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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, and 12-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 1: –a– should be inserted before “value”;
Claim 3, line 2: the comma after “deviation” should be deleted;
Claim 3, line 4: “an ocular” should be replaced with –the ocular–;
Claims 12-15, 17, and 19: in the preambles, “Claim” should be lowercase;
Claim 16, line 4: –a– should be inserted before “value”;
Claim 16, line 12: –and– should be inserted after “(GUI);”;
Claim 18, line 1: –for– should be inserted before “quantifying”;
Claim 18, line 1: “nan” should be replaced with –an–;
Claim 18, line 6: “outputs” should be replaced with –is configured to output–;
Claim 18, line 6: “a” in front of “data” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Head mounting system” in claims 1, 16, and 18 because the limitation uses a generic placeholder (“system”) that is coupled with functional language (“head mounting”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The limitation is being interpreted to correspond to a headset component such as glasses, eye spectacles, and the like, as described in ¶ [0024] of the specification, and equivalents thereof.
“Device control system” in claim 1 because the limitation uses a generic placeholder (“system”) that is coupled with functional language (“device control”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The limitation is being interpreted to correspond to the structure of the device control system 100 of Fig. 1, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation in claim 18 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because the claim recites sufficient structure for performing the function (i.e., “a microcomputer”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites “independently tracking and recording a plurality of positions of pupils in each eye of the user” in lines 6-7, which is indefinite. The limitation indicates that there are multiple pupils in each eye. However, one of ordinary skill would understand that each eye has one pupil. For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “independently tracking and recording a plurality of positions of a pupil in each eye of the user”.
Claim 1 recites “an extended period” in line 7, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. In this case, it is unclear when a period starts/stops being considered to be extended/brief. The Examiner suggests deleting replacing the term with “a period”. Claim 16 recites the same limitation, so it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites “user’s normal lifetime routine” in line 8, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. In this case, it is unclear when a lifetime routine starts/stops being considered to be normal/abnormal. The Examiner suggests replacing the term with “a user’s daily routine”. Claim 16 recites the same limitation, so it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites “positions of each eye” in line 9. Claim 1 also recites “positions of pupils in each eye” in lines 6-7. It is unclear if these recitations are the same as, related to, or different from each other. The different claim language suggests that they are different elements. However, the specification does not create a distinction between the elements, which suggests that they are the same. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different or related, the relationship should be made clear. Claim 16 is rejected for reciting similar limitations. Claims 2 and 6 are rejected for reciting “eye position” which is unclear for similar reasons.
Claim 1 recites “any deviations or ocular misalignment” in lines 11-12. Claim 1 also recites “deviations in alignment of each eye” in lines 9-10. It is unclear if these recitations are the same as, related to, or different from each other. The different claim language suggests that they are different elements. However, the specification does not create a distinction between the elements, which suggests that they are the same. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different or related, the relationship should be made clear. For the purposes of examination, “any deviations” will be interpreted to be “each of the deviations”. Claims 5, 6, and 14 are rejected for reciting “any deviations”. Claim 16 recites similar limitations, so it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites “calculating a temporal length and a magnitude of any deviations or ocular misalignment based on a threshold value to obtain a resultant value” in lines 11-12, which is indefinite. It is unclear how the temporal length, magnitude, threshold value, and resultant value are related to each other. The limitation suggests that the calculation of the temporal length and magnitude results in obtaining a resultant value. Are temporal length and magnitude the same as the resultant value? How are two parameters the same as one value? How are the temporal length and magnitude calculated based on the threshold value? The specification does not provide clarification. For the purposes of examination, the recitation of “based on a threshold value to obtain a resultant value” is not being given patentable weight. Claim 16 recites similar limitations, so it is rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 1 recites “calculated values” in line 13. Claim 1 also recites a plurality of parameters throughout the claim. It is unclear if these values and parameters are the same as, related to, or different from each other. The different claim language suggests that they are different elements. However, the specification does not create a distinction between the elements, which suggests that they are the same. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different or related, the relationship should be made clear. Claim 16 recites similar limitations, so it is rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 2-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 16.
Claim 3 recites “deviation amounts” in line 2; claim 1 recites “a magnitude of any deviations” in line 11. Claim 3 recites “time spent at a specific deviation” in line 2; claim 1 recites “a temporal length” in line 11. It is unclear if these values and parameters are the same as, related to, or different from each other. The different claim language suggests that they are different elements. However, the specification does not create a distinction between the elements, which suggests that they are the same. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different or related, the relationship should be made clear.
Claim 3 recites “the displaying calculated values further includes… and treating the user by altering a setting on the head mounting system” in lines 1-4. It is unclear how displaying values can include treating the user because they appear to be completely unrelated steps. The Examiner suggests amending the recitation to be “the displaying calculated values further includes… wherein the method further comprises treating the user by altering a setting on the head mounting system”. Claim 6 recites “the tracking further includes giving real time feedback to the user”, which is unclear for similar reasons. Claim 8 recites “the calculating of ocular misalignment” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 1 recites “calculating a temporal length and a magnitude of any deviations or ocular misalignment”, the claim does not positively recite calculating of ocular misalignment. For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “calculating the temporal length and the magnitude of the deviations or the ocular misalignment”
Claim 11 recites “the display calculates values on a graphical user interface (GUI) is for use by an operator”, which is so grammatically awkward that the meaning is not clear. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the display”. Second, it is unclear whether the “values” are the same as, related to, or different from “calculated values” of claim 1, line 13. Third, it is unclear whether “a graphical user interface” is the same as “a graphical user interface (GUI)” of claim 1, line 13. Finally, it is unclear whether the GUI, values, or the display is ”for use by an operator”. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “the GUI is configured to be used by an operator”.
Claim 12 recites “an eye deviation” in line 2. Claim 1 recites “deviations in alignment of each eye” in lines 9-10 and “any deviations” in line 11. It is unclear how these recitations are related to each other. Are they the same, related to, or different from each other? The different language suggests that they are different, but the specification does not create a distinction between the terms which suggests that they are the same. For the purposes of examination, the recitation in claim 12 will be interpreted to be “at least one of the deviations”.
Claim 16 recites “ocular misalignment disorders” in the last line. Claim 16 also recites “a ocular misalignment disorder” in line 1. It is unclear whether these recitations are the same as, related to, or different from each other. For the purposes of examination, the recitation in the last line will be interpreted to be “the ocular misalignment disorder”. Claim 17 recites “an ocular misalignment disorder”, which is indefinite for similar reasons.
Claim 18 recites “a first camera sized to capture a first video” in line 2; “a second camera sized to capture a second video” in line 3; is “a microcomputer sized to process the first video” in line 5. It is unclear what “sized” means. For the purposes of examination, “sized” will be interpreted to be “configured to”.
Claim 19 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0270656 A1 (Samec) in view of US 2017/0156585 A1 (Nie), US 2023/0172507 A1 (Lewkowski), and US 2012/0123219 A1 (Georgiev)
With regards to claim 1, Samec discloses a method for quantifying and diagnosing an ocular misalignment disorder (¶ [0002] discloses methods for diagnosing, monitoring, and treating health conditions and ailments; ¶¶ [1577], [1590] disclose systems and methods for identifying, treating, and/or correcting convergence deficiencies such as those caused by strabismus and/or amblyopia), comprising: securing a head mounting system on a user (¶ [1590] teaches use of an ophthalmic system, such as any of the augmented reality devices disclosed herein; ¶ [1575] discloses the use of a wearable augmented reality head-mounted device), the head mounting system having at least one camera (¶ [01576] discloses the use of an eye tracking system; ¶ [1586] discloses the eye tracking system including one or more sensors including cameras), and the head mounting system in communication with a device control system (¶ [1588] discloses a user interface that is not physically integrated with the device, wherein the user interface device may be a smartphone, computer, tablet, or other computational device; ¶ [1589] discloses using the interface features to control aspects of the vision testing and/or therapy); independently tracking and recording a plurality of positions of pupils in each eye of the user in ambient light (¶ [1591] discloses determining a difference and/or convergence point of both eyes based on eye tracking and/or gaze detection; ¶ [1586] discloses sensors for determining a gaze using the glint; ¶ [1562] discloses tracking a glint with respect to features of the eye (e.g, pupil) to determine gaze and/or convergence point of the eyes; Fig. 5 and ¶¶ [1533], [1578] depict the ophthalmic device directing ambient light from the surrounding world to the eyes); comparing positions of each eye to detect deviations in alignment of each eye (¶ [1591] discloses determining a difference in the focus and/or convergence points of both eyes); and using a graphical user interface (GUI) (¶ [1588] discloses a graphical user interface).
Samec is silent regarding the tracking and recording occurring over an extended period of time in ambient lighting during the user's normal lifetime routine.
In a system relevant to the problem of detecting oculomotor conditions, Nie teaches tracking and recording of eye conditions occurring over an extended period of time in ambient lighting during the user's normal lifetime routine (¶ [0008] discloses determining an eye condition during a normal viewing activity like looking in a book, etc., which necessarily occurs in ambient light; ¶ [0053] discloses determining the eye condition over a large period of time). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified method of Samec to include that the tracking and recording of pupil positions occurs over an extended period of time in ambient lighting during the user's normal lifetime routine as taught by Nie. The motivation would have been to determine the eye condition without distracting the person from the normal activity and without requiring any conscious actions from the person for performing an eye condition test (¶ [0033] of Nie).
The above combination is silent regarding calculating a temporal length and a magnitude of any deviations or ocular misalignment based on a threshold value to obtain a resultant value.
In light of the indefiniteness of the above limitation, the recitation of “based on a threshold value to obtain a resultant value” is not being given patentable weight.
In a system relevant to the problem of detecting ocular parameters, Lewkowski teaches calculating a temporal length and a magnitude of any deviations or ocular misalignment (¶ [0207] and Figs. 4a-4C show radial stacked histograms charts which show ocular deviations (speed and direction over a time period); ¶ [0056] discloses determining time taken to go from eye/pupil motion starting point to the finishing point to determine speed and/or rate of movement; Fig. 2 depict magnitude of eye movement over time). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of the deviations of Samec to incorporate calculating a temporal length and a magnitude of any deviations or ocular misalignment as taught by Lewkowski. The motivation would have been to provide a more complete diagnostic analysis of the patient.
The above combination is silent regarding displaying calculated values on a graphical user interface (GUI).
In a system relevant to the problem of communicating data to a patient, Georgiev teaches displaying calculated values on a graphical user interface (GUI) (¶ [0011] discloses displaying first data display in a first graphical user interface). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the GUI of Samec to incorporate that it displays calculated values as taught by Georgiev. The motivation would have been to communicate the data with the user.
With regards to claim 3, Samec further teaches altering a setting on the head mounting system for treatment of user to improve an ocular misalignment disorder (¶ [1575] disclose a compensating prism correction may be applied to bring the convergence point of both eyes together, wherein the compensating prism correction may be applied by the processor, adaptable optics elements, or a combination of both).
The above combination is silent regarding whether the displaying calculated values further includes displaying a histogram of deviation amounts and time spent at a specific deviation, and a time plot showing the specific deviation.
In a system relevant to the problem of detecting ocular parameters, Lewkowski teaches a histogram of deviation amounts and time spent at a specific deviation (Fig. 4A-4C and ¶ [0207] depict radial stacked histogram charts showing speed and direction over time of deviations and relative times spent at each deviation), and a time plot showing the specific deviation (Fig. 2 depict magnitude of eye movement over time). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the displaying of the above combination to incorporate displaying a histogram of deviation amounts and time spent at a specific deviation, and a time plot showing the specific deviation as taught by Lewkowski. The motivation would have been to convey more information to the user, thereby allowing for a more complete diagnostic picture of the ocular misalignment disorder.
With regards to claim 8, the recitation of “the calculating of ocular misalignment is done as a function of time” will be interpreted to be “calculating the temporal length and the magnitude of the deviations or the ocular misalignment is done as a function of time” due to the indefiniteness of the claim language.
The above combination teaches or suggests the calculating parameters of the ocular misalignment is done as a function of time (¶ [0207] of Lewkowski and Figs. 4a-4C show radial stacked histograms charts which show ocular deviations (speed and direction over a time period); ¶ [0056] of Lewkowski discloses determining time taken to go from eye/pupil motion starting point to the finishing point to determine speed and/or rate of movement; Fig. 2 of Lewkowski depict magnitude of eye movement over time).
With regards to claim 9, the above combination teaches or suggests the device control system is remote from the head mounting system (¶ [1588] of Samec discloses a user interface that is not physically integrated with the device, wherein the user interface device may be a smartphone, computer, tablet, or other computational device).
With regards to claim 10, the above combination teaches or suggests implementing steps either outside a clinical setting or within a clinical setting (¶ [1577] of Samec discloses using the system may or may not occur at a doctor's or clinician's office).
With regards to claim 11, the recitation of “the display calculates values on a graphical user interface (GUI) is for use by an operator” is being interpreted to be “the GUI is configured to be used by an operator” due to the indefiniteness of the claim language.
The above combination teaches or suggests the GUI is configured to be used by an operator (¶ [1588] of Samec depicts the graphical user interface being configured to allow a wearer or other person to provide input to the device; ¶ [0011] of Georgiev discloses the GUI includes interaction fields).
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0270656 A1 (Samec) in view of US 2017/0156585 A1 (Nie), US 2023/0172507 A1 (Lewkowski), and US 2012/0123219 A1 (Georgiev), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0046029 A1 (Tomasi)
With regards to claim 2, the above combination is silent regarding calibrating eye position to yield value in a prism diopter.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring ocular misalignment, Tomasi teaches calibrating eye position to yield value in a prism diopter (¶ [0014] discloses measuring positions in the left and right eyes, obtaining a misalignment measurement and converting the distance into degrees or prism diopters using a Hirschberg ratio and an internal calibration factor based on iris diameter). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have modified the above combination to incorporate calibrating eye position to yield value in a prism diopter as taught by Tomasi. The motivation would have been to convert the detected features into real space and allow for the data to be used by the patient, doctor, or other user (¶ [0011] of Tomasi).
With regards to claim 4, the above combination is silent regarding locating centers of pupils in each eye in an image, and comparing a set of center positions over time between each eye of the user to obtain a comparison set.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring ocular misalignment, Tomasi teaches locating centers of pupils in each eye in an image (¶¶ [0013]-[0014] discloses measuring the positions of the reflections in the left and right eyes and the positions of the reference points in the left and right eyes in image space using the acquired image. The reference points in the left and right eyes may relate to a center of an iris or a pupil of the patient), and comparing a set of center positions over time between each eye of the user to obtain a comparison set (¶¶ [0013]-[0014] and [0062]-[0064] disclose comparing the distance between the reflection point and pupil to obtain a distance d for each eye). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of the deviations of the above combination to incorporate locating centers of pupils in each eye in an image, and comparing a set of center positions over time between each eye of the user to obtain a comparison set as taught by Tomasi. The motivation would have been to provide a more accurate and/or repeatable method for detecting eye deviations.
With regards to claim 5, the above combination is silent regarding using the comparison set to calculate the temporal length and the magnitude of any deviations.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring ocular misalignment, Tomasi teaches using the comparison set to calculate the temporal length and the magnitude of any deviations (¶ [0064] discloses calculation of a difference in the distance d between the two eyes, which is a magnitude; ¶ [0080] measuring and interpreting the frequency of events of misalignment within a defined time/space span). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the determination of the temporal length and the magnitude of any deviations of the above combination such that it uses the comparison set to calculate the temporal length and the magnitude of any deviations as taught by Tomasi. Because both methods are capable of being used for determining times and magnitudes associated with a deviation, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
With regards to claim 7, the above combination is silent regarding whether the threshold value set is set by a clinician or the user.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring ocular deviations, Tomasi teaches determining deviations based on a threshold value, wherein the threshold value set is set by a clinician or the user (¶ [0015] discloses comparison of a calculated difference with a predetermined misalignment threshold; ¶ [0063] discloses the misalignment threshold may be set by the clinician or user). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate that the deviation is determined based on a threshold value, wherein the threshold value set is set by a clinician or the user as taught by Tomasi. The motivation would have been to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of the disorder by reducing excessive noise (¶ [0063] of Tomasi).
With regards to claim 12, the above combination is silent regarding emitting an alert to the user, a caregiver, and/or a clinician of an eye deviation to an amount greater than the threshold value.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring ocular deviations, Tomasi teaches determining deviations based on a threshold value (¶ [0015] discloses comparison of a calculated difference with a predetermined misalignment threshold, which indicates that a determined misalignment necessarily exceeds the threshold) and emitting an alert to the user, a caregiver, and/or a clinician of an eye deviation to an amount greater than the threshold value (¶¶ [0078]-[0079] depict providing feedback and informing the patient of strabismus and the amount of misalignment in each eye, the magnitude and/or direction of misalignment). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate that the deviation is determined based on a threshold value, emitting an alert to the user, a caregiver, and/or a clinician of an eye deviation to an amount greater than the threshold value as taught by Tomasi. The motivation would have been to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of the disorder by reducing excessive noise (¶ [0063] of Tomasi) and to notify the patient of the diagnosis.
With regards to claim 13, the above combination teaches or suggests that the alert is selected from a group consisting of a tone, a vibration, a song, a verbal alert, a musical note, a sound, sensory cue, and any combination thereof (¶¶ [0078]-[0079] and Fig. 5 of Tomasi depict providing visual feedback which amounts to a sensory cue).
With regards to claim 15, the above combination is silent regarding the tracking further includes calibrating eye tracking and pixel to a prism diopter constant.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring ocular misalignment, Tomasi teaches the tracking further includes calibrating eye tracking and pixel to a prism diopter constant (¶ [0014] discloses measuring positions in the left and right eyes, obtaining a misalignment measurement and converting the distance into degrees or prism diopters using a Hirschberg ratio and an internal calibration factor based on iris diameter. ¶¶ [0076], [0108], [0116] discloses calibrated measurements can be used to convert biometric measurements made in pixel space to physical space). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have modified the above combination to incorporate the tracking further includes calibrating eye tracking and pixel to a prism diopter constant as taught by Tomasi. The motivation would have been to convert the detected features into real space and allow for the data to be used by the patient, doctor, or other user (¶ [0011] of Tomasi).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0270656 A1 (Samec) in view of US 2017/0156585 A1 (Nie), US 2023/0172507 A1 (Lewkowski), and US 2012/0123219 A1 (Georgiev), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2018/0214339 A1 (Levi)
With regards to claim 6, the above combination is silent regarding whether the tracking further includes giving real time feedback to the user wearer or a clinician and alerting the user or the clinician to any deviations in eye position.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring ocular parameters, Levi teaches giving real time feedback to the user wearer or a clinician and alerting the user or the clinician to any deviations in eye position (¶ [0147] discloses providing strong cues to help vergence). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate giving real time feedback to the user wearer or a clinician and alerting the user or the clinician to any deviations in eye position as taught by Levi. The motivation would have been to improve vergence in real time.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0270656 A1 (Samec) in view of US 2017/0156585 A1 (Nie), US 2023/0172507 A1 (Lewkowski), US 2012/0123219 A1 (Georgiev), and US 2019/0046029 A1 (Tomasi), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2018/0214339 A1 (Levi).
With regards to claim 14, the above combination is silent regarding the alert is emitted at various intensities related to the magnitude of any deviation.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring ocular misalignment deviations, Levi teaches emitting alerts at various intensities related to the magnitude of deviations (¶ [0026]; ¶ [0078] indicates that a strength of a depth cue may be related to a difficulty of the task of vergence). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the alert of the above combination to incorporate that it is emitted at various intensities related to the magnitude of any deviation as taught by Levi. The motivation would have been to communicate the magnitude of the deviation and/or difficulty to the patient, thereby providing the patient with a more tailored therapy.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0270656 A1 (Samec) in view of US 2019/0046029 A1 (Tomasi), US 2017/0156585 A1 (Nie), US 2023/0172507 A1 (Lewkowski), and US 2012/0123219 A1 (Georgiev).
With regards to claim 1, Samec discloses a method for therapeutic intervention of an ocular misalignment disorder (¶ [0002] discloses methods for diagnosing, monitoring, and treating health conditions and ailments; ¶¶ [1577], [1590] disclose systems and methods for identifying, treating, and/or correcting convergence deficiencies such as those caused by strabismus and/or amblyopia), comprising: providing a head mounting system (¶ [1590] teaches use of an ophthalmic system, such as any of the augmented reality devices disclosed herein; ¶ [1575] discloses the use of a wearable augmented reality head-mounted device); tracking and recording a plurality of positions of each eye of the user in ambient lighting (¶ [1591] discloses determining a difference and/or convergence point of both eyes based on eye tracking and/or gaze detection; ¶ [1586] discloses sensors for determining a gaze using the glint; ¶ [1562] discloses tracking a glint with respect to features of the eye (e.g, pupil) to determine gaze and/or convergence point of the eyes; Fig. 5 and ¶¶ [1533], [1578] depict the ophthalmic device directing ambient light from the surrounding world to the eyes); comparing positions of each eye to detect deviations in alignment of each eye (¶ [1591] discloses determining a difference in the focus and/or convergence points of both eyes); using a graphical user interface (GUI) (¶ [1588] discloses a graphical user interface); and emitting a sensory cue as a form of feedback to remediate or improve ocular misalignment disorders (¶¶ [1581], [1591] discloses providing occluding an eye to re-train a lazy eye, wherein the occlusion amounts to a sensory cue).
Samec is silent regarding calibrating eye position to yield value in a prism diopter.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring ocular misalignment, Tomasi teaches calibrating eye position to yield value in a prism diopter (¶ [0014] discloses measuring positions in the left and right eyes, obtaining a misalignment measurement and converting the distance into degrees or prism diopters using a Hirschberg ratio and an internal calibration factor based on iris diameter). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have modified the method of Samec to incorporate calibrating eye position to yield value in a prism diopter as taught by Tomasi. The motivation would have been to convert the detected features into real space and allow for the data to be used by the patient, doctor, or other user (¶ [0011] of Tomasi).
The above combination is silent regarding the tracking and recording occurring over an extended period of time in ambient lighting during the user's normal lifetime routine.
In a system relevant to the problem of detecting oculomotor conditions, Nie teaches tracking and recording of eye conditions occurring over an extended period of time in ambient lighting during the user's normal lifetime routine (¶ [0008] discloses determining an eye condition during a normal viewing activity like looking in a book, etc., which necessarily occurs in ambient light; ¶ [0053] discloses determining the eye condition over a large period of time). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified method of the above combination to include that the tracking and recording of pupil positions occurs over an extended period of time in ambient lighting during the user's normal lifetime routine as taught by Nie. The motivation would have been to determine the eye condition without distracting the person from the normal activity and without requiring any conscious actions from the person for performing an eye condition test (¶ [0033] of Nie).
The above combination is silent regarding calculating a temporal length and a magnitude of any deviations or ocular misalignment based on a threshold value to obtain a resultant value.
In light of the indefiniteness of the above limitation, the recitation of “based on a threshold value to obtain a resultant value” is not being given patentable weight.
In a system relevant to the problem of detecting ocular parameters, Lewkowski teaches calculating a temporal length and a magnitude of any deviations or ocular misalignment (¶ [0207] and Figs. 4a-4C show radial stacked histograms charts which show ocular deviations (speed and direction over a time period); ¶ [0056] discloses determining time taken to go from eye/pupil motion starting point to the finishing point to determine speed and/or rate of movement; Fig. 2 depict magnitude of eye movement over time). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of the deviations of Samec of the above combination to incorporate calculating a temporal length and a magnitude of any deviations or ocular misalignment as taught by Lewkowski. The motivation would have been to provide a more complete diagnostic analysis of the patient.
The above combination is silent regarding displaying calculated values on a graphical user interface (GUI).
In a system relevant to the problem of communicating data to a patient, Georgiev teaches displaying calculated values on a graphical user interface (GUI) (¶ [0011] discloses displaying first data display in a first graphical user interface). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the GUI of Samec of the above combination to incorporate that it displays calculated values as taught by Georgiev. The motivation would have been to communicate the data with the user.
With regards to claim 17, the above combination is silent regarding emitting an alert to the user of an eye deviation to an amount greater than a predetermined threshold as part of a treatment of an ocular misalignment disorder.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring ocular deviations, Tomasi teaches determining deviations based on a threshold value (¶ [0015] discloses comparison of a calculated difference with a predetermined misalignment threshold, which indicates that a determined misalignment necessarily exceeds the threshold) and emitting an alert to the user of an eye deviation to an amount greater than a predetermined threshold as part of a treatment of an ocular misalignment disorder (¶¶ [0078]-[0079] depict providing feedback and informing the patient of strabismus and the amount of misalignment in each eye, the magnitude and/or direction of misalignment, wherein the feedback may be used for treatment). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate that the deviation is determined based on a threshold value, emitting an alert to the user of an eye deviation to an amount greater than a predetermined threshold as part of a treatment of an ocular misalignment disorder. as taught by Tomasi. The motivation would have been to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of the disorder by reducing excessive noise (¶ [0063] of Tomasi) and to notify the patient of the diagnosis.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0270656 A1 (Samec)
With regards to claim 18, to the extent that it can be argued that all features taught by Samec are not provided in a single embodiment, Samec discloses a variety of alternative and additional embodiments that are provided in a variety of combinations so that the benefits of these various features can be utilized. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the various features in the alternative and additional embodiments so as to derive the benefits of these features, as suggested by Samec. See at least ¶¶ [2219], [2220] of Samec.
Samec teaches a system for quantifying and treating an ocular misalignment disorder (Figs. 3 and 5 and ¶¶ [1577], [1590] disclose systems and methods for identifying, treating, and/or correcting convergence deficiencies such as those caused by strabismus and/or amblyopia), comprising: a head mounting system including a first camera sized to capture a first video and a second camera sized to capture a second video (¶ [1590] teaches use of an ophthalmic system, such as any of the augmented reality devices disclosed herein; ¶ [1575] discloses the use of a wearable augmented reality head-mounted device; ¶ [01576] discloses the use of an eye tracking system; ¶ [1586] discloses the eye tracking system including one or more sensors including cameras; Fig. 5 depict two cameras 24; ¶ [1473] discloses tracking of eye movements, which indicates that the cameras are sized to capture videos); and a device control system in communication with the head mounting system (¶ [1433] discloses a local processing and data module 70 for processing data captured from image capture devices such as cameras), the device control system including a microcomputer sized to process the first video and the second video from the second camera (¶ [1433] discloses a local processing and data module 70 including a processor or computer for processing data captured from image capture devices such as cameras), wherein the device control system outputs a data received from the microcomputer (¶ [1433] discloses local processing and data module (70) may be operatively coupled (76, 78), such as via a wired or wireless communication links, to the remote processing module (72) and remote data repository (74); ¶ [1434] discloses the remote processing module 72 analyzes and process data and/or image information), and wherein the device control system and the head mounting system are accessible outside a clinical setting or within a clinical setting (¶ [1577] of Samec discloses using the system may or may not occur at a doctor's or clinician's office).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0270656 A1 (Samec), as applied to claim 18 above, and in view of US 2019/0046029 A1 (Tomasi).
With regards to claim 19, the above combination is silent regarding a sensory biofeedback system for emitting a tone, a vibration, a visual indication, or any combination thereof to alert the user of an eye deviation to an amount greater than a predetermined threshold.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring ocular deviations, Tomasi teaches determining deviations based on a threshold value (¶ [0015] discloses comparison of a calculated difference with a predetermined misalignment threshold, which indicates that a determined misalignment necessarily exceeds the threshold) and a sensory biofeedback system for emitting a tone, a vibration, a visual indication, or any combination thereof to alert the user of an eye deviation to an amount greater than a predetermined threshold (Fig. 5 and ¶¶ [0078]-[0079] depict providing feedback and informing the patient of strabismus and the amount of misalignment in each eye, the magnitude and/or direction of misalignment). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate that the deviation is determined based on a threshold value, and a sensory biofeedback system for emitting a tone, a vibration, a visual indication, or any combination thereof to alert the user of an eye deviation to an amount greater than a predetermined threshold as taught by Tomasi. The motivation would have been to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of the disorder by reducing excessive noise (¶ [0063] of Tomasi) and to notify the patient of the diagnosis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/S.C.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791