DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/05/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Applicants have amended their claims, filed 5/5/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Applicant has canceled claims 2, 5-6, 10, 12-13, and 16-17.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 14-15 are pending and hereby under examination.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 19, “display the nystagmus” should read “display the meaningful nystagmus”.
Claim 1, lines 24-26 should read “wherein after the eye movement video acquisition processor receives the raw signal data for the eye movement captured using an internal camera of the eye tracker, the eye movement video acquisition processor recombines the raw signal data using a processing program to acquire the eye movement video”.
Claim 9, line 18, “displaying the nystagmus” should read “displaying the meaningful nystagmus”.
Claim 9, line 21 should read “wherein during operation (c)after the raw signal data for the eye movement captured using an internal camera of the eye tracker is received, the eye movement video, …”
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:
“an eye movement video acquisition processor” first recited in claim 1;
“an eye movement video transmitting processor” first recited in claim 1;
“a nystagmus detection processor” first recited in claim 1;
“a graph output processor” first recited in claim 1;
“a diagnostic processor” first recited in claim 1;
“an arithmetic processor” first recited in claim 3;
“a posture adjustment guide processor” first recited in claim 8;
The identified structure for the corresponding claim limitations are as follows:
“an eye movement video acquisition processor” is interpreted as “an eye movement video acquisition unit configured to receive raw data obtained by capturing eye movement of the patient from an eye tracker attached to the virtual reality device to acquire eye movement video” (Page 4, lines 11-14), “may acquire the eye movement video by processing the raw data of the eye movement captured using an internal camera of the eye tracker using a processing program” (Page 4, lines 22-24), “After receiving signals transmitted from the eye tracker 12, the eye movement video acquisition unit 18 recombines the signals in the same processing method as illustrated in FIG. 4 to acquire an actual eye movement image” (Page 12, lines 3-5).
“an eye movement video transmitting processor” is identified as “an eye movement video transmitting unit configured to transmit the eye movement video acquired by the eye movement video acquisition unit” (Page 4, lines 14-15) and
“The SDK generates an image transfer function using openCV, divides the eye image captured through the internal camera 121 into image frames, and transmits the divided image frames to the eye prediction module. In this case, the image frame is modified to load image frame data into a PIPE by modifying the openCV function and transmit the image frame data. Then, a receiving end of the PIPE may be implemented at a client side to extract an image frame (raw eye image data).
After receiving signals transmitted from the eye tracker 12, the eye movement video acquisition unit 18 recombines the signals in the same processing method as illustrated in FIG. 4 to acquire an actual eye movement image. and transmits the acquired eye movement image through the eye movement video transmitting unit 19” (Page 11, line 17 – Page 12, line 6).
“a nystagmus detection processor” is identified as “the nystagmus detection unit 20 is for detecting the oculomotor function, and detects meaningful nystagmus, which is required to diagnose dizziness, from the eye movement in the eye movement video provided through the eye movement video transmitting unit 19.
The nystagmus refers to involuntary movement of the eye. For example, when sitting on a chair that rotates to the right, eyes repeat the movement of turning to the right and then returning to an original state according to a rotating speed of the chair, although we are not aware of it. In this case, the eve movement that usually returns to its original state returns quickly, which is called "fast component." Thus, the nystagmus is composed of "fast component” and “slow component”. However, although it looks like the nystagmus, there is an eye movement that is not the nystagmus, such as the eye moving quickly to the right and then quickly returning to its original state, or moving slowly to the right and then slowly returning to the left. This not called the nystagmus but is usually called "saccadic oscillation." Since the saccadic oscillation is a pathologic finding suggesting abnormality in the central-vestibular-optic pathway, it is very important to distinguish the saccadic oscillation from the nystagmus. Also, even with the nystagmus, when intensity (speed of the eye movement of the slow component) is too weak below 2-3 deg/sec or when an eye is covered due to blinking or the like, the nystagmus may not be properly measured, and the same goes for the saccadic oscillation.
Therefore, the nystagmus detection unit 20 filters the eye movement of the eye movement video transmitted through the eye movement video transmitting unit 19 to detect only the meaningful nystagmus. That is, the nystagmus detection unit 20 may distinguish between the saccadic oscillation and the nystagmus, and includes a function of detecting only nystagmus excluding the meaningless eye movement (movement that is not measured since eyes are blocked due to too slow, blinking, or the like).
In addition, since the nystagmus is the eye movement along a time axis, when the nystagmus is not detected for a specific period of time, such as when a patient closes his or her eyes, the nystagmus also includes a function of performing prediction through a pattern immediately before closing the eyes and after opening the eyes and performing measurement again” (Page 12, line 7 – Page 13, line 14).
“a graph output processor” is identified as “a graph output unit configured to display the nystagmus detected by the nystagmus detection unit in three axes” (Page 5, lines 8-9) and “the graph output unit 21 generates and outputs a nystagmus graph for the patient based on the nystagmus detected through the nystagmus detection unit 20. The nystagmus graph is a graph of eye movement over time, and the eye moves along three axes: horizontal (right/left), vertical (up/down), and torsional (clockwise/counterclockwise)” (Page 13, line 24 – Page 14, line 3).
“a diagnostic processor” is identified as “a diagnostic unit configured to diagnose the dizziness of the patient based on the meaningful nystagmus detected by the nystagmus detection unit” (Page 4, lines 19-21),
“may determine that there is an abnormality in a vestibular function when the relative ratio calculated by the arithmetic unit is not ‘1’” (Page 5, lines 6-7), and
“The diagnostic unit 24 determines whether there is the abnormality in the vestibular function using the relative ratio calculated by the arithmetic unit 23. For example, when the head movement detection unit 17 may determine that there is the abnormality in the vestibular function when the value obtained by dividing the movement angle of the head detected in response to the change in the head by the eye movement angle, that is, the calculated relative ratio does not become "1."
For example, when the head moves 20° to the right for 1 second, the eyes normally move 20° for the same time in the opposite direction. For example, when it is assumed that, when the head moves 30° to the right for 1 second, eyes move only 20° during the same time, the arithmetic unit 23 divides the movement angle of the head (20°) by the nystagmus movement angle and when the divided value does not become ‘1,’ the diagnostic unit 24 determines that there is the abnormality in the vestibular function of the right side. However, this process is a simple example, and the normal value of the calculated relative ratio is not necessarily ‘1,’ which may be determined by experts using it by inputting normal values differently and classifying abnormalities according to the input normal values.
The diagnostic unit 24 may diagnose the type of dizziness of the patient based on the nystagmus detected by the nystagmus detection unit 20. In order to diagnose the type of dizziness of a patient, the information on the dizziness is stored and registered in a database, and the diagnostic unit 24 may compare the currently measured patient's nystagmus with pre-registered dizziness information to diagnose the type of dizziness (symptom)” (Page 15, line 19 – Page 16, line 16).
“an arithmetic processor” is identified as “The apparatus may further include an arithmetic unit configured to calculate a relative ratio between the head movement and the eye movement by dividing a movement angle of a head detected by the head movement detection unit in response to a change in the patient's head by the eye movement angle obtained in response to the change in the head. The diagnostic unit may determine that there is an abnormality in a vestibular function when the relative ratio calculated by the arithmetic unit is not ‘1’” (Page 5, lines 1-5) and
“The arithmetic unit 23 divides the movement angle of the head detected by the head movement detection unit 17 by the eye movement angle to calculate a relative ratio between the head movement and the eye movement. Here, the movement angle of the head is the movement angle of the head that is changed by moving the head of the patient, and refers to the angle at which the head moves based on the reference value (reference position of the initial head). The eve movement angle is an angle of an eye moved corresponding to an angle at which the head of the patient moves due to the change in the patient's head, and may be provided through the eye movement video transmitting unit 19 or the eye movement video acquisition unit 18. The arithmetic unit 23 calculates a relative ratio obtained by dividing the movement angle of the head detected by the head movement detection unit 17, that is, the movement angle of the head from the reference value by the eye movement angle. Then, the relative ratio calculated by the arithmetic unit 23 is provided to a diagnostic unit 24” (Page 15, lines 5-18).
“a posture adjustment guide processor” is identified as “a posture adjustment guide unit 25 that provides a test method for an operation of each test and guides a guide in a posture required for an accurate test. The posture adjustment guide unit 25 provides (feedback) a posture required for accurate test to a patient through a speaker (not illustrated) The feedback provided by the posture adjustment guide unit 25 is shown in Table 2 below” (Page 16, line 18 – Page 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
765
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
747
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
118
481
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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, 3-4, 7-9, and 14-15 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 9, it is unclear how the head detection processor receives a “real world” captured from the head tracker. It appears that Applicant intends to claim that the processor receives an image of the real world or a real world image, consistent with language used on page 9, lines 13-14 of Applicant’s specification. However, it is further unclear how a real world image is used to detect head position and movement of a patient to detect head movement of the patient, or how the real world image relates to detecting the head position/movement. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted such that a real world image is captured from a head tracker and, separately, a head movement of the patient is detected. Claims 3-4, 7-8, and 14-15 are also rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 and 9.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, it is unclear what the term “exclude” means. In claim 1, the nystagmus detection processor is configured to “exclude meaningless eye movement that is not measured since an eye moves too slow or is covered due to blinking”. It is unclear how the eye movement is excluded if the eye movement is not measured. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted such that the “meaningless eye movement” is not measured at all or is filtered out. Claims 3-4, 7-8, and 14-15 are also rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 and 9.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, it is unclear what “distinguish saccadic oscillation and nystagmus in the eye movement video to detect the nystagmus” is claiming. Both saccadic oscillation and nystagmus would necessarily be detected in order to distinguish between the two types of eye movement. Is the saccadic oscillation filtered out / removed to have a data set of only nystagmus? In claim 9, the “distinguishing” step is unclear for the same reasoning. For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted to detect nystagmus and saccadic oscillation for “nystagmus detection”. Claims 2-8 and 10-17 are also rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 and 9.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear how the diagnostic result is made. The claim requires that the diagnostic result of a dizziness of the patient is displayed based on the detected meaningful nystagmus. How does the detected meaningful nystagmus result in a diagnosis or diagnostic result? Is there an algorithm or calculation made to make this determination? Additionally, a diagnosing step is not positively recited, so it is unclear if the claim requires determining the diagnosis.
With regards to the displaying a diagnostic result of claim 1, the “diagnostic processor” is interpreted to determine whether there is the abnormality in the vestibular function using the relative ratio calculated by the arithmetic unit 23. As such, claim 1 requires determining a diagnosis and displaying the diagnostic result and is not rejected. For examination purposes, claim 9 will be interpreted such that a diagnosis is made and displayed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Per the claim interpretation above of an “eye movement video acquisition processor” and “an eye movement video transmitting processor”, the independent claims require a processing program to acquire eye movement video. Specification page 11, line 11 – page 12, line 2 describes the processing program. A software development kit (SDK) provided by the manufacturer of the HMD may be used as the processing program, wherein modules receives and process eye image data taken from a camera. Then, the SDK generates an image transfer function using OpenCV, divides the eye images into frames, and the eye movement video acquisition unit recombines the images into a video. Examiner interprets this processing program to take obtained image frames of the eyes from a camera and combine the image frames together into one video. From the specification, it does not appear that the eye image frame data is manipulated in any meaningful way other than to combine them into the eye image frame data into a video. Thus, the claim is interpreted such that multiple images are taken of the eye and combined into a video.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (US 20180008141), Suh (US 10881319), and Bhandari (US 20240197216), as evidenced by Harris (“The CCD – How Camcorders Work”).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Krueger discloses an apparatus for diagnosing dizziness through eye movement measurement based on virtual reality, the apparatus comprising:
a head movement detection processor configured to receive a real world (Paragraph 0074, wherein the display may be AR (augmented reality); Paragraph 0087, wherein the AR device display is see-through, which Examiner interprets to be showing a real world image) captured from a head tracker attached to a virtual reality device (Figs. 3A-B, head-worn VR device 300) and detecting a head position and movement of a patient to detect head movement of the patient (Fig. 3A, head orientation sensor 108; Paragraph 0082, “The head orientation sensor 108 is rigidly attached to the headband 104. In at least one embodiment, the head orientation sensor 108 senses (is responsive to) pitch, roll, and/or yaw. Pitch can be described as upward or downward movement of the face. Roll can be described as rotation of the face when viewed from the front. Yaw can be described as leftward and rightward movement of the face when viewed from the front”);
a gaze guidance gazing point providing processor configured to provide a gazing point for gaze guidance through a display installed in the virtual reality device (see Figs. 11-15, wherein different target visual elements are provided for the subject to follow);
an eye movement video acquisition processor configured to receive raw data obtained by capturing eye movement of the patient from an eye tracker attached to the virtual reality device to acquire eye movement video (Fig. 1, eye sensor 110; Fig. 3A, eye tracking video cameras 210/211; Paragraph 0083, “the eye sensor 110 is more specifically an eye tracking digital video camera that is pointed at the eyes of the person 98. The eye sensor can be responsive to any eye position, including vertical movement of the eyes (which represents pitch), rotation of the eyes (which represents roll), and horizontal movement of eyes (which represents yaw)”);
wherein the eye movement video acquisition processor receives the raw signal data for the eye movement video captured using an internal camera of the eye camera (Fig. 1, eye sensor 110; Fig. 3A, eye tracking cameras 210/211) and recombines the raw signal data using a processing program (Paragraph 0192, wherein video with a sampling rate of at least 30 frames per second, but up to 1250 frames per second) to acquire eye movement video (Fig. 3A, eye camera video processor 124);
Krueger discloses that the eye camera captures video between 30-1250 frames per second as a video. While Krueger does not explicitly state that the images are combined in a video. However, as evidenced by Harris, video signals are multiple pictures taken every second and combined to give the impression of movement (Page 3, paragraphs 2-3). As such, the frames from the video camera are combined to resemble movement video.
wherein the raw signal data includes information on presence/absence of user (Paragraph 0201, “From there, the presence or absence of collected eye data points in different screen areas can be examined”; Examiner interprets this to mean that the data includes information on the presence or absence of the user), timestamp (Paragraph 0198, “Video-based eye trackers typically use the corneal reflection (the first Purkinje image) and the center of the pupil as features to track over time”; Examiner interprets tracking over time to read on the limitation of a timestamp, as the data is collected over a time period that would necessarily be known), gaze start position (Paragraphs 0192-0193, wherein eye tracking is measuring the point of gaze, which includes the direction of gaze. Examiner interprets this to mean that gaze start position is a known parameter as the method would necessarily start with the initial position of the gaze), gaze position on screen (Paragraph 0218, wherein heatmaps represent where the gaze is concentrated and how long they gazed at a given point, which Examiner interprets the heatmap to represent the gaze position on a screen), normalized gaze direction (Paragraph 0026, wherein the eye movement is normalized via a ration between peak velocity and target velocity to derive a value for gain; Paragraph 0272, wherein the gain is used to determine natural motion of the eyes), diameter of pupil (Paragraph 0193, wherein changes in pupil diameter can be detected), and degree of eye opening (Paragraphs 0178 and 0201, wherein collected data includes rate of the eyelid closure, eyelid closure, and eyelid movement);
an eye movement video transmitting processor configured to transmit the eye movement video acquired by the eye movement video acquisition processor (Fig. 5, data sent to eye camera video processor 124);
a nystagmus detection processor configured to receive the eye movement video from the eye movement video transmitting processor to distinguish saccadic oscillation and nystagmus in the eye movement video to the detect nystagmus and exclude meaningless eye movement that is not measured since an eye moves too slow or is covered due to blinking in the detected nystagmus to detect only meaningful nystagmus (Fig. 6, measure eye orientation changes 642 to determine vestibulo-ocular performance 644; Paragraph 0028, wherein nystagmus is defined as eye movement in three directions, horizontal, vertical, and torsional movement; Paragraph 0079, “In embodiments of the present invention, vestibular ocular performance (VOP), saccades, visual pursuit performance, nystagmus, vergence, eyelid closure, dynamic visual acuity, dynamic visual stability, retinal image stability, foveal fixation stability, and focused position of the eyes could be measured in a VR, AR or synthetic 3D environment”; Examiner notes that Krueger discloses measuring blinking frequency, but does not explicitly mention measuring this “meaningless eye movement” for nystagmus; thus, Krueger reads on the limitation of “excluding meaningless eye movement”); and
a diagnostic processor configured to display a diagnostic result of the patient on a display based on the meaningful nystagmus detected by the nystagmus detection processor (Paragraphs 0272-0274, wherein a gain is detected which is a comparison between the movement of the head to the movement of the eyes; Paragraph 0160, wherein the graphs of Figs. 9A-C and 10A-C depict the gain. A gain of less than 1.0 shows “the velocity of the eyes is slower than that of the head”; Paragraph 0272, wherein a gain of -1 or 1 is “perfect”, thus a gain outside of this range is abnormal; Per the claim interpretation of a diagnostic processor above, this limitation requires determining a relative ratio between the head movement and the eye movement and determining there is an abnormality when the ratio is not 1; thus, this limitation of Krueger also discloses the limitations of claim 3 and 4).
Krueger does disclose measuring nystagmus in three axes, as described above, and further discloses displaying measurements on a graph or other visual display (see, for example, Figs. 9A-C). However, Krueger fails to explicitly disclose displaying the nystagmus measurement.
Krueger and Bhandari are in the same field of assessing eye movement. Bhandari teaches a headgear apparatus for tracking eye movement (Abstract), wherein nystagmus is measured and displayed (Figs. 9 – 12, wherein Figs. 9-11 display measured horizontal and vertical eye movement, and Fig. 12 displays measured torsional movement). As Krueger discloses measuring nystagmus, Bhandari teaches a method of displaying the nystagmus, which is useful to show differences between measured nystagmus and normal eye movement (Paragraphs 0053-0055). The method of Krueger would benefit from displaying eye movement measurements to distinguish between normal movement and nystagmus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krueger to incorporate the teachings of displaying nystagmus measurements as taught by Bhandari to visualize differences in types of eye movement.
While Krueger as modified discusses that individuals with VOR/DVA [vestibulo-ocular reflex/dynamic visual acuity] abnormality may experience dizziness (Paragraph 0325), Krueger as modified does not explicitly diagnose dizziness.
Krueger, Bhandari, and Suh are in the same field of measuring eye movement. Suh teaches an apparatus for treating dizziness, wherein after nystagmus is determined, a type of dizziness is diagnosed (Col 5, lines 60-64), which Suh discusses is useful for providing different treatment/alleviation methods and for dizziness prevention (Col 2, lines 29-33). While Krueger is concerned with measuring nystagmus and suggests that individuals may experience dizziness, Suh teaches a method of diagnosing a type of dizziness based on nystagmus to treat said dizziness. Krueger would benefit from incorporating dizziness diagnosis based on nystagmus in order to treat or alleviate the dizziness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual reality device for measuring nystagmus of Krueger and Bhandari to incorporate dizziness diagnosis from nystagmus detection of Suh, the benefit being treating/alleviating the type of determined dizziness.
Regarding claim 7, Krueger as modified further discloses wherein the gazing point has a curtain shape or a point shape (Fig. 11B; Fig. 13, tennis ball 920; Figs. 14-15).
Regarding claim 8, Krueger as modified further discloses a posture adjustment guide processor configured to provide the patient with an accurate posture required for each test through the virtual reality device (Fig. 7, boxes 622, 624, and 626; Paragraphs 0109-0116, wherein feedback is given to the user to move the head for proper testing).
Regarding claim 9, Krueger discloses a method of diagnosing dizziness through eye movement measurement based on virtual reality, the method comprising:
receiving a real world (Paragraph 0074, wherein the display may be AR (augmented reality); Paragraph 0087, wherein the AR device display is see-through, which Examiner interprets to be showing a real world image) captured from a head tracker attached to a virtual reality device (Figs. 3A-B, head-worn VR device 300) and detecting a head position and movement of a patient to detect head movement of the patient (Fig. 3A, head orientation sensor 108; Paragraph 0082, “The head orientation sensor 108 is rigidly attached to the headband 104. In at least one embodiment, the head orientation sensor 108 senses (is responsive to) pitch, roll, and/or yaw. Pitch can be described as upward or downward movement of the face. Roll can be described as rotation of the face when viewed from the front. Yaw can be described as leftward and rightward movement of the face when viewed from the front”);
providing a gazing point for gaze guidance through the virtual reality device (see Figs. 11-15, wherein different target visual elements are provided for the subject to follow);
receiving raw signal data obtained by capturing the eye movement of the patient from an eye tracker attached to the virtual reality device to acquire eye movement video (Fig. 3A, eye tracking video cameras 210/211; Fig. 5, data sent to eye camera video processor 124);
wherein during operation (c), when the raw signal data for the eye movement video captured using an internal camera of the eye tracker is received, the raw signal data is recombined using a processing program to acquire eye movement video (Fig. 1, eye sensor 110; Fig. 3A, eye tracking cameras 210/211; Paragraph 0192, wherein video with a sampling rate of at least 30 frames per second and up to 1250 frames per second, is combined into a video via eye camera video processor 124); Krueger discloses that the eye camera captures video between 30-1250 frames per second as a video. While Krueger does not explicitly state that the images are combined in a video. However, as evidenced by Harris, video signals are multiple pictures taken every second and combined to give the impression of movement (Page 3, paragraphs 2-3). As such, the frames from the video camera are combined to resemble movement video.
wherein the raw signal data includes information on presence/absence of user (Paragraph 0201, “From there, the presence or absence of collected eye data points in different screen areas can be examined”; Examiner interprets this to mean that the data includes information on the presence or absence of the user), timestamp (Paragraph 0198, “Video-based eye trackers typically use the corneal reflection (the first Purkinje image) and the center of the pupil as features to track over time”; Examiner interprets tracking over time to read on the limitation of a timestamp, as the data is collected over a time period that would necessarily be known), gaze start position (Paragraphs 0192-0193, wherein eye tracking is measuring the point of gaze, which includes the direction of gaze. Examiner interprets this to mean that gaze start position is a known parameter as the method would necessarily start with the initial position of the gaze), gaze position on screen (Paragraph 0218, wherein heatmaps represent where the gaze is concentrated and how long they gazed at a given point, which Examiner interprets the heatmap to represent the gaze position on a screen), normalized gaze direction (Paragraph 0026, wherein the eye movement is normalized via a ratio between peak velocity and target velocity to derive a value for gain; Paragraph 0272, wherein the gain is used to determine natural motion of the eyes), diameter of pupil (Paragraph 0193, wherein changes in pupil diameter can be detected), and degree of eye opening (Paragraphs 0178 and 0201, wherein collected data includes rate of the eyelid closure, eyelid closure, and eyelid movement);
distinguishing saccadic oscillation and nystagmus in the eye movement video to detect nystagmus and excluding meaningless eye movement that is not measured since an eye moves too slow or is covered due to blinking in the detected nystagmus to detect only meaningful nystagmus (Fig. 6, measure eye orientation changes 642 to determine vestibulo-ocular performance 644; Paragraph 0028, wherein nystagmus is defined as eye movement in three directions, horizontal, vertical, and torsional movement; Paragraph 0079, “In embodiments of the present invention, vestibular ocular performance (VOP), saccades, visual pursuit performance, nystagmus, vergence, eyelid closure, dynamic visual acuity, dynamic visual stability, retinal image stability, foveal fixation stability, and focused position of the eyes could be measured in a VR, AR or synthetic 3D environment”; Examiner notes that Krueger discloses measuring blinking frequency, but does not explicitly mention measuring this “meaningless eye movement” for nystagmus; thus, Krueger reads on the limitation of “excluding meaningless eye movement”);
Krueger does disclose measuring nystagmus in three axes, as described above, and further discloses displaying measurements on a graph or other visual display (see, for example, Figs. 9A-C). However, Krueger fails to explicitly disclose displaying the nystagmus measurement.
Krueger and Bhandari are in the same field of assessing eye movement. Bhandari teaches a headgear apparatus for tracking eye movement (Abstract), wherein nystagmus is measured and displayed (Figs. 9 – 12, wherein Figs. 9-11 display measured horizontal and vertical eye movement, and Fig. 12 displays measured torsional movement). As Krueger discloses measuring nystagmus, Bhandari teaches a method of displaying the nystagmus, which is useful to show differences between measured nystagmus and normal eye movement (Paragraphs 0053-0055). The method of Krueger would benefit from displaying eye movement measurements to distinguish between normal movement and nystagmus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krueger to incorporate the teachings of displaying nystagmus measurements as taught by Bhandari to visualize differences in types of eye movement.
While Krueger as modified discusses that individuals with VOR/DVA [vestibulo-ocular reflex/dynamic visual acuity] abnormality may experience dizziness (Paragraph 0325), Krueger as modified does not explicitly diagnose dizziness.
Krueger, Bhandari, and Suh are in the same field of measuring eye movement. Suh teaches an apparatus for treating dizziness, wherein after nystagmus is determined, a type of dizziness is diagnosed (Col 5, lines 60-64), which Suh discusses is useful for providing different treatment/alleviation methods and for dizziness prevention (Col 2, lines 29-33). While Krueger is concerned with measuring nystagmus and suggests that individuals may experience dizziness, Suh teaches a method of diagnosing a type of dizziness based on nystagmus to treat said dizziness. Krueger would benefit from incorporating dizziness diagnosis based on nystagmus in order to treat or alleviate the dizziness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual reality device for measuring nystagmus of Krueger and Bhandari to incorporate dizziness diagnosis from nystagmus detection of Suh, the benefit being treating/alleviating the type of determined dizziness.
Regarding claim 11, Krueger further discloses wherein, in the operation (d), a relative ratio between the head movement and the eye movement is calculated by dividing a movement angle of a head detected in response to a change in a head in the operation (a) by the eye movement angle moving in response to the change in the head, and it is determined that there is abnormality in a vestibular function when the calculated relative ratio does not reach "1" or a normal value that is predetermined (Paragraphs 0272-0274, wherein a gain is detected which is a comparison between the movement of the head to the movement of the eyes and wherein a gain of -1 or 1 is “perfect”, thus a gain outside of this range is abnormal; Paragraph 0160, wherein the graphs of Figs. 9A-C and 10A-C depict the gain. A gain of less than 1.0 shows “the velocity of the eyes is slower than that of the head”).
Regarding claim 14, Krueger further discloses wherein the gazing point has a curtain shape or a point shape (Fig. 11B; Fig. 13, tennis ball 920; Figs. 14-15).
Regarding claim 15, Krueger further discloses comprising, after the operation (a), (f) providing the patient with an accurate posture required for each test through the virtual reality device (Fig. 7, boxes 622, 624, and 626; Paragraphs 0109-0116).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the specification objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant removed the redundant language. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims per the suggestion of the Examiner. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn. However, new objections have been applied.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant amending the limitations interpreted under 112(f). While Applicant has amended the claims to change “unit” into “processor”, the identified structure of the various processors is interpreted to be their respective acts, as recited in the specification and reflected above.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The unit/processor structural elements of the claims are interpreted as their respective acts disclosed in the specification. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant contends that by removing “filter” from the claims, the rejection is overcome. Examiner disagrees. The use of the words “distinguish” and “exclude” in the claims still remain unclear. Claims 1 and 9 require detecting nystagmus by distinguishing nystagmus and saccadic oscillation; however, the distinguishing step would already require that nystagmus and saccadic oscillation are detected and some process chooses only the nystagmus to further display and use for diagnosis. Additionally, “excluding meaningless eye movement that is not measured” is unclear. If the meaningless eye movement is not measured, it would necessarily be excluded from the data. So is the meaningless eye movement detected and filtered out, or is the meaningless eye movement not measured at all? Thus, this rejection is not overcome.
Applicant has clarified that the head movement detection processor receives a “real world” signal captured from a head tracker and detects the head position and movement of a patient. Thus, this rejection is withdrawn.
Similarly, Applicant has clarified that the eye movement video acquisition processor receives raw signal data from the eye tracker to acquire eye movement video. Thus, this rejection is withdrawn.
Lastly, the claim interpretation of the “processor” limitations of the claims recite sufficient structure (their corresponding acts, as described above). As such, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-18, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues that sufficient structure is present and the independent claims are patent eligible under the Alice/Mayo test. Applicant argues that the abstract ideas are not drawn to mental processes because the independent claims are directed towards an apparatus for detecting and displaying nystagmus. Examiner agrees. The structure of a virtual reality headset for capturing images/video of eye movement, detecting nystagmus, and displaying the result cannot be performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper or a generic computer. The method performed by the apparatus requires more than just the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper or a generic computer, such as a head tracker of a virtual reality device with a camera. As such, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 18-21, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Krueger, Suh, Bhandari, and Harris, as described above.
Applicant argues that Krueger does not teach sensing movement of the eye in a torsional axis. Examiner disagrees. Krueger specifically defines nystagmus as horizontal, vertical, and torsional, involuntary or uncontrollable movement and measures the movement in all three axes (Paragraph 0028; Paragraph 0247, “The image of the eye can be tracked and allow the person's horizontal, vertical, and/or torsional (rotary) vestibulo-ocular responses to be measured”).
Applicant further argues that Krueger does not teach the limitations of recombining the raw signal data using a processing program to acquire eye movement video and that the raw signal data includes presence/absence of user, timestamp, gaze start position, normalized gaze direction, diameter of pupil, degree of eye opening, and gaze position on screen. Examiner disagrees. Krueger does disclose the types of raw signal data, as described above. While Krueger does not explicitly disclose how raw signal images are combined to form a video, Harris provides evidence for how video cameras are a collection of combined images.
Applicant argues that Krueger does not teach or suggest displaying nystagmus in three axes (horizontal, vertical, and torsional). While Krueger does not explicitly disclose displaying the nystagmus in three axes, Krueger does disclose measuring nystagmus in three axes. Krueger as modified by Bhandari does disclose displaying the measured nystagmus in three axes.
The rejection above has been updated to reflect the amendments.
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 NOAH MICHAEL HEALY whose telephone number is (703)756-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/NOAH M HEALY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights