Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 4/21/2026. The submission, however, is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because the amended claim 10 is incorrectly marked as “Previously Presented”. Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide and contains only a minor deficiency, the amendment is accepted as an adequate reply to the last Office action and is acted upon below.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 4/21/2026.
Amendments to claims 1, 3, and 10, filed 4/21/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Corrected FIGs. 1 and 2, filed 4/21/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the amendments, the previous drawing objections are now withdrawn. Specification objections are maintained below due to persisting issues – as are some 112(b) rejections and claim objections that remain from the previous action; those otherwise raised in light of the recent amendments are also provided below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 14 of the Remarks, Applicant addresses the newly amended limitations, arguing that
“Bortel did not disclose the processing module adjusts the prism diopter when the head or eyes of the user move significantly” – Remarks pg. 14.
Setting aside some of the indefiniteness issues raised below, Examiner disagrees and advises Applicant that Bortel actually does track patients’ eye movements to monitor their status and inform the vergence exercises which was cited in the rejection.
See ¶ 36 where they first discuss tracking eye movement so that they can actively monitor the patient’s vergence condition,
“the vergence demand will become too great for the patient to maintain SBV, at which
point one of the patient's eyes will deviate from its target, resulting in double vision (see FIG. 3). The system determines the exact point in time (and target and eye location and direction of gaze for each eye) where this occurs” – Bortel ¶ 36.
See next ¶ 39 where they describe the same information as being used to further inform their vergence therapy/treatment (which directly involves adjustment of the prism diopter)
“When therapeutic vergence treatment is warranted, embodiments of the system 10 may be utilized to perform therapeutic vergence treatment exercises to increase amplitudes of fusional vergence[…]
The degree of vergence demand may be incrementally or continuously increased until the point of diplopia (loss of fusion). In other words, this point of diplopia is when the system objectively determines […] that the patient is now seeing two images rather than one. As noted above, the system 10 tracks both the time at which this occurs […] Once diplopia occurs (loss of fusion), […] the computing device 12 may be programmed to automatically bring the images 20 and 22 together again until the point at which SBV is again attained” – Bortel ¶ 39.
Examiner thus finds that Bortel continues to disclose the claims as amended.
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 the specification is 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 ¶ 4, line 2, “The Hirschberg test is that a person […]” remains ungrammatical (from ¶ 14C in the previous action) but may be corrected to read “The Hirschberg test is where a person […]”
In ¶ 4, line 3, “a fixed object in a certain distance” remains ungrammatical (from ¶ 14C in the previous action) but may be corrected to read “a fixed object at a certain distance.”
In ¶ 4, lines 3-5, “In a person with normal ocular alignment that the reflection of light is positioned at the center of the cornea ([…]).” remains ungrammatical/unclear (from ¶ 14D in the previous action); perhaps “that” should be replaced with a comma
In ¶ 16, lines 5-7, “If a person gets the test result whose deviation angle 81 is equal to 0 degrees in the first test result, the person is diagnosed as normal ocular alignment” remains ungrammatical/unclear (from ¶ 14J in the previous action), but may perhaps be corrected to read “If a person’s first test result reveals a deviation angle θ1 equal to 0 degrees, the person is diagnosed with normal ocular alignment”
Examiner notes that 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 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 13-14, “wherein if the detecting unit detects […], and the processing module […]” is not clear; it may be corrected to read “wherein if the detecting unit detects […], the processing module […]”
In claim 3, line 8, the conjunction “and” for the second limitation was improperly removed
Appropriate correction is required. Claims not specifically addressed in the objections above inherit the objections of the claim from which they depend.
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 claim 1, the term “significant” on line 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is therefore unclear what would qualify as a “significant movement of eyes or head”.
Regarding claim 3, line 6 recites “wherein the testing will be repeated until […]”. However, it still has not clearly been established what constitutes this “testing”. For examination purposes – and based on the ¶ 7 of the specification, as well as the recited limitations of the similar claim 10 – “the testing” 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 if the detecting unit (eye tracking technology 16) detects a significant movement of eyes or head of the user and the detecting unit (eye tracking technology 16) detects the deviation angle is greater than 0 degrees, and the processing module (of computing device 12) adjusts a prism diopter.
(Note the following excerpts from ¶ 35:
“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…”,
“eye tracking technology 16 of the headset 14… communicates eye direction information to the computing device 12 via coupling 18”,
“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, 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 at least one modified test image (target images 20/22) for testing; wherein the testing will be repeated to output the at least one modified test image to the display unit until the deviation angle is equal to 0 degrees, 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 degrees” 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 degrees” 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 at least one modified test image (target images 20/22) based on the deviation angle from the detecting unit (eye tracking technology 16);
providing the at least one 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) generating 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
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
Prosecution Insights