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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 3/19/2024 has been considered.
Preliminary Amendment
In the preliminary amendment of 8/15/2024, Applicant amended the specification, and amended claims 3-4, 8-9, 11 and 14-15.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/450,227 filed on 8/15/2023 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-3 and 5 lack any legends in the shown boxes.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 10 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “a smartphones” in line 2 and “a microphones” in line 5. It is suggested that the above quoted features are replaced by “a smartphone” and “a microphone”, respectively, for better clarity.
Claim 10 recites “a smartphones” in line 2 and “a microphones” in line 5. It is suggested that the above quoted features are replaced by “a smartphone” and “a microphone”, respectively, for better clarity.
Claim 16 recites “a smartphones” in line 2 and “a microphones” in line 5. It is suggested that the above quoted features are replaced by “a smartphone” and “a microphone”, respectively, for better clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of co-pending U.S. Patent 9,706,910 of Blaha et al. (hereinafter “Blaha”).
An explanation along with the listing of claim 1 of the present application and claim 7 of Blaha is given below.
Instant claims: 18/450,227
Patent No. 9,706,910
1. A computer system for vision assessment and correction, the system comprising:
at least one data processor configured to perform operations comprising:
displaying, using the at least one programmable processor and on a display, a first eye condition assessment or eye condition correction activity of a plurality of eye condition assessments or eye condition correction activities configured to measure a medical disorder or perceptual skill of a user viewing the display;
receiving, by the at least one programmable processor, user input with respect to the first assessment or correction activity, the user input being generated based on input acquired from the user during the eye condition assessment or eye condition correction activity;
determining, by the at least one programmable processor using the received user input, whether a target value of at least one parameter has been reached, wherein the target value of the at least one parameter is indicative of a perception of the first property of the first eye condition assessment or eye condition correction activity by at least one eye of the user;
determining, by the at least one programmable processor based on the target parameter being reached, a current state of the user out of a plurality of possible states within a model of the medical disorder or perceptual skill of the user;
when it is determined that the target value has changed, updating, by the at least one programmable processor, eye conditions assessments and/or eye condition correction activities scheduled for the user by the computing device to reflect the user's current state within the model of the user's medical disorder; and
iteratively performing, by the at least one programmable processor, the displaying, receiving, determining, and updating steps until it is determined that the user's medical condition or perceptual skill has improved to the point where the target value has been reached.
7. A computer system for vision assessment and correction, the system comprising:
a computing device comprising at least one data processor and at least one computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions; and
a head-mountable virtual reality device configured to communicate with the computing device and having a virtual reality display configured to render a virtual reality environment;
wherein the at least one data processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to perform:
displaying, using the at least one data processor and on the virtual reality display, the virtual reality environment comprising a first object having a first property, the first object being displayed to a user wearing the head-mountable virtual reality device during an eye condition assessment or correction activity;
receiving, by the at least one data processor, user input with respect to the first object, the user input being generated based on input acquired from the user during the eye condition assessment or correction activity;
tracking movements of a head of the user during the eye condition assessment or correction activity;
determining, by the at least one data processor using the received user input, whether a target value of at least one parameter has been reached, wherein the target value of the at least one parameter is indicative of a perception of the first property of the first object by at least one eye of the user;
when it is determined that the target value has not been reached, displaying, using the at least one data processor and on the virtual reality display, the virtual reality environment comprising a second object having a second property that is different from the first property, the second object being generated based at least in part on a result of the tracking the movements of the head of the user; and
iteratively performing the displaying, receiving, tracking, and determining steps until it is determined that the target value has been reached, wherein
the at least one data processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to:
determine that the target value of the at least one parameter has been reached; and
when it is determined that the target value has been reached, provide a result relating to the eye condition assessment or correction activity.
Claim 7 of Blaha discloses all the limitations of claim 1 of the present application. Here, the “first eye-condition assessment” of claim 1 of 18/450,227 corresponds to “first object” of claim 7 of Blaha.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 13 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 1 recites the limitation "the first property of the first eye condition assessment" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it will be taken that the above quoted feature recites "a first property of the first eye condition assessment".
Claim 2 recites the limitation “esotropia (intermittent)” in line 4. The phrase “esotropia (intermittent)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “intermittent” characterizes “esotropia”. For examination purposes, the above quoted feature will be taken to mean “intermittent esotropia”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “esotropia (intermittent)” in line 4. The phrase “esotropia (intermittent)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “intermittent” characterizes “esotropia”. For examination purposes, the above quoted feature will be taken to mean “intermittent esotropia”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “esotropia (intermittent)” in lines 4-5. The phrase “esotropia (intermittent)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “intermittent” characterizes “esotropia”. For examination purposes, the above quoted feature will be taken to mean “intermittent esotropia”.
Claims 3-5 depend from claim 1 and are indefinite for the reasons given above.
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.
Claim 1 (similarly for claims 6 and 12) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental steps comprising analyzing data without significantly more. The claim recites “determining whether a target value of at least one parameter has been reached; determining a current state of the user (based on the target being reached)”. These belong to the enumerated grouping of a judicial exception of abstract ideas, e.g., mental processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the displaying, receiving steps are recited with a high degree of generality and are just extra-solution data gathering and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The updating step and the iteratively performing step are insignificant post-solution activity and thus not meaningful enough to render the claim eligible (See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an... abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post-solution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and post-solution activity and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claims 2-5 (similarly for claims 7-11 and 13-16) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons give above. The additional limitations (types of medical disorder or eye condition assessments, processor/display implementing the actions and providing indications), are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and post-solution activity and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geisinger et al. (US 2019/0365594, hereinafter, “Geisinger’).
Regarding claim 1, Geisinger discloses a computer system for vision assessment and correction (administering a stimulation to the user and determining the response of the user to determine the oculomotor response so that the ocular movement is being performed correctly, [0159], [0165]), the system comprising:
at least one data processor configured to perform operations ([0115]) comprising:
displaying, using the at least one programmable processor and on a display, a first eye condition assessment or eye condition correction activity of a plurality of eye condition assessments or eye condition correction activities configured to measure a medical disorder or perceptual skill of a user viewing the display ([0017], [0149], [0157], [0158], Fig. 1C);
receiving, by the at least one programmable processor, user input with respect to the first assessment or correction activity, the user input being generated based on input acquired from the user during the eye condition assessment or eye condition correction activity (eye movement of the user, [0158]);
determining, by the at least one programmable processor using the received user input, whether a target value of at least one parameter has been reached, wherein the target value of the at least one parameter is indicative of a perception of the first property of the first eye condition assessment or eye condition correction activity by at least one eye of the user (each stimulation has a different oculomotor response target for competence, Fig. 3, [0159]-[0160]);
determining, by the at least one programmable processor based on the target parameter being reached, a current state of the user out of a plurality of possible states within a model of the medical disorder or perceptual skill of the user (Fig. 3, [0159], looking at current and previous response);
when it is determined that the target value has changed, updating, by the at least one programmable processor, eye conditions assessments and/or eye condition correction activities scheduled for the user by the computing device to reflect the user's current state within the model of the user's medical disorder (if the system processor determines the response of the user to be competent, the processor increases the difficulty of the stimulation, and if the system processor determines the response of the user to be incompetent , the processor decreases the difficulty of the stimulation, [0160], [0162]); and
iteratively performing, by the at least one programmable processor, the displaying, receiving, determining, and updating steps until it is determined that the user's medical condition or perceptual skill has improved to the point where the target value has been reached (Fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 2, Geisinger discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein
the medical disorder or perceptual skill comprises at least one of anisometropic amblyopia, strabismic amblyopia, intermittent exotropia, constant exotropia, a disorder of vergence, convergence insufficiency, convergence excess, divergence insufficiency, divergence excess, esotropia (intermittent), esotropia, hypertropia, cortical suppression, lack of sensory binocularity needed for flat fusion, lack of sensory binocularity from vergence insufficiency, accommodative insufficiency, accommodative infacility, traumatic brain injury (TBI), anomalous correspondence, oculomotor, glaucoma, low-vision training, brain injury, visual field loss, neglect, confusion, scotoma, lack of or impaired stereoscopic depth perception, a sports vision-related condition ([0159]).
Regarding claim 3, Geisinger discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein
the plurality of eye condition assessments or eye condition correction activities comprise one or more of: vergence range; visual acuity; contrast sensitivity; central-peripheral awareness; stereo depth; visual processing; perceptual; reaction time; accommodation; tracking accuracy; flat fusion; stereopsis; awareness of diplopia; and minimized fixation disparity ([0153]).
Regarding claim 4, Geisinger discloses the computing system of claim 1, further comprising a device configured to communicate with the at least one programmable processor, the device comprising a display ([0118]).
Regarding claim 5, Geisinger discloses the computing system of claim 4, wherein
the device comprises one or more of a virtual reality device, a personal computer, a smartphone, an augmented reality device, a mixed reality device, an eye tracking device, a wearable display, a lens, a body movement tracking device, a facial tracking device, an appendage tracking device, a haptic feedback device, an audible sensor, a microphone, and/or a biosensor ([0016], [0118]).
Regarding claim 6, Geisinger discloses a method comprising:
displaying a first eye condition assessment or eye condition correction activity of a plurality of eye condition assessments or eye condition correction activities configured to measure one or more visual skills of a user (administering a stimulation to the user and determining the response of the user to determine the oculomotor response so that the ocular movement is being performed correctly ([0017], [0149], [0157]-[0160], Fig. 1C);
receiving user input with respect to the first assessment or correction activity, the user input being generated based on input acquired from the user during the eye condition assessment or eye condition correction activity (eye movement of the user, [0158]);
determining whether a target value of at least one parameter has been reached, wherein the target value of the at least one parameter is indicative of a perception of a first property of the first eye condition assessment or eye condition correction activity by at least one eye of the user (each stimulation has a different oculomotor response target for competence, Fig. 3, [0159]-[0160]);
determining based on the target parameter being reached, a current state of the user out of a plurality of possible states within a model of the medical disorder or perceptual skill of the user (Fig. 3, [0159], looking at current and previous response);
updating, when it is determined that the target value has changed, eye conditions assessments or eye condition correction activities scheduled for the user to reflect the user's current state within the model of the medical disorder or perceptual skill of the user (if the system processor determines the response of the user to be competent, the processor increases the difficulty of the stimulation, and if the system processor determines the response of the user to be incompetent , the processor decreases the difficulty of the stimulation, [0160], [0162]); and
iteratively performing the displaying, receiving, determining, and updating steps until it is determined that the medical condition or perceptual skill of the user has improved to the point where the target value has been reached (Fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 7, Geisinger discloses the method of claim 6, wherein
the medical disorder or perceptual skill comprises at least one of anisometropic amblyopia, strabismic amblyopia, intermittent exotropia, constant exotropia, a disorder of vergence, convergence insufficiency, convergence excess, divergence insufficiency, divergence excess, esotropia (intermittent), esotropia, hypertropia, cortical suppression, lack of sensory binocularity needed for flat fusion, lack of sensory binocularity from vergence insufficiency, accommodative insufficiency, accommodative infacility, traumatic brain injury (TBI), anomalous correspondence, oculomotor, glaucoma, low-vision training, brain injury, visual field loss, neglect, confusion, scotoma, lack of or impaired stereoscopic depth perception, a sports vision-related condition ([0159]).
Regarding claim 8, Geisinger discloses the method of claim 6, wherein
the plurality of eye condition assessments or eye condition correction activities comprise one or more of: vergence range; visual acuity; contrast sensitivity; central-peripheral awareness; stereo depth; visual processing; perceptual; reaction time; accommodation; tracking accuracy; flat fusion; stereopsis; awareness of diplopia; and minimized fixation disparity ([0153]).
Regarding claim 9, Geisinger discloses the method of claim 6, wherein
the displaying is done using a device having a display configured to interact with the user ([0118]).
Regarding claim 10, Geisinger discloses the method of claim 9, wherein
the device comprises one or more of a virtual reality device, a personal computer, a smartphone, an augmented reality device, a mixed reality device, an eye tracking device, a wearable display, a lens, a body movement tracking device, a facial tracking device, an appendage tracking device, a haptic feedback device, an audible sensor, a microphone, and/or a biosensor ([0016], [0118]).
Regarding claim 11, Geisinger discloses the method of claim 6, wherein
the displaying, the receiving, the determining, the updating, and the iteratively performing are performed using one or more programmable processors ([0158]-[0159]).
Regarding claim 12, Geisinger discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one programmable processor, result in operations comprising:
displaying a first eye condition assessment or eye condition correction activity of a plurality of eye condition assessments or eye condition correction activities configured to measure one or more visual skills of a user (administering a stimulation to the user and determining the response of the user to determine the oculomotor response so that the ocular movement is being performed correctly ([0017], [0149], [0157]-[0160], Fig. 1C);
receiving user input with respect to the first assessment or correction activity, the user input being generated based on input acquired from the user during the eye condition assessment or eye condition correction activity (eye movement of the user, [0158]);
determining whether a target value of at least one parameter has been reached, wherein the target value of the at least one parameter is indicative of a perception of a first property of the first eye condition assessment or eye condition correction activity by at least one eye of the user (each stimulation has a different oculomotor response target for competence, Fig. 3, [0159]-[0160]);
determining based on the target parameter being reached, a current state of the user out of a plurality of possible states within a model of the medical disorder or perceptual skill of the user (Fig. 3, [0159], looking at current and previous response);
updating, when it is determined that the target value has changed, eye conditions assessments or eye condition correction activities scheduled for the user to reflect the user's current state within the model of the medical disorder or perceptual skill of the user (if the system processor determines the response of the user to be competent, the processor increases the difficulty of the stimulation, and if the system processor determines the response of the user to be incompetent , the processor decreases the difficulty of the stimulation, [0160], [0162]); and
iteratively performing the displaying, receiving, determining, and updating steps until it is determined that the medical condition or perceptual skill of the user has improved to the point where the target value has been reached (Fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 13, Geisinger discloses the computer program product of claim 12, wherein
the medical disorder or perceptual skill comprises at least one of anisometropic amblyopia, strabismic amblyopia, intermittent exotropia, constant exotropia, a disorder of vergence, convergence insufficiency, convergence excess, divergence insufficiency, divergence excess, esotropia (intermittent), esotropia, hypertropia, cortical suppression, lack of sensory binocularity needed for flat fusion, lack of sensory binocularity from vergence insufficiency, accommodative insufficiency, accommodative infacility, traumatic brain injury (TBI), anomalous correspondence, oculomotor, glaucoma, low-vision training, brain injury, visual field loss, neglect, confusion, scotoma, lack of or impaired stereoscopic depth perception, a sports vision-related condition ([0159]).
Regarding claim 14, Geisinger discloses the computer program product of claim 12, wherein
the plurality of eye condition assessments or eye condition correction activities comprise one or more of: vergence range; visual acuity; contrast sensitivity; central-peripheral awareness; stereo depth; visual processing; perceptual; reaction time; accommodation; tracking accuracy; flat fusion; stereopsis; awareness of diplopia; and minimized fixation disparity ([0153]).
Regarding claim 15, Geisinger discloses the computer program product of claim 12, wherein
the displaying occurs using a device having a display configured to communicate with the user ([0118]).
Regarding claim 16, Geisinger discloses the computer program product of claim 15, wherein
the device comprises one or more of a virtual reality device, a personal computer, a smartphone, an augmented reality device, a mixed reality device, an eye tracking device, a wearable display, a lens, a body movement tracking device, a facial tracking device, an appendage tracking device, a haptic feedback device, an audible sensor, a microphone, and/or a biosensor ([0016], [0118]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872