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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains fewer than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 9-10 and 22-23 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.
Claims 9-10 and 22-23 appear to be comparing the size of the stimuli to a user’s visual acuity. This creates confusion as visual acuity is not based on the size of objects in relation to the human eye. Visual acuity is being interpreted as the measure of clarity or sharpness of vision at a specific distance (typically 20 ft.). Thus, the examiner believes it inappropriate to describe the size of a stimuli as greater than/equal to (“corresponds” from the claim language)/less than visual acuity, of which visual acuity is not known to have a “size”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
a virtual or augmented reality system adapted to provide a virtual environment to a user;
at least one sensor coupled to the user;
a computing node comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor of the computing node to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
presenting a first visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment, the first visual stimulus having a high spatial frequency; and
presenting a second visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment, the second visual stimulus having a low spatial frequency.
Independent Claim 14 recites:
A method comprising:
providing a virtual environment to a user via a virtual or augmented reality system;
presenting a first visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment, the first visual stimulus having a high spatial frequency; and
presenting a second visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment, the second visual stimulus having a low spatial frequency.
Independent claim 27 recites:
A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
providing a virtual environment to a user via a virtual or augmented reality system;
presenting a first visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment, the first visual stimulus having a high spatial frequency; and
presenting a second visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment, the second visual stimulus having a low spatial frequency.
Step 1:
The examiner finds claims 1 and 27 drawn to machines and claim 14 drawn to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The above claim limitations constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claimed step of presenting recites a mental process.
The step of “presenting” stimuli in independent Claims 1, 14, and 27 is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. For example, when asked to raise your hand if you graduated from a university, the human mind can process the question and direct the body to raise/not raise their hand, resulting in signaling to the questioner who has/has not graduated from a university.
The claimed step of presenting can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
“[T]he ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The pending claims merely recite steps for estimation that include observations, evaluations, and judgments.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind,
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind,
University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information, which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Regarding the dependent claims 2-13 and 15-26, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in Claims 1-27 is not integrated into a practical application because:
• The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computing device. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for presenting.
• The data-gathering step (providing) and the data-output step (there is a possible interpretation of “presenting” as on output step) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
• There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computing device that is used as a tool for presenting.
• The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to estimate bio-information.
• The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computing device for presenting. The claims do not apply the obtained prediction to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
Step 2B:
The additional elements are identified as follows: sensor, processor, storage medium.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
• Applicant’s specification (e.g. paragraph [00170]) which discloses that the processor(s) comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g. presenting) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
• Applicant’s specification (e.g. paragraph [00112]) which discloses that the sensor(s) comprise generic components that are configured to perform the generic sensor functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
• Applicant’s specification (e.g. paragraph [00166]) which discloses that the storage medium comprises generic storage components that are configured to perform the generic storage functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; and
• The non-patent literature of record in the application.
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional generic computer components as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the units associated with the steps do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. A computer, processor, memory, or equivalent hardware is merely used as a tool for executing the abstract idea(s). The process claimed does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kouider (US 20230032492 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kouider teaches a system comprising:
a virtual or augmented reality system adapted to provide a virtual environment to a user [0064 “virtual reality environment”];
at least one sensor coupled to the user [0034 “…where the sensor is in physical contact with the subject’s scalp”];
a computing node comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith [0097 “The hardware layer 1152 also includes memory and/or storage modules shown as memory/storage 1156, which also have the executable instructions 1104”], the program instructions executable by a processor of the computing node to cause the processor to perform a method [0097 “The representative hardware layer 1152 includes a processing unit 1154 having associated executable instructions 1104”] comprising:
presenting a first visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment, the first visual stimulus having a high spatial frequency [0117 “…the high spatial frequency (HSF) component of the visual stimulus…”]; and
presenting a second visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment, the second visual stimulus having a low spatial frequency [0074 “…the neural signals picked up will essentially be impacted by both the HSF components from the target under focus and the LSF components from the peripheral targets”].
Regarding claim 14, Kouider teaches a method comprising:
providing a virtual environment to a user via a virtual or augmented reality system user [0064 “virtual reality environment”];
presenting a first visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment, the first visual stimulus having a high spatial frequency [0117 “…the high spatial frequency (HSF) component of the visual stimulus…”]; and
presenting a second visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment, the second visual stimulus having a low spatial frequency [0074 “…the neural signals picked up will essentially be impacted by both the HSF components from the target under focus and the LSF components from the peripheral targets”].
Regarding claim 27, Kouider teaches a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
providing a virtual environment to a user via a virtual or augmented reality system [0064 “virtual reality environment”];
presenting a first visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment, the first visual stimulus having a high spatial frequency [0117 “…the high spatial frequency (HSF) component of the visual stimulus…”]; and
presenting a second visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment, the second visual stimulus having a low spatial frequency [0074 “…the neural signals picked up will essentially be impacted by both the HSF components from the target under focus and the LSF components from the peripheral targets”].
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.
Claims 2, 13, 15, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouider as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alvarez (US 20210275013 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kouider teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
measuring at least one electrical activity of a brain of the user by the at least one sensor [0034 “…a sensor for detecting the electrical signals generated by the neuronal activity of the subject…”]; and
presenting the first visual stimulus and the second visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment [0016 “…outputting a respective visual stimulus to correspond to one or more of said objects…”].
Kouider teaches a system configured to “…determine which of the at least one visual stimuli is associated with an object of focus of the user based on the neural signals…” in para. 0016, but fails to teach providing the measured at least one electrical activity of the brain to a learning system and determining therefrom an updated visual stimulus adapted to induce a change in the at least one electrical activity of the brain.
Alvarez teaches providing the measured at least one electrical activity of the brain to a learning system and determining therefrom an updated visual stimulus adapted to induce a change in the at least one electrical activity of the brain [Alvarez claim 8 “…employing a trained machine learning module to render visual stimulus with the head mounted display or adjust the visual stimulus to elicit a response from a visual system of the user”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider and incorporate the teachings of Alvarez to include providing the measured at least one electrical activity of the brain to a learning system and determining therefrom an updated visual stimulus adapted to induce a change in the at least one electrical activity of the brain. Doing so configures the system to “…dynamically adjust the visual stimulation within a therapeutic platform to improve symmetrical binocular coordination of the two eyes”, as recognized by Alvarez para. 0009.
Regarding claim 13, Kouider and Alvarez teach the system of claim 2, wherein the learning system comprises an artificial neural network [Alvarez 0064 “…the machine learning algorithm(s) used by the system can include (…) Artificial neural network”].
Regarding claim 15, Kouider teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising:
measuring at least one electrical activity of a brain of the user by at least one sensor [0034 “…a sensor for detecting the electrical signals generated by the neuronal activity of the subject…”];
presenting the first visual stimulus and the second visual stimulus to the user within the virtual environment [0016 “…outputting a respective visual stimulus to correspond to one or more of said objects…”].
Kouider teaches a system configured to “…determine which of the at least one visual stimuli is associated with an object of focus of the user based on the neural signals…” in para. 0016, but fails to teach providing the measured at least one electrical activity of the brain to a learning system and determining therefrom an updated visual stimulus adapted to induce a change in the at least one electrical activity of the brain.
Alvarez teaches providing the measured at least one electrical activity of the brain to a learning system and determining therefrom an updated visual stimulus adapted to induce a change in the at least one electrical activity of the brain [Alvarez claim 8 “…employing a trained machine learning module to render visual stimulus with the head mounted display or adjust the visual stimulus to elicit a response from a visual system of the user”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider and incorporate the teachings of Alvarez to include providing the measured at least one electrical activity of the brain to a learning system and determining therefrom an updated visual stimulus adapted to induce a change in the at least one electrical activity of the brain. Doing so configures the system to “…dynamically adjust the visual stimulation within a therapeutic platform to improve symmetrical binocular coordination of the two eyes”, as recognized by Alvarez para. 0009.
Regarding claim 26, Kouider and Alvarez teach the method of claim 15, wherein the learning system comprises an artificial neural network [Alvarez 0064 “…the machine learning algorithm(s) used by the system can include (…) Artificial neural network”].
Claims 3, 6-7, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouider as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Na (US 20200093414 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kouider teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first visual stimulus is presented, but fails to specifically teach the visual stimulus is presented on a floor of the virtual environment.
Na teaches the visual stimulus is presented on a floor of the virtual environment [0179 “…’Move along the red line on the floor’…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider and incorporate the teachings of Na to include the visual stimulus is presented on a floor of the virtual environment. Doing so configures the system to encourage tracking, attention, and movement in an environment that is comfortable/suitable for a particular patient.
Regarding claim 6, Kouider and Na teach the system of claim 3, wherein the first visual stimulus comprises a virtual platform [Na 0179 “…’Freely move around the living room, and look at the box while standing in the red circle’…”, the examiner is interpreting “box” as a platform] and a virtual floor [Na 0179, the “red circle” is being stood upon].
Regarding claim 7, Kouider and Na teach the system of claim 6, wherein the virtual platform comprises a different shape and/or pattern from the virtual floor [Na 0179 “…’Freely move around the living room, and look at the box while standing in the red circle’…”, the examiner notes that a box is being interpreted as a cube/rectangular prism and the floor as a circle].
Regarding claim 16, Kouider teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the first visual stimulus is presented, but fails to specifically teach the visual stimulus is presented on a floor of the virtual environment.
Na teaches the visual stimulus is presented on a floor of the virtual environment [0179 “…’Move along the red line on the floor’…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider and incorporate the teachings of Na to include the visual stimulus is presented on a floor of the virtual environment. Doing so configures the system to encourage tracking, attention, and movement in an environment that is comfortable/suitable for a particular patient.
Regarding claim 19, Kouider and Na teach the method of claim 16, wherein the first visual stimulus comprises a virtual platform [Na 0179 “…’Freely move around the living room, and look at the box while standing in the red circle’…”, the examiner is interpreting “box” as a platform] and a virtual floor [Na 0179, the “red circle” is being stood upon].
Regarding claim 20, Kouider and Na teach the method of claim 19, wherein the virtual platform comprises a different shape and/or pattern from the virtual floor [Na 0179 “…’Freely move around the living room, and look at the box while standing in the red circle’…”, the examiner notes that a box is being interpreted as a cube/rectangular prism and the floor as a circle].
Claims 4-5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koider as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Hetling (US 20180242834 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kouider teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second visual stimulus is presented in a virtual environment, but fails to specifically teach the visual stimulus is presented on a wall of the virtual environment.
Hetling teaches the visual stimulus is presented on a wall of the virtual environment [0009 “…a stimulus source for visual pathway testing is disclosed, with the representative pixel light source apparatus embodiment comprising: at least one side wall…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider and incorporate the teachings of Hetling to include the visual stimulus is presented on a wall of the virtual environment. Doing so configures the system to encourage tracking, attention, and movement in an environment that is comfortable/suitable for a particular patient.
Regarding claim 5, Kouider and Hetling teach the system of claim 4, wherein the second visual stimulus is presented on one or more of: a forward surface, peripheral surfaces [Kouider 0074 “peripheral targets”], and a rear surface [Hetling 0009 “…at least one side wall, the at least one side wall elongated in a longitudinal dimension and optically opaque; a rear wall coupled to the at least one side wall, the rear wall forming a distal end…”].
Regarding claim 17, Kouider teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the second visual stimulus is presented in a virtual environment, but fails to specifically teach the visual stimulus is presented on a wall of the virtual environment.
Hetling teaches the visual stimulus is presented on a wall of the virtual environment [0009 “…a stimulus source for visual pathway testing is disclosed, with the representative pixel light source apparatus embodiment comprising: at least one side wall…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider and incorporate the teachings of Hetling to include the visual stimulus is presented on a wall of the virtual environment. Doing so configures the system to encourage tracking, attention, and movement in an environment that is comfortable/suitable for a particular patient.
Regarding claim 18, Kouider and Hetling teach method of claim 17, wherein the second visual stimulus is presented on one or more of: a forward surface, peripheral surfaces [Kouider 0074 “peripheral targets”], and a rear surface [Hetling 0009 “…at least one side wall, the at least one side wall elongated in a longitudinal dimension and optically opaque; a rear wall coupled to the at least one side wall, the rear wall forming a distal end…”].
Claims 8-10 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouider and Na as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Mullins (US 20160246384 A1) and Nasti (US 20200312269 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kouider and Na teach the system of claim 3, wherein Kouider teaches the first visual stimulus and the second visual stimulus, but fail to teach the stimuli comprise a size based on a visual acuity of the user.
Mullins teaches changing a size of the stimuli [0062 “Changes to the state of the virtual content include changes to the color, shape, size, animation, or any visual or audio changes of the virtual content”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider and Na and incorporate the teachings of Mullins to include changing a size of the stimuli. Doing so configures the system to adjust features of the virtual environment to optimize the comfort and effectiveness of acquiring data/performing tasks from a particular user/patient.
A combination of Kouider, Na, and Mullins teaches changing the size of stimuli, but fails to teach the change is based on a visual acuity of the user.
Nasti teaches the change is based on a visual acuity of the user [0084 “…the method 700 determines 716 the user's visual acuity based on the sensor data, e.g., based on the theta- and alpha-wave frequency data and adjusts 718 the display settings of the HMD unit 102 accordingly”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider, Na, and Mullins and incorporate the teachings of Nasti to include the change is based on a visual acuity of the user. Doing so configures the system to adjust the features of the virtual environment to ensure the patient/user is properly viewing/understanding said features of the virtual environment so that accurate data may be acquired and/or proper tasks are carried out.
Regarding claim 9, Kouider, Na, Mullins, and Nasti teach the system of claim 8, wherein a size of the first visual stimulus corresponds to the visual acuity of the user [Nasti 0084 “…the method 700 determines 716 the user's visual acuity based on the sensor data, e.g., based on the theta- and alpha-wave frequency data and adjusts 718 the display settings of the HMD unit 102 accordingly”].
Regarding claim 10, Kouider, Na, Mullins, and Nasti teach the system of claim 8, wherein a size of the second visual stimulus is greater than the visual acuity of the user [Nasti 0084 “…the method 700 determines 716 the user's visual acuity based on the sensor data, e.g., based on the theta- and alpha-wave frequency data and adjusts 718 the display settings of the HMD unit 102 accordingly”].
Regarding claim 21, Kouider and Na teach the method of claim 19, wherein Kouider teaches the first visual stimulus and the second visual stimulus, but fail to teach the stimuli comprise a size based on a visual acuity of the user.
Mullins teaches changing a size of the stimuli [0062 “Changes to the state of the virtual content include changes to the color, shape, size, animation, or any visual or audio changes of the virtual content”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider and Na and incorporate the teachings of Mullins to include changing a size of the stimuli. Doing so configures the system to adjust features of the virtual environment to optimize the comfort and effectiveness of acquiring data/performing tasks from a particular user/patient.
A combination of Kouider, Na, and Mullins teaches changing the size of stimuli, but fails to teach the change is based on a visual acuity of the user.
Nasti teaches the change is based on a visual acuity of the user [0084 “…the method 700 determines 716 the user's visual acuity based on the sensor data, e.g., based on the theta- and alpha-wave frequency data and adjusts 718 the display settings of the HMD unit 102 accordingly”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider, Na, and Mullins and incorporate the teachings of Nasti to include the change is based on a visual acuity of the user. Doing so configures the system to adjust the features of the virtual environment to ensure the patient/user is properly viewing/understanding said features of the virtual environment so that accurate data may be acquired and/or proper tasks are carried out.
Regarding claim 22, Kouider, Na, Mullins, and Nasti teach the method of claim 21, wherein a size of the first visual stimulus corresponds to the visual acuity of the user [Nasti 0084 “…the method 700 determines 716 the user's visual acuity based on the sensor data, e.g., based on the theta- and alpha-wave frequency data and adjusts 718 the display settings of the HMD unit 102 accordingly”].
Regarding claim 23, Kouider, Na, Mullins, and Nasti teach the method of claim 21, wherein a size of the second visual stimulus is greater than the visual acuity of the user [Nasti 0084 “…the method 700 determines 716 the user's visual acuity based on the sensor data, e.g., based on the theta- and alpha-wave frequency data and adjusts 718 the display settings of the HMD unit 102 accordingly”].
Claims 11-12 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouider and Alvarez as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Ben-David (US 20190001117 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kouider and Alvarez teach the system of claim 2, wherein Kouider teaches acquiring electrical activity of the brain, but fails to teach wherein the at least one electrical activity of the brain comprises theta waves.
Ben-David teaches wherein the at least one electrical activity of the brain comprises theta waves [0078 “…monitoring theta waves”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider and Alvarez and incorporate the teachings of Ben-David to include wherein the at least one electrical activity of the brain comprises theta waves. Doing so configures the system “…for detecting sleep stages and changes in hippocampus activity…” so as to provide information on the optimal time to provide stimulation, as recognized by Ben-David para. 0078.
Regarding claim 12, Kouider and Alvarez teach the system of claim 2, wherein Kouider teaches acquiring electrical activity of the brain, but fails to teach wherein the at least one electrical activity of the brain comprises hippocampal activity.
Ben-David teaches wherein the at least one electrical activity of the brain comprises hippocampal activity [0078 “…detecting sleep stages and changes in hippocampus activity”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider and Alvarez and incorporate the teachings of Ben-David to include wherein the at least one electrical activity of the brain comprises hippocampal activity. Doing so configures the system “…for detecting sleep stages and changes in hippocampus activity…” so as to provide information on the optimal time to provide stimulation, as recognized by Ben-David para. 0078.
Regarding claim 24, Kouider and Alvarez teach the method of claim 15, wherein Kouider teaches acquiring electrical activity of the brain, but fails to teach wherein the at least one electrical activity of the brain comprises theta waves.
Ben-David teaches wherein the at least one electrical activity of the brain comprises theta waves [0078 “…monitoring theta waves”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider and Alvarez and incorporate the teachings of Ben-David to include wherein the at least one electrical activity of the brain comprises theta waves. Doing so configures the system “…for detecting sleep stages and changes in hippocampus activity…” so as to provide information on the optimal time to provide stimulation, as recognized by Ben-David para. 0078.
Regarding claim 25, Kouider and Alvarez teach the method of claim 15, wherein Kouider teaches acquiring electrical activity of the brain, but fails to teach wherein the at least one electrical activity of the brain comprises hippocampal activity.
Ben-David teaches wherein the at least one electrical activity of the brain comprises hippocampal activity [0078 “…detecting sleep stages and changes in hippocampus activity”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Kouider and Alvarez and incorporate the teachings of Ben-David to include wherein the at least one electrical activity of the brain comprises hippocampal activity. Doing so configures the system “…for detecting sleep stages and changes in hippocampus activity…” so as to provide information on the optimal time to provide stimulation, as recognized by Ben-David para. 0078.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 0730-1630 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)272-4233. 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.
/JONATHAN M HANEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JUSTIN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791