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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 46 and 108-110 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 46 recites “(GIU)” in line 4, but should read “(GUI)”
Claim 108 recites “The head-mountable device” in line 1, but should read “The device”
Claim 108 recites “across aid” in line 2, but should read “across said”
Claim 109 recites “The head-mountable device” in line 1, but should read “The device”
Claim 110 recites “The head-mountable device” in line 1, but should read “The device”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“eye tracking system” in Claims 33 and 45: [0026] of the Applicant’s Specification recites wherein the eye tracking system comprises “at least one tracking light source oriented to illuminated the user's eyes, and at least one camera oriented to capture a response of the user's eyes to illumination from the at least one tracking light source”
“vergence testing feature” in Claims 111-113: [0169] of the Applicant’s Specification recites wherein the vergence testing feature comprises “a strip of LEDs 113 that can be successively illuminated in guiding the user's gaze”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 36-37 and 114 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 36 and 114 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 33-34, 40-41, and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rennaker et al (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0245766; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 33, Rennaker discloses a head-mountable device (NeuroTriage Headset; Figure 2) for performing an oculomotor assessment of a user (System for traumatic brain injury detection using oculomotor tests; Abstract), comprising:
a widescreen display to be disposed, when the device is mounted, in direct unrefracted line of sight to render a dynamic visual stimulus horizontally displaceable in a wide binocular field of view to stimulate a wide field of view oculomotor response thereto (The invention comprises emitting light from a light source at the edge of a user's field of vision that is below the intensity of human detection, increasing the intensity of the light, measuring the time elapsed until the user's eyes (pupil location) are oriented toward the light source, and calculating a level of impairment; [0021]; Visually-guided saccades move toward a stimulus and may be further bifurcated into self-paced or reflexive movements…During self-paced saccades testing, subjects are directed to shift eye direction between two targets as rapidly as possible. Lights appear simultaneously on the screen and the patient is asked to shift their gaze between the two lights as fast as possible. The system then measures the saccade speed and synchrony along with several other measures including accuracy; [0065-0066]; FIG. 1C shows the raw data of the system tracking both pupils during repeated saccadic testing; the eye movements are overlaid on three visual targets; [0078]), wherein said widescreen display is physically mounted within a viewing tunnel that optically isolates, when mounted up against the user's face, viewing of said widescreen display (the housing is adapted to fit over a user's eyes and block external light from reaching eyes of a user; the light source is operable to emit light in a field of vision of the user; the first camera is operable to record a direction, a movement, and a dilation of a right pupil of the user; and the second camera is operable to record a direction, a movement, and a dilation of a left pupil of the user; [0008]; the housing of the NeuroTriage Headset blocks external light such that the only light received by the user's eyes is from the NeuroTriage's LEDs; [0050]);
an eye tracking system configured to monitor said wide field of view oculomotor response (The invention comprises tracking a movement of the user's eyes by monitoring the pupil position to a memorized location of a light stimulus emitted, and calculating a level of neurological impairment; [0024]; the NeuroTriage Headset uses two USB3 cameras, which may be obtained from the Imaging Source, that capture video at 150 Hz to track pupil diameter and position…the microcontroller may be mounted on a display board that controls the presentation of stimuli; [0049]); and
a digital data processor (microcontroller; [0049]) in communication with said widescreen display and said eye tracking system and operable to execute digital instructions for performing the oculomotor assessment by:
activating said widescreen display to horizontally displace said dynamic visual stimulus in accordance with the oculomotor assessment (The microcontroller may be mounted on a display board that controls the presentation of stimuli; [0049]; FIG. 1C shows the raw data of the system tracking both pupils during repeated saccadic testing; the eye movements are overlaid on three visual targets. FIG. 1D shows pupil tracking during the smooth pursuit task as right and left eyes track a light moving from left to right; [0078]); and
recording said wide field of view oculomotor response (the NeuroTriage Headset uses two USB3 cameras, which may be obtained from the Imaging Source, that capture video at 150 Hz to track pupil diameter and position. In preferred embodiments, these cameras are mounted on a heads-up display and are controlled via an ATmega32U4 microcontroller; [0049]).
Regarding Claim 34, Rennaker discloses wherein said digital data processor is further operable to execute digital instructions outputting an assessment result indicator as a result of said wide field of view oculomotor response (the invention further comprises a display that returns a numeric score that indicates a level of neurological impairment…calculating a numeric score indicative of a level of impairment; [0015-0020]; The NeuroTriage Headset includes software that provides a custom interface for stimulus presentation and image capture. The software accurately analyzes the eyelid borders, pupil borders, and limbus in each video frame, from which eye, lid, and pupil movement and gaze direction can be accurately determined. In preferred embodiments, the software produces a score, e.g., 1 to 100, indicating the level of neurological impairment; [0049]).
Regarding Claim 40, Rennaker discloses a plurality of light sources disposed to project inwardly along an axis perpendicular to a plane of said widescreen display and operable to present a visual stimulus at a corresponding plurality of physical locations at respective relative distances to the user along said axis (the microcontroller is configured to: control movement of the light source at a velocity of less than thirty degrees per second; control the light source to flash in a first pattern; and control the light source to flash in a second pattern that is the reverse of the first pattern; [0008]; The NeuroTriage Headset includes light emitting diodes (LEDs) to emit light into the wearer's eyes…other LEDs may be positioned at the corners for saccade tests; [0049]; In a memory guided saccade, the system prompts the user to move his or her eyes to a remembered point, such as the center of the screen, without presenting a visual stimulus…Anti-Saccade Testing: For this test, the system presents a stimulus at a random location on the edge of the screen. The individual is asked to look in the opposite direction to an imagined location at the same distance from center as the emitted light; [0069-0072]; For this task, the system moves a stimulus across the display at various rates. The individual is instructed to follow the stimulus across the screen. The stimulus can move in any direction. Smooth pursuit eye movements allow the direction of gaze to closely track slowly moving targets; [0074]).
Regarding Claim 41, Rennaker discloses wherein said plurality of light sources is disposed along an upper viewing tunnel surface extending from above said widescreen display toward the user (The invention comprises emitting lights flashing at a frequency of about 1 to 100 Hz at the four corners of a display [0026]; Other LEDs may be positioned at the corners for saccade tests; [0049]; The critical flicker fusion test uses four or more LEDs at the corners of the display; [0077]).
Regarding Claim 43, Rennaker discloses wherein said eye tracking system comprises at least one tracking light source oriented to illuminate the user's eyes (The NeuroTriage Headset includes light emitting diodes (LEDs) to emit light into the wearer's eyes; [0049]), and at least one camera oriented to capture a response of the user's eyes to illumination from said at least one tracking light source (the NeuroTriage Headset uses two USB3 cameras, which may be obtained from the Imaging Source, that capture video at 150 Hz to track pupil diameter and position; [0049]; FIG. 1 shows examples of raw data captured from two cameras that simultaneously track the pupil diameter and gaze direction during slow and fast movements. FIG. 1A shows an infrared eye image with a circle tracking the pupil diameter, and a point marking the pupil centroid. FIG. 1B shows changes in pupil diameters as the NeuroTriage system turns on and off the low intensity white LEDs in the headset. FIG. 1C shows the raw data of the system tracking both pupils during repeated saccadic testing; the eye movements are overlaid on three visual targets. FIG. 1D shows pupil tracking during the smooth pursuit task as right and left eyes track a light moving from left to right; [0078]).
Regarding Claim 44, Rennaker discloses wherein said at least one tracking light source comprises an infrared (IR) light source (the system includes infrared, white, red, blue, and green LEDs; [0049]), and wherein said at least one camera is at least sensitive to IR light (the first and second cameras are operable to detect infrared light; [0009]; the movement of the user's left and right pupils are tracked using infrared light…the orientation of the user's pupils is measured using infrared light…the diameter of the user's pupils is measured using infrared light; [0011-0012]; the cameras are operable to detect infrared light; [0015]; FIG. 1A shows an infrared eye image with a circle tracking the pupil diameter, and a point marking the pupil centroid; [0078]).
Regarding Claim 45, Rennaker discloses a system for performing an oculomotor assessment of a user (System for traumatic brain injury detection using oculomotor tests; Abstract), the system comprising:
a head-mountable device (NeuroTriage Headset; Figure 2) comprising a widescreen display to be disposed, when the device is mounted, in direct unrefracted line of sight to render a dynamic visual stimulus horizontally displaceable in a wide binocular field of view to stimulate a wide field of view oculomotor response thereto (The invention comprises emitting light from a light source at the edge of a user's field of vision that is below the intensity of human detection, increasing the intensity of the light, measuring the time elapsed until the user's eyes (pupil location) are oriented toward the light source, and calculating a level of impairment; [0021]; Visually-guided saccades move toward a stimulus and may be further bifurcated into self-paced or reflexive movements…During self-paced saccades testing, subjects are directed to shift eye direction between two targets as rapidly as possible. Lights appear simultaneously on the screen and the patient is asked to shift their gaze between the two lights as fast as possible. The system then measures the saccade speed and synchrony along with several other measures including accuracy; [0065-0066]; FIG. 1C shows the raw data of the system tracking both pupils during repeated saccadic testing; the eye movements are overlaid on three visual targets; [0078]), and an eye tracking system configured to monitor said wide field of view oculomotor response (The invention comprises tracking a movement of the user's eyes by monitoring the pupil position to a memorized location of a light stimulus emitted, and calculating a level of neurological impairment; [0024]; the NeuroTriage Headset uses two USB3 cameras, which may be obtained from the Imaging Source, that capture video at 150 Hz to track pupil diameter and position…the microcontroller may be mounted on a display board that controls the presentation of stimuli; [0049]), wherein said widescreen display is physically mounted within a viewing tunnel that optically isolates, when mounted up against the user's face, viewing of said widescreen display (the housing is adapted to fit over a user's eyes and block external light from reaching eyes of a user; the light source is operable to emit light in a field of vision of the user; the first camera is operable to record a direction, a movement, and a dilation of a right pupil of the user; and the second camera is operable to record a direction, a movement, and a dilation of a left pupil of the user; [0008]; the housing of the NeuroTriage Headset blocks external light such that the only light received by the user's eyes is from the NeuroTriage's LEDs; [0050]);
a digital data processor (microcontroller; [0049]) in communication with said widescreen display and said eye tracking system and operable to execute digital instructions for performing the oculomotor assessment by:
activating said widescreen display to horizontally displace said dynamic visual stimulus in accordance with the oculomotor assessment (The microcontroller may be mounted on a display board that controls the presentation of stimuli; [0049]; FIG. 1C shows the raw data of the system tracking both pupils during repeated saccadic testing; the eye movements are overlaid on three visual targets. FIG. 1D shows pupil tracking during the smooth pursuit task as right and left eyes track a light moving from left to right; [0078]);
recording said wide field of view oculomotor response (the NeuroTriage Headset uses two USB3 cameras, which may be obtained from the Imaging Source, that capture video at 150 Hz to track pupil diameter and position. In preferred embodiments, these cameras are mounted on a heads-up display and are controlled via an ATmega32U4 microcontroller; [0049]); and
outputting an assessment result indicator as a result of said wide field of view oculomotor response (the invention further comprises a display that returns a numeric score that indicates a level of neurological impairment…calculating a numeric score indicative of a level of impairment; [0015-0020]; The NeuroTriage Headset includes software that provides a custom interface for stimulus presentation and image capture. The software accurately analyzes the eyelid borders, pupil borders, and limbus in each video frame, from which eye, lid, and pupil movement and gaze direction can be accurately determined. In preferred embodiments, the software produces a score, e.g., 1 to 100, indicating the level of neurological impairment; [0049]).
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.
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 36-37 and 114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rennaker et al in view of Ellis et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,746,351; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 36, Rennaker fails to disclose wherein said viewing tunnel comprises a substantially amorphous internal surface to reduce internal reflections.
In a similar technical field, Ellis teaches a strap assembly, system, and method for head-mounted displays (Abstract), wherein said viewing tunnel comprises a substantially amorphous internal surface to reduce internal reflections (In strap assembly 110, flexible lining member 150 may be attached to backing member 120, with electronic cable 140 disposed between flexible lining member 150 and backing member 120 such that electronic cable 140 is not be visible from the exterior and does not interfere with a user's experience while wearing head-mounted-display system 100; Column 5 Lines 37-44; Flexible lining member 150 may also include a mesh layer 180 disposed between head-contact layer 166 and mounting layer 170…mesh layer 180 may include a material, such as polyester, that is flexible yet relatively resistant to stretching. Accordingly, mesh layer 180, when bonded to adjacent layers of flexible lining member 150, may prevent deformation (e.g., formation of depressions overlapping wiring channel 162) of portions of flexible lining member 150 while increasing the strength and durability of flexible lining member 150. Mesh layer 180 may also be relatively thin so as to maintain a minimal profile for flexible lining member 150. Additionally, mesh layer 180 may be relatively flexible, enabling flexible lining member to easily conform to backing member 120 and to back and/or side portions of a user's head; Column 10 Lines 38-62; Examiner’s Note: The flexible lining member can be considered a “substantially amorphous internal surface” which would not produce internal reflections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the material teachings of Ellis into the invention of Rennaker in order to ensure that there is no interference with a user's experience while wearing the head-mounted-display system (Ellis Column 5 Lines 37-44).
Regarding Claim 37, Rennaker fails to disclose wherein said amorphous internal surface is at least partially provided by a fabric.
In a similar technical field, Ellis teaches a strap assembly, system, and method for head-mounted displays (Abstract), wherein said amorphous internal surface is at least partially provided by a fabric (Flexible lining member 150 may also include a mesh layer 180 disposed between head-contact layer 166 and mounting layer 170…mesh layer 180 may include a material, such as polyester, that is flexible yet relatively resistant to stretching. Accordingly, mesh layer 180, when bonded to adjacent layers of flexible lining member 150, may prevent deformation (e.g., formation of depressions overlapping wiring channel 162) of portions of flexible lining member 150 while increasing the strength and durability of flexible lining member 150. Mesh layer 180 may also be relatively thin so as to maintain a minimal profile for flexible lining member 150. Additionally, mesh layer 180 may be relatively flexible, enabling flexible lining member to easily conform to backing member 120 and to back and/or side portions of a user's head; Column 10 Lines 38-62; Examiner’s Note: Mesh is a type of fabric, which can be considered a “substantially amorphous internal surface” and would not produce internal reflections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the material teachings of Ellis into the invention of Rennaker in order to ensure that there is no interference with a user's experience while wearing the head-mounted-display system (Ellis Column 5 Lines 37-44).
Regarding Claim 114, Rennaker fails to disclose wherein said viewing tunnel comprises a substantially amorphous internal surface to reduce internal reflections.
In a similar technical field, Ellis teaches a strap assembly, system, and method for head-mounted displays (Abstract), wherein said viewing tunnel comprises a substantially amorphous internal surface to reduce internal reflections (In strap assembly 110, flexible lining member 150 may be attached to backing member 120, with electronic cable 140 disposed between flexible lining member 150 and backing member 120 such that electronic cable 140 is not be visible from the exterior and does not interfere with a user's experience while wearing head-mounted-display system 100; Column 5 Lines 37-44; Flexible lining member 150 may also include a mesh layer 180 disposed between head-contact layer 166 and mounting layer 170…mesh layer 180 may include a material, such as polyester, that is flexible yet relatively resistant to stretching. Accordingly, mesh layer 180, when bonded to adjacent layers of flexible lining member 150, may prevent deformation (e.g., formation of depressions overlapping wiring channel 162) of portions of flexible lining member 150 while increasing the strength and durability of flexible lining member 150. Mesh layer 180 may also be relatively thin so as to maintain a minimal profile for flexible lining member 150. Additionally, mesh layer 180 may be relatively flexible, enabling flexible lining member to easily conform to backing member 120 and to back and/or side portions of a user's head; Column 10 Lines 38-62; Examiner’s Note: The flexible lining member can be considered a “substantially amorphous internal surface” which would not produce internal reflections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the material teachings of Ellis into the invention of Rennaker in order to ensure that there is no interference with a user's experience while wearing the head-mounted-display system (Ellis Column 5 Lines 37-44).
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rennaker et al in view of Rolland et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,119,965; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 38, Rennaker fails to disclose wherein said wide binocular field of view comprises a horizontal field of view of at least 65 degrees.
In a similar technical field, Rolland teaches a head mounted projection display with a wide field of view (Abstract), wherein said wide binocular field of view comprises a horizontal field of view of at least 65 degrees (A preferred embodiment of the invention encompasses a head mounted projection display (HMPD) and method of providing a wide field of view having an ARC display component having a greater than about 70 degrees field of retro-reflection integrated with an optical tiling display which provides a greater than about 80 degrees FOV per eye whereby an overall binocular FOV greater than about 120 degrees is realized; Column 2 Lines 44-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the FOV degree teachings of Rolland into the invention of Rennaker in order to provide an enhanced wide field of view while maintaining high resolution in a lightweight and compact device (Rolland Column 2 Lines 22-28).
Regarding Claim 39, Rennaker fails to disclose wherein said horizontal field of view is of at least 70 degrees.
In a similar technical field, Rolland teaches a head mounted projection display with a wide field of view (Abstract), wherein said horizontal field of view is of at least 70 degrees (A preferred embodiment of the invention encompasses a head mounted projection display (HMPD) and method of providing a wide field of view having an ARC display component having a greater than about 70 degrees field of retro-reflection integrated with an optical tiling display which provides a greater than about 80 degrees FOV per eye whereby an overall binocular FOV greater than about 120 degrees is realized; Column 2 Lines 44-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the FOV degree teachings of Rolland into the invention of Rennaker in order to provide an enhanced wide field of view while maintaining high resolution in a lightweight and compact device (Rolland Column 2 Lines 22-28).
Claims 42, 108-113, and 115 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rennaker et al in view of Krueger (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0008141; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 42, although Rennaker discloses observing vergence movements ([0045]), Rennaker fails to disclose wherein said plurality of light sources is activated to test a near point of convergence.
In a similar technical field, Krueger teaches a system or method for measuring human ocular performance (Abstract), wherein said plurality of light sources is activated to test a near point of convergence (A holographic display can have the ability to address all four of the following eye mechanisms: binocular disparity; motion parallax; eye accommodation; and eye convergence; [0012]; Vergence is the simultaneous movement of both eyes in opposite directions to rapidly obtain or maintain single binocular vision or ocular fusion, or singleness, of the object of interest. It is often referred to as convergence or divergence of the eyes, to focus on objects that are closer or further away from the individual [0029]; the method can comprise the step of choosing which ocular test to run on a subject as shown at 1820, and the choices can include ocular performance calibration 1822, static target and active head movement testing 1824, and/or static target and passive head movement testing 1826. Each of these three test processes (1822, 1824, and 1826) involves measuring eye orientation changes 642 and head orientation changes 640, just like the processes shown in FIG. 6, FIG. 7, and FIG. 8. The output of the process illustrated in FIG. 18 can more broadly (than FIG. 6, FIG. 7, and FIG. 8) comprise any ocular performance parameter. These ocular performance parameters can include any of the following parameters that have been discussed in other parts of this disclosure, including but not limited to:…(e) vergence; [0172-0177]; eye tracking and visual or smooth pursuit can be done by visually observing a moving image traditionally in a horizontal or vertical plane or alternatively in a saw-tooth, sinusoidal, square-wave, snake-like, torsional, looped or other non-fixed plane of motion, which is more natural to what the normal person experiences in everyday life. Convergence movements can be evaluated by having the person fixate on an object as it is moved slowly towards a point right between the person's eyes; [0235]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the vergence teachings of Krueger into the invention of Rennaker, as vergence tracking occurs in the horizontal, vertical, and/or cyclorotary dimensions and requires that the occipital lobes be intact and the pathway involves the rostral midbrain reticular formation (adjacent to the oculomotor nuclei) where there are neurons that are active during vergence activities, a complex and finely tuned interactive oculomotor response to a range of sensory and perceptual stimuli. Thus, there is an important interaction between the vergence system and vestibular (inner ear balance) system, and can also signal other factors such as aging, visual abnormalities, concussion and traumatic brain injury (TBI) (Krueger [0029]).
Regarding Claim 108, Rennaker fails to disclose wherein said dynamic visual stimulus comprises a pattern of alternating rectangles horizontally displaced across aid widescreen display.
In a similar technical field, Krueger teaches a system or method for measuring human ocular performance (Abstract), wherein said dynamic visual stimulus comprises a pattern of alternating rectangles horizontally displaced across aid widescreen display (FIG. 12 shows a scene that can be used for optokinetic testing in a virtual or augmented environment. In traditional optokinetic testing, a person's head is motionless while seated inside a moving drum with alternating black and white vertical lines or alternatively, a hand-held drum, with alternating black and white vertical lines, is placed in front of the person…measurements can be at different drum speeds. This same test can be performed using an AR or VR platform by creating a visual image that includes elements that work just like the vertical lines in the drum. Examples of natural scenes that are similar to the drum with lines can include examples such as being seated in a car and watching a train go by or driving and watching the telephone poles move by, such as the scene 910 shown in FIG. 12…these visual elements can also change in size, color or other dimensions, as the person gets closer to the virtual object or further from the visual element. Motion can occur in any direction relative to the person, as the eye movement is being assessed and measured; [0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the pattern teachings of Krueger into the invention of Rennaker in order to enable optokinetic testing by creating a visual image that includes elements that implement motion while assessing and measuring eye movement (Krueger [0164]).
Regarding Claim 109, Rennaker fails to disclose wherein said dynamic visual stimulus comprises an alternating pattern horizontally displaced across said widescreen display.
In a similar technical field, Krueger teaches a system or method for measuring human ocular performance (Abstract), wherein said dynamic visual stimulus comprises an alternating pattern horizontally displaced across said widescreen display (FIG. 12 shows a scene that can be used for optokinetic testing in a virtual or augmented environment. In traditional optokinetic testing, a person's head is motionless while seated inside a moving drum with alternating black and white vertical lines or alternatively, a hand-held drum, with alternating black and white vertical lines, is placed in front of the person…measurements can be at different drum speeds. This same test can be performed using an AR or VR platform by creating a visual image that includes elements that work just like the vertical lines in the drum. Examples of natural scenes that are similar to the drum with lines can include examples such as being seated in a car and watching a train go by or driving and watching the telephone poles move by, such as the scene 910 shown in FIG. 12…these visual elements can also change in size, color or other dimensions, as the person gets closer to the virtual object or further from the visual element. Motion can occur in any direction relative to the person, as the eye movement is being assessed and measured; [0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the pattern teachings of Krueger into the invention of Rennaker in order to enable optokinetic testing by creating a visual image that includes elements that implement motion while assessing and measuring eye movement (Krueger [0164]).
Regarding Claim 110, Rennaker fails to disclose wherein said alternating pattern is horizontally displaced in performing an optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) assessment.
In a similar technical field, Krueger teaches a system or method for measuring human ocular performance (Abstract), wherein said alternating pattern is horizontally displaced in performing an optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) assessment (Accuracy, amplitude, latency and velocity can be measured with oculomotor eye movements, most commonly with saccades, vergence, smooth pursuit, and vestibulo-ocular movements. Saccades can be elicited voluntarily, but occur reflexively whenever the eyes are open, even when fixated on a target. They serve as a mechanism for fixation, rapid eye movement, and the fast phase of optokinetic nystagmus; [0015]; Pursuit consists of two phases—initiation and maintenance. Measures of initiation parameters can reveal information about the visual motion processing that is necessary for pursuit…After pursuit initiation, speed of the eye movement (velocity) usually rises to a peak…Nystagmus is a description of abnormal involuntary or uncontrollable eye movement, characterized by jumping (or back and forth) movement of the eyes, which results in reduced or limited vision. It is often called “dancing eyes”. Nystagmus can occur in three directions: (1) side-to-side movements (horizontal nystagmus), (2) up and down movements (vertical nystagmus), or (3) rotation of the eyes as seen when observing the front of the face (rotary or torsional nystagmus); [0024-0028]; The alternating lines induce nystagmus and cause visually induced motion sickness; [0164]; These ocular performance parameters can include any of the following parameters that have been discussed in other parts of this disclosure, including but not limited to:…(d) nystagmus; [0172-0176]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the optokinetic nystagmus teachings of Krueger into the invention of Rennaker in order to account for both the directional influence of responses according to the vector projection of eye movements measured during the slow component velocity of nystagmus, and the saccades, which serve as a mechanism for fixation, rapid eye movement, and the fast phase of optokinetic nystagmus (Krueger [0015] and [0267]).
Regarding Claim 111, Rennaker fails to disclose a vergence testing feature operable along an axis perpendicular to a plane of said widescreen display to present a vergence testing stimulus at a plurality of physical locations at respective relative distances to the user.
In a similar technical field, Krueger teaches a system or method for measuring human ocular performance (Abstract), comprising a vergence testing feature operable along an axis perpendicular to a plane of said widescreen display to present a vergence testing stimulus at a plurality of physical locations at respective relative distances to the user (A holographic display can have the ability to address all four of the following eye mechanisms: binocular disparity; motion parallax; eye accommodation; and eye convergence; [0012]; Vergence is the simultaneous movement of both eyes in opposite directions to rapidly obtain or maintain single binocular vision or ocular fusion, or singleness, of the object of interest. It is often referred to as convergence or divergence of the eyes, to focus on objects that are closer or further away from the individual [0029]; FIG. 18, the visual target of interest can be dynamic and the head movement can also be dynamically moving in the same direction as the visual target movement. The process is repeated as many times as needed. This test can be conducted in the vertical, horizontal or any other direction; [0184]; eye tracking and visual or smooth pursuit can be done by visually observing a moving image traditionally in a horizontal or vertical plane; [0235]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the vergence teachings of Krueger into the invention of Rennaker, as vergence tracking occurs in the horizontal, vertical, and/or cyclorotary dimensions and requires that the occipital lobes be intact and the pathway involves the rostral midbrain reticular formation (adjacent to the oculomotor nuclei) where there are neurons that are active during vergence activities, a complex and finely tuned interactive oculomotor response to a range of sensory and perceptual stimuli. Thus, there is an important interaction between the vergence system and vestibular (inner ear balance) system, and can also signal other factors such as aging, visual abnormalities, concussion and traumatic brain injury (TBI) (Krueger [0029]).
Regarding Claim 112, Rennaker fails to disclose wherein said vergence testing feature comprises a plurality of light sources disposed along at least one of an upper or a lower viewing tunnel surface extending from above said widescreen display toward the user.
In a similar technical field, Krueger teaches a system or method for measuring human ocular performance (Abstract), wherein said vergence testing feature comprises a plurality of light sources disposed along at least one of an upper or a lower viewing tunnel surface extending from above said widescreen display toward the user (Because the interior of the VR device 300 is not exposed to external light, there can be one or more illumination source(s) 330 to provide light that can be used by the video camera(s) 210 and 211 to sense ocular parameters such as eye or eyelid position or eye motion or any of the other ocular parameters described in other parts of this document. The illumination source or sources 330 can use infrared, near infrared, or visible light; [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the vergence teachings of Krueger into the invention of Rennaker, as vergence tracking occurs in the horizontal, vertical, and/or cyclorotary dimensions and requires that the occipital lobes be intact and the pathway involves the rostral midbrain reticular formation (adjacent to the oculomotor nuclei) where there are neurons that are active during vergence activities, a complex and finely tuned interactive oculomotor response to a range of sensory and perceptual stimuli. Thus, there is an important interaction between the vergence system and vestibular (inner ear balance) system, and can also signal other factors such as aging, visual abnormalities, concussion and traumatic brain injury (TBI) (Krueger [0029]).
Regarding Claim 113, Rennaker fails to disclose wherein said vergence testing feature comprises a physically displaceable stimulus.
In a similar technical field, Krueger teaches a system or method for measuring human ocular performance (Abstract), wherein said vergence testing feature comprises a physically displaceable stimulus (Using an AR or VR display, one or more alphanumeric characters, halos, cursors, arrows, or other symbols may be superimposed within the display onto or adjacent to a particular object. These superimposed images or visual elements may indicate a particular meaning to the device user and this meaning may be assigned to the object so that it can be included in the eye signal language (in the same general manner as virtual icons). As examples, a halo can be placed around a physical light switch such that it can be the object of an action (e.g., turn on) or the name of a person can be displayed adjacent to the person's (real) face, allowing text or mail to be sent to that person using the eye signal language. Target or visual element fixation and image gaze data may be used within a gaze-based user interface enabled by an interaction model used with augmented reality or virtual reality. Such a user interface may also be multimodal incorporating head movement, hand movement, voice, and other physical or measurable brain-generated signals; [0245]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the physically displaceable stimulus teachings of Krueger into the invention of Rennaker in order to enable target or visual element fixation and image gaze data to be used within a gaze-based user interface enabled by an interaction model used with augmented reality or virtual reality (Krueger [0245]).
Regarding Claim 115, Rennaker fails to disclose wherein said dynamic visual stimulus comprises an alternating pattern horizontally displaced across said widescreen display in performing an optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) assessment.
In a similar technical field, Krueger teaches a system or method for measuring human ocular performance (Abstract), wherein said dynamic visual stimulus comprises an alternating pattern horizontally displaced across said widescreen display in performing an optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) assessment (Accuracy, amplitude, latency and velocity can be measured with oculomotor eye movements, most commonly with saccades, vergence, smooth pursuit, and vestibulo-ocular movements. Saccades can be elicited voluntarily, but occur reflexively whenever the eyes are open, even when fixated on a target. They serve as a mechanism for fixation, rapid eye movement, and the fast phase of optokinetic nystagmus; [0015]; Pursuit consists of two phases—initiation and maintenance. Measures of initiation parameters can reveal information about the visual motion processing that is necessary for pursuit…After pursuit initiation, speed of the eye movement (velocity) usually rises to a peak…Nystagmus is a description of abnormal involuntary or uncontrollable eye movement, characterized by jumping (or back and forth) movement of the eyes, which results in reduced or limited vision. It is often called “dancing eyes”. Nystagmus can occur in three directions: (1) side-to-side movements (horizontal nystagmus), (2) up and down movements (vertical nystagmus), or (3) rotation of the eyes as seen when observing the front of the face (rotary or torsional nystagmus); [0024-0028]; FIG. 12 shows a scene that can be used for optokinetic testing in a virtual or augmented environment. In traditional optokinetic testing, a person's head is motionless while seated inside a moving drum with alternating black and white vertical lines or alternatively, a hand-held drum, with alternating black and white vertical lines, is placed in front of the person. The drum is slowly rotated. The alternating lines induce nystagmus and cause visually induced motion sickness; [0164]; These ocular performance parameters can include any of the following parameters that have been discussed in other parts of this disclosure, including but not limited to:…(d) nystagmus; [0172-0176]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the optokinetic nystagmus teachings of Krueger into the invention of Rennaker in order to account for both the directional influence of responses according to the vector projection of eye movements measured during the slow component velocity of nystagmus, and the saccades, which serve as a mechanism for fixation, rapid eye movement, and the fast phase of optokinetic nystagmus (Krueger [0015] and [0267]).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rennaker et al in view of Epley et al (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0299362; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 46, although Rennaker discloses wherein the NeuroTriage Headset includes software that provides a custom interface for stimulus presentation and image capture ([0049]), Rennaker fails to specifically disclose an operator application digitally executable on a distinct operator device having a digital display screen and a communication interface to said head-mountable device, wherein said operator application comprises digitally executable instructions to render a graphical user interface (GIU) on said digital display screen and receive as input therefrom manual digital control of said dynamic visual stimulus such that a stimulus displacement on said widescreen display corresponds with a manual displacement entered via said GUI.
In a similar technical field, Epley teaches a stimulus-evoked vestibular evaluation system, method and apparatus (Abstract), comprising an operator application digitally executable on a distinct operator device having a digital display screen and a communication interface to said head-mountable device, wherein said operator application comprises digitally executable instructions to render a graphical user interface (GIU) on said digital display screen and receive as input therefrom manual digital control of said dynamic visual stimulus such that a stimulus displacement on said widescreen display corresponds with a manual displacement entered via said GUI (System 10 further includes a keyboard 34 including an associated cursor control device such as a mouse (not shown) to enable inputs to and control of expert subsystem 26 by the operator. System 10 further includes a display screen 36 to enable display and presentation of data, text and graphic representations of stimulus/response or other subject or test condition data to the operator…it will be appreciated that the level of actual “diagnostic” use of system 10 is within the discretion of the operator; [0024-0026]; The right half of the split display screen 36 (to the right as the operator views the display screen and to the right in FIG. 1) illustrates in a top center graphic image an electronic, e.g. videographic, representation of the subject's ocular, e.g. nystagmatic, response to sound and/or pressure stimuli…the left half of display screen 36 (as viewed by the operator and as shown in FIG. 1) illustrates a progressive postural sway path experienced by the subject in response to the same or different stimuli, e.g. postural or sound and/or pressure stimuli; [0031-0032]; Repeatable stimuli and standardized response data representation is provided by the invention using the “Ocular Response” graphical user interface (GUI) represented on the right side of split display screen 36; [0043]; FIGS. 5A and 5B represent the left and right parts of the split display screen 36 of FIG. 1, and illustrate the important graphical user interface (GUI) features of the invention as well as the test parameters/criteria 32 used in at least semi-automating and standardizing vestibular disorder testing and detection; [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the graphic user interface teachings of Epley into the invention of Rennaker in order to enable inputs to and control of expert subsystem by the operator, as those of skill in the art will appreciate that, during a subject test session, different sound and/or pressure test parameters and/or criteria can be used to probe the subject, and different postural conditions, can be controlled by the operator to evoke different ocular or postural sway responses from the subject, in order to detect and perhaps diagnose and even treat a subject determined to suffer a vestibular disorder (Epley [0024]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791