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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 6th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1 – 2, 8 – 9, 13 – 14, and 20 beyond formalities and 112(b) Rejections.
The pending claims are 1 – 20 [Page 11 lines 1 – 9].
Applicant amended the Specification to overcome Examiner’s Drawing Objections [Page 11 lines 10 – 21].
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s 112(b) Rejections [Page 11 line 22 – Page 12 line 20]. The Examiner reconsiders the 112(b) Rejection in view of the amended claims. The Applicant does NOT address the 112(b) Rejection regarding the claimed “analysis agent for analysis by the neural network” and thus the 112(b) Rejection is maintained.
Applicant does NOT comment on Examiner’s Functional Analysis section. The Examiner maintains the section in view of 112(b) Rejections made.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
First, the Applicant recites the references against the claims [Page 12 lines 21 – 25].
Second, the Applicant recites features of amended independent claim 1 [Page 12 line 26 – Page 13 line 10].
Third, the Applicant contends the references do not teach / render obvious features of amended independent claim 1 [Page 13 lines 11 – 26] and cites Krueger Paragraphs 159 and 614 in arguing amended features not taught. However, the Examiner cites an additional reference to expedite prosecution and observes Krueger Paragraph 625 teach / suggest features of the amended independent claims (which was not argued). Further the Examiner observes while Baldwin Paragraphs 42 and 82 are references, the Examiner notes Baldwin Paragraphs 130 – 136 and 179 – 188 were cited as rendering obvious the changing of illumination conditions based on the eye issues / diagnosis detected.
Fourth, the Applicant attempts to narrow the claims by reading portions of the Specification into the claim [Page 13 line 27 – Page 14 line 2].
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., illumination condition [Page 13 line 27 – Page 14 line 2]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Fifth, the Applicant argues the references are not combinable [Page 14 lines 3 – 12]. However, the Examiner observes all references cited have CPC Symbol A61B 3 where the common classification fulfills conditions for analogous art and the claims do not provide any limitations on the conditions being imaged either as the prior art discusses related eye conditions.
Sixth, the Applicant contends claim 13 and the dependent claims are similarly Allowable [Page 13 lines 13 – 19]. The Examiner disagrees for at least the reasons previously given.
While the Applicant’s points may be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even though the Rejection may be maintain, the Examiner in the sole interest to expedite prosecution cites an additional reference against the amended claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 17th, 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (mailed December 12th, 2025). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control circuitry configured to …” in claim 13.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “communication interface of a head-mounted display” in claim 13.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an imaging subsystem and a display screen of the head-mounted display …” in claim 13.
The Examiner notes the claimed “control circuitry” in the sole interest to expedite prosecution is being afforded status as connoting sufficient structure due to the “circuitry” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art. Previously the claimed “display screen” was afforded status as connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “communication interface” and “imaging subsystem” are “of a [the] head-mounted display” (HMD) in which the HMD is being afforded status as connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art and thus NOT invoking Functional Analysis.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 13 – 20 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 limitations:
“analysis agent for analysis by the neural network” [Claim 13]
has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claimed terms in view of at least Specification Paragraph 58 recites the analysis agent as “may be implemented in hardware, firmware, or software” [e.g. Paragraph 58 specifically lists the “control circuitry” in the “analysis agent” as having “software” embodiments] as “software” and the “neural network model” are NOT structural and thus the terms are Indefinite in view of the Specification as connoting sufficient structure or not. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claims 14 – 20, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of independent claim 13 and thus are similarly Rejected.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (US PG PUB 2023/0210442 A1 referred to as “Krueger” throughout), and further in view of Hsieh, et al. (WO2023/195972 A1 referred to as “Hsieh” throughout) [First Cited in the Office Action mailed December 12th, 2025], Baldwin, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0090014 A1 referred to as “Baldwin” throughout), and Meyerson, et al. (US Patent #12,369,794 B2 referred to as “Meyerson” throughout).
Regarding claim 1, see claim 13 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 2, see claim 14 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 3, see claim 15 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 4, see claim 16 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 5, see claim 17 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 6, see claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 7, see claim 19 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 8, see claim 20 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 9, Krueger teaches HMD (head-mounted display) for patient health with a communications interface and generating images for analyzing health of a user with neural networks (NNs) / artificial intelligence (AI). Hsieh teaches a similar HMD but has appointment scheduling / reporting health information of the user and adjusting images accordingly. Baldwin teaches adjusting illumination parameters for displays based on eye conditions imaged as additional support / further render obvious teachings of Krueger. Meyerson teaches additional considerations in changing illumination conditions based on eye condition imaged as taught by Baldwin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krueger with the arrangements and image based processing capabilities as taught by Hsieh and using adaptive illumination conditions for displays as taught by Baldwin and Meyerson. The combination teaches
generating, using the imaging subsystem and the display screen [See claim 1 or 13 for citations of the “imaging subsystem” (of the eye / face region of the user of the HMD) and “display screen”], second screening images based on the second imaging parameters, the second screening images being of the ocular facial region of the wearer of the head-mounted display [See claim 1 or 13 for citations of the “first screening images” and additionally Krueger Figures 13 – 15, 17 – 20, 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 159 – 161 (adaptive processing to continuously capture images and assess health issues), 185 – 186 (repeatable display), 438 – 448 (AI / ML for analysis to determine what to do next and to repeat the screening / imaging as in Paragraphs 448 – 449 (repeating training / ocular parameter determinations in response to stimuli / visual tracking or cues), 453 – 465 (see at least steps 1 (imaging an eye / ocular region – Paragraphs 453 – 455) and 7 – 9 in Paragraphs 462 – 465 for a repeatable process rendering obvious the “second” imaging to capture claimed such as under a test or training process in Paragraphs 463 – 466 or in Paragraphs 483 – 488 and 560 – 564 and additionally in view of MPEP2144.04 VI B (Duplication of Parts))];
transmitting, via the communications interface, the second screening images to the analysis agent [Krueger Figures 13 – 15, 17 – 20, 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 478 – 486 (image based approach – see step 3 (Paragraph 485 which is combinable with Paragraphs 510 – 515 and 520 – 522 (machine learning / AI with image inputs / parameters further with Paragraphs 561 – 563 (image based machine learning)) and combinable with Hsieh’s image based approach in Paragraphs 24 – 28 for the machine analysis by the analysis agent)]; and
receiving, via the communications interface, third imaging instructions from the analysis agent [See Hsieh for “analysis agent” citations and additionally Krueger Figures 13 – 15, 17 – 20, 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 159 – 161 (adaptive processing to continuously capture images and assess health issues), 185 – 186 (repeatable display), 438 – 448 (AI / ML for analysis to determine what to do next and to repeat the screening / imaging as in Paragraphs 448 – 449 (repeating training / ocular parameter determinations in response to stimuli / visual tracking or cues), 453 – 465 (see at least step 6 in Paragraph 462 for a repeatable process rendering obvious the “third” instructions claimed such as under a test or training process in Paragraphs 463 – 466 or in Paragraphs 483 – 488 and 560 – 564 and additionally in view of MPEP2144.04 VI B (Duplication of Parts))].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Krueger, Hsieh, Baldwin, and Meyerson.
Regarding claim 10, Krueger teaches HMD (head-mounted display) for patient health with a communications interface and generating images for analyzing health of a user with neural networks (NNs) / artificial intelligence (AI). Hsieh teaches a similar HMD but has appointment scheduling / reporting health information of the user and adjusting images accordingly. Baldwin teaches adjusting illumination parameters for displays based on eye conditions imaged as additional support / further render obvious teachings of Krueger. Meyerson teaches additional considerations in changing illumination conditions based on eye condition imaged as taught by Baldwin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krueger with the arrangements and image based processing capabilities as taught by Hsieh and using adaptive illumination conditions for displays as taught by Baldwin and Meyerson. The combination teaches
displaying, on the display screen, an object image based on the first imaging parameters [See claim 13 for citations of the claimed “display screen” and “first imaging parameters” and additionally Krueger Figures 2 – 5, 7, 19 (see at least reference character 1912) and 29 – 32 as well as Paragraphs 171, 245 – 247 (objects display for viewing while tracking) 448 (displaying images for test / training / diagnosis including stationary /moving targets rendering obvious the claimed “object image” to one of ordinary skill in the art and further in Paragraphs 426 – 430 (moving or stationary visual target) and 433 – 440 (see “display” discussion)]; and
generating the first screening images while eyes of the wearer track to the object image [Krueger Figures 2 – 7 and 19 (see at least reference character 1912) as well as Paragraphs 170 – 172 (eyes of view respond to tracking object) and 247 – 254 (tracking projected objects with eye tracking sensors), 434 – 443, 476 – 486, and 594 – 595].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Krueger, Hsieh, Baldwin, and Meyerson.
Regarding claim 11, Krueger teaches HMD (head-mounted display) for patient health with a communications interface and generating images for analyzing health of a user with neural networks (NNs) / artificial intelligence (AI). Hsieh teaches a similar HMD but has appointment scheduling / reporting health information of the user and adjusting images accordingly. Baldwin teaches adjusting illumination parameters for displays based on eye conditions imaged as additional support / further render obvious teachings of Krueger. Meyerson teaches additional considerations in changing illumination conditions based on eye condition imaged as taught by Baldwin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krueger with the arrangements and image based processing capabilities as taught by Hsieh and using adaptive illumination conditions for displays as taught by Baldwin and Meyerson. The combination teaches
displaying the object image moving on the display screen [See claim 1 or 13 for citations of the claimed “display screen” and additionally Krueger Figures 2 – 5, 7, 19 (see at least reference character 1912) and 29 – 32 as well as Paragraphs 171, 245 – 252 (objects display for viewing while tracking eye viewing a moving target / object), 448 (displaying images for test / training / diagnosis including stationary /moving targets rendering obvious the claimed “object image” to one of ordinary skill in the art and further in Paragraphs 426 – 430 (moving or stationary visual target / object) and 433 – 440 (see “display” discussion)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Krueger, Hsieh, Baldwin, and Meyerson.
Regarding claim 12, Krueger teaches HMD (head-mounted display) for patient health with a communications interface and generating images for analyzing health of a user with neural networks (NNs) / artificial intelligence (AI). Hsieh teaches a similar HMD but has appointment scheduling / reporting health information of the user and adjusting images accordingly. Baldwin teaches adjusting illumination parameters for displays based on eye conditions imaged as additional support / further render obvious teachings of Krueger. Meyerson teaches additional considerations in changing illumination conditions based on eye condition imaged as taught by Baldwin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krueger with the arrangements and image based processing capabilities as taught by Hsieh and using adaptive illumination conditions for displays as taught by Baldwin and Meyerson. The combination teaches
wherein the imaging subsystem comprises at least one camera [Krueger Figures 2 – 5 (see at least reference characters 406, 408, 414, 426, and 428) and 9 – 10 as well as Paragraphs 201 – 212 (eye imaging device / sensor properties / components (e.g. lenses and sensors), 222 – 225 (eye and forward / head facing camera or imaging system), 240 – 242 (left / right eye imaging devices), and 232 – 236 (eye imaging device and cameras facing the head / face working in tandem / sampling the eyes to image)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Krueger, Hsieh, Baldwin, and Meyerson.
Regarding claim 13, Krueger teaches HMD (head-mounted display) for patient health with a communications interface and generating images for analyzing health of a user with neural networks (NNs) / artificial intelligence (AI). Hsieh teaches a similar HMD but has appointment scheduling / reporting health information of the user and adjusting images accordingly. Baldwin teaches adjusting illumination parameters for displays based on eye conditions imaged as additional support / further render obvious teachings of Krueger. Meyerson teaches additional considerations in changing illumination conditions based on eye condition imaged as taught by Baldwin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krueger with the arrangements and image based processing capabilities as taught by Hsieh and using adaptive illumination conditions for displays as taught by Baldwin and Meyerson. The combination teaches
a memory [Krueger Figures 2 – 6 (see at least reference character 420) as well as Paragraphs 214 and 218 – 221 (memory included in HMD combinable with implementations in Baldwin Paragraphs 42 – 46)]; and
control circuitry [Krueger Figures 2 – 6 (see at least reference characters 412, 414, 418, and 420) as well as Paragraphs 218 – 222 (embodiments or controller implementation considered as having circuitry implementations in Paragraph 218 or alternatively in Paragraphs 561 – 565), 237 – 28, and 248 (CPUs obvious variant of the claimed circuitry)] configured to:
receive, via a communications interface of a head-mounted display [Krueger Figures 2 – 5 (see at least reference character 422 inside / part of a helmet / HMD as shown (e.g. reference character 110 or 480) or Hsieh’s HMD (Figure 1 reference character 100)), 7 (subfigures included and see at least reference characters 560 and 561), and 9 – 10 as well as Paragraphs 214 – 216 (sensors / imagers communicating information for health analysis / diagnosis) and 248 – 255 (communications to external device)], first imaging instructions from an analysis agent comprising a neural network model, [Hsieh Figures 1 – 2 and 5 – 6 (see at least reference characters 100, 102, 114, 404 (machine learning analysis / model), and 500) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 32 (model part of computer / HMD / external device as the analysis agent which provides instructions and include neural network implementations such as CNNs / convolutional neural networks)], wherein the first imaging instructions comprise first imaging parameters defining a default illumination setting, and wherein the first imaging instructions are stored in the memory [Krueger Figures 2 – 5, 7, 13 – 15, 17 – 20 (see at least reference character 1912), 29 – 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 171, 187, 245 – 251 (“specific image” used as an obvious variant of the claimed “predetermined scene” which allows for eye image data collection or alternatively the “initially displayed” image in Paragraphs 260 – 265 with the memory used in the recording of the displays rendering obvious the storage requirement claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art), 333 – 342 (see the background “initially presented” which renders obvious the predetermined image), 434 – 443 (first time operation renders obvious first instructions to obtain “ocular parameters” rendering obvious the “first parameters” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art (Paragraphs 440 – 441) and using external devices / analysis agents (Paragraphs 443 – 448)) where Paragraphs 478 – 486 (similar to Paragraphs 434 – 443 for parameters determinations based on first / initial images), 448 (displaying images for test / training / diagnosis including stationary /moving targets rendering obvious the claimed “object image” to one of ordinary skill in the art and further in Paragraphs 426 – 430 (moving or stationary visual target)), 534 (initial image and analysis); Meyerson Figures 1 – 3 and 14 – 15 (see at least reference characters 102 and 1508) as well as Column 13 lines 17 – 38 (memory with imaging information to capture eye images with remote memory locations to combine with workflows in Column 12 lines 9 – 42 (in particular the first workflow conditions))];
generate, using an imaging subsystem [Krueger Figures 2 – 5 (see at least reference characters 406, 408, 414, 426, and 428 inside / part of a helmet / HMD as shown (e.g. reference character 110 or 480) or Hsieh’s HMD (Figure 1 reference character 100)) and 9 – 10 as well as Paragraphs 201 – 212 (eye imaging device / sensor properties / components (e.g. lenses and sensors), 222 – 225 (eye and forward / head facing camera or imaging system), 240 – 242 (left / right eye imaging devices), and 232 – 236 (eye imaging device and cameras facing the head / face working in tandem / sampling the eyes to image)] and the display screen of a head-mounted display [Krueger Figures 2 – 6 (see at least reference characters 402, 416 and 418 inside / part of a helmet / HMD as shown (e.g. reference character 110 or 480) or Hsieh’s HMD (Figure 1 reference character 100)) and 9 – 10 as well as Paragraphs 214 – 216 (display interface controlling a screen / display for the user to view), 234 – 238 (various display type embodiments for AR / VR / XR))], first screening images based on the first imaging parameters, wherein the first screening images are of an ocular facial region of a wearer of the head-mounted display captured while the display screen illuminates the ocular facial region based on the default illumination setting [Krueger Figures 2 – 5, 13 – 15, 17 – 20 (see at least reference character 1912), 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 171, 187, 245 – 251 (“specific image” used as an obvious variant of the claimed “predetermined scene” which allows for eye image data collection), 333 – 343 (see the background “initially presented” which renders obvious the predetermined image which is then added with objects (e.g. Paragraphs 340 – 343) for diagnosing the user’s eye / eye imaging thus the target renders obvious the first screening images claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art), 419 – 421 (modifications to the visual target based on determinations / diagnosis of the user), 434 – 448 (initial / first images of a target for analysis where the screening images are those viewed during imaging (e.g. steps 1, 4, and 6 in Paragraphs 439, 442, or 446) and displaying images for test / training / diagnosis including stationary /moving targets rendering obvious the claimed “object image” to one of ordinary skill in the art and further in Paragraphs 426 – 430 (moving or stationary visual target) where Paragraphs 478 – 486 (image based approach – see step 3 (Paragraph 485 which is combinable with Paragraphs 510 – 515 and 520 – 522 (machine learning / AI with image inputs / parameters further with Paragraphs 561 – 563 (image based machine learning) which may use initial / first images as in Paragraph 534 (initial image and analysis)) and combinable with Hsieh’s image based approach in Paragraphs 24 – 28 for the machine analysis)];
transmit, via the communications interface [See Krueger citations above regarding the “communications interface”], the first screening images to the analysis agent for analysis by the neural network model [Krueger Figures 13 – 15, 17 – 20, 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 478 – 486 (image based approach – see step 3 (Paragraph 485 which is combinable with Paragraphs 510 – 515 and 520 – 522 (machine learning / AI with image inputs / parameters further with Paragraphs 561 – 563 (image based machine learning)) and combinable with Hsieh’s image based approach in Paragraphs 24 – 28 for the machine analysis which uses neural networks (e.g. convolutional neural networks as in Paragraphs 25 and 32))];
based on analyzing the first screening images using the neural network model, detect a suspected physical symptom indicative of an ocular condition [See Hsieh for “analysis agent” citations and additionally Krueger Figures 13 – 15, 17 – 20, 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 159 – 161 (adaptive processing to continuously capture images and assess health issues), 185 – 186 (repeatable display), 438 – 448 (AI / ML for analysis to determine what to do next and to repeat the screening / imaging as in Paragraphs 448 – 449 (repeating training / ocular parameter determinations in response to stimuli / visual tracking or cues), 453 – 465 (see at least step 7 in Paragraph 463 for diagnosing health based on eye images / screening images also in Paragraphs 485 – 488 and 560 – 564 – combinable with Baldwin); Hsieh Figures 4 – 6 as well as Paragraphs 27 – 31 (temporary health diagnosis / issue identified for further testing / contacting care provider); Baldwin Figures 2, 7, 9 – 10, and 20 (subfigures included) as well as the Abstract (see the changing parameters based on imaged features in the eye) and Paragraphs 103 – 105, 130 – 136 (light control of the display and desire to maintain “optimal” operating conditions), and 179 – 188 (AI / ML (combine with Hsieh and Krueger) to adjust imaging parameters (light intensity / brightness of display / etc.) based on eye tracking / conditions detected by the AI / NN) or 195 – 201 (additional HMD parameters to adjust for the display in eye tracking / imaging)]; and
receive, via the communications interface [See Krueger citations above regarding the “communications interface”], second imaging instructions from the analysis agent [See Hsieh for “analysis agent” citations and additionally Krueger Figures 13 – 15, 17 – 20, 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 159 – 161 (adaptive processing to continuously capture images and assess health issues), 185 – 186 (repeatable display), 438 – 448 (AI / ML for analysis to determine what to do next and to repeat the screening / imaging as in Paragraphs 448 – 449 (repeating training / ocular parameter determinations in response to stimuli / visual tracking or cues), 453 – 465 (see at least step 6 in Paragraph 462 for a repeatable process rendering obvious the “second” instructions claimed such as under a test or training process in Paragraphs 463 – 466 or in Paragraphs 483 – 488 and 560 – 564 and additionally in view of MPEP2144.04 VI B (Duplication of Parts))], wherein the second imaging instructions are generated based on detecting the suspected physical symptom, wherein the second imaging instructions comprise second imaging parameters defining an adjusted illumination setting for the display screen, and wherein the adjusted illumination comprises a lighting condition that corresponds to the detected suspected physical symptom during the generation of additional screening images [Krueger Figures 13 – 15, 17 – 20, 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 159 – 161 (adaptive processing to continuously capture images and assess health issues), 185 – 187 (repeatable display), 249 – 251, 419 – 421 (modifications to the visual target based on determinations / diagnosis of the user), 434 – 448 (initial / first images of a target for analysis where the screening images are those viewed during imaging (e.g. steps 1, 4, and 6 in Paragraphs 439, 442, or 446)) and also AI / ML for analysis to determine what to do next and to repeat the screening / imaging as in Paragraphs 448 – 449 (repeating training / ocular parameter determinations in response to stimuli / visual tracking or cues where Paragraphs 478 – 486 (image based approach – see step 3 (Paragraph 485 which is combinable with Paragraphs 510 – 515 and 520 – 522 (machine learning / AI with image inputs / parameters further with Paragraphs 561 – 563 (image based machine learning – combine with Hsieh Paragraphs 24 – 32 or Baldwin Paragraphs 176 (AI implemented by neural networks)) and Paragraphs 453 – 465 (see at least step 6 in Paragraph 462 for a repeatable process rendering obvious the “second” instructions claimed such as under a test or training process in Paragraphs 463 – 466 or in Paragraphs 483 – 488, 560 – 564, or 625 and additionally in view of MPEP2144.04 VI B (Duplication of Parts)) combinable with Hsieh’s image based approach in Paragraphs 24 – 28 for the machine analysis); Baldwin Figures 2, 7, 9 – 10, and 20 (subfigures included) as well as the Abstract (see the changing parameters based on imaged features in the eye) and Paragraphs 103 – 105, 130 – 136 (light control of the display and desire to maintain “optimal” operating conditions and adapting towards a goal based on eye condition), and 179 – 188 (AI / ML (combine with Hsieh and Krueger) to adjust imaging parameters (light intensity / brightness of display / etc. – further suggested changes by Meyerson) based on eye tracking / conditions detected by the AI / NN including image sensor input (Paragraph 180)) or 194 – 201 (additional HMD parameters to adjust for the display in eye tracking / imaging (e.g. eye dilation in Paragraph 194)); Meyerson Figures 2 – 6 (HMD imaging embodiments) and 13 – 15 (alerts and different workflow conditions for imaging eyes) as well as Column 12 lines 9 – 60 (see at least the second workflow type adjusting lighting conditions based on eye imaged and condition detected in combination with modifications to include alarm lighting / flashing light in Column 13 line 31 – Column 14 line 9) where the use of alerts cause flash lighting condition based on detected condition and also the imaging is changed based on conditions In Column 14 lines 22 – 67 as continuous operation is desired where the lighting changes taught by Hsieh may be incorporated as well.].
The motivation to combine Hsieh with Krueger is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of user experience wearing HMDs with XR / AR / VR viewing with diagnostic capabilities [Hsieh Paragraphs 1 and 10 – 11] in order to improve diagnosing wearer eye conditions [Hsieh Paragraphs 10 – 13 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Baldwin with Hsieh and Krueger is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of observing / studying “user comfort and the performance of a near-eye display device” [Baldwin Paragraph 1] in order to improve user experience with AR / VR / MR content [Baldwin Paragraphs 22 – 24 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationale (F) is also applicable].
The motivation to combine Meyerson with Baldwin, Hsieh, and Kruger is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of eye imaging devices [Meyerson Column 1 lines 6 – 29] in order to improve performance adjusting the number of images taken and the conditions needed based on the detected eye condition [Meyerson Column 14 lines 10 – 41 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Krueger, Hsieh, Baldwin, and Meyerson, which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 14, Krueger teaches HMD (head-mounted display) for patient health with a communications interface and generating images for analyzing health of a user with neural networks (NNs) / artificial intelligence (AI). Hsieh teaches a similar HMD but has appointment scheduling / reporting health information of the user and adjusting images accordingly. Baldwin teaches adjusting illumination parameters for displays based on eye conditions imaged as additional support / further render obvious teachings of Krueger. Meyerson teaches additional considerations in changing illumination conditions based on eye condition imaged as taught by Baldwin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krueger with the arrangements and image based processing capabilities as taught by Hsieh and using adaptive illumination conditions for displays as taught by Baldwin and Meyerson. The combination teaches
wherein the default illumination setting is associated with a predetermined scene [See claim 13 for citations of the “default illumination settings” and the “display” limitation before for Kruger citations regarding obvious variants of the claimed “predetermined scene”], and wherein, to generate the first screening images, the control circuitry is further configured to [See claim 13 for citations of “first screening images” and “control circuitry”]:
display, on the display screen, the predetermined scene based on the first imaging parameters [See claim 13 for citations of the claimed “display screen” and “first imaging parameters” and additionally Krueger Figures 2 – 5, 7, 19 (see at least reference character 1912) and 29 – 32 as well as Paragraphs 171, 245 – 250 (“specific image” used as an obvious variant of the claimed “predetermined scene” which allows for eye image data collection), 333 – 342 (see the background “initially presented” which renders obvious the predetermined image), 448 (displaying images for test / training / diagnosis including stationary /moving targets rendering obvious the claimed “object image” to one of ordinary skill in the art and further in Paragraphs 426 – 430 (moving or stationary visual target) and 433 – 440 (see “display” discussion), and 534 (initial image and analysis)]; and
generate the first screening images while displaying the predetermined scene to the wearer [Krueger Figures 2 – 5, 17 – 19 (see at least reference character 1912) and 29 – 32 as well as Paragraphs 171, 245 – 250 (“specific image” used as an obvious variant of the claimed “predetermined scene” which allows for eye image data collection), 333 – 343 (see the background “initially presented” which renders obvious the predetermined image which is then added with objects (e.g. Paragraphs 340 – 343) for diagnosing the user’s eye / eye imaging thus the target renders obvious the first screening images claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art), 448 (displaying images for test / training / diagnosis including stationary /moving targets rendering obvious the claimed “object image” to one of ordinary skill in the art and further in Paragraphs 426 – 430 (moving or stationary visual target) and 433 – 440 (see “display” discussion), and 534 (initial image and analysis)].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Krueger, Hsieh, Baldwin, and Meyerson.
Regarding claim 15, Krueger teaches HMD (head-mounted display) for patient health with a communications interface and generating images for analyzing health of a user with neural networks (NNs) / artificial intelligence (AI). Hsieh teaches a similar HMD but has appointment scheduling / reporting health information of the user and adjusting images accordingly. Baldwin teaches adjusting illumination parameters for displays based on eye conditions imaged as additional support / further render obvious teachings of Krueger. Meyerson teaches additional considerations in changing illumination conditions based on eye condition imaged as taught by Baldwin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krueger with the arrangements and image based processing capabilities as taught by Hsieh and using adaptive illumination conditions for displays as taught by Baldwin and Meyerson. The combination teaches
wherein the predetermined scene comprises one of a video, a still image, and an illumination setting [Krueger Figures 2 – 5, 17 – 19 (see at least reference character 1912) and 29 – 32 as well as Paragraphs 171, 245 – 250 (“specific image” used as an obvious variant of the claimed “predetermined scene” which allows for eye image data collection), 333 – 343 (see the background “initially presented” which renders obvious the predetermined image which is then added with objects (e.g. Paragraphs 340 – 343) for diagnosing the user’s eye / eye imaging thus the target renders obvious the first screening images claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art) in which the background settings are suggested in Paragraphs 404 – 417 (e.g. illumination / intensity / contrast setting) or can be static / still or video (Paragraphs 244 – 247 and 426)].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Krueger, Hsieh, Baldwin, and Meyerson.
Regarding claim 16, Krueger teaches HMD (head-mounted display) for patient health with a communications interface and generating images for analyzing health of a user with neural networks (NNs) / artificial intelligence (AI). Hsieh teaches a similar HMD but has appointment scheduling / reporting health information of the user and adjusting images accordingly. Baldwin teaches adjusting illumination parameters for displays based on eye conditions imaged as additional support / further render obvious teachings of Krueger. Meyerson teaches additional considerations in changing illumination conditions based on eye condition imaged as taught by Baldwin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krueger with the arrangements and image based processing capabilities as taught by Hsieh and using adaptive illumination conditions for displays as taught by Baldwin and Meyerson. The combination teaches
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to transmit [Krueger Paragraphs 438 – 448 (see the use of cloud storage / external devices such as Paragraphs 527, 624 – 625 (transmit data in the cloud), or combinable with Hsieh Paragraphs 21 – 27 (communicatively connected rendering obvious the “transmit” feature claimed)], via the communications interface [See claim 13 for citations], the first screening images to a network storage [Krueger Figures 2 – 5, 7 – 9, 17 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 438 – 448 (see the use of cloud storage / external devices and transmitting data such as in Paragraph 446 and also Paragraphs 527, 624 – 625 (transmit data in the cloud where the cloud renders obvious the claimed “network storage”)].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Krueger, Hsieh, Baldwin, and Meyerson.
Regarding claim 17, Krueger teaches HMD (head-mounted display) for patient health with a communications interface and generating images for analyzing health of a user with neural networks (NNs) / artificial intelligence (AI). Hsieh teaches a similar HMD but has appointment scheduling / reporting health information of the user and adjusting images accordingly. Baldwin teaches adjusting illumination parameters for displays based on eye conditions imaged as additional support / further render obvious teachings of Krueger. Meyerson teaches additional considerations in changing illumination conditions based on eye condition imaged as taught by Baldwin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krueger with the arrangements and image based processing capabilities as taught by Hsieh and using adaptive illumination conditions for displays as taught by Baldwin and Meyerson. The combination teaches
wherein the first imaging instructions comprise a schedule for generating the first screening images [Krueger Figures 13 – 15, 17 – 20, 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 187, 249 – 251, 383 – 403 (repeating process / schedule of images while in a test sequence assessing the HMD user), 434 – 447 (initial / first images of a target for analysis where the screening images are those viewed during imaging (e.g. steps 1, 4, and 6 in Paragraphs 439, 442, or 446)) where Paragraphs 478 – 492 (image based approach in which in Paragraphs 487 – 491 (especially 488 where a sequential presentation of visual information is given to the user / wearer of the HMD which renders obvious the “schedule” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art)].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Krueger, Hsieh, Baldwin, and Meyerson.
Regarding claim 18, Krueger teaches HMD (head-mounted display) for patient health with a communications interface and generating images for analyzing health of a user with neural networks (NNs) / artificial intelligence (AI). Hsieh teaches a similar HMD but has appointment scheduling / reporting health information of the user and adjusting images accordingly. Baldwin teaches adjusting illumination parameters for displays based on eye conditions imaged as additional support / further render obvious teachings of Krueger. Meyerson teaches additional considerations in changing illumination conditions based on eye condition imaged as taught by Baldwin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krueger with the arrangements and image based processing capabilities as taught by Hsieh and using adaptive illumination conditions for displays as taught by Baldwin and Meyerson. The combination teaches
wherein the second imaging instructions comprise a preliminary screening analysis based on the first screening images [See Hsieh for “analysis agent” citations and additionally Krueger Figures 13 – 15, 17 – 20, 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 159 – 161 (adaptive processing to continuously capture images and assess health issues), 185 – 186 (repeatable display), 438 – 448 (AI / ML for analysis to determine what to do next and to repeat the screening / imaging as in Paragraphs 448 – 449 (repeating training / ocular parameter determinations in response to stimuli / visual tracking or cues), 453 – 465 (see at least step 7 in Paragraph 463 for diagnosing health based on eye images / screening images also in Paragraphs 485 – 488 and 560 – 564); Hsieh Figures 4 – 6 as well as Paragraphs 27 – 31 (temporary health diagnosis / issue identified for further testing / contacting care provider)].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Krueger, Hsieh, Baldwin, and Meyerson.
Regarding claim 19, Krueger teaches HMD (head-mounted display) for patient health with a communications interface and generating images for analyzing health of a user with neural networks (NNs) / artificial intelligence (AI). Hsieh teaches a similar HMD but has appointment scheduling / reporting health information of the user and adjusting images accordingly. Baldwin teaches adjusting illumination parameters for displays based on eye conditions imaged as additional support / further render obvious teachings of Krueger. Meyerson teaches additional considerations in changing illumination conditions based on eye condition imaged as taught by Baldwin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krueger with the arrangements and image based processing capabilities as taught by Hsieh and using adaptive illumination conditions for displays as taught by Baldwin and Meyerson. The combination teaches
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to transmit [Krueger Paragraphs 438 – 448 (see the use of cloud storage / external devices such as Paragraphs 527, 624 – 625 (transmit data in the cloud), or combinable with Hsieh Paragraphs 21 – 27 (communicatively connected rendering obvious the “transmit” feature claimed)], via the communications interface [See claim 13 for citations], the preliminary screening analysis [See next limitation for citations as well Krueger Figures 13 – 15, 17 – 20, 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 159 – 161 (adaptive processing to continuously capture images and assess health issues), 185 – 186 (repeatable display), 438 – 448 (AI / ML for analysis to determine what to do next and to repeat the screening / imaging as in Paragraphs 448 – 449 (repeating training / ocular parameter determinations in response to stimuli / visual tracking or cues), 453 – 465 (see at least step 7 in Paragraph 463 for diagnosing health based on eye images / screening images also in Paragraphs 485 – 488 and 560 – 564)] to a health care system [Hsieh Figures 3 – 6 (see at least reference character 306) as well as Paragraphs 23 – 26 (doctor appointment scheduled based on detected health issue) and 27 – 31 (temporary health diagnosis / issue identified for further testing / contacting care provider)].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Krueger, Hsieh, Baldwin, and Meyerson.
Regarding claim 20, Krueger teaches HMD (head-mounted display) for patient health with a communications interface and generating images for analyzing health of a user with neural networks (NNs) / artificial intelligence (AI). Hsieh teaches a similar HMD but has appointment scheduling / reporting health information of the user and adjusting images accordingly. Baldwin teaches adjusting illumination parameters for displays based on eye conditions imaged as additional support / further render obvious teachings of Krueger. Meyerson teaches additional considerations in changing illumination conditions based on eye condition imaged as taught by Baldwin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krueger with the arrangements and image based processing capabilities as taught by Hsieh and using adaptive illumination conditions for displays as taught by Baldwin and Meyerson. The combination teaches
control circuitry is further configured to select the second imaging instructions from the memory based on detecting the suspected physical symptom [Krueger Figures 13 – 15, 17 – 20, 32, 35 – 39 as well as Paragraphs 159 – 161 (adaptive processing to continuously capture images and assess health issues), 185 – 187 (repeatable display), 249 – 251, 419 – 421 (modifications to the visual target based on determinations / diagnosis of the user), 434 – 448 (initial / first images of a target for analysis where the screening images are those viewed during imaging (e.g. steps 1, 4, and 6 in Paragraphs 439, 442, or 446)) and also AI / ML for analysis to determine what to do next and to repeat the screening / imaging as in Paragraphs 448 – 449 (repeating training / ocular parameter determinations in response to stimuli / visual tracking or cues where Paragraphs 478 – 486 (image based approach – see step 3 (Paragraph 485 which is combinable with Paragraphs 510 – 515 and 520 – 522 (machine learning / AI with image inputs / parameters further with Paragraphs 561 – 563 (image based machine learning – combine with Hsieh Paragraphs 24 – 32 or Baldwin Paragraphs 176 (AI implemented by neural networks)) and Paragraphs 453 – 465 (see at least step 6 in Paragraph 462 for a repeatable process rendering obvious the “second” instructions claimed such as under a test or training process in Paragraphs 463 – 466 or in Paragraphs 483 – 488, 560 – 564, or 625 and additionally in view of MPEP2144.04 VI B (Duplication of Parts)) combinable with Hsieh’s image based approach in Paragraphs 24 – 28 for the machine analysis); Baldwin Figures 2, 7, 9 – 10, and 20 (subfigures included) as well as the Abstract (see the changing parameters based on imaged features in the eye) and Paragraphs 103 – 105, 130 – 136 (light control of the display and desire to maintain “optimal” operating conditions and adapting towards a goal based on eye condition), and 179 – 188 (AI / ML (combine with Hsieh and Krueger) to adjust / select (obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art) imaging parameters (light intensity / brightness of display / etc.) based on eye tracking / conditions detected by the AI / NN including image sensor input (Paragraph 180 or 194 or the detection of Krueger or Hsieh)) or 194 – 201 (additional HMD parameters to adjust for the display in eye tracking / imaging or symptom detection (e.g. eye dilation in Paragraph 194)) in which the information in Baldwin can be in a memory as taught by Meyerson Figures 1 – 3 and 14 – 15 (see at least reference characters 102 and 1508) as well as Column 13 lines 17 – 38 (memory with imaging information to capture eye images with remote memory locations to combine with workflows in Column 12 lines 9 – 42 (in particular the second workflow changing lighting conditions))].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Krueger, Hsieh, Baldwin, and Meyerson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fateh (US PG PUB 2016/0324416 A1 referred to as “Fateh” throughout) teaches in Figures 6 – 7 diagnosing health conditions with eye imaging and image / display control in an iterative process. Legerton, et al. (US PG PUB 2023/0089522 A1 referred to as “Legerton” throughout) teaches in Figure 13 embodiments for the HMD and scheduling / health service / care notification capabilities.
Reference found in updated search and consideration: Kim, et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0176383 A1 referred to as “Kim” throughout) in which Paragraphs 121 – 123 and Figures 2 and 12 teach adaptive lighting condition and first / initial setting for imaging an eye and eye tracking techniques.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights