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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 10, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to amendments, filed March 10, 2026, claims 1, 6, 8, and 13-15 have been amended. Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed March 10, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered. While the original 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn, there are new rejections under 35 USC 112(b) in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the combinations of Evin (US 20140371633 A1), Gross (US 20130293844 A1), Hara (US 20190247719 A1), Grzesiak (US 20200233487 A1), and Khaderi (US 10209773 B2).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“moving object display unit” in claims 8, 9, and 12; “object position acquisition unit” in claims 1, 8, 13, and 14; “visual recognition determination unit” in claims 5, 6, 7, 9, and 12; “response input unit” in claims 1, 9, 13, 14; and “three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit” in claims 1, 2, 5, and 9-14
[0036] “With the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system 100, modules forming functional blocks including a moving object display unit 101a, an object position acquisition unit 101b, a visual recognition determination unit 101c, a response input unit 101d, and a three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit 101e are implemented by execution, by the processor 101, of the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation program 103a stored in the memory 103”.
“eyeball state sensing unit” in claims 5 and 7
[0035] “The line-of-sight/pupil sensor 105 is a sensor that is disposed facing the measurement target person, above the electronic display 104, for example, and that detects a line-of-sight direction of the left/right eye and a size of a pupil, and is a component that functions as an eyeball state sensing unit.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-3 and 5-15 are 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.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, and 12 recite the limitation "the object,” however there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner acknowledges claim 1 recites “the operation target object,” however, based on the context of the limitations it is unclear whether and would not make sense for “the operation target object” and “the object” to be the same. For example, if the two are interchangeable, the claim 3 limitation “[smallest/average/difference between a greatest and smallest] distance between the positions of the [operation target] object and the positions that are identified based on the response” would be contradictory to claim 1 limitation “the position of the operation target object as an active response of the measurement target person taken.” By virtue of dependency, claim 11 is also rejected. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “the object” to be “the target.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Evin (US 20140371633 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Evin teaches a three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system for evaluating a three-dimensional cognitive ability based on a response of a measurement target person to a moving operation target object ([0016] “a system for evaluating a user during a virtual-reality rehabilitation exercise;” Fig. 1, method 10; Fig. 3; Fig. 4), the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system comprising:
a processor; and a memory storing a program that, when executed by the processor (Fig. 3, processing unit/CPU 42, storing unit 44),
causes the processor to configure an object position acquisition unit (Fig. 3, communication unit, CPU 42; Fig. 4, 3D tracking module 62, simulation generation module 64) configured to acquire information about a position of the operation target object ([0046] “The first step 12 of the method comprises receiving a position of the user's hand within a three-dimensional (3D) space from a motion tracking unit or motion sensing device. The position of the hand is received substantially continuously during the execution of the rehabilitation exercise by the user.” [0047] “At step 14, a simulation comprising an interactive environment formed of a background scene and a virtual representation of the hand is generated. … The position of the virtual representation of the hand within the background scene is set as a function of the received hand position, i.e. the position of the hand within the 3D space.”),
the information enabling identification of a distance between the operation target object and the measurement target person, the operation target object being moved from a departure position toward a predetermined target position by an operation by the measurement target person, the predetermined target position being a center position of a target ([0067] “In one embodiment, the activity-specific data comprise the release and/or grasp accuracy. For example, the release accuracy may correspond to the distance between the center of a target mark on which the user has to release a virtual ball and the actual point at which the user released the virtual ball.”);
a response input unit (simulation generation module 64) configured to receive an input of the position of the operation target object as an active response of the measurement target person taken in response to a recognized position of the operation target object that is recognized by the measurement target person ([0074] “It should be understood that the position of the hand within the 3D space is transmitted to the simulation generation module 64 substantially continuously and the simulation generation module 64 generates the simulation in substantially real-time so that any change in the position of the hand within the 3D space is reflected in the position of the virtual representation of the hand within the background scene in substantially real-time.”); and
a three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit (clinical data/activity-specific data generation module 68) configured to evaluate the three-dimensional cognitive ability of the measurement target person based on a measured spatial distance between the position of the operation target object and the target position (Fig. 1, method 10; [0061] “At step 22, activity-specific data are generated and then output at step 24. The activity-specific data measure the performance of the user during the simulation, i.e. they provide the user with at least one score for the rehabilitation exercise. The activity-specific data are generated from the interaction of the user with the simulation. In one embodiment, at least some activity-specific data may be extracted from the simulation and used by a medical professional to evaluate the user performance during the execution during the rehabilitation exercise. In the same or another embodiment, at least some activity-specific data may also be extracted from the position data provided by the motion tracking unit.” [0067] “In one embodiment, the activity-specific data comprise the release and/or grasp accuracy. For example, the release accuracy may correspond to the distance between the center of a target mark on which the user has to release a virtual ball and the actual point at which the user released the virtual ball. In one embodiment, the grasp accuracy comprises two measurements. The first measurement consists in the distance between the 3D position of the user's virtual hand at the point at which the user closes grasp, and the ideal 3D position of the user's hand should be at in order to correctly grasp on object. The smaller the distance, the better the grasp accuracy.”).
Regarding claim 2, Evin teaches the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit evaluates the three-dimensional cognitive ability of the measurement target person based on a positional correspondence relationship between positions of the object that are acquired and positions that are identified based on the response, within a predetermined range of time (Fig. 1, method 10; [0061] “At step 22, activity-specific data are generated and then output at step 24. The activity-specific data measure the performance of the user during the simulation, i.e. they provide the user with at least one score for the rehabilitation exercise. The activity-specific data are generated from the interaction of the user with the simulation.” [0067] “In one embodiment, the activity-specific data comprise the release and/or grasp accuracy. For example, the release accuracy may correspond to the distance between the center of a target mark on which the user has to release a virtual ball and the actual point at which the user released the virtual ball. In one embodiment, the grasp accuracy comprises two measurements. The first measurement consists in the distance between the 3D position of the user's virtual hand at the point at which the user closes grasp, and the ideal 3D position of the user's hand should be at in order to correctly grasp on object. The smaller the distance, the better the grasp accuracy.”).
Regarding claim 3, Evin teaches the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system according to claim 2, wherein the positional correspondence relationship includes at least one of a smallest distance between the positions of the object and the positions that are identified based on the response ([0067] “In one embodiment, the activity-specific data comprise the release and/or grasp accuracy. For example, the release accuracy may correspond to the distance between the center of a target mark on which the user has to release a virtual ball and the actual point at which the user released the virtual ball. In one embodiment, the grasp accuracy comprises two measurements. The first measurement consists in the distance between the 3D position of the user's virtual hand at the point at which the user closes grasp, and the ideal 3D position of the user's hand should be at in order to correctly grasp on object. The smaller the distance, the better the grasp accuracy.”),
an average distance between the positions of the object and the positions that are identified based on the response, and a difference between a greatest distance and the smallest distance between the positions of the object and the positions that are identified based on the response ([0125] “The movement precision represents the patient's deviation from a target movement axis during the execution of the elementary movement. A movement precision may be expressed as an angle, or a unit of distance. A movement precision may be determined by measuring an average angle or path deviance from a targeted axis, measuring the maximum angle or path deviance from a targeted axis, measuring the time spent outside an acceptable precision range, etc.”).
Regarding claim 13, Evin teaches a three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation apparatus for evaluating a three-dimensional cognitive ability based on a response of a measurement target person to a moving operation target object ([0016] “a system for evaluating a user during a virtual-reality rehabilitation exercise;” Fig. 1, method 10; Fig. 3; Fig. 4), the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation apparatus comprising:
a processor; and a memory storing a program that, when executed by the processor (Fig. 3, processing unit/CPU 42, storing unit 44),
causes the processor to configure an object position acquisition unit (Fig. 3, communication unit, CPU 42; Fig. 4, 3D tracking module 62, simulation generation module 64) configured to acquire information about a position of the operation target object ([0046] “The first step 12 of the method comprises receiving a position of the user's hand within a three-dimensional (3D) space from a motion tracking unit or motion sensing device. The position of the hand is received substantially continuously during the execution of the rehabilitation exercise by the user.” [0047] “At step 14, a simulation comprising an interactive environment formed of a background scene and a virtual representation of the hand is generated. … The position of the virtual representation of the hand within the background scene is set as a function of the received hand position, i.e. the position of the hand within the 3D space.”),
the information enabling identification of a distance between the operation target object and the measurement target person, the operation target object being moved from a departure position toward a predetermined target position by an operation by the measurement target person, the predetermined target position being a center position of a target ([0067] “In one embodiment, the activity-specific data comprise the release and/or grasp accuracy. For example, the release accuracy may correspond to the distance between the center of a target mark on which the user has to release a virtual ball and the actual point at which the user released the virtual ball.”);
a response input unit (simulation generation module 64) configured to receive an input of the position of the operation target object as an active response of the measurement target person taken in response to a recognized position of the operation target object that is recognized by the measurement target person ([0074] “It should be understood that the position of the hand within the 3D space is transmitted to the simulation generation module 64 substantially continuously and the simulation generation module 64 generates the simulation in substantially real-time so that any change in the position of the hand within the 3D space is reflected in the position of the virtual representation of the hand within the background scene in substantially real-time.”); and
a three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit (clinical data/activity-specific data generation module 68) configured to evaluate the three-dimensional cognitive ability of the measurement target person based on a measured spatial distance between the position of the operation target object and the target position (Fig. 1, method 10; [0061] “At step 22, activity-specific data are generated and then output at step 24. The activity-specific data measure the performance of the user during the simulation, i.e. they provide the user with at least one score for the rehabilitation exercise. The activity-specific data are generated from the interaction of the user with the simulation. In one embodiment, at least some activity-specific data may be extracted from the simulation and used by a medical professional to evaluate the user performance during the execution during the rehabilitation exercise. In the same or another embodiment, at least some activity-specific data may also be extracted from the position data provided by the motion tracking unit.” [0067] “In one embodiment, the activity-specific data comprise the release and/or grasp accuracy. For example, the release accuracy may correspond to the distance between the center of a target mark on which the user has to release a virtual ball and the actual point at which the user released the virtual ball. In one embodiment, the grasp accuracy comprises two measurements. The first measurement consists in the distance between the 3D position of the user's virtual hand at the point at which the user closes grasp, and the ideal 3D position of the user's hand should be at in order to correctly grasp on object. The smaller the distance, the better the grasp accuracy.”),
the object position acquisition unit, the response input unit, and the three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit being included in one housing (Fig. 3, user machine 40; [0069] “The machine 40 is provided with a processing unit 42 such as a Central Processing Unit (CPU) connected to a storing unit 44. The storing unit 44 may be any adequate device for storing digital data, such as a hard drive, a flash memory, and the like. The storing unit 44 may be integrated into the machine 40 or external to the machine 40. The processing unit 42 is configured for performing the steps of the method 10. The machine 40 further comprises a communication unit 46 connectable to a motion tracking unit 48 for receiving the position of the hand within the 3D space, and a display unit 50.”).
Regarding claim 14, Evin teaches three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation program being executed by a computer to cause the computer to implement a three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system for evaluating a three-dimensional cognitive ability based on a response of a measurement target person to a moving operation target object ([0016] “a system for evaluating a user during a virtual-reality rehabilitation exercise;” Fig. 1, method 10; Fig. 3; Fig. 4),
wherein the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system includes an object position acquisition unit (Fig. 3, communication unit, CPU 42; Fig. 4, 3D tracking module 62, simulation generation module 64) configured to acquire information about a position of the operation target object ([0046] “The first step 12 of the method comprises receiving a position of the user's hand within a three-dimensional (3D) space from a motion tracking unit or motion sensing device. The position of the hand is received substantially continuously during the execution of the rehabilitation exercise by the user.” [0047] “At step 14, a simulation comprising an interactive environment formed of a background scene and a virtual representation of the hand is generated. … The position of the virtual representation of the hand within the background scene is set as a function of the received hand position, i.e. the position of the hand within the 3D space.”),
the information enabling identification of a distance between the operation target object and the measurement target person, the operation target object being moved from a departure position toward a predetermined target position by an operation by the measurement target person, the predetermined target position being a center position of target ([0067] “In one embodiment, the activity-specific data comprise the release and/or grasp accuracy. For example, the release accuracy may correspond to the distance between the center of a target mark on which the user has to release a virtual ball and the actual point at which the user released the virtual ball.”);
a response input unit (simulation generation module 64) configured to receive an input of the position of the operation target object as an active response of the measurement target person taken in response to a recognized position of the operation target object that is recognized by the measurement target person ([0074] “It should be understood that the position of the hand within the 3D space is transmitted to the simulation generation module 64 substantially continuously and the simulation generation module 64 generates the simulation in substantially real-time so that any change in the position of the hand within the 3D space is reflected in the position of the virtual representation of the hand within the background scene in substantially real-time.”); and
a three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit (clinical data/activity-specific data generation module 68) configured to evaluate the three-dimensional cognitive ability of the measurement target person based on a measured spatial distance between the position of the operation target object and the target position (Fig. 1, method 10; [0061] “At step 22, activity-specific data are generated and then output at step 24. The activity-specific data measure the performance of the user during the simulation, i.e. they provide the user with at least one score for the rehabilitation exercise. The activity-specific data are generated from the interaction of the user with the simulation. In one embodiment, at least some activity-specific data may be extracted from the simulation and used by a medical professional to evaluate the user performance during the execution during the rehabilitation exercise. In the same or another embodiment, at least some activity-specific data may also be extracted from the position data provided by the motion tracking unit.” [0067] “In one embodiment, the activity-specific data comprise the release and/or grasp accuracy. For example, the release accuracy may correspond to the distance between the center of a target mark on which the user has to release a virtual ball and the actual point at which the user released the virtual ball. In one embodiment, the grasp accuracy comprises two measurements. The first measurement consists in the distance between the 3D position of the user's virtual hand at the point at which the user closes grasp, and the ideal 3D position of the user's hand should be at in order to correctly grasp on object. The smaller the distance, the better the grasp accuracy.”).
Regarding claim 15, Evin teaches a three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation method for evaluating a three-dimensional cognitive ability based on a response of a measurement target person to a moving operation target object ([0016] “a system for evaluating a user during a virtual-reality rehabilitation exercise;” Fig. 1, method 10), the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation method comprising:
an object position acquisition step of acquiring information about a position of the operation target object ([0046] “The first step 12 of the method comprises receiving a position of the user's hand within a three-dimensional (3D) space from a motion tracking unit or motion sensing device. The position of the hand is received substantially continuously during the execution of the rehabilitation exercise by the user.” [0047] “At step 14, a simulation comprising an interactive environment formed of a background scene and a virtual representation of the hand is generated. … The position of the virtual representation of the hand within the background scene is set as a function of the received hand position, i.e. the position of the hand within the 3D space.”),,
the information enabling identification of a distance between the operation target object and the measurement target person, the operation target object being moved from a departure position toward a predetermined target position by an operation by the measurement target person, the predetermined target position being a center position of a target ([0067] “In one embodiment, the activity-specific data comprise the release and/or grasp accuracy. For example, the release accuracy may correspond to the distance between the center of a target mark on which the user has to release a virtual ball and the actual point at which the user released the virtual ball.”);
a response input step of receiving an input of the position of the operation target object as an active response of the measurement target person taken in response to a recognized position of the operation target object that is recognized by the measurement target person ([0074] “It should be understood that the position of the hand within the 3D space is transmitted to the simulation generation module 64 substantially continuously and the simulation generation module 64 generates the simulation in substantially real-time so that any change in the position of the hand within the 3D space is reflected in the position of the virtual representation of the hand within the background scene in substantially real-time.” Method 10, steps 18 and 20); and
a three-dimensional cognitive ability determination step of evaluating the three-dimensional cognitive ability of the measurement target person based on a measured spatial distance between the position of the operation target object and the target position ([0061] “At step 22, activity-specific data are generated and then output at step 24. The activity-specific data measure the performance of the user during the simulation, i.e. they provide the user with at least one score for the rehabilitation exercise. The activity-specific data are generated from the interaction of the user with the simulation. In one embodiment, at least some activity-specific data may be extracted from the simulation and used by a medical professional to evaluate the user performance during the execution during the rehabilitation exercise. In the same or another embodiment, at least some activity-specific data may also be extracted from the position data provided by the motion tracking unit.” [0067] “In one embodiment, the activity-specific data comprise the release and/or grasp accuracy. For example, the release accuracy may correspond to the distance between the center of a target mark on which the user has to release a virtual ball and the actual point at which the user released the virtual ball. In one embodiment, the grasp accuracy comprises two measurements. The first measurement consists in the distance between the 3D position of the user's virtual hand at the point at which the user closes grasp, and the ideal 3D position of the user's hand should be at in order to correctly grasp on object. The smaller the distance, the better the grasp accuracy.”).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evin (US 20140371633 A1) in view of Gross (US 20130293844 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Evin teaches the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor (Fig. 3, processing unit/CPU 42, storing unit 44). Evin fails to disclose an eyeball state sensing unit configured to sense line-of-sight directions. Gross teaches scoring the tracking of the individual's eye or eyes by comparing data to a visual cue.
Gross discloses to further configure:
an eyeball state sensing unit configured to sense line-of-sight directions of both eyes of the measurement target person (Gross: [0040] “In one embodiment, network resources 112 may include any type of device configured to collect and send useful information to eye evaluation system 110 for tracking and scoring eye movement. For example, network resources 112 may include one or more of: wearable cameras 104 and/or remote cameras 106, one or more sensors, such as a heat sensing device, a GPS device, an RFID device, or any other sensors that aid in the detection of human eyes, the location and/or orientation of the human eyes, and/or the location and/or orientation of the wearable cameras 104 and/or remote cameras 106.”);
and a visual recognition determination unit configured to determine whether the object is visually and spatially recognized by the measurement target person, by determining whether the line-of-sight directions correctly match the position of the object that is moving (Gross: [0056] “Method 300 may also include identifying visual cues at biomechanical and temporal locations (step 308). A visual cue may be a specific visual location at a point in time during a task where a person may stabilize their vision in order to prepare for an upcoming event… Moreover, it will be appreciated that certain cues may move with time, and so a location where the participant should be looking may also move with the cue;” [0149] “Cue Identification Score”),
wherein the three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit evaluates the three-dimensional cognitive ability of the measurement target person by determining, in a case where visual and spatial recognition of the object by the measurement target person is determined by the visual recognition determination unit, whether the response that is input correctly matches the position of the object that is acquired (Gross: [0058] “Method 300 may also include determining a target range for each cue (step 312). For example, target ranges may define a distance away from a cue within which the individual should ideally look. In one embodiment, target ranges for ideal eye locations may be collected from a variety of eye tracking or similar eye location data collection devices at various temporal phases with a static image. In some embodiments, a target range may be relatively static (e.g., look within 50 mm of the center of the goalpost), whereas in other embodiments, a target range may expand or narrow with time. In one embodiment, various ranges of temporal phases may be used to score a level of proficiency in the specific skill at the specific temporal phase. For each important temporal phase, various target ranges may be created to score individuals based on skill level, i.e. beginner through elite levels. For example, a target range for an expert may be narrower than a target range for a beginner.” [0149] “Cue Identification Score”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Evin to include an eyeball state sensing unit configured to sense line-of-sight directions as disclosed in Gross track and score human eye movement to better recommend tasks to improve motor and cognitive skills based on eye movement (Gross [0002]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Evin/Gross discloses the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system according to claim 5,
wherein the three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit acquires three response parameters including a visual recognition start time from a movement start time of the object to when spatial recognition of the object by the measurement target person is determined (Gross: [0117] “a reaction time score may evaluate the interval of time between the onset of a signal (stimulus and/or visual cue) and the initiation of a response (verbal and/or motor) ... Responses may be but are not limited to motoric and/or verbal responses and/or eye movement. In one embodiment, reaction time may be calculated from a "Go Signal" zero time to initiation of a response, including premotor and motor components, to any number of stimuli/situations.” [0058] “a target range may be relatively static (e.g., look within 50 mm of the center of the goalpost);” Evin: [0171] “The cognition characteristic comprises a reaction time which is defined as the amount of time it took for the patient to perform a correct movement in reaction to a certain reference object provided in the simulation.”),
a smallest distance between a predetermined portion related to a predetermined part of a body and the object (Evin: [0067] “the release accuracy may correspond to the distance between the center of a target mark on which the user has to release a virtual ball and the actual point at which the user released the virtual ball. In one embodiment, the grasp accuracy comprises two measurements. The first measurement consists in the distance between the 3D position of the user's virtual hand at the point at which the user closes grasp, and the ideal 3D position of the user's hand should be at in order to correctly grasp on object. The smaller the distance, the better the grasp accuracy.”),
and a response time from the movement start time of the object to when a distance between the predetermined portion related to the predetermined part of the body and the object reaches the smallest distance (Gross: [0115] “a response time score may evaluate an interval of time involving both reaction time and movement time, i.e., the time from the onset of a stimulus (e.g. gunshot) to the completion of the movement e.g. crossing the start or finish line. Responses may be but are not limited to motoric and/or verbal responses and/or eye movement. Response time may be defined as follows: response time score=reaction time+movement time.” Evin: [0062] “In one embodiment, the activity-specific data comprise the speed of movement, which is determined from the time taken by the user to move his hand between two reference points and the distance between the two reference points.” [0171] “The cognition characteristic comprises a reaction time which is defined as the amount of time it took for the patient to perform a correct movement in reaction to a certain reference object provided in the simulation.”),
and evaluates the three-dimensional cognitive ability of the measurement target person based on the response parameters (Gross: [0169] “an individual score may be calculated for each metric of importance for predicting potential for this task. For example, the reaction time score may be found to be 90%, the decision making score may be found to be 95%, and the cue identification score may be found to be 98%. Each component score may then be multiplied by the weight assigned above to that component. For example, if a user received a 90 percent as a reaction time score, which may have been weighted as 40 percent of the total grade, the method may include multiplying 0.90 by 0.40 to obtain 0.36, or 36 percent. This may be repeated for any other scores determined as being correlated to strong future performance in a particular task. Finally, a total weighted percentage may be calculated by adding the percentages for each category derived from the weighting. Thus, if the user received a 36 percent weighted reaction time score, a 38 percent weighted decision making score, and a 19.6 percent weighted cue identification score, then 36, 38, and 19.6 may be summed to obtain a weighted average of 93.6 percent.” [0117] “a reaction time score;” [0115] “a response time score;” [0058] “a target range may be relatively static (e.g., look within 50 mm of the center of the goalpost);” Evin: [0172] “The evaluation further calculates the speed of movement of the hand while the user executes each elementary movement, … The evaluation module 204 further receives simulation data from the simulation generator 202, and determines the movement precision and reaction time from the received simulation data.” [0061] “At step 22, activity-specific data are generated and then output at step 24. The activity-specific data measure the performance of the user during the simulation, i.e. they provide the user with at least one score for the rehabilitation exercise.”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Evin/Gross discloses the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system according to claim 10, wherein the three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit calculates scores based on numerical values of the response parameters, and evaluates the three-dimensional cognitive ability of the measurement target person based on a total of the scores that are multiplied by respective predetermined weights (Gross: [0169] “an individual score may be calculated for each metric of importance for predicting potential for this task. For example, the reaction time score may be found to be 90%, the decision making score may be found to be 95%, and the cue identification score may be found to be 98%. Each component score may then be multiplied by the weight assigned above to that component. For example, if a user received a 90 percent as a reaction time score, which may have been weighted as 40 percent of the total grade, the method may include multiplying 0.90 by 0.40 to obtain 0.36, or 36 percent. This may be repeated for any other scores determined as being correlated to strong future performance in a particular task. Finally, a total weighted percentage may be calculated by adding the percentages for each category derived from the weighting. Thus, if the user received a 36 percent weighted reaction time score, a 38 percent weighted decision making score, and a 19.6 percent weighted cue identification score, then 36, 38, and 19.6 may be summed to obtain a weighted average of 93.6 percent.” [0117] “a reaction time score;” [0115] “a response time score;” [0058] “a target range may be relatively static (e.g., look within 50 mm of the center of the goalpost);” Evin: [0172] “The evaluation further calculates the speed of movement … determines the movement precision and reaction time from the received simulation data”).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evin (US 20140371633 A1) in view of Gross (US 20130293844 A1), and in further view of Hara (US 20190247719 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Evin/Gross discloses the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system according to claim 5,
wherein the operation target object is provided in virtual reality, including an electronic display for displaying a moving image in the virtual reality (Evin: [0047] “At step 14, a simulation comprising an interactive environment formed of a background scene and a virtual representation of the hand is generated. … The position of the virtual representation of the hand within the background scene is set as a function of the received hand position, i.e. the position of the hand within the 3D space.” [0069] “The simulation is sent to the display unit 50 via the communication unit 48 to be displayed to the user in substantially real-time.”),
and a moving object display unit configured to cause the electronic display to display a moving image in which the object seen from a predetermined point of view in the virtual reality moves from a movement start position to a movement end position along a predetermined movement route in a direction of approaching the predetermined point of view, and the object position acquisition unit acquires the position of the object in the virtual reality displayed by the moving object display unit (Evin: [0198] “During the simulation, the task of the patient consists in controlling the platforms 250 and 252…. The user can then catch the cubic object 254 that falls from the top. The user cannot catch the cubic object 254 if his two hands are not brought together. Once caught, the user has to move the cubic object 254 on top of the basket 256 while maintaining his hands together, and release the cubic object 254 in the basket 256 by opening his hands apart.” Fig. 12; communication unit, CPU 42, simulation generation module 64 ).
However, the combination of Evin/Gross fails to disclose a virtual reality headset.
Hara teaches rehabilitation assistance systems and methods that evaluate user ability by comparing the first rehabilitation action and a target position represented by the target image in a three-dimensional virtual space. Hara discloses the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system further includes a virtual reality headset ([0078] “as shown in FIG. 4, the display controller 212 displays an object 411 superimposed on the background image 313 in screens 401 to 403 of the head mounted display 233.” [0079] “the evaluator 213 decides, by comparing the positions in a three-dimensional virtual space”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Evin/Gross to include a virtual reality headset as disclosed in Hara to update background images and detect rehabilitation action depending on the position and orientation of the head mounted display, resulting in a more immersive and entertaining experience for the user while obtaining more rehabilitation data (Hara [0077]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Evin/Gross/Hara discloses the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system according to claim 8, wherein the response input unit continuously identifies a position of a predetermined part of a body of the measurement target person based on a signal from a sensor attached to the predetermined part of the body, where the position of the predetermined part of the body is input as the response (Evin: [0059] “the position of the hand within the 3D space is received substantially continuously during the simulation, i.e. during the execution of the rehabilitation exercise by the user. For example, the motion tracking unit may send continuously the position of the user's hand within the 3D space.”),
the moving object display unit further causes an image of at least a part of the predetermined part of the body of the measurement target person to be displayed in the virtual reality on the electronic display, based on the position of the predetermined part of the body that is identified (Evin: [0057] “the user follows the instructions and sees in substantially real-time the virtual representation of his hand within the background scene following the same movement as that of his hand in the 3D space.” Fig. 2a-c), and
the three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit determines correct matching of the response in a case where a distance between a predetermined portion related to the predetermined part of the body and the object falls to or below a predetermined distance in a case where spatial recognition of the object by the measurement target person is determined by the visual recognition determination unit (Gross: [0056] “Method 300 may also include identifying visual cues at biomechanical and temporal locations (step 308). [0058] “a target range may be relatively static (e.g., look within 50 mm of the center of the goalpost), whereas in other embodiments, a target range may expand or narrow with time.” Evin: [0067] “The first measurement consists in the distance between the 3D position of the user's virtual hand at the point at which the user closes grasp, and the ideal 3D position of the user's hand should be at in order to correctly grasp on object. The smaller the distance, the better the grasp accuracy.” [0125] “A movement precision may be expressed as an angle, or a unit of distance. A movement precision may be determined by measuring an average angle or path deviance from a targeted axis, measuring the maximum angle or path deviance from a targeted axis, measuring the time spent outside an acceptable precision range, etc.” [0126] “The movement consistency over time may be determined by comparing the precision value of a movement of the first movement repetition (or first set of repetitions) with the precision value from the last movement repetition (or last set of repetitions). Based on this, the percentage of increase of movement deviation can be calculated.”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Evin/Gross/Hara discloses the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system according to claim 8,
wherein movement of the object by the moving object display unit, determination by the visual recognition determination unit of whether the object is visually and spatially recognized by the measurement target person (Gross: [0056] “Method 300 may also include identifying visual cues at biomechanical and temporal locations (step 308). [0058] “a target range may be relatively static (e.g., look within 50 mm of the center of the goalpost), whereas in other embodiments, a target range may expand or narrow with time.” Figs. 3 and 4), and
evaluation of the three-dimensional cognitive ability by the three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit are repeated a predetermined number of times of measurement, and the three-dimensional cognitive ability determination unit further outputs a number of times when the response is determined to correctly match the position of the object (Gross: [0111] “For instance, during the presentation of skill 1, the scan path may be cue A to cue B to cue A. In the presentation of skill 2, which is skill 1 repeated, if the scan path remains the same, i.e., cue A to cue B to cue A, then the visual routine score would be high (a desired result assuming the cues are accurate for the task). However, if the visual scan path changes in presentation of skill 2 (e.g. cue A to cue D to cue A) then a lower score may be assigned due to the deviation in scan path from the presentation of skill 1 to skill 2. The visual routine score may or may not be represented as a percentage and/or as a measure on a scale from high to low. Frequency of the routine may or may not be considered as a metric to determine results and/or score.” Evin: [0126] “Examples of adequate endurance characteristics comprise the movement consistency over time, compensation patterns over time, and the like. The movement consistency over time can be calculated when elementary movements are repeated over an activity, and is defined as the amount of movement deviation increase over repetitions. The movement consistency over time may be determined by comparing the precision value of a movement of the first movement repetition (or first set of repetitions) with the precision value from the last movement repetition (or last set of repetitions). Based on this, the percentage of increase of movement deviation can be calculated.”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evin (US 20140371633 A1) in view of Gross (US 20130293844 A1), and in further view of Grzesiak (US 20200233487 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Evin/Gross discloses the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system according to claim 5, wherein, in a case where the line-of-sight directions of both eyes are each determined to coincide with the position of the operation target object (Gross: [0040] “detection of human eyes, the location and/or orientation of the human eyes;” [0058] “a target range may be relatively static (e.g., look within 50 mm of the center of the goalpost), whereas in other embodiments, a target range may expand or narrow with time”). However, the combination of Evin /Gross fails to disclose a time threshold for line of sight coinciding with the operation target object.
Grzesiak teaches a method and an electronic device for controlling an object displayed on a device through a voice, an eye gaze, or a gesture in a wireless communication system. Grzesiak discloses for a predetermined period of time or longer, the visual recognition determination unit determines that the object is visually recognized by the measurement target person ([0085] “In operation 503, the electronic device identifies whether an eye gaze at an object is maintained for a predetermined time or longer. The electronic device tracks an eye gaze of the user through a camera and identifies whether the eye gaze at a specific object is maintained for a predetermined time or longer, in other words, the time for which the eye gaze at the specific object is maintained is larger than a threshold value according to the tracking result. Whether the eye gaze is maintained may be determined based on the entire surface of the object or based on a partial area on the object. When the eye gaze at the object is maintained for a predetermined time or longer, one point on the surface of the corresponding object or inside the corresponding object or one nearby point may be determined as an anchor point.” [0068] “The anchor point is an object in a virtual world or a real world displayed on the electronic device or one point on an object existing in a real world and is used to designate a target, to which a function to be performed later is applied, that is, a target to be controlled in the control mode.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Evin/Gross to include a threshold amount of time the line-of-sight must be directed at an object to be deem recognized as disclosed in Grzesiak to designate targets to which a function to be performed may later be applied (Grzesiak [0068]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evin (US 20140371633 A1) in view of Gross (US 20130293844 A1), and in further view of Khaderi (US 10209773 B2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Evin/Gross discloses the three-dimensional cognitive ability evaluation system according to claim 5, wherein the eyeball state sensing unit (Gross: [0040] “wearable cameras 104 and/or remote cameras 106, one or more sensors, such as a heat sensing device, a GPS device, an RFID device, or any other sensors that aid in the detection of human eyes, the location and/or orientation of the human eyes, and/or the location and/or orientation of the wearable cameras 104 and/or remote cameras 106”). However, the combination of Evin/Gross fails to disclose sensing the pupil diameters.
Khaderi teaches methods and systems for modifying Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, or Mixed Reality (VR/AR/MxR) based on a vision profile and a target application. Khaderi discloses further senses pupil diameters of both eyes of the measurement target person (Col 31, lines 56-59 “Due to differences in baseline pupil diameter, both among observers and due to ambient lighting and physiological state, pupil responses may generally be measured as proportions of change from baseline.”), and in a case of further determining that the pupil diameters of the both eyes are being reduced as the position of the object moves closer to predetermined point of view, the visual recognition determination unit determines that the object is visually and spatially recognized by the measurement target person (Col 31, line 59 - Col 32, line 3 “For example, the baseline pupil diameter might be the diameter at the moment of an external stimulus event (image appears), and the response is measured by the extent to which the pupil dilates or constricts during the 1 second after the stimulus event … In addition to responding to light, accommodation for distance and other spatial and motion cues, pupil diameter will often be modulated by cognitive load, certain imagery and reading. Pupil diameter may be modulated during or at the termination visual search.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Evin/Gross to include measuring pupil diameters as disclosed in Khaderi to identify how a subject responds to changes in distance and other spatial and motion cues (Khader Col 31, line 59 - Col 32, line 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLY HALPRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1520. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM ET.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DEVIN B HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights