DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 7-9 are newly added. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph rejection of claims 1-6 are withdrawn in view of the amendment to claims, 1, 2, 3, and 5 and the cancellation of claim 4.
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 5 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claim.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Further examination of the Reichow et al. reference has yielded teachings that disclose the newly amended limitations of claim 1 (see new rejection below for details).
The 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “attention level” in claim 1 was interpreted in view of [0018] in the specification which references the limitation as meaning the degree of ease for the testee to recognize the visual target.
The term “eccentricity” was interpreted in view of [0017] which indicates that eccentricity and visual angle are the same. While the phrase “visual angle” does have a specific meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art as the angle a viewed object subtends at the eye, usually stated in degrees of arc, the Office believes that this is different from how the inventor is used the phrase3. Visual angle is shown below as angle V (source Wikipedia):
PNG
media_image1.png
346
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conversely, eccentricity is known to those of ordinary skill in the art as the angular separation (also measured in degrees of visual angle) between where you are currently looking (fixation point) and where a specific stimulus appears in your visual field (https://open.lib.umn.edu/sensationandperception/chapter/eccentricity-draft/). For example, 0 degrees eccentricity means you are looking exactly at the center of your gaze whereas high eccentricity refers to an angle far out in your peripheral vision.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reichow et al. (cited, previously, US 7926943, US version of JP2013-510653 which is cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Reichow et al. disclose a vision testing device (Abstract – “Systems and methods may test and/or train the peripheral visual abilities of an individual.“) comprising:
a touch screen (105); and
a processor (190 and at least col. 4, lines 3-9) programmed to:
cause the touchscreen (105) to display a fixation target (110) at a fixed position on the touch screen during a period from beginning to end of a test (see at least col. 2, lines 36-47 which includes the following excerpt –“Referring now to FIG. 1, a system 100 for training and/or testing the peripheral visual abilities of an individual 150 is illustrated. System 100 may comprise a central display element 110 and a peripheral display element 120. Central display element 110 and peripheral display element 120 may comprise portions of a larger display device 105. In the example illustrated in FIG. 1, display device 105 may comprise a touch-sensitive monitor. As illustrated in the example of FIG. 1, individual 150 may register an input using display device 105 as a touch-sensitive input device for responding to peripheral visual indicia such as indicia 125 displayed in the peripheral display element 120. In the example illustrated in FIG. 1, central display element 110 displays a central visual indicia 115.”),
cause the touchscreen to sequentially display visual targets on the touch screen during the test period (col. 5, lines 18-38 – “A plurality of peripheral visual indicia may be displayed in peripheral display element 120. Each of the plurality of peripheral visual indicia may possess one or more traits, such as coloration as indicated by shading in the present example. In the example illustrated in FIG. 5, the plurality of peripheral visual indicia comprises a first peripheral visual indicia 521 and a second peripheral visual indicia 531 possessing a second coloration, a third peripheral visual indicia 523 and a fourth peripheral visual indicia 529 both possessing a third color, a fifth peripheral visual indicia 527 possessing yet a fourth color, and finally a matching peripheral visual indicia 525 that possesses the same trait, in this example a first coloration, as central visual indicia 515. As illustrated in the example of FIG. 5, individual 550 selects matching peripheral visual indicia 525 by contacting display device 105 at the position occupied by matching peripheral visual indicia 525. The plurality of peripheral visual indicia may be displayed commencing at different times and at a variety of locations on peripheral display element 120, but may also be displayed commencing and ending at the same times”),
vary an attention level of the visual targets depending on an eccentricity at which the visual targets are displayed relative to the fixation target (col. 4, lines 45-51 – “a first peripheral visual indicia 425 may possess a particular physical location on display device 105 relative to individual 150, in this instance to the right of individual 150, and may further possess a trait of color, as indicated by the shading of indicia 425 in FIG. 4” – the position relative to the individual on the screen is the eccentricity while the attention level here may include a trait of color; at col. 8, first paragraph, Reichow indicates that peripherical indicia displayed in a particular quadrant, which corresponds to a particular eccentricity, may have a set trait such as color or particular duration; col. 4, lines 46-55 – “For example, a first peripheral visual indicia 425 may possess a particular physical location on display device 105 relative to individual 150, in this instance to the right of individual 150, and may further possess a trait of color, as indicated by the shading of indicia 425 in FIG. 4. A second peripheral visual indicia 427 may possess differing traits from the first peripheral visual indicia 425, in the present example a different position on display device 105 relative to individual 150 and the absence of coloration” – in the cited section, a visual property such as color is set depending on the location; as noted elsewhere, other traits may be used such as duration;);
provide a test result based on whether a testee taps the visual targets (col. 2, line 65- col. 3, line 5 and Fig. 9, box 950); wherein varying the attention level comprises varying at least one of:
contrast of the visual targets (col. 8, line 15);
luminance of the visual targets;
size of the visual targets (fig. 2 and 3 show two different peripheral indicia – a football and baseball, both would be of differing size);
presentation time of the visual targets (col. 8, first paragraph referenced previously indicates that duration is a trait that can be used for peripheral indicia on the screen).
Regarding claim 2, Reichow et al. disclose the vision testing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further programmed to:
cause the touch screen to present the visual target in multiple rounds during the test period (this was covered above in the rejection of claim 1 where multiple targets may be displayed at different times);
cause the touch screen to present more than one (this was also covered above in the rejection of claim 1, see final quoted section of col. 5), and
determine a correct response when the testee taps all of the visual targets presented in a round (Fig. 9, box 950).
Claim 5 is the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for execution by processor to perform the functions of the device of claim 1. Reichow discloses a control unit with memory at least in claim 1 and at column 5, last paragraph for performing the functions of the device of claim 1. The specific instructions are disclosed as argued in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichow et al. (US 7926943) in view of Mandelstam-Manor et al. (US 2008/0079902, cited in the IDS, hereinafter referred to as M-M, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Reichow et al. do not disclose wherein the processor is further programmed to cause the touch screen to display a mark indicating a standby position for a hand of the testee. However, the use of designated areas for placing the indicating hand during a visual test was known in the arts at the time of the filing of the invention. M-M teach an apparatus and method for monitoring position of a subject’s hand and shows an example of a prior art system (see Figs. 1A-E which show a user watching a screen and touching it in response to stimuli presented on the screen. M-M notes that the marking hand is required to return to a rest position in between each projection of the stimulus ([0045]). The resting position in this case is adjacent to a switch for detecting the hand which triggers a circuit that indicates the subject is ready for the next test (see [0047], the sensor was interpreted as a marking). While an electromechanical switch is disclosed, M-M teach that “any other types of switch(es) may be used as is known in the art” ([0046]) and provides examples in [0055] while also noting that the switch may be an integral part of the screen in some embodiments ([0062]). At [0066], a specific embodiment requires the user to touch the screen in a designated area (132/134 in Fig. 5) with a hand in order to trigger the next visual target. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Reichow et al. to include a marking such as that taught by M-M for the tester to put his/her hand during testing because M-M notes that this prevents the hand from blocking the view.
Claim 6 is rejected using the same argument for claim 3.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichow et al. (US 7926943) in view of Berme et al. (US 9277857).
Regarding claim 7, Reichow et al. do not disclose wherein the processor is programmed to increase the attention level of the visual targets as the eccentricity at which the visual targets are displayed relative to the fixation target increases. However, this testing methodology was known in the arts at the time of the invention. Berme et al,. teach a system for testing and/or training the vision of a subject. The system includes a visual display device having an output screen, the visual display device configured to display one or more visual objects on the output screen so that the one or more visual objects are visible to the subject (Abstract). Berme et al. teach that testing options include “changing a location for displaying the one or more visual objects on the output screen of the visual display device from a central location on the output screen of the visual display device to a peripheral location on the output screen” (col. 86, lines 48-51, i.e. increasing eccentricity) and “increasing the predetermined display size of the one or more visual objects on the output screen of the visual display device” (col. 87, lines 12-14). Berme finally states that “Any of the features or attributes of the above described embodiments and variations can be used in combination with any of the other features and attributes of the above described embodiments and variations” (col. 88, 3rd paragraph). Thus, the combination of features taught would yield the claimed teaching. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Reichow et al. to include the visual testing functions claimed and taught by Berme et al. because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichow et al. (US 7926943) in view of Lin et al. (Processing Speed And Attention Training Modifies Autonomic Flexibility: A Mechanistic Intervention Study, Neuroimage. 2020 Mar 9;213).
Regarding claim 9, Reichow et al. do not disclose wherein the processor is programmed to: set a response time limit within which the testee must tap the visual target, and vary the response time limit depending on a number of visual targets. However, Lin et al. teach a vision test used to assess cognition (see Abstract and at least the Interventions and randomization section of the reference). In one test, multiple objects are displayed on the screen and the testee is required to track them all during a set duration which may vary in terms of number of objects and the duration for which the user tracks them (see second paragraph of the Interventions and randomization section). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Reichow et al. to include additional visual testing parameters such as those claimed and taught by Lin et al. for testing a patient because it can allow for evaluation of cognitive abilities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claim 8, no prior art of record teaches or fairly suggests, in combination with all other elements, a vision testing device where a tap sensitive region around a visual target on a screen is enlarged as the eccentricity of the visual target increases. The reference provided in the IDS (Blaha et al.) does teach varying a detection zone such that it is larger than the target but it is not enlarged specifically as the eccentricity increases.
Conclusion
Claim 8 is objected to while claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tho Q. Tran whose telephone number is (571)270-1892. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/THO Q TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
