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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/18/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 6-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blaha et al. (US 9,706,910).
Regarding claim 1, Blaha discloses, a method of delivering an eye exam order to a patient (Figs. 1-6) using a head-mounted vision device (208) configured to be positioned on the patient's head, wherein the head-mounted vision device (208) includes a display (210) in electrical and data communication with a first computing device (202) that is in data communication with at least one server (216) over a network (Col. 11, lines 31-37 and Col. 13, lines 18-25), and wherein the first computing device includes a non-transient memory (206) in data communication with at least one processor (204) and adapted to store programmatic instructions (Col. 11, lines 16-18 and 45-67) that, when executed, execute said method, the method comprising:
generating, for display on the first computing device, data indicative of a first graphical user interface (Col. 2, lines 18-21 and Col. 14, lines 26-27; note, discloses the user is prompted to provide authentication information to log in) to enable the patient to self-check-in for receiving the eye exam order (Col. 14, lines 24-42; note, discloses the user is prompted to provide authentication information to log in);
positioning the head-mounted vision device on the patient's head (Col. 12, lines 22-31; note, discloses head and eye tracking technology to position a user’s head and eye while using the system);
generating, for display on the head-mounted device, data indicative of a first view of a second graphical user interface (Col. 14, lines 24-42; note, discloses a home menu that is presented to the user) to deliver a predefined plurality of content items to the patient (Col. 14, lines 24-42; note, discloses the home menu is presented to the user that is made up of the a test/treatment, various options, statistics, an activity menu and a 3D scene as the plurality of content items for the selected test that is rendered to the display of the VR device worn on a user’s head); and
generating, for display on the first computing device, data indicative of a second view of the second graphical user interface to display progress status of the predefined plurality of content items to a clinical staff person (Col. 13, lines 54-65, Col. 14, lines 43-56 and see 314 of Fig. 3; note, discloses displaying a progress status via data of a user’s results and performance).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Blaha discloses, the first graphical user interface is configured to display the patient's information and eye exam order amongst a plurality of patients' information and associated eye exam orders (Col. 13, lines 54-65 and Col. 14, lines 14-23 and 54-56).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Blaha discloses, the patient, using the first computing device, actuates the eye exam order to self-check-in (Col. 2, lines 18-21 and Col. 14, lines 26-27; note, discloses the user is prompted to provide authentication information to log in).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Blaha discloses, the predefined plurality of content items comprises one or more eye exams (Col. 10, lines 45-60) and one or more educational content related to one or more eye ailments (Col. 15, lines 54-64).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Blaha discloses, generating, for display on the first computing device, data indicative of a third graphical user interface (Col. 14, lines 34-37 and see 310) to enable the clinical staff person (Col. 14, lines 59-67 and Col. 15, lines 1-12) to add at least one of: one or more eye exam templates, one or more eye exams and one or more educational content to the eye exam order (Col. 10, lines 45-60 and Col. 15, lines 54-67).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Blaha discloses, generating, for display on a second computing device, data indicative of a fourth graphical user interface (Col. 10, lines 16-32) to enable a clinician to select results of two or more eye exams associated with one or more eye exam orders delivered at different points in time to the patient (Col. 8, lines 52-67 and Col. 9, lines 1-20), wherein the selected two or more eye exams may or may not correspond to a same eye exam order (Col. 8, lines 52-67 and Col. 9, lines 1-20), wherein the second computing device is in data communication with the at least one server and the first computing device over the network (Col. 10, lines 16-32), and wherein the at least one server stores said results of the two or more eye exams (Col. 10, lines 16-32); and generating, for display on the second computing device, data indicative of a fifth graphical user interface (Col. 10, lines 45-49) configured to display an analysis (Col. 8, lines 34-51) of said results of the two or more eye exams (Col. 10, lines 50-67 and Col. 11, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 9, Blaha discloses, the results of the two or more eye exams are generated by a) obtaining a first value at each first stimulus location in the first of the two or more eye exams (Col. 8, lines 34-51), b) obtaining a second value at each second stimulus location in the second of the two or more eye exams (Col. 8, lines 52-67 and Col. 9, lines 1-20), c) if the first stimulus location and the second stimulus location are equivalent, applying a function to generate a third value for said equivalent location and displaying said third value in the fifth graphical user interface (Col. 8, lines 52-67 and Col. 9, lines 1-20) and d) if the first stimulus location has no equivalent location in the second of the two or more eye exams and/or if the second stimulus location has no equivalent location in the first of the two or more eye exams (Col. 8, lines 52-67 and Col. 9, lines 1-20), displaying said first value and/or said second value in the fifth graphical user interface (Col. 10, lines 45-67).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Blaha discloses, the fifth graphical user interface is configured to display the analysis of said results of the two or more eye exams side-by-side for comparison (Col. 10, lines 45-68 and Col. 11, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, Blaha discloses, the analysis corresponds to determining a change in one or more parameters of said results and wherein the fifth graphical user interface is configured to display the change (Col. 10, lines 45-67 and Col. 11, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 12, Blaha discloses, a computer readable program adapted to deliver an eye exam order to a patient (Figs. 1-6) using a head-mounted vision device (208) positioned on the patient's head, wherein the head-mounted vision device (208) includes a display (210) in electrical and data communication with a first computing device (202) that is in data communication with at least one server (216) over a network (Col. 11, lines 31-37 and Col. 13, lines 18-25), wherein the first computing device includes at least one processor (204) in data communication with a non-transient memory (206) that stores the computer readable program, and wherein the computer readable program comprises a plurality of programmatic instructions (Col. 11, lines 16-18 and 45-67) that, when executed by the at least one processor:
generates, for display on the first computing device, data indicative of a first graphical user interface (Col. 2, lines 18-21 and Col. 14, lines 26-27; note, discloses the user is prompted to provide authentication information to log in) to enable the patient to self-check-in for receiving the eye exam order (Col. 14, lines 24-42; note, discloses the user is prompted to provide authentication information to log in);
generates, for display on the head-mounted device, data indicative of a first view of a second graphical user interface (Col. 14, lines 24-42; note, discloses a home menu that is presented to the user) to deliver a predefined plurality of content items to the patient (Col. 14, lines 24-42; note, discloses the home menu is presented to the user that is made up of the a test/treatment, various options, statistics, an activity menu and a 3D scene as the plurality of content items for the selected test that is rendered to the display of the VR device worn on a user’s head); and
generates, for display on the first computing device, data indicative of a second view of the second graphical user interface to display progress status of the predefined plurality of content items to a clinical staff person (Col. 13, lines 54-65, Col. 14, lines 43-56 and see 314 of Fig. 3; note, discloses displaying a progress status via data of a user’s results and performance).
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 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaha et al. (US 9,706,910) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, in view of Grajales (US 2022/0392628).
Blaha remains as applied to claims 1 and 12 above.
Blaha does not disclose the second graphical user interface includes a visual graphical element having first and second toggle positions.
Grajales teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method of delivering an eye exam order to a patient and a computer readable medium adapted to deliver an eye exam order to a patient that it would have been desirable to make the second graphical user interface includes a visual graphical element having first and second toggle positions (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second graphical user interface includes a visual graphical element having first and second toggle positions as taught by the method of delivering an eye exam order to a patient and a computer readable medium adapted to deliver an eye exam order to a patient of Grajales in the method of delivering an eye exam order to a patient and a computer readable medium adapted to deliver an eye exam order to a patient of Blaha since Grajales teaches it is known to include these features in a method of delivering an eye exam order to a patient and a computer readable medium adapted to deliver an eye exam order to a patient for the purpose of providing a cost-effective, accurate, efficient and easily-accessible method of delivering an eye exam order to a patient and computer readable medium adapted to deliver an eye exam order to a patient.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Blaha in view of Grajales discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Grajales further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method of delivering an eye exam order to a patient and a computer readable medium adapted to deliver an eye exam order to a patient that it would have been desirable to make enabling the first toggle position causes the first view to be displayed, and wherein enabling the second toggle position causes the second view to be displayed (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the method of delivering an eye exam order to a patient and a computer readable medium adapted to deliver an eye exam order to a patient of Grajales in the method of delivering an eye exam order to a patient and a computer readable medium adapted to deliver an eye exam order to a patient of Blaha since Grajales teaches it is known to include these features in a method of delivering an eye exam order to a patient and a computer readable medium adapted to deliver an eye exam order to a patient for the purpose of providing a cost-effective, accurate, efficient and easily-accessible method of delivering an eye exam order to a patient and computer readable medium adapted to deliver an eye exam order to a patient.
PNG
media_image1.png
566
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kockan (US 2017/0177166), Browy et al. (US 2020/0150424) and Kim et al. (US 2019/0180421) discloses a method of delivering an eye exam order to a patient using a head-mounted device that includes a display with a first computing device that is in data communication with at least one server over a network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 02/04/2026