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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/28/2023 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9 objected to because of the following informalities: The first recitation of HMD should be defined. For instance, for independent claims 1 and 9, in line 3 for both, HMD should have been written “head mounted display (HMD)”. Subsequent recitations could use the simpler form of “HMD”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, the phrase “whereinthe” is assumed to be a typographical error and should have been written “wherein the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Devani (US 2022/0218198).
Regarding Claim 1, Devani discloses a device for assessing pupillary reflex-related visual function (Paragraph 0220, lines 1-4), the device comprising:
an HMD configured to create a testing environment by being worn on a head of a subject of assessment (Paragraph 0082, headset, line 6, Paragraph 0210, headset, Paragraph 0215, headset), and obtain a pupil image of the subject of assessment in the created testing environment (Paragraph 0226, lines 1-4, pupillary light reflex requires imaging of the pupil, Paragraph 0220, lines 1-4, Paragraph 0217, lines 9-14); and
an assessment module (Paragraph 0054, a processor, lines 1-19, Paragraph 0211, line 8, a processor) configured to calculate an indicator for assessing pupillary reflex-related visual function by analyzing the pupil image (Paragraph 0226, lines 1-13, pupillary light reflex is measured by image sequence analysis, Fig. 1A, system 100) of the subject of assessment provided from the HMD and assess pupillary reflex-related visual function based on the calculated indicator (also see Paragraph 0222, lines 1-9 and Paragraph 0233, lines 1-17, image analysis).
Regarding Claim 2, Devani discloses as is set forth above and further discloses
wherein the assessment module comprises:
a pupil image analysis unit configured to calculate pupil size (Fig. 15, step 630 determines pupil size parameters, Paragraph 0236, lines 1-7) of both eyes (Paragraph 0243, the reflex of both eyes is analyzed separately, lines 1-3) by analyzing the pupil image of the subject of assessment (Paragraph 0233, lines 1-17);
an indicator calculation unit configured to calculate the indicator for assessing pupillary reflex-related visual function based on the pupil size calculated by the pupil image analysis unit (Fig. 16B, various PLR curves, Paragraph 0248, lines 1-7); and
a function assessment unit configured to assess the pupillary reflex-related visual function of the subject of assessment based on the indicator calculated by the indicator calculation unit (Paragraph 0268, PLR calculations, lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 3, Devani discloses as is set forth above and further discloses
wherein the HMD is configured to create the testing environment by alternately applying light stimulation to both eyes of the subject of assessment to assess relative afferent pupillary defect (Paragraph 0243, the reflex of both eyes is analyzed separately, lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 6, Devani discloses as is set forth above and further discloses
wherein the HMD is configured to present a virtual object for the subject of assessment to gaze at in order to assess pupillary light-near dissociation, and create the testing environment by maintaining illuminance at a preset value (Paragraph 0321, lines 1-9, indications on the display for the user should focus their gaze).
Regarding Claim 9, Devani discloses a method for assessing pupillary reflex-related visual function (Paragraph 0220, lines 1-4), the method comprising:
creating a testing environment through an HMD worn on a head of a subject (Paragraph 0082, headset, line 6, Paragraph 0210, headset, Paragraph 0215, headset) of assessment;
obtaining a pupil image of the subject (Paragraph 0226, lines 1-4, pupillary light reflex requires imaging of the pupil, Paragraph 0220, lines 1-4, Paragraph 0217, lines 9-14) of assessment in the testing environment created through the HMD;
calculating pupil size (Fig. 15, step 630 determines pupil size parameters, Paragraph 0236, lines 1-7) of both eyes (Paragraph 0243, the reflex of both eyes is analyzed separately, lines 1-3) by analyzing the pupil image of the subject of assessment (Paragraph 0233, lines 1-17);
calculating an indicator for assessing pupillary reflex-related visual function based on the calculated pupil size (Fig. 16B, various PLR curves, Paragraph 0248, lines 1-7); and
assessing pupillary reflex-related visual function of the subject of assessment based on the calculated indicator (Paragraph 0268, PLR calculations, lines 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 4, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose a device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations wherein the indicator calculation unit is configured to calculate Lighthealthy_eye/Lightaffected_eye, which is a ratio of illuminance of the light stimulation applied to a healthy side to illuminance of the light stimulation applied to an affected side when degrees of pupillary reflex in both eyes reach a similar point, as a first indicator, based on the pupil size of both eyes when step-by-step light stimulation is applied alternately to both eyes to assess the relative afferent pupillary defect, and wherein Lighthealthy_eye represents the illuminance of the light stimulation applied to the healthy side, and Lightaffected_eye represents the illuminance of the light stimulation applied to the affected side.
Specifically, with respect to claim 7, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose a device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations wherein the indicator calculation unit is configured to calculate Pupilnear/Pupillight as a second indicator by quantifying a degree of near reflex compared to a degree of reflection for light stimulation of a preset illuminance to assess pupillary light-near dissociation, and wherein /Pupillight represents a degree of pupil miosis in a light background with the preset illuminance compared to pupil size in darkness, and Pupilnear represents a degree of pupil miosis when the virtual object is presented in the light background.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kandel et al. (US 2008/0068561), Kandel et al. (US 2009/0147218), and Yao et al. (US 2013/0250244) are cited to show similar devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872