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 Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 11/11/2025.
Amendments to claims 1, 3-4, and 10, filed 11/11/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to the specification and to the drawings, filed 11/11/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the amendments to the claims, most of the prior objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, those which have been left unaddressed or are due to the recent amendments are provided below.
Despite the amendments to the specification, objection to the specification is maintained because numerous issues persist through the recent amendments; see below.
Due to the amendments to the drawings, the previous drawing objections are withdrawn. However, newly submitted FIGs. 1-2 raise further drawing objections below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/11/2025 with respect to claim 1 as newly amended, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pgs. 17-18 of the recent Remarks, Applicant argues that “Bortel fails to teach actual numerical value [apparently corresponding to Applicant’s ‘deviation angle’] used to determine whether strabismus or heterophoria is present, instead using the presence of diplopia as the criterion”. However, the argument here relies only on an isolated portion and limited reading of Bortel’s ¶ 39 – one which omits and runs counter to much of their remaining disclosure. See, for example, Bortel’s ¶s 16-17, where they specifically state “the system's ability to independently track and measure the eye movement and the position of each eye also allows for objective measurement of either a phoria... or strabismus”. Evidently, Applicant’s argument (based only on limited excerpts of ¶ 39) reaches a false conclusion that directly contradicts Bortel and is thus of little merit – providing neither technical nor literary basis for any robust or proper rebuttal.
Examiner will further note that diplopia is a clinical/physical phenomenon which is generally caused by eye misalignment and linked to vergence disorders including strabismus. And while Bortel does discuss using diplopia as a cue to identify when afflicted patients are approaching their visual/vergence limits (i.e. over the course of vergence exercises/treatment), this clearly implies that Bortel is performing associated measurements (i.e. of deviation angle, or at least some functional analogue) throughout. See also ¶ 37: “it is an advantage of the present invention that the occurrence of either SBV or diplopia, in the fusional vergence amplitude measurement procedure described above, may be determined accurately”; ¶ 39: “the position and direction of gaze of the eyes is continuously monitored”. Examiner thus finds the assertion that “Bortel fails to teach actual numerical value [i.e. measurements] …” again to be of little merit.
Examiner lastly acknowledges Applicant’s argument, on pg. 18, that “Bortel did not disclose that the processing module adjusts the prism diopter”. However, Examiner finds that this, again, runs directly counter to Bortel’s actual disclosure. See, e.g., ¶ 14: ‘the term “amplitude of fusional vergence” ... is well known by practitioners in the field of vision care, and may be quantified using a variety of terms, the most common of which is “prism diopters.”’ Clearly, therefore, Bortel’s vergence treatment/exercises must involve adjusting prism diopters. Note, also that the above excerpt clearly shows Bortel’s is not limited to some mere qualitative “presence of diplopia as the criterion”, as Applicant had previously asserted – but rather that Bortel explicitly involves quantitative/numerical measurements or values.
For the above reasons, Examiner finds that the Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and that the amended claim 1 currently fails to overcome Bortel’s disclosure.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference numerals for deviation angle θ1 and compensated angle θ2 appear to be mistakenly switched in the newly amended FIGs. 1 and 2 – at least based on the recently amended specification (amended ¶s 14-16). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure is objected to because, as in the previous action, the specification remains replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows:
In ¶ 1, lines 2-3, “a head-mounted device built-in strabismus treatment and integrate prism diopter simulation system” remains improper/unclear. Examiner is not certain what Applicant wishes to communicate here, but notes that “a head-mounted device with built-in strabismus treatment and an integrated prism diopter simulation system” would qualify as a grammatically acceptable phrase – though it would also carry much redundancy given the preceding clause (“The present invention provides a virtual reality head-mounted display device with built-in strabismus treatment”)
¶ 4 generally remains rather unclear in construction, describing a set of tests in a list-like manner that is not particularly cohesive.
It begins by describing that “The Hirschberg test is [where] a person focuses…” (lines 2-8).
It then moves to “The second test is a cover-uncover test. The patient…” (lines 8-12) – apparently referencing the order of tests listed in ¶ 4’s first sentence to indicate that Applicant is shifting the discussion from the Hirschberg test to the cover-uncover (“second”) test, but for which it is not very clear whether the abruptly introduced “patient” is intended to illustrate the particulars of this cover-uncover test (note, as in item G below, that this is the first introduction to “The patient”, as Applicant had merely spoken in earlier terms of a “person” with respect to the prior Hirschberg test). Moreover, it is unclear why, despite referencing (“The second” of) the tests listed in ¶ 4’s first sentence, Applicant again reintroduces “a cover-uncover test” which was already named in that first sentence.
¶ 4 lastly moves to “The final test is a prism test, …” (lines 12-14), though it is again unclear why Applicant is reintroducing “a prism test” when it was already named in the first sentence of ¶ 4, and explicitly called back to when referring to “The final test”
Other, and possibly related issues, in ¶ 4 are also provided below.
In ¶ 4, lines 2-4, “The Hirschberg test is that a person focuses on a fixed object in a certain distance” remains improper/nonidiomatic. An acceptable form may be given as: “The Hirschberg test is where a person focuses on a fixed object at a certain distance”
In ¶ 4, lines 6-7, “the person is normal ocular alignment… the person is strabismus” remains improper/nonidiomatic. It is not standard to write that a person “is” a physical condition; it is more proper to express the person “has” a physical condition. The quoted portion should thus read “the person has normal ocular alignment… the person has strabismus” or similar
In ¶ 4, lines 12-14, “The final test is a prism cover test, the degree of eye…” is improper construction, joining two independent clauses by a comma splice. Furthermore, it is unclear here whether “the degree of eye…” is meant to elaborate on what constitutes the “prism cover test” – if this is Applicant’s intent, correction can be made by adding a some relating element (e.g. “where” after the comma)
In ¶ 4, line 17 states “The cover and prism cover tests”, despite apparently introducing the prior as the “cover-uncover” test in ¶ 4’s line 2
Other (apparent) inconsistencies include:
discussing the Hirschberg test in terms of “[a/the] person” (¶ 4, lines 3-7) before an abrupt change to “The patient” for the remainder of ¶ 4
“the examiner” (line 11), followed by “the specialist” (lines 17-18), followed by “a specialist” (line 20)
In ¶ 7, line 2, “comprises following” should read “comprises the following”
In ¶ 15, lines 3-5, “The object includes any shapes and color which is necessary to have clear features and simple shapes which easy to descript that make the user understand easily.” is not a proper or intelligible sentence
In ¶ 16, lines 4-5, “If a person with normal ocular alignment will get the test result whose deviation angle θ1 is equal to 0 degree in the first test result.” is not a complete or proper sentence
In ¶ 16, line 11, “The test will end until…” is not clear and should probably read “The test will repeat until…”
In ¶ 17, lines 1-2, “In the final step of the test, when the device is detecting the user's the deviation angle θ1 is equal to 0 degrees, …” is not clear or proper; possible correction may be given as “In the final step of the test, when the device detects the user’s deviation angle θ1 is equal to 0 degrees, …”
Examiner again notes this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 4, “and then the graphic…” should read “then the graphic…”; in standard English (and as noted in the last action, ¶ 7.E), the conjunction “and” should only enter after the last comma (i.e. before the final item) of a list
In claim 3, line 7, “test” should read “testing” (as noted in the last action, ¶ 7.H)
Claim 4 inherits the objections of claim 3 from which it depends
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, lines 13-14 of claim 1 recite “wherein the detecting unit detects the deviation angle is greater than 0 degrees, …”. Evidently, this limitation fixes the deviation angle to zero, and also limits any associated result following this point in the decision tree. This renders indefinite any later recited logic which operates on the conditionality of the deviation angle being zero or nonzero – i.e. lines 2-3 of claim 3: “if the deviation angle is greater than 0 degrees, …” – as it now becomes unclear whether the deviation angle will always be greater than zero or not. For examination purposes, the stated limitation in claim 1’s lines 13-14 shall be read as “wherein, if the deviation angle is greater than 0 degrees, …”.
Further regarding claim 1, line 14 recites “the processing unit” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “the processing module”, as earlier introduced in claim 1’s line 6.
Further regarding claim 3, line 6 recites “wherein the test[ing; see Claim Objections above] will repeat until…”. However, it has not clearly been established what constitutes this “test[ing]”. For examination purposes – and based on the ¶ 7 of the specification, as well as the recited limitations of the similar claim 10 – “the test[ing]” shall be interpreted to consist of actions (“displaying…”, “detecting…”, “simulate…”) established in claims 1 and 3.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bortel and Cooper (US 20210373655 A1, hereinafter “Bortel”).
Regarding claim 1, Bortel discloses (see FIGs. 1-4, ¶s 33-41) a virtual reality head-mounted display device (system 10) with built-in strabismus treatment, comprising:
a display unit (headset 14) displaying a test image (target image 20/22) to a user for testing;
a detecting unit (eye tracking technology 16) detecting a deviation angle of eyeballs (left/right eye 24/26) of the user when the user focuses on the test image (target images 20/22);
a processing module (included in computing device 12), connected to the display unit (headset 14) and the detecting unit (eye tracking technology 16); and
a graphic simulation unit (also included in computing device 12), connected to the display unit (headset 14) and the processing module (of computing device 12);
wherein the graphic simulation unit and the processing module (both encompassed by computing device 12) obtain and analyze the deviation angle from the detecting unit, and the graphic simulation unit and the processing module output a compensated image to the display unit according to an analyzed result;
wherein the detecting unit (eye tracking technology 16) detects the deviation angle is greater than 0 degrees, and the processing unit (of computing device 12) adjusts a prism diopter.
(Note the following excerpts from ¶ 35: [Wingdings font/0xE0] “the computing device 12 may be programmed to send for display, on the headset 14… a first target image 20… and a second target image 22…”, [Wingdings font/0xE0] “eye tracking technology 16 of the headset 14… communicates eye direction information to the computing device 12 via coupling 18”,[Wingdings font/0xE0] “according to programming of the computing device 12, the computing device 12 will automatically cause the target image… to be moved”Thus computing device 12 serves as both a processing simulation module and graphic simulation unit, generating and adjusting the displayed (test/target) images based on its analysis of the eye direction information (encoding the deviation angle) obtained from eye tracking technology 16.
Note also ¶s 38-41 describe a therapeutic vergence treatment where eye tracking technology 16 and computing device 12 work together to iteratively move target images 20/22 (i.e. towards a compensated image arrangement), so that the eyes gradually become more aligned.
Note lastly ¶ 14: ‘“amplitude of fusional vergence” ... may be quantified using “prism diopters.”’; hence the above vergence treatment naturally involves adjusting prism diopters)
Regarding claim 2, Bortel discloses the head-mounted display device as claimed in claim 1.
Bortel further discloses wherein the test image (target images 20/22) comprises an object (“target”). (See ¶s 5, 7, 13, 35, 42-43, or 49 regarding nature/examples of target images)
Regarding claim 3, Bortel discloses the head-mounted display device as claimed in claim 1.
Bortel further discloses wherein if the deviation angle (eye tracking technology 16) is greater than 0 degrees, the graphic simulation unit (included in computing device 12) will simulate based on the deviation angle, and then the graphic simulation unit (included in computing device 12) outputs at least one modified test image (target images 20/22) to the display unit (headset 14), and the user focuses on the modified test image (target images 20/22) for testing; wherein the test will repeat until the deviation angle is equal to 0 degrees, and then the graphic simulation unit and the processing module (both encompassed by computing device 12) will obtain a compensated angle.
(See ¶s 38-41 describing therapeutic vergence treatment where eye tracking technology 16 and computing device 12 work together to iteratively move target images 20/22 (i.e. towards a compensated image arrangement displayed at a compensated angle), so that eyes are gradually brought to alignment (i.e. to a deviation angle of 0).
Examiner notes that while “0 degree” is not stated verbatim, it is naturally the implied goal of such vergence treatment, which seeks to correct misalignment between eyes.
Examiner notes further that such a measure of “0 degree” represents idealized target/precision. Practically speaking, however, real-world conditions will always introduce some degree of error or physiological variation – as acknowledged by Bortel, who describes gradual alignment that is “comfortably achieved by the patient to within a predetermined range of acceptable values”, rather than with absolute precision.)
Regarding claim 4, Bortel discloses the head-mounted display device as claimed in claim 3.
Bortel further discloses wherein the processing module (included in computing device 12) processes an optical simulation based on the compensated angle, and the processing module (included in computing device 12) generates the compensated image (target images 20/22); the compensated image (target images 20/22) is displayed on the display unit (headset 14) for the user. (See ¶s 38-41 describing therapeutic vergence treatment where eye tracking technology 16 and computing device 12 work together to iteratively move target images 20/22 (i.e. towards a compensated image arrangement displayed at a compensated angle), so that eyes are gradually brought to alignment.)
Regarding claim 5, Bortel discloses the head-mounted display device as claimed in claim 1.
Bortel further discloses wherein the graphic simulation unit (included in computing device 12) modified the test image (target images 20/22) via prism refraction or camera rotation.
(Bortel establishes, in ¶ 14, that when eyes are on target (images), the amount of vergence (i.e. the deviation angle) is measured ‘using a variety of terms, the most common of which is “prism diopters”’; Examiner notes this to indicate that target image configurations associated with particular vergences are generally understood to simulate the effects of prismatic refraction.)
Regarding claim 6, Bortel discloses the head-mounted display device as claimed in claim 1.
Bortel further discloses wherein the processing module (included in computing device 12) is a central processing unit, graphic processing unit, or combinations thereof. (See ¶s 59-64 discussing machine architecture for computing device 12 – including a “general purpose computer”, such computers generally come with CPUs and typically GPUs as well.)
Regarding claim 7, Bortel discloses the head-mounted display device as claimed in claim 1.
Bortel further discloses wherein the display unit (headset 14) is activated actively or passively. (See ¶s 39-40: “vergence exercises may be performed by the system 10 automatically moving the target images…”, “Alternatively, a vision care provider… may direct the system”.)
Regarding claim 8, Bortel discloses the head-mounted display device as claimed in claim 1.
Bortel further discloses wherein the display unit (headset 14) comprises a 3D display device. (See ¶ 13: “The computing device may be programmed to present… third (stereoscopic) degree images to the headset”)
Regarding claim 9, Bortel discloses the head-mounted display device as claimed in claim 1.
Bortel further discloses wherein the detecting unit (eye tracking technology 16) comprises a camera, and the detecting unit (eye tracking technology 16) further comprises an eye tracker. (See ¶ 33 for commercial examples of camera-based eye trackers)
Regarding claim 10, Bortel discloses (see FIGs. 1-4, ¶s 33-41) an operation method of the head-mounted display device (system 10) with built-in strabismus treatment, comprising:
providing the head-mounted display device (system 10) of claim 1;
displaying (on headset 14) the test image (target images 20/22) to the user for testing (target images 20/22);
detecting (via eye tracking technology 16) the deviation angle of eyeballs (left/right eye 24/26) of the user when the user focuses on the test image;
simulating (via computing device 12) to obtain the modified test image (target images 20/22) based on the deviation angle from the detecting unit (eye tracking technology 16);
providing the modified test image (target images 20/22) to the user for testing again;
repeating step (B) - (E) until the deviation angle is equal to 0 degrees and then the processing module (included in computing device 12) obtains the compensated angle of the user; and
the processing module (included computing device 12) generates the compensated image (target images 20/22) based on the compensated angle, and the compensated image (target images 20/22) is displayed on the display unit (headset 14) for the user.
(See ¶s 38-41 describing therapeutic vergence treatment where eye tracking technology 16 and computing device 12 work together to iteratively move target images 20/22 (i.e. towards a compensated image arrangement displayed at a compensated angle), so that eyes are gradually brought to alignment (i.e. to a deviation angle of 0).
Examiner notes that while “0 degree” is not stated verbatim, it is naturally the implied goal of such vergence treatment, which seeks to correct misalignment between eyes.
Examiner notes further that such a measure of “0 degree” represents idealized target/precision. Practically speaking, however, real-world conditions will always introduce some degree of error or physiological variation – as acknowledged by Bortel, who describes gradual alignment that is “comfortably achieved by the patient to within a predetermined range of acceptable values”, rather than with absolute precision.)
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872