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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 1/30/2026. Presently, claims 1-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more).
Claim 1 is directed to “a method for dynamic ocular training” (i.e., a process); and
Claim 16 is directed to “a therapeutic system for treatment of disorders” (i.e., a machine).
The claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “determining, a current success level associated with performance of the virtual reality therapeutic game based on the interactive input data” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “mental process.” Independent claims 1 and 16 are analyzed as representatives of the claimed subject matter, are reproduced below. The limitation(s) determined to be abstract ideas are shown in italics. The additional limitation(s) recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
Independent claim 1:
A method for dynamic ocular training, comprising:
receiving, with an electronic processor, an indication of at least one ocular disorder of a patient from a plurality of ocular disorders;
selecting, with the electronic processor, a virtual reality therapeutic game from a set of available virtual reality therapeutic games, wherein each available virtual reality therapeutic game of the set of available virtual reality therapeutic games is designed to provide therapy for one or more ocular disorders, the virtual reality therapeutic game being selected based on the indication of the at least one ocular disorder, the virtual reality therapeutic game being designed to provide therapy for the at least one ocular disorder;
executing, with the electronic processor, within a virtual reality environment, the virtual reality therapeutic game via a display screen, and receiving interactive input data collected during performance of the virtual reality therapeutic game, wherein at least a portion of the interactive input data is collected using a motion tracking system;
determining, with the electronic processor, a current success level associated with performance of the virtual reality therapeutic game based on the interactive input data; and
dynamically adjusting, with the electronic processor, a difficulty level of the virtual reality therapeutic game based on the current success level.
Independent claim 16:
A therapeutic system for treatment of disorders, comprising:
a sensor configured to detect movement associated with a human head;
a memory; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the sensor,
wherein the memory stores a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
select a virtual reality therapeutic game among a plurality of therapeutic games based on a diagnosis result, wherein the diagnosis result indicates at least one ocular disorder from a plurality of ocular disorders, wherein the virtual reality therapeutic game is designed to provide therapy for the at least one ocular disorder;
execute the virtual reality therapeutic game to receive interactive input data related to a patient input in the virtual reality therapeutic game, wherein at least a first portion of the interactive input data is detected using the sensor;
dynamically adjust a difficulty level of the virtual reality therapeutic game based on the interactive patient input data; and
transmit a game result to a device associated with a therapist, the device remote from the therapeutic system, based on the difficulty level of the virtual reality therapeutic game and the patient interactive input data.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “sensor,” “a memory” and “a processor communicatively coupled to the memory,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “determining, a current success level associated with performance of the virtual reality therapeutic game based on the interactive input data,” is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a sensor,” “a memory” and “a processor communicatively coupled to the memory,” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “memory,” is described in paragraph [0018] with emphasis on the bolded portion, as follows:
“[0018] In further examples, computing device 110 can further include a memory 120.
The memory 120 can include any suitable storage device or devices that can be used to store suitable data (e.g., diagnosis program, therapeutic games, etc.) and instructions that can be used, for example, by the processor 112… For example, memory 120 can include random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), electronically-erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), one or more flash drives, one or more hard disks, one or more solid state drives, one or more optical drives, etc.”
The applicant further describes the “processor” in paragraph [0017] with emphasis on the bolded portion as follows:
“[0017] In some examples, computing device 110 can include processor 112. In some embodiments, the processor 112 can be any suitable hardware processor or combination of processors, such as a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), a microcontroller (MCU), etc.”
The applicant further describes the “sensor” in paragraph [0021] with emphasis on the bolded portion as follows:
“The one or more sensors can be included in the virtual reality device 132. For example, a sensor can include a magnetic field system with coils, an IMU, an inertial sensor, or any suitable sensor to detect head rotations and/or an eye goggle with high-speed cameras to detect the eye rotations.”
This elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “sensor,” “memory,” or “processor” are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly
Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2-15 and 17-23 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-15 and 17-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1 or 16.
Therefore, claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 16-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tara Lynn Alvarez (US 20180214338 A1; hereinafter Alvarez) in view of Nicole Elizabeth Samec et al. (US 20170365101 A1; hereinafter Samec).
Regarding claim 1, Alvarez discloses a method for dynamic ocular training, comprising: receiving, with an electronic processor (“processor” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0054])), an indication of at least one ocular disorder of a patient from a plurality of ocular disorders (“The head mounted display can include a left eye (or first) display a right eye (or second) display configured to render the virtual reality video game and can include a right eye image capturing device disposed proximate to the right eye display and a left eye image capturing device disposed proximate to the left eye image capturing device, and the method can further include determining the asymmetrical peak velocity difference between the left and right eyes based in images of the left and right eyes captured by the left and right image capturing devices and the left and right eyes move in response to viewing the left and right eye displays” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0014])); selecting, with the electronic processor, a virtual reality therapeutic game from a set of available virtual reality therapeutic games (Types of games are explained in at least Alvarez in paragraphs 74, 76, and 78), wherein each available virtual reality therapeutic game of the set of available virtual reality therapeutic games is designed to provide therapy for one or more ocular disorders, the virtual reality therapeutic game being selected based on the indication of the at least one ocular disorder, the virtual reality therapeutic game being designed to provide therapy for the at least one ocular disorder (“In embodiments of the games executed by the visual therapy system 100, the games can have four settings: beginner, intermediate, advanced and custom. Three settings (beginner, intermediate, and advanced) can be preprogrammed settings that can be used for a majority of users with binocular dysfunctions. The custom setting will allow for adjustment to the angular vergence demand (e.g., by a clinician), e.g., to adjust the amount of time needed for fusion and the type of visual stimuli presented during the game. Vision parameters include but are not limited to quantitative measurement of near point of convergence, positive fusion range, dissociated phoria, vergence fixation times, vergence peak velocity, vergence time constant, accuracy of eye alignment, and amount of time the vision therapy is administered. Vision parameters can be sent to the clinician automatically and stored within a spread sheet” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0050])); executing, with the electronic processor, within a virtual reality environment, the virtual reality therapeutic game via a display screen, and receiving interactive input data collected during performance of the virtual reality therapeutic game (“The method includes rendering a visual therapy video game on one or more displays, and controlling accommodative and proximal vergence stimulation of a user's eyes via the visual therapy video game. The visual therapy video game can be rendered by a head mounted display with integrated eye tracking hardware and software. A preprogrammed portion of disparity vergence can be stimulated by the visual therapy video game and a feedback portion of disparity vergence can be limited. The visual therapy video game can be a virtual reality video game and/or can include one or more visual cues to limit accommodative stimulation” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph 0010])), determining, with the electronic processor, a current success level associated with performance of the virtual reality therapeutic game based on the interactive input data; and dynamically adjusting, with the electronic processor, a difficulty level of the virtual reality therapeutic game based on the current success level (“the game can have various difficulty levels to support player progression through the game. Along with the player being able to control the difficulty of the game, various aspects of the game become more challenging as the game naturally progresses. For example, level 3 is more challenging than level 1. For example, the threshold will be moved closer to the player; thus, the player has less time to respond to the enemies and less time to shoot them down” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0082])).
Alvarez doesn’t go into further details regarding wherein at least a portion of the interactive input data is collected using a motion tracking system. Alvarez teaches using a motion tracking system through tracking eye movements (“The visual therapy video game can be rendered by a head mounted display with integrated eye tracking hardware and software” recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0010])). Samec teaches using motion tracking as a measurement for therapy (“The display system may be configured for automated tracking of patient progress and data collection that may be examined by a clinician. As another example, through addition of psychophysiological measurement or motion tracking, the display system may be configured to provide exposure therapy (e.g., virtual reality graded exposure therapy or VRGET) that may be used to examine participant affective response throughout the exposure process” (recited in at least: Samec paragraph [0803])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used motion tracking as taught by Samec into the movement tracking system of Alvarez for the added benefit of seeing how a person who is in therapy moves in a game to see the progression of the therapy.
Regarding claim 2, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Alvarez further teaches wherein dynamically adjusting the difficulty level of the virtual reality therapeutic game comprises: automatically increasing or decreasing the difficulty level based on the current success level compared to one or more previous success levels, the one or more previous success levels being determined based on previous interactive input data (“Each “level” of the game can be broken down into sub-components. There is the “WARNING: INCOMING ENEMY SHIP APPROACHING” scene which serves to build anticipation, excitement, and set the mood for the coming battle” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0083])) Alvarez teaches in ¶82 as stated above that there are levels a user/patient can progress naturally through- the switches between levels have the warning screen so that the user can pace their therapy.
Regarding claim 3, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Alvarez further teaches wherein the difficulty level of the virtual reality therapeutic game is adjusted further based on a therapist input of a therapist (“In addition to tacking a users' eye to advance in the game being played, the head mounted display can track and/or monitor a position of the of the user's eyes relative to an expected and/or desired position of the user's eyes to capture vergence parameters which can be output to the computing system 270 (and transmitted from the computing system to a remote computing system) to facilitate quantitative and/or qualitative assessment by a clinician (see at least: Alvarez paragraph [0047]); Alvarez also discloses that the games executed by the visual therapy system 100, the games can have four settings: beginner, intermediate, advanced and custom. Three settings (beginner, intermediate, and advanced) can be preprogrammed settings that can be used for a majority of users with binocular dysfunctions. The custom setting will allow for adjustment to the angular vergence demand (e.g., by a clinician), e.g., to adjust the amount of time needed for fusion and the type of visual stimuli presented during the game)” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0050])).
Regarding claim 4, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Alvarez further teaches wherein the therapist input comprises an updated difficulty level of the difficulty level (“The custom setting will allow for adjustment to the angular vergence demand (e.g., by a clinician), e.g., to adjust the amount of time needed for fusion and the type of visual stimuli presented during the game. Vision parameters include but are not limited to quantitative measurement of near point of convergence, positive fusion range, dissociated phoria, vergence fixation times, vergence peak velocity, vergence time constant, accuracy of eye alignment, and amount of time the vision therapy is administered. Vision parameters can be sent to the clinician automatically and stored within a spread sheet” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0050])).
Regarding claim 5, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Alvarez further teaches further comprising: automatically selecting another virtual reality therapeutic game from the set of available virtual reality therapeutic games, the another virtual reality therapeutic game being different from the virtual reality therapeutic game, the another virtual reality therapeutic game being designed to provide therapy specific to the at least one ocular disorder (Alvarez discloses that there are different virtual reality games that are available within the disclosed art: “Non-limiting examples of various games are described herein to illustrate embodiments of the present disclosure” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0047]) the games are described in at least paragraphs 74-151.
Regarding claim 6, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Alvarez further teaches further comprising: automatically transmitting a notification to a remote computing device based on the current success level (“In addition to tacking a users' eye to advance in the game being played, the head mounted display can track and/or monitor a position of the of the user's eyes relative to an expected and/or desired position of the user's eyes to capture vergence parameters which can be output to the computing system 270 (and transmitted from the computing system to a remote computing system) to facilitate quantitative and/or qualitative assessment by a clinician” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0047])).
Regarding claim 7, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Alvarez further suggests further comprising performing a virtual eye position calibration, wherein the virtual eye position calibration comprises: displaying a series of horizontal and vertical virtual target locations on the display screen to create a calibration map; detecting eye positions for the series of horizonal and vertical virtual target locations; mapping the eye positions to the series of horizontal and vertical virtual target locations to produce a calibration scale parameter; and calibrating the display screen based on the calibration scale parameter, wherein the eye positions for the series of horizontal and vertical virtual target locations comprise: right eye positions corresponding to the series of horizontal and vertical virtual target locations, left eye positions corresponding to the series of horizontal and vertical virtual target locations, and binocular positions corresponding to the series of horizontal and vertical virtual target locations (“The head mounted display can include a left eye (or first) display a right eye (or second) display configured to render the virtual reality video game and can include a right eye image capturing device disposed proximate to the right eye display and a left eye image capturing device disposed proximate to the left eye image capturing device, and the method can further include determining the asymmetrical peak velocity difference between the left and right eyes based in images of the left and right eyes captured by the left and right image capturing devices and the left and right eyes move in response to viewing the left and right eye displays. A focal length between the right eye and the right eye display when the head mounted display is fitted to the user's head. The method can also include dynamically adjusting a magnitude of the asymmetrical stimulation in the virtual reality video game to limit visual suppression” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0014])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to have facilitated calibrating an eye therapy virtual game so that the program knows which is the right and which eye is the left eye as well is binocular positions so that the treatment can begin. It would have been obvious to try many methods of positioning the game with the eyes for the treatment of the disorders to begin.
Regarding claim 8, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Samec further teaches comprising performing a vergence capacity measurement, and wherein the vergence capacity measurement comprises: displaying, via the display screen, a virtual target at a first distance away from two eye positions ;moving the virtual target from the first distance to a center of the two eye positions at a constant speed; receiving a measurement input when the patient perceives loss of convergence for the virtual target; and producing the indication of the ocular disorder based on the measurement input (“evaluated may be displayed on different depth planes, and the accommodation and/or vergence of the user's eyes may be measured (e.g., using eye-tracking cameras on the display device). It will be appreciated that images on different depth planes that are perceived by the viewer will cause the eye to assume different accommodation and/or vergence states. Consequently, the image that is perceived by the user may be inferred by determining: 1) the accommodation and/or vergence states of the user's eyes; and 2) matching that accommodation and/or vergence state with the images or depth planes of the images being displayed. The image corresponding to the measured accommodation and/or vergence states of the user is then interpreted to be the image that is perceived by the user. In some embodiments, the images may be displayed on widely disparate depth planes (e.g., infinity and the closest depth plane outputted by the display system) to increase the expected difference in accommodation and/or vergence states between the images. In some embodiments, the duration of the user's fixation on an image (e.g., the amount of time that the user's eyes assume a particular accommodation and/or vergence state) may also be measured to infer whether the user is actively perceiving a particular image, or whether the change in accommodation and/or vergence states is a result of an involuntary reflex, such as microsaccades” (recited in at least: Samec paragraph [0416])).
Regarding claim 9, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Samec further teaches wherein the vergence capacity measurement further comprises: repeating displaying, via the display screen, the virtual target, moving the virtual target (“The display system may be configured to detect impairments in convergence, which refers to the simultaneous inward movement of the user's eyes when viewing an object that is moved closer to the user's eyes. To test convergence, the display system may be configured to present a stimulus to the user at block 1710. The stimulus may comprise an image of an object that is projected by the display system (e.g., through a particular depth plane of the waveguide stacks 2005, 2006 of the display system 2010, FIG. 10) such that the image appears to be at a particular distance from the user's eye. The display system may be further configured to project the image on different depth planes such that it appears to move closer to the user's eyes. The display system may sense the user's reaction to the stimulus as shown at block 1720. To sense the user's reaction to the stimulus, some embodiments of the display system may be configured to track the movement of one or both of the user's eye (e.g., using the cameras 24, 28 of the display system 2010) as the user is instructed to follow the projected image as it appears closer to the user's eye” (recited in at least: Samec paragraph [0735])), and receiving a subsequence input representative of a perceived loss of convergence for the virtual target; and measuring vergence fatigue based on the subsequence input (“For example, alertness qualities such as consciousness, drowsiness, fatigue, unconsciousness, or other quality may be determined based on the user's reaction to a stimulus” (recited in at least: Samec paragraph [0547]).
Regarding claim 11, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Alvarez further teaches wherein the virtual reality therapeutic game incorporates tasks that simulate near work or rapid changes of fixation between near and far viewing distances (“people with convergence insufficiency can have visual symptoms when engaged in near work (i.e. reading). To strengthen the disparity convergence system, stimuli that evoke inward or outward rotation of the eyes should be provided that generally do not stimulate accommodation or blur. Exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure can be advantageously configured to display right and left images via the head mounted display that include objects intended to stimulate eye movement without stimulating accommodation or blur” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0034])).
Regarding claim 16, Alvarez disclose a therapeutic system for treatment of disorders, comprising: a sensor configured to detect movement associated with a human head (“A three-dimensional (3D) game using a stereoscopic effect of a head mounted display can be controlled by eye movement. Visual stimuli incorporated in the game can be rendered to optimize vergence eye movements” recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0006])); a memory (memory 306 (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0054])); and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the sensor (processor 302 (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0054])), wherein the memory stores a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor (The computing system 270 can be configured to execute one or more application and/or programs to execute a visual therapy game 272 designed to administer vision therapy (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0047])), cause the processor to perform steps similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Alvarez further teaches wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: receive an updated setting from the device, and wherein the virtual reality therapeutic game is selected further based on the updated setting (“In addition to tacking a users' eye to advance in the game being played, the head mounted display can track and/or monitor a position of the of the user's eyes relative to an expected and/or desired position of the user's eyes to capture vergence parameters which can be output to the computing system 270 (and transmitted from the computing system to a remote computing system) to facilitate quantitative and/or qualitative assessment by a clinician” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0047])).
Regarding claim 18, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Alvarez further teaches wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: receive an updated setting from the device, and wherein the difficulty level of the virtual reality therapeutic game is determined further based on the updated setting (“that the computer systems are able to be updated and the databases can also store/delete all the databases” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0058]); “that there are three settings (beginner, intermediate, and advanced) can be preprogrammed settings that can be used for a majority of users with binocular dysfunctions. The custom setting will allow for adjustment to the angular vergence demand (e.g., by a clinician), e.g., to adjust the amount of time needed for fusion and the type of visual stimuli presented during the game)” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 19, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Alvarez further teaches, further comprising: a virtual reality headset for display of the virtual reality therapeutic game, wherein the virtual reality headset includes the sensor and outputs a virtual reality environment in which the virtual reality therapeutic game is performed (“visual therapy video game can be rendered by a head mounted display with integrated eye tracking hardware and software. A preprogrammed portion of disparity vergence can be stimulated by the visual therapy video game and a feedback portion of disparity vergence can be limited. The visual therapy video game can be a virtual reality video game and/or can include one or more visual cues to limit accommodative stimulation” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0010]); and an input device configured to receive at least a second portion of the interactive input data for the patient input (“one or more hardware interfaces 240 can receive data from the right and left eye controllers corresponding to right and left eye positions or angles of the user, respectively, and can transmit the data to the computing system 270, which can use the data to control an operation of the game to facilitate vision therapy for binocular dysfunctions (e.g., by confirming that the user is properly converging and diverging on specific objects in the game)” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0043])).
Regarding claim 20, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Alvarez further teaches automatically transmit a notification to the device therapist based on the interactive patient input data (“Vision parameters can be sent to the clinician automatically and stored within a spread sheet” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0050])).
Regarding claim 23, Alvarez in view of Samec teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Alvarez further teaches wherein the virtual reality therapeutic game provides therapy for a disorder in a binocular vision (“the 3D game can primarily evoke disparity vergence while keeping accommodative cues minimal and can be used for therapeutic intervention in users with binocular vision dysfunctions” (recited in at least: Alvarez paragraph [0009])).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in further view of Alexander C. Walsh (WO 2010117386 A1; hereinafter Walsh).
Regarding claim 10, Alvarez in view of Samec disclose the claimed matter as stated above; however, does not explicitly disclose further comprising performing a reading measurement, and wherein the reading measurement comprises: displaying, via the display screen, different levels of words at different vergence angles; receiving measurement inputs corresponding to the words; determining a speed and an accuracy level of each of the measurement inputs; and producing the indication of the at least one ocular disorder based on the speed and the accuracy level of each of the measurement input.
Walsh teaches reading measurements (The OCT-based ophthalmic testing center system can be configured to control the optical distance between the subject's eye and the fixation targets by adjusting the vergence of the light from the fixation display (for example, by collimation or divergence). For example, the optical distance could be set at 14 inches to simulate reading, 30 inches to simulate computer use. 20 feet to equate with conventional visual acuity measurements, infinity, or at any other distance (recited in at least: Walsh paragraph [0398])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a reading measurement test as taught by Walsh to the ocular disorder therapy system of Alvarez because “In general, reading speed tests are ordered for people with retinal disease” (recited in at least: Walsh paragraph [0515]). Ordering reading tests of any kind demonstrate how a person is able to focus on reading and processing. It is also a measurement that is done at eye doctor appointments to test vision.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in view of Samec in further view of Beardo Benjo (YouTube Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2RCGa_OKHg) Published on January 19, 2021; hereinafter Benjo).
Regarding claim 12, Alvarezin view of Samec discloses the claimed matter as stated above; however, does not explicitly disclose wherein performing the virtual reality therapeutic game comprises: displaying, via the display screen, a handle, a route roadway, and a navigator placed closer to the route roadway, the navigator displaying a map including the route roadway; displaying, via the display screen, a driving map direction on the navigator; and receiving an interactive input indicative of a driving vehicle direction on the route roadway, wherein the interactive input is included in the interactive input data, and wherein the current success level increases in response to the driving vehicle direction being equal to the driving map direction.
Benjo teaches a “Car Parking Simulator” that is a virtual reality game that a user can practice driving. There are maps, routes, and prompts on the screen for the user to then input their response (see at least: FIG. 1 and 2 below showing the game). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added games into the virtual reality therapy system of Alvarez similar to the one shown in the Benjo for the added benefit of adding a variety of hand eye coordination games that are diverse and allow users to practice real world simulations as well as games.
PNG
media_image1.png
947
1443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 1 Benjo: 3:36)
PNG
media_image2.png
948
1455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 2 Benjo 12:55)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in view of Samec in further view of Hunter James Cox (“The Room VR: A Dark Matter COMPLETE WALKTHROUGH” YouTube Stream- Published and Streamed on April 11, 2021 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waXqJXlZnSg); hereinafter Cox)
Regarding claim 14, Alvarezin view of Samec discloses the claimed matter as stated above; however, does not explicitly disclose displaying, via the display screen, an oncoming obstacle toward a main character; displaying an optotype over or next to the main character; receiving an interactive input, wherein the interactive input is included in the interactive input data; and in response to the interactive input corresponding to an orientation of the optotype, displaying the main character avoiding the oncoming obstacle and increasing the current success level.
Cox suggests a gameplay mode that has an character “optotype” that a character needs to solve/match that comes towards the character to proceed with the game (see FIGs 3-5 with explanations below).
PNG
media_image3.png
407
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 3 Cox: 24:24)
FIG. 3 above shows the optotype symbols on the screen that came up to the character so that the character can see, recognize and input to unlock/succeed in moving to another level.
PNG
media_image4.png
409
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 4 Cox: 24:32)
FIG. 4 shows the user moving and entering the optotype characters to unlock the level.
PNG
media_image5.png
409
624
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 5 Cox: 24:37)
FIG. 5 shows that the user successfully matched the optotype characters to unlock and progress.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included games in the ocular therapy virtual game system as taught by Alvarez for the added benefit of adding a variety of games that users can enjoy as well as test their vision and matching skills.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in view of Samec in further view of Carfection (Youtube Video: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVt0w68kMgc) Published on February 14, 2017; hereinafter Carfection).
Regarding claim 15, Alvarezin view of Samec discloses the claimed matter as stated above; however, does not explicitly disclose displaying, via the display screen, an oncoming obstacle toward a main character; displaying a random stereo dot image containing a symbol representing a different lane to avoid the oncoming obstacle; after disappearing the random stereo dot image, receiving an interactive input, wherein the interactive input is included in the interactive input data; and in response to the interactive input corresponding to a direction toward the different lane, displaying the main character avoiding the oncoming obstacle and increasing the current success level.
Carfection shows a VR Racing Simulator that has a red dot that symbolizes an obstacle on the lane (another vehicle) so that the user is aware of the dot and the vehicle when it appears so that they do not crash while driving. The game mimics real driving and to be successful you need to complete the game as well as not hit another car. Carfection also shows that the game also indicates new and different lanes as they appear as symbols on the screen (see FIG. 6-8 below). Figure 6 shows the dot on the screen. Figure 7 shows the additional information on the screen to let a patient/user know what to do. Figure 8 shows the dot on the screen indicating that it is an obstacle one the screen.
PNG
media_image6.png
410
625
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 6 Carfection 3:34)
PNG
media_image7.png
409
625
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 7 Carfection 4:07)
PNG
media_image8.png
409
627
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 8 Carfection 2:23)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a dot or any indicator on a screen to let a user know of a fail condition or obstacle so they can properly know how to proceed with the level they are on.
Claims 13, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in view of Samec in further view of Wesley Krueger (US 20160262608 A1; hereinafter Wesley).
Regarding claim 13, Alvarez in view of Samec disclose the claimed matter as stated above; however, does not explicitly disclose displaying, via the display screen, a first object with a first depth falling from a top to a bottom; displaying, via the display screen, a second object with a second depth falling from the top to the bottom, the second depth being different from the first depth; and receiving an interactive input to catch the first object and the second object wherein the interactive input is included in the interactive input data, and wherein the current success level increases in response to the interactive input resulting in the first object and the second object being caught.
Wesley teaches that there are ways to detect if a person is able to catch objects falling with a VOR score. Once a user/patient does the therapy they will have a VOR score that has shown improvement (on game day if a football player had an abnormal VOR, with resultant decline in the DVA, in the vertical plane (e.g. lack of visual fixation on an object of interest with upwards and downwards movement of the head), then it can be predicted that the athlete is predictable not likely to catch a ball while running downfield and looking upwards over the shoulder (e.g. you cannot catch, what you cannot accurately see)… can be an accurate method to determine when the athlete is ready to return to play activities, based on improvement of the VOR or DVA. It therefore can be utilized in TBI/concussion evaluation/assessment and management for return to play. It is also intended for athletes who wish to enhance their training and athletic/vocational performance. It can be used in fitness centers, sports training centers, athletic performance centers, and vocational performance centers (recited in at least: Wesley paragraph [0352]). Wesley teaches that using the therapy will show improvement in being able to catch in different depths with VR.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified or tried to modify the ocular virtual reality therapy system of Alvarez to include games that have a person catching virtual objects at a different depth because these are tests that need to be done to show recovery for a person who needs rehabilitation.
Regarding claim 21, Alvarez in view of Samec disclose the claimed matter as stated above; however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the virtual reality therapeutic game provides therapy for a vestibular disorder.
Wesley teaches providing therapy games for vestibular disorders (recited in at least: Wesley [Abstract] and FIG 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included a game in a system for vision therapy as taught by Alvarez to also treat vestibular disorders because eye movements such as VOR (a reflex eye movement designed to stabilized images) is also considered a vision therapy (recited in at least: Wesley paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 22, Alvarez in view of Samec disclose the claimed matter as stated above; however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the virtual reality therapeutic game comprises a soccer game.
Wesley teaches the use of a soccer game as a virtual reality therapeutic game (FIG. 11A shows an example of a target or visual element in the form of a soccer ball 902. This soccer ball could be part of an existing scene viewed on a VR or AR display or viewed through an AR display or the soccer ball could have been added to the scene (recited in at least: Wesley paragraph [0216]; and FIG 11A-11B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a soccer ball/soccer games to a vision therapy system as taught by Alvarez for the added benefit of monitoring a patient/user eye coordination while going through a game that requires the movement of their legs.
Response to Arguments
Drawings and Claim Objections:
Applicant’s amendments overcome the objections made to the drawings and claim 5.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5, and 10 have overcome the rejections set forth under 35 112(b).
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant states on page 13 of the remarks that “The Office asserts that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, and, in particular, fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.” Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments or assertions, the Office Action mailed out on 09/30/2025 never claimed that the instant application falls under “mathematical concepts” instead that the instant application falls under “certain methods of human activity” and/or “mental processes.”
Applicant further states on page 13-14 that the “robotic arm assembly” is an example that is similar to the instant application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that this example is one similar to the instant application. The instant application is not a control system that is using certain mathematical relationships and the rejection set forth under 101 is to “certain methods of human activity” and/or “mental processes” and not mathematical concepts like the example provided.
Furthermore, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional elements as recited in the rejection above, do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea instead aid in gathering data for a determination and feedback step.
35 U.S.C. § 102:
Applicant’s amendments necessitated a further search and consideration. In view of the amendments, the rejection set forth under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-15, and 17-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
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 SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights