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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment received on 10/3/2025 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 9-10, 16 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim rejections under35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendment.
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 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 1-4, 7, 10-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vleugels (US 2022/0058999 A1) in view of Masko et al. (US 2022/0062634 A1).
Claims 1, 10 and 16. Vleugels discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
detecting, by a user device at a first time, a distance between a display of the user device and a user associated with the user device; [0104]; [0221]; [0225]
determining, by the user device, contextual information corresponding to a state of the user device at the first time; [0050]
determining, by the user device, an eye health event associated with the first time based at least in part on the distance and the contextual information; [0051]; [0085]
performing, by the user device, an action relating to the eye health event and responsive to the eye health event and other eye health events that occurred during other times following the first time; [0051]; [0070]; [0079]; [0108]; [0109], and
Vleugels does not specifically teach: …the action including activating one or more haptic devices included in the user device, which is disclosed in Masko et al. (Masko). [0086]; [0122]; [0125]; [0214]; [0218]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vleugels to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Masko, for the benefit of facilitating the restoration of normal retinal cellular metabolism, and retaining visual acuity, as specifically stated in Masko. [0017]
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vleugels to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Masko, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Vleugels, as modified by Masko, further teaches:
responsive to determining the eye health event, generating, by the user device, an entry in a health datastore, the entry including information about the eye health event and the contextual information. Vleugels, [0045]; [0070]
Claim 2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning, by the user device, a point to the eye health event; determining, by the user device, that a point total of eye health events comprising the point has reached a predetermined threshold; and in response to determining that points total has reached the predetermined threshold, performing the action. Vleugels, [0077]; [0181]; [0206]
Claim 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein assigning the point is based in part on at least one of the eye health event or the contextual information. Vleugels, [0225]
Claim 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: augmenting, by the user device, a health record associated with the user to include the entry, the health record stored on the user device. Vleugels, [0044]; [0049]; [0067]; [0083]
Claim 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the action is based at least in part on the entry in the health datastore. Same rational as applied to claim 1.
Claim 11. The computing device of claim 10, wherein the eye health event comprises a myopic event related to a viewing distance. Vleugels, [0055]
Claim 12. The computing device of claim 10, wherein the contextual information comprises at least one of screen data, user interface data, a time, a duration, ambient light, a color of a portion of the display, a brightness of the display, an orientation of the user device, an orientation of the user, or application data associated with one or more applications running on the user device. Same rationale as applied to claim 10.
Claim 15. The computing device of claim 10, wherein the health datastore is stored on the user device and includes health information collected by at least one of the user’s device or an accessory device. Same rationale as applied to claim 10.
Claim 17. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, the operations further comprising: providing, by the electronic device, access to the eye health event in the health datastore to a computing device. Same rationale as applied to claim 16.
Claim 18. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein access to data related to the eye health event is provided via at least one of a publish/subscribe policy or an application programming interface. Same rationale as applied to claim 16.
Claims 5-6, 9, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vleugels in view of Masko and further in view of KHADERI SYED KHIZER RAHIM (KR 2019/0027354 A).
Claims 5 and 6. Vleugels does not specifically teach generating a recommendation relating to eye health of the user based at least in part on the entry in the health datastore, which is disclosed in KHADERI SYED KHIZER RAHIM (RAHIM)(Example 22. “The implementation of SDEP can use machine learning and deep learning techniques to develop real-time predicted recommendations…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vleugels to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in RAHIM, because it would advantageously allow to generate a sight profile for a user and users group, and to modify media e.g., virtual reality, augmented reality, or mixed reality, based on the sight profile and a target application, as specifically stated in RAHIM (Background).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vleugels to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in RAHIM, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claims 9 and 20. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the action relating to the eye health event includes at least one of displaying a notification on the user device, occluding a portion of the display of the user device, turning off the display of the user device, or transmitting a notification to a computing device. RAHIM; (Participation as a binary state, 2. Distraction; Detection / Discrimination (D)). Same rationale as applied to claim 5.
Claim 13. The computing device of claim 10, further comprising: generating, by the computing device, one or more ergonomic recommendations based at least in part on an orientation of computing device and an orientation of the user. Rahim; (Common Problems, Hardware factor) Same rationale as applied to claim 5.
Claim 14. The computing device of claim 10, wherein detecting the distance occurs at regular intervals. Rahim; (Vision Performance Index, Fatigue / endurance Fatique / Endurance, E) Same rationale as applied to claim 5.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vleugels in view of Masko and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 115881258 A).
Claims 8 and 19. Vleugels does not specifically teach wherein detecting the distance further comprises: gathering, by the user device, image data including a face of the user; identifying, by the user device, the face of the user; and labelling, by the user device, the entry in the health datastore such that the eye health event is identified with the user, which is disclosed in Chen et al. (Chen). (Background)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vleugels to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Chen, because it would advantageously allow to reduce time of treatment of a patient, including effectively make up the problem of medical staff shortage, and, thus, greatly improve the hospital internal operation efficiency, as specifically stated in Chen. (Background)
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vleugels to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Chen, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Vleugels fails to disclose activating a haptic device, the Examiner respectfully notes that Mask was applied to this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Igor Borissov whose telephone number is 571-272-6801. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/IGOR N BORISSOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 10/24/2025