by the adjustable stopping mechanism, and wherein the sensing device comprises an eye tracker having one or more sensors configured to determine a predefined visual response effected by the user, the predefined visual response being representative of the user's perception of the extent of the rotation of the rotatable platform following an adjustment made by the adjustable stopping mechanism. Rather, Waddington teaches ankle movement extent discrimination but does not disclose any headset, eye-tracking system, or vestibular response recording. Waddington does use an occlusion drape to remove visual input during testing (Waddington, FIG. 1), and records user responses verbally as stated: “The experimenter changed the stop blocks between each movement, then recorded the subject’s response after each movement pair” (Waddington, p.9, Methods). This shows that while the paradigm requires the user to perceive the extent of the ankle-driven stop angle, the apparatus does not provide an automated or objective way of capturing those responses.
Berme, however, discloses a head-mounted visual display device integrated with an eye-movement tracking system. For example, Berme teaches that “the force measurement system further comprises an eye movement tracking device configured to track eye movement and/or eye position of the subject … the eye movement tracking device being configured to output one or more eye tracking signals … to assess a response of the subject to the perturbed visual input” (Berme, Col. 4, ll. 33-42). In addition, Berme explains that the head-mounted visual display device may incorporate an inertial measurement unit with accelerometer, magnetometer, and gyroscope “for sensing the head movement of the subject” (Berme, Col. 44, ll. 12-25). These disclosures show that Berme provides both the hardware and the signal processing to objectively capture subject responses to platform movements and visual perturbations.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined Waddington, Biodex, and Granata in view of Berme to incorporate a head-mounted display with eye tracking to record vestibular responses and predefined visual responses associated with ankle movement extent discrimination. Waddington already requires subjects to perceive and report the extent of angular displacement when limited by stop blocks, while Berme provides a known device for objectively capturing such responses using eye-tracking signals in conjunction with head and visual perturbations. Substituting Berme’s headset and eye-tracking system for Waddington’s simple occlusion drape and verbal reporting is a predictable improvement in the art.
The benefit of this modification would be to automate and objectify the user’s response capture, reduce reliance on verbal or manual reporting, and enable combined vestibular and somatosensory assessment in a single apparatus with greater reliability and efficiency.
Also regarding claim 27, Waddington does not teach that the controller is further configured to receive the predefined visual response from the visual occlusion headset and to utilise it to perform ankle movement extent discrimination assessment of the user as a somatosensory function assessment. Rather, Waddington establishes the paradigm of ankle movement extent discrimination using a platform and stop blocks, but the responses are collected manually by the experimenter rather than by a controller. Thus, Waddington lacks any teaching of a controller receiving user responses, although it does show that subject responses were collated and analyzed statistically: “Raw scores for "closer to" or "further than" were collated on score sheets for each subject. An example of a fitted stimulus response curve … is presented in Figure 2. Data were analysed using Probit analysis” (Waddington, FIG.2; p.9, Data analysis). This indicates that Waddington did contemplate computerized processing of subject responses, but not real-time controller capture.
Berme, in contrast, discloses that the head-mounted visual display incorporates an eye-movement tracking system and that “the eye movement tracking device [is] configured to output one or more eye tracking signals … to assess a response of the subject to the perturbed visual input” (Berme, Col. 4, ll. 33-42). This shows that Berme provides the functionality for a system controller to receive objective, predefined visual responses from the headset’s eye-tracking device and to use those signals to evaluate subject responses.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme in view of Berme so that the controller is configured to receive the predefined visual response from the visual occlusion headset and to utilize it to perform ankle movement extent discrimination assessments. Waddington already requires subjects to perceive and report ankle displacement; Berme provides a mechanism for automating that reporting through eye-tracking signals. Combining the two would have been feasible because Waddington’s apparatus already includes a defined discrimination task, and Berme’s eye-tracking headset is designed to deliver signals to a processing controller.
The benefit of this modification would be to eliminate subjective experimenter scoring, reduce error, and integrate both vestibular and somatosensory assessments in a unified, controller-based system.
Regarding claim 28, the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme does not teach that the visual occlusion headset is further configured with a display for presenting instructions to the user responsive to the adjustment made by the adjustable stopping mechanism. Rather it teaches a visual occlusion headset, as shown above in claim 27, but does not disclose a headset with a display for providing instructions to the user. Waddington does record responses (Waddington, p.9, Methods: “The experimenter changed the stop blocks between each movement, then recorded the subject's response after each movement pair”), which shows the paradigm requires subject feedback, but instructions are delivered manually by the experimenter rather than electronically.
Berme, however, teaches a head-mounted visual display device that can present visual content to the subject as part of a balance or training routine. For example, Berme discloses “a head-mounted visual display device” (Berme, Col. 4, ll. 33-36) and describes presenting stimuli and collecting responses in coordination with eye tracking. In addition, Berme further describes protocols where instructional information is presented on a subject display device: “the output screen 168 of the subject visual display device 107 may be divided into a first, inner screen portion 234, which comprises instructional information for a subject 204 performing a particular test or training protocol” (Berme, Col. 27-28, ll. 60-18). While this embodiment shows a screen rather than an ocular headset, Berme indicates either form of subject visual display may be used, and thus teaches providing instructional information via a headset display (Berme, Col. 44, ll. 31-64). This demonstrates that Berme provides the missing functionality of a headset display for presenting instructions or visual input to the subject.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme in view of Berme to include a visual display in the headset for presenting instructions responsive to adjustments of the rotatable platform. Waddington already required subjects to follow experimenter-provided instructions in synchrony with platform adjustments, and Berme provides a known device for delivering such instructions visually via a headset.
The benefit of this modification would be to standardize and automate instruction delivery, reduce variability from experimenter-provided directions, and integrate instruction presentation into the same headset used for occlusion and eye tracking, thereby improving reliability and efficiency of the assessment.
Regarding claim 29, the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme does not teach that the visual occlusion headset is further configured with a display for presenting instructions to the user responsive to the adjustment made by the adjustable stopping mechanism. Rather it teaches a visual occlusion headset, as shown above in claim 27, but does not disclose a headset with a display for providing instructions to the user. Waddington does record responses (Waddington, p.9, Methods: “The experimenter changed the stop blocks between each movement, then recorded the subject's response after each movement pair”), which shows the paradigm requires subject feedback, but instructions are delivered manually by the experimenter rather than electronically.
Berme, however, teaches a head-mounted visual display device that can present visual content to the subject as part of a balance or training routine. For example, Berme discloses “a head-mounted visual display device” (Berme, Col. 4, ll. 33-36) and describes presenting stimuli and collecting responses in coordination with eye tracking. In addition, Berme further describes protocols where instructional information is presented on a subject display device: “the output screen 168 of the subject visual display device 107 may be divided into a first, inner screen portion 234, which comprises instructional information for a subject 204 performing a particular test or training protocol” (Berme, Col. 27-28, ll. 60-18). While this embodiment shows a screen rather than an ocular headset, Berme indicates either form of subject visual display may be used, and thus teaches providing instructional information via a headset display (Berme, Col. 44, ll. 31-64). This demonstrates that Berme provides the missing functionality of a headset display for presenting instructions or visual input to the subject.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme in view of Berme to include a visual display in the headset for presenting instructions responsive to adjustments of the rotatable platform. Waddington already required subjects to follow experimenter-provided instructions in synchrony with platform adjustments, and Berme provides a known device for delivering such instructions visually via a headset.
The benefit of this modification would be to standardize and automate instruction delivery, reduce variability from experimenter-provided directions, and integrate instruction presentation into the same headset used for occlusion and eye tracking, thereby improving reliability and efficiency of the assessment.
Regarding claim 31, the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme has already taught that the vestibular function test comprises presenting the user with a stimulus either through the headset or rotatable platform (as shown in claim 27: (Berme, Col. 4, ll. 33-42: "...to assess a response of the subject to the perturbed visual input”, showing that the stimulus can be through the headset), however, it does not teach that the portable base unit further comprises an inclinometer and/or accelerometer coupled to the rotatable platform for measuring an angle of incline of the rotatable platform; and wherein outputs of the inclinometer and/or accelerometer are utilised to determine a deviation of the user's head from true vertical. Berme teaches the integration of motion sensors in a head-mounted system to measure angular deviation. For example, Berme discloses “an eye movement tracking system… [and] a head movement tracking system, which is instrumented with one or more accelerometers, [that] could be operatively connected to the input/output (I/O) module” (Berme, Col. 20, ll. 37-47). This demonstrates the use of accelerometers for measuring angular movement of the head. While the reference places these sensors in the headset, it is clear that accelerometers and inclinometers were recognized for use in vestibular/balance testing environments to measure angular deviation.
Granata further teaches that an angle sensor is coupled with the platform: “an angle sensor that senses an angular position of the platform” (Granata, ¶[0033]). This shows that angle sensors were conventionally applied directly to rotatable platforms for capturing angular position.
Thus, combining Waddington’s platform with Berme’s accelerometer teaching and Granata’s direct angle sensor disclosure would have made it obvious to incorporate such sensors into Waddington’s device to achieve precise angular measurement of the platform itself.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme in view of Berme and Granata to couple an inclinometer or accelerometer to the rotatable platform to measure the angle of incline as a complementary means of determining the user’s head angle. Waddington already required angular discrimination of platform movement, Berme provides the known sensing technologies (accelerometers) to directly capture angular deviation of the head, and Granata further shows the incorporation of such sensors directly into the platform itself. Incorporating platform-mounted sensors into Waddington’s device would have been a straightforward design choice, allowing the system to compare or cross-verify the platform angle with the head angle measured by the headset sensors to ensure accurate determination of head deviation from vertical.
The benefit of this modification would be to provide redundant and confirmatory measurements, enable synchronization between platform motion and head response, and allow direct, quantitative measurement of angular incline. This improves accuracy, reproducibility, and diagnostic reliability of vestibular function assessments.
Regarding claim 34, the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme do not fully teach that the apparatus further comprises a device for recording a user response following an adjustment made by the adjustable stopping mechanism, the user response comprising an indication of the adjustment sensed by the user following a rotational adjustment made to the rotatable platform and wherein the user response is utilised to assess ankle movement discrimination of the user and wherein the device is either a handheld device operated by the user or a device incorporated into the visual occlusion device and is configured to sense the user response based on an eye movement made by the user. The combined art has already been shown to teach the somatosensory assessment paradigm (Waddington) together with head-mounted visual display and eye tracking capabilities (Berme). Waddington specifically shows that subject responses were collected after each platform adjustment, but these responses were recorded manually by the experimenter, not through an integrated device. Thus, while the combined art demonstrates that responses are required and assessed, it does not disclose the claimed feature of a handheld device or a headset-incorporated device configured to automatically record the responses or that the user response comprises an indication of the adjustment sensed by the user.
Berme teaches that the headset itself carries the sensing components (eye trackers) that capture user responses in the form of eye movement signals and transmit those signals externally for processing. For example, Berme discloses “an eye movement tracking device configured to track eye movement and/or eye position of the subject while the subject performs the balance test or training routine, the eye movement tracking device being configured to output one or more eye tracking signals to the one or more data processing devices; and the one or more data processing devices are further configured to utilize the eye tracking signals in order to assess a response of the subject to the perturbed visual input” (Berme, Col. 4, ll. 33-42). Although the processing is external, this disclosure shows that the headset-incorporated eye tracker functions as the device that records the user’s response by capturing and transmitting the eye movement signals. These eye movement signals are not merely generic data but are the direct physiological manifestation of the user perceiving and sensing the adjustment to the platform. In other words, the signals themselves constitute an objective record of the user’s sensed adjustment, thereby providing the claimed “indication of the adjustment sensed by the user.”
Lin further teaches that the computing device may be a variety of handheld units and may also be mounted to a headset: “computing device 102 may be a cellular mobile telephone (e.g., a smartphone), a still camera, a video camera, a computer (such as a desktop, notebook, tablet, or handheld computer), a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable computing device, or some other type of device equipped with at least some image capture and/or image processing capabilities” (Lin, ¶[0025]); and that computing device may be attached to the headworn goggles “The mounting clip 204 may comprise two components adjustably together via a tension member, such that the mounting clip 204 can receive computing devices 102” (Lin, FIG. 2; ¶[0036]). Lin further explains that the device can record ocular responses: “the camera may be configured to record a video of the eye of the subject, and for each frame of the video, a high contrast image of the eye may be generated and the pupil location may be approximated to thereby track the position of the eye” (Lin, ¶[0048]). These teachings show that handheld devices (e.g., smartphones) were known to serve as recording devices for vestibular responses and could be incorporated into a head-mounted unit.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme in view of Berme and Lin to include either a handheld device or an integrated headset device for recording user responses, with the headset device recording by means of its incorporated eye tracker or a mounted handheld computing device such as a smartphone. Waddington already required subjects to provide responses after each platform adjustment, Berme provides the sensing technology that captures those responses as adjustments sensed by the user, and Lin shows that handheld devices can both record vestibular responses and be mounted to ocular headsets. Incorporating these known features into Waddington’s platform would have been a straightforward substitution.
The benefit of this modification would be to synchronize user responses directly with platform adjustments, reduce latency and experimenter error, and improve system efficiency by consolidating sensing and recording in a single wearable or handheld device while leveraging readily available consumer hardware such as smartphones.
Regarding claim 47, the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme does not teach that the controller is further configured to receive data output by the inclinometer and/or accelerometer and record a time that the user is able to maintain their balance on the rotatable platform without exceeding a predefined angle of rotation during an assessment period, the data received and recorded by the controller for general vestibular response score.
As shown in claim 31 above, the combined art already teaches an apparatus including an inclinometer and/or accelerometer coupled to the rotatable platform for measuring an angle of incline and using the outputs to determine deviation of the user’s head from true vertical. However, the combined art does not teach that the controller is configured to record a duration of time that the user is able to maintain balance without exceeding a predefined angle of rotation, nor that such duration is recorded as a general vestibular response score.
Waddington teaches platform perturbation and measurement of discrimination tasks for ankle movement but does not record balance duration using inclinometer or accelerometer data.
Biodex discloses that its balance assessment system measures performance over time, stating that “Reports include... the percentage of time an athlete stays in a particular quadrant and then compares performance to normative data” (Biodex, p. 4, Sports Medicine/Orthopedic). This demonstrates that Biodex explicitly ties balance performance to the time a subject remains within angular boundaries (quadrants), directly aligning with recording how long balance is maintained within predefined angular thresholds.
Berme further teaches synchronizing motion platform displacement with recorded subject responses, including measurements of deviation and displacement velocities (Berme, Col. 36, ll. 32–51), which demonstrates the capability of linking sensor data to defined performance periods.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme in view of Biodex and Berme to configure the controller to record the time that the user maintains balance within a predefined angle of rotation during an assessment period, using inclinometer and/or accelerometer data, and to record that time as a general vestibular response score. Waddington already establishes the framework of ankle-axis discrimination testing, Biodex shows balance tests are conducted and scored over defined time intervals with stability thresholds, and Berme demonstrates synchronizing motion-based perturbations with measured responses. Incorporating these known features into Waddington’s apparatus would have been a straightforward combination. The benefit of this modification would be to provide a quantifiable vestibular response score that integrates time-based stability measures, thereby enhancing clinical assessment, improving objectivity of balance testing, and supporting standardized evaluation protocols.
Claims 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waddington et al. (Waddington, Gordon, and Roger Adams. “Discrimination of Active Plantarflexion and Inversion Movements after Ankle Injury.” Australian journal of physiotherapy 45.1 (1999): 7–13. Web.) hereto referred as Waddington, and further in view of Biodex (Biodex, Balance System SD, www.suessmed.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/brochure_balance-system-sd.pdf, revised 05/2019, accessed 9/24/2025), hereto referred as Biodex, and further in view of Granata et al. (US 20060030793 A1), hereto referred as Granata, and further in view of Berme et al. (US 10231662 B1), hereto referred as Berme, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 20160166193 A1), hereto referred as Lin.
Regarding claim 30, the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme does not fully disclose a device for recording a user response following an adjustment made by the adjustable stopping mechanism, the user response comprising an indication of the extent of the rotatable platform range of motion limited by the adjustment as perceived by the user following a rotational adjustment made to the rotatable platform and wherein the user response is utilised to assess ankle movement discrimination of the user and wherein the device is either a handheld device operated by the user or a device incorporated into the visual occlusion device and is configured to sense the user response based on an eye movement made by the user. The combined art has already been shown to teach the somatosensory assessment paradigm (Waddington) together with head-mounted visual display and eye tracking capabilities (Berme). Waddington specifically shows that subject responses were collected after each platform adjustment, but these responses were recorded manually by the experimenter, not through an integrated device. Thus, while the combined art demonstrates that responses are required and assessed, it does not disclose the claimed feature of a handheld device or a headset-incorporated device configured to automatically record the responses.
Berme teaches that the headset itself carries the sensing components (eye trackers) that capture user responses in the form of eye movement signals and transmit those signals externally for processing. For example, Berme discloses “an eye movement tracking device configured to track eye movement and/or eye position of the subject while the subject performs the balance test or training routine, the eye movement tracking device being configured to output one or more eye tracking signals to the one or more data processing devices; and the one or more data processing devices are further configured to utilize the eye tracking signals in order to assess a response of the subject to the perturbed visual input” (Berme, Col. 4, ll. 33-42). Although the processing is external, this disclosure shows that the headset-incorporated eye tracker functions as the device that records the user’s response by capturing and transmitting the eye movement signals.
Lin further teaches that the computing device may be a variety of handheld units and may also be mounted to a headset: “computing device 102 may be a cellular mobile telephone (e.g., a smartphone), a still camera, a video camera, a computer (such as a desktop, notebook, tablet, or handheld computer), a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable computing device, or some other type of device equipped with at least some image capture and/or image processing capabilities” (Lin, ¶[0025]); and that computing device may be attached to the headworn goggles “The mounting clip 204 may comprise two components adjustably together via a tension member, such that the mounting clip 204 can receive computing devices 102” (Lin, FIG. 2; ¶[0036]). Lin further explains that the device can record ocular responses: “the camera may be configured to record a video of the eye of the subject, and for each frame of the video, a high contrast image of the eye may be generated and the pupil location may be approximated to thereby track the position of the eye” (Lin, ¶[0048]). These teachings show that handheld devices (e.g., smartphones) were known to serve as recording devices for vestibular responses and could be incorporated into a head-mounted unit.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, and Berme in view of Berme and Lin to include either a handheld device or an integrated headset device for recording user responses, with the headset device recording by means of its incorporated eye tracker or a mounted handheld computing device such as a smartphone. Waddington already required subjects to provide responses after each platform adjustment, Berme provides the sensing technology that captures those responses, and Lin shows that handheld devices can both record vestibular responses and be mounted to ocular headsets. Incorporating these known features into Waddington’s platform would have been a straightforward substitution.
The benefit of this modification would be to synchronize user responses directly with platform adjustments, reduce latency and experimenter error, and improve system efficiency by consolidating sensing and recording in a single wearable or handheld device while leveraging readily available consumer hardware such as smartphones.
Regarding claim 32, the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, Berme, and Lin partially discloses that the visual occlusion headset comprises a display for displaying instructions and/or feedback associated with the vestibular function test . As shown in claims 27-30 above, the combined art discloses a visual occlusion headset that a displays instructions, but it does not disclose feedback.
Berme discloses that its data processing device integrated with a head-mounted visual display can deliver both instructional information (as previously shown) and biofeedback to a subject. Specifically, Berme teaches that “the data acquisition/data processing device 104 is specially programmed so as to enable a system user (e.g., a clinician) to selectively choose customizable biofeedback options in the virtual reality scenarios” (Berme, Col. 64, ll. 23-42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, Berme, and Lin in view of Berme to configure the visual occlusion headset with a display for presenting instructions and/or feedback associated with the vestibular function test. Waddington already required instructions to subjects and verbal reporting in synchrony with platform adjustments, and Berme provides the known solution of delivering such instructions and feedback electronically through a headset display. The benefit of this modification would be to standardize and automate the delivery of instructions and feedback, ensure consistent timing with platform adjustments, and enhance user engagement and reliability of recorded responses by integrating feedback directly into the headset display.
Also regarding claim 32, the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, Berme, and Lin does not fully teach that the vestibular function test is associated with an adjustment made by the adjustable stopping mechanism. Rather, Waddington teaches discrete stop-limited angles via changeable stop blocks and runs tests after each change in stop setting: “Nine wooden stop blocks…” and “Manually interchanging the stop blocks… allowed nine different ranges of motion…”(Waddington, p. 8, Methods), and “The experimenter changed the stop blocks between each movement, then recorded the subject’s response after each movement pair” (Waddington, p. 9, Methods). However, Waddington limits this to somatosensory discrimination and does not disclose associating a vestibular function test with those stop changes.
Berme discloses that during balance test routines the system actively displaces/rotates the subject platform and assesses eye-tracked responses to the perturbations: “the one or more data processing devices further configured to selectively displace the force measurement assembly using the at least one actuator” (Berme, Col. 3, ll. 19-49) and “the eye movement tracking device outputs one or more eye tracking signals to the data acquisition/data processing device 104, and the data acquisition/data processing device 104 utilizes the eye tracking signals in order to assess a response of the subject 108 to the perturbed visual input”(Berme, Col. 44-45, ll. 65-22). In context, Berme’s disclosures establish that vestibular/balance testing is conducted in association with platform adjustments/perturbations while measuring eye-movement responses, directly providing the missing association between the test and the adjustment events. This teaching is relevant because it shows how a vestibular test is synchronized with controlled platform changes, which can be implemented at discrete angles analogous to Waddington’s stop positions.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined Waddington, Biodex, Granata, Berme, and Lin in view of Berme to associate the vestibular function test with adjustments made by the adjustable stopping mechanism. Both Waddington and Berme involve controlled angular changes of a platform; integrating Berme’s vestibular assessments with Waddington’s discrete stop adjustments would be a straightforward, predictable variation. The feasibility is clear because both systems rely on controlled changes to platform position to elicit user responses, and integrating Berme’s vestibular paradigm into Waddington’s stop adjustments would not require undue experimentation. The motivation would be to measure vestibular responses at different maximal ankle angles, thereby standardizing the stimulus conditions. The benefit would be a singl