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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 11, 2026 has been entered.
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 21-22 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.
As to claim 21, the claim recites “the left and right compartments comprise opaque compartments that seal off the left and right eyes to prevent the right eye from seeing the left visible light display…the left eye from seeing the right visible display…” which is a function that does not follow from the recited structure (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, neither the claims nor the originally filed disclosure provide the structure of the opaque compartment to seal the left and right eyes from each other. Is this an opaque divider between the eyes (not disclosed)? Is this some other structural element which separates the eye compartments? The metes and bounds are unclear since a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary what does and does not infringe the function to prevent the right eye from seeing the left visible display, the left eye from seeing the right visible display.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand that so long as the displays don’t display, or light is block for each, the limitation is met.
Claim 22 is rejected as dependent upon claim 21.
Claim 22 recites “in complete darkness” which is unclear what is, and is not, “complete darkness” (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Applicant’s claims/specification do not provide an objective metric what is “complete”. Examiner will understand so long as the eyes are sealed via an opaque compartment, such darkness is necessarily complete.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 23, the claim recites “the object displayed to the left eye and the right eye remains stationary on both the left and right visible light displays between multiple successive iterations of displaying and stop displaying of the object on each of the left and right displays” which appears to be prohibitive new matter. Specifically, while Applicant’s specification discusses the displayed object can be stationary1, the specification does not specify stationary displaying between successive iterations. Examiner requests Applicant to particularly point out support for such subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oz et al. (US 2018/0028057 - Oz) in view of Zidan et al. (US 2020/0397288 - Zidan; cited by Applicant).
As to claim 1, Oz teaches a system for performing a cover-uncover eye test, the system comprising (Oz Fig. 2a; Fig. 2b; para. [0055], [0057]-[0059])
a headset comprising
a left visible light display (Oz Fig. 2a - 10, 14; Fig. 6 - 10, 16; para. [0029], [0032], [0058]);
a left compartment o fit over a left eye of a user (Oz Fig. 2a - 10; Fig. 2b; para. [0058]).
a right visible display (Oz Fig. 2a - 10, 16; Fig. 6 - 10, 16; para. [0029], [0032], [0058])
a right compartment to fit over a right eye of the user (Oz Fig. 2a - 10; Fig. 2b; para. [0058]),
wherein the left compartment and the right compartment are configured so that when the headset has been fitted over the user’s eyes, i) the user cannot see the right visible display using only their left eye (Oz Fig. 2b; para. [0059], [0029]) and ii) the user cannot see the left visible light display using only their right eye (Oz Fig. 2b; para. [0059], [0029]);
a non-visible light-based eye tracking subsystem adapted for tracking a position of the left eye and a position of the right eye (Oz Fig. 2a - 14; para. [0065], [0066]),
and a processor configured to, when the headset has been fitted over the left eye and the right eye of the user (Oz Fig. 2a - 12)
i) signal the left visible light display and the right visible light display to display an object the user sees as a single object while the left eye and the right eye are open (Oz Figs. 3a-e; Fig. 4b; Fig. 6; para. [0071], [0055]);
ii) record the tracked position of the left eye while signaling the left visible light display to stop displaying the object while the object remains displayed and stationary in the right visible display (Oz Fig. 3b; Fig. 4b - Step 1, Step 2; para. [0065], [0066], [0072]);
iii) record the tracked position of the right eye while signaling the right visible light display to stop displaying the object while the object remains displayed and stationary in the left visible light display (Oz Fig. 3c; Fig. 4b - Step 1, Step 2; para. [0065], [0066], [0073]).
While Oz teaches the headset can be an eye-individualized near-eye display with direction projection into the individual eye (Oz para. [0058]) and the blocking unit and display unit can be integrated within the same housing (Oz para. [0057]), Oz doesn’t elaborate on the near-eye displays such that the displays stop displaying the object.
In the same field of endeavor Zidan teaches an eye testing headset with displays (Zidan Fig. 19 - 242, 244; Fig. 20 - 236, 238; Fig. 48 - 330, 332; Fig. 49 - 330, 332) - whereby the object ceases to be displayed on the left display while displaying on a right display (Zidan Fig. 48 - 330, 332; para. [0217]) and ceases to be displayed on the right display while displaying on the left display (Zidan Fig. 49 - 330, 332; para. [0217]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such display scene since, as taught by Zidan, such displaying occlusion is well known in the art for phoria and/or tropia testing via headsets (Zidan para. [0217]).
As to claim 2, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Oz further teaches the processor signals the left visible light display so the object disappears from the left visible display but remains displayed as stationary in the right visible display (Oz Fig. 3b).
As to claim 3, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Oz further teaches the processor is external to the headset (Oz Fig. 2a - 12; para. [0062], [0063]), and the headset comprises a wired or wireless communications network interface through which image data from the eye tracking subsystem is sent to the processor (Oz Fig. 2a; para. [0062], [0063]).
As to claim 4, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Oz further teaches the processor is external to the headset (Oz Fig. 2a - 12; para. [0062], [0063]), and the headset comprises a wired or wireless communications network interface through which the tracked positions of the left eye and the right eye are sent to the processor (Oz Fig. 2a - 12; para. [0062], [0063]).
As to claim 5, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Oz further teaches the processor is further configured to signal a further display to display the tracked positions of the left eye and the right eye (Oz para. [0063]).
As to claim 6, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Oz further teaches the eye tracking subsystem images an entirety of the left eye and an entirety of the right eye (Oz Fig. 2a - 14; para. [0065], [0066]), and wherein the processor determines gaze angles of the left eye and the right eye based on:
knowledge of distance between the left eye and the left visible light display (Oz para. [0065], [0067]);
distance between the right eye and the right visible display (Oz para. [0065], [0067]), and
location of a left pupil within the left eye and a right pupil within the right eye, or interpupillary distance (Oz para. [0065], [0067]).
As to claim 7, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Oz further teaches the processor signaling the left display or the right display to stop displaying the object comprises the processor signaling the left display or the right display to darken until the object disappears (Oz Figs. 2a,b; para. [0021], [0059]).
As to claim 8, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Oz further teaches the processor signaling the left display or the right display to stop displaying the object comprises the processor signaling the left display or the right display to darken completely(Oz Figs. 2a,b; para. [0021], [0059]).
As to claim 9, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Oz further teaches the processor is further configured to before ii) and iii) and while the user fixates on the object (Oz Fig. 4a - Step 1; para. [0077]),
iv) record a combined calibration position of the left eye and a combined calibration position of the right eye while the left and right visible light displays are simultaneously displaying the object that the user would see as a single object (Oz Fig. 4a - Step 1; para. [0076], [0077]), while their left and right eyes are both open simultaneously (Oz Fig. 4a - Step 1; para. [0076], [0077]), if their eyes were centered (Oz Fig. 4a - Step 1; para. [0076], [0077]).
As to claim 10, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Oz further teaches in ii) record the tracked position of the right eye as an individual right eye calibration position (Oz Fig. 4a - Step 1, initial ET data RGZ; para. [0076], [0077]), and
iii) record the tracked position of the left eye as an individual left eye calibration position (Oz Fig. 4a - Step 1, initial ET data LGZ; para. [0076], [0077]);
and determine a deviation of the left eye or right eye based on a difference between the combined calibration positions in iv) and the individual right and left eye calibration positions (Oz Fig. 4a - New RGZ - RGZ = 0?; New LGZ - LGZ = 0?).
As to claim 11, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Oz further teaches the processor is further configured to prepare data for displaying the deviation of the left eye or the right eye (Oz Fig. 4a - Step 5).
As to claim 12, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Oz further teaches the eye tracking subsystem for tracking the position of the left eye and the position of the right eye performs imaging of an entirety of the left eye and an entirety of the right eye (Oz Fig. 2a - 14; para. [0066]), and the processor is configure to process said imaging to generate each of the tracked position of the left eye and the tracked position of the right eye as an absolute position with respect to the wearer’s head, measure interpupillary distance, register virtual coordinates of the object to gaze coordinates, and define a virtual prism correction (Oz Fig. 4b - step 4; para. [0032], [0065], [0067], [0079]).
As to claim 13, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Oz further teaches the processor is configured to display the virtual prism correction as a measure of tropia of the user (Oz Fig. 4b - step 4; para. [0076], [0079]).
As to claim 14, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Oz further teaches the eye tracking subsystem performs imaging of i) an entirety of the left eye to produce an imaged left eye (Oz Fig. 2a - 14; para. [0065], [0066]), and ii) an entirety of the right eye to produce an imaged right eye (Oz Fig. 2a - 14; para. [0065], [0066]), and the processor is configured to:
shift coordinates of the object, resulting in shifted object coordinates, until the imaged right eye and the imaged left eye become aligned or centered (Oz Fig. 4b - step 3; para. [0077]); and
convert the shifted object coordinates to an angular position or to a prism diopter measurement, of the left eye or of the right eye (Oz Fig. 4b - step 4; para. [0077]-[0079]).
As to claim 15, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, and Oz further teaches the processor is configured to display the prism diopter measurement as a measure of tropia of the user (Oz Fig. 4b - step 4; para. [0076], [0079]).
As to claim 21, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Zidan further teaches the left and right compartments comprise opaque compartments that seal off the left and right eyes to prevent the right eye from seeing the left visible light display and the left eye from seeing the right visible light display when the headset is fitted over the left and right eyes (Zidan Fig. 13 - 212; para. [0169], [0170]).
As to claim 22, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Zidan further teaches the left and right compartments comprise entirely opaque compartments that seal off the left and right eyes in complete darkness when the left and right visible light displays are turned off (Zidan Fig. 13 - 210, 212; para. [0168]-[0170]).
As to claim 23, Oz in view of Zidan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Zidan further teaches the object displayed to the left eye and the right eye remains stationary on both the left and right visible displays between multiple successive iterations of displaying and stop displaying of the object on each of the left and right visible light displays (Zidan Figs. 48-49; para. [0144], [0217].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Barraza-Bernal et al. (US 10,405,742; 2019/0209005) is cited as an additional example of a cover, uncover test with stationary displayed image(s).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 March 9, 2026
1 Originally filed specification para. [00021]