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 .
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 6/25/2026, amended claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, and 13, cancelled claim 12, and new claims 16-21 are acknowledged. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are currently pending. The following new and reiterated grounds of rejection are set forth:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-10, 13, 15-16, 18-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US Publication No. 2017/0035317 A1) (previously cited), further in view of Simpson (US Patent No. 10,342,472 B2) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Jung et al. discloses a method of determining an extent of visual spatial neglect of a patient (see Figures 1B-E), the method comprising:
providing a software-based test to the patient via a presentation apparatus positioned on the head of the patient and having a display device (112) positioned close and in front of the eyes of the patient (see [0035] – “The EEG-based system 100 integrates a wearable, wireless, high-density dry EEG sensor unit 111 and a visual display unit 112 (e.g., such as a head-mounted display) in data communication with a data processing unit 120 allowing users to routinely monitor the electrical brain activity associated with visual field stimulation”, [0042] – “The method 180 includes a process 182 to present, to a subject, visual stimuli in a plurality of sectors of a visual field of a subject, in which for each sector the presented visual stimuli includes an optical effect (e.g., light flickering) at a selected frequency”, and [0044] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1C, the process 182 includes a process 181 to provide the visual stimuli to the visual display unit 112 (e.g., including a wearable visual display unit) from the data processing unit 120, in which the providing can include generating the visual stimuli (e.g., produce and/or assign an optical flickering effect of the visual stimuli at a selected frequency associated with each sector of the visual field); and/or supplying a previously generated visual stimuli. In some implementations of the process 181, the process 181 to provide the visual stimuli includes forming a spatial visual stimulus display having multiple regions or sectors at different spatial locations, where for each region, the particular region includes an optical effect (e.g., light flickering) that changes at a unique frequency with respect to at least a proximate region or any other region of the visual stimulus display”);
collecting EEG information during the test via an EEG apparatus (111) positioned on the head of the patient (see Figures 4-5B and [0042] – “The method 180 includes a process 184 to acquire EEG signals from one or more electrodes in contact with the head of the subject. The method 180 includes a process 186 to data process (e.g., analyze) the acquired EEG signals to extract mfSSVEP data associated with the subject's EEG signal response to the presented visual stimuli”);
determining from portions of the EEG information the extent of the visual spatial neglect of the patient (see [0042] – “The method 180 includes a process 188 to produce a quantitative assessment of the visual field of the subject based on the MfSSVEP data” and [0043] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, the quantitative assessment produced by the process 188 can provide an indication if there is a presence of a visual field defect in the user's visual field. In some implementations, for example, the process 188 can include a process to determine the presence of the visual field defect in a sector having a mfSSVEP signal below a predetermined threshold”); and
providing an indication of the extent of the visual spatial neglect of the patient (see [0042] – “The method 180 includes a process 188 to produce a quantitative assessment of the visual field of the subject based on the MfSSVEP data”, [0043] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, the quantitative assessment produced by the process 188 can provide an indication if there is a presence of a visual field defect in the user's visual field. In some implementations, for example, the process 188 can include a process to determine the presence of the visual field defect in a sector having a mfSSVEP signal below a predetermined threshold”, and [0046] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1E, the method can include a process 190 to determine if the presence of a visual field defect based on the quantitative assessment, e.g., if the mfSSVEP signal for a particular frequency falls below the predetermined threshold or substantially lower than the comparative signal(s) from other mfSSVEP data at that particular frequency, in which the visual field deficiency is determined to be in the region of the visual stimulus display associated with the spatial location to which that frequency is mapped”).
It is noted Jung et al. does not specifically teach wherein providing the software-based test to the patient comprises selectively displaying a target object on the display device among an environment for a plurality of distinct time periods, with the target object displayed in a different location on the display device during each time period. However, Simpson teaches wherein providing the software-based test to the patient comprises selectively displaying a target object on the display device among an environment for a plurality of distinct time periods, with the target object displayed in a different location on the display device during each time period (see col. 11, lines 48-55 – “As illustrated by screenshots 300C & 400C, a randomized plurality of targets and/or distractors, e.g., target 352 and/or distractor 452, can be presented to user 180 either in attended circle 328 and/or ignored circle 438 (step 530). Target(s) and/or optional distractor(s) are generally present between approximately one and five seconds, and can be varied with respect to presentation rate, location and/or duration, depending on the training protocol(s)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jung et al. to include wherein providing the software-based test to the patient comprises selectively displaying a target object on the display device among an environment for a plurality of distinct time periods, with the target object displayed in a different location on the display device during each time period, as disclosed in Simpson, so as to prevent the patient from anticipating where or when the target will be presented on the display device.
Regarding claim 3, Jung et al. discloses determining the existence of the visual spatial neglect of the patient from some of the EEG information prior to determining the extent of the visual spatial neglect of the patient (see Figures 1B, 1D, and 1E and [0045] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1D, the process 188 can include a process 189 to analyze the mfSSVEP data with respect to a frequency spectrum including the designated frequencies mapped to the spatial regions of the visual stimulus display, in which the analyzing can include comparing the mfSSVEP signal at the particular frequencies to a predetermined threshold, or in relation to another mfSSVEP signal or other mfSSVEPs (e.g., including from an averaged population or individual group of mfSSVEP data with respect to that particular frequency), to determine if the signal falls below the predetermined threshold or is substantially lower with respect to a comparative mfSSVEP signal” and [0046] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1E, the method can include a process 190 to determine if the presence of a visual field defect based on the quantitative assessment, e.g., if the mfSSVEP signal for a particular frequency falls below the predetermined threshold or substantially lower than the comparative signal(s) from other mfSSVEP data at that particular frequency, in which the visual field deficiency is determined to be in the region of the visual stimulus display associated with the spatial location to which that frequency is mapped”).
Regarding claim 4, Jung et al. discloses providing an indication of the extent of the visual spatial neglect of the patient comprises providing a mapping of the visual spatial neglect of the patient (see Figures 1B, 1D, and 1E and [0045] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1D, the process 188 can include a process 189 to analyze the mfSSVEP data with respect to a frequency spectrum including the designated frequencies mapped to the spatial regions of the visual stimulus display, in which the analyzing can include comparing the mfSSVEP signal at the particular frequencies to a predetermined threshold, or in relation to another mfSSVEP signal or other mfSSVEPs (e.g., including from an averaged population or individual group of mfSSVEP data with respect to that particular frequency), to determine if the signal falls below the predetermined threshold or is substantially lower with respect to a comparative mfSSVEP signal” and [0046] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1E, the method can include a process 190 to determine if the presence of a visual field defect based on the quantitative assessment, e.g., if the mfSSVEP signal for a particular frequency falls below the predetermined threshold or substantially lower than the comparative signal(s) from other mfSSVEP data at that particular frequency, in which the visual field deficiency is determined to be in the region of the visual stimulus display associated with the spatial location to which that frequency is mapped”).
Regarding claim 7, it is noted Jung et al. does not specifically teach providing the software-based test to the patient comprises providing a plurality of frames to the patient, each frame comprising the target object. However, Simpson teaches providing the software-based test to the patient comprises providing a plurality of frames to the patient, each frame comprising the target object (see Figures 3A-4C and col. 10, lines 1-12 – “In some embodiments as illustrated by the respective screenshot 300C and screenshot 400C, a randomized plurality of targets and /or distractors, e.g. target 352 and/or distractor 452, can be presented to user 180 either in attended circle 328 and/or ignored circle 438 (step 240). Presentation frequency of targets and/or optional distractors can be approximately between one and five seconds, and can be randomized with respect to presentation rate, location and/or duration. Although squares are used for targets/distractors in this embodiment, other shapes are also possible, e.g., circles, ovals, rectangles, polygons, triangles or any other regular or irregular shapes”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jung et al. to include providing the software-based test to the patient comprises providing a plurality of frames to the patient, each frame comprising the target object, as disclosed in Simpson, so as to assess the quality of attentional awareness and control of an individual (see Simpson: Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Simpson teaches each frame of the plurality of frames comprises a number of distractors (see Figures 3A-4C and col. 10, lines 1-12 – “In some embodiments as illustrated by the respective screenshot 300C and screenshot 400C, a randomized plurality of targets and /or distractors, e.g. target 352 and/or distractor 452, can be presented to user 180 either in attended circle 328 and/or ignored circle 438 (step 240). Presentation frequency of targets and/or optional distractors can be approximately between one and five seconds, and can be randomized with respect to presentation rate, location and/or duration. Although squares are used for targets/distractors in this embodiment, other shapes are also possible, e.g., circles, ovals, rectangles, polygons, triangles or any other regular or irregular shapes”).
Regarding claim 9, Simpson teaches the number of distractors comprises a plurality of distractors, and wherein the target object is positioned in the frame among the plurality of distractors (see Figures 3A-4C and col. 10, lines 1-12 – “In some embodiments as illustrated by the respective screenshot 300C and screenshot 400C, a randomized plurality of targets and /or distractors, e.g. target 352 and/or distractor 452, can be presented to user 180 either in attended circle 328 and/or ignored circle 438 (step 240). Presentation frequency of targets and/or optional distractors can be approximately between one and five seconds, and can be randomized with respect to presentation rate, location and/or duration. Although squares are used for targets/distractors in this embodiment, other shapes are also possible, e.g., circles, ovals, rectangles, polygons, triangles or any other regular or irregular shapes”).
Regarding claim 10, Simpson teaches the target object is a different color and/or shape than each distractor of the number of distractors (see Figures 3A-4C and col. 10, lines 1-12 – “In some embodiments as illustrated by the respective screenshot 300C and screenshot 400C, a randomized plurality of targets and /or distractors, e.g. target 352 and/or distractor 452, can be presented to user 180 either in attended circle 328 and/or ignored circle 438 (step 240). Presentation frequency of targets and/or optional distractors can be approximately between one and five seconds, and can be randomized with respect to presentation rate, location and/or duration. Although squares are used for targets/distractors in this embodiment, other shapes are also possible, e.g., circles, ovals, rectangles, polygons, triangles or any other regular or irregular shapes”).
Regarding claim 13, Jung et al. discloses a system for identifying an extent of visual spatial neglect in a patient (see Figures 1A and 4-5B), the system comprising:
a presentation apparatus (112) sized and configured to be fitted to the head of the patient and having a display device configured to be positioned close and in front of the eyes of the patient (see [0035] – “The EEG-based system 100 integrates a wearable, wireless, high-density dry EEG sensor unit 111 and a visual display unit 112 (e.g., such as a head-mounted display) in data communication with a data processing unit 120 allowing users to routinely monitor the electrical brain activity associated with visual field stimulation”, [0042] – “The method 180 includes a process 182 to present, to a subject, visual stimuli in a plurality of sectors of a visual field of a subject, in which for each sector the presented visual stimuli includes an optical effect (e.g., light flickering) at a selected frequency”, and [0044] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1C, the process 182 includes a process 181 to provide the visual stimuli to the visual display unit 112 (e.g., including a wearable visual display unit) from the data processing unit 120, in which the providing can include generating the visual stimuli (e.g., produce and/or assign an optical flickering effect of the visual stimuli at a selected frequency associated with each sector of the visual field); and/or supplying a previously generated visual stimuli. In some implementations of the process 181, the process 181 to provide the visual stimuli includes forming a spatial visual stimulus display having multiple regions or sectors at different spatial locations, where for each region, the particular region includes an optical effect (e.g., light flickering) that changes at a unique frequency with respect to at least a proximate region or any other region of the visual stimulus display”);
an EEG apparatus (111) sized and configured to be positioned on the head of the patient (see Figures 4-5B and [0042] – “The method 180 includes a process 184 to acquire EEG signals from one or more electrodes in contact with the head of the subject. The method 180 includes a process 186 to data process (e.g., analyze) the acquired EEG signals to extract mfSSVEP data associated with the subject's EEG signal response to the presented visual stimuli”); and
a computing device (120) in communication with the presentation apparatus, the EEG apparatus, the computing device having a controller (121) and an output device (123) in communication with the controller (see [0037] – “The data processing unit 120 can include a processor 121 that can be in communication with an input/output (I/O) unit 122, an output unit 123, and a memory unit 124”), wherein the controller is programmed to:
provide a software-based test to the patient via the display device of the presentation apparatus (see [0042] – “The method 180 includes a process 182 to present, to a subject, visual stimuli in a plurality of sectors of a visual field of a subject, in which for each sector the presented visual stimuli includes an optical effect (e.g., light flickering) at a selected frequency” and [0044] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1C, the process 182 includes a process 181 to provide the visual stimuli to the visual display unit 112 (e.g., including a wearable visual display unit) from the data processing unit 120, in which the providing can include generating the visual stimuli (e.g., produce and/or assign an optical flickering effect of the visual stimuli at a selected frequency associated with each sector of the visual field); and/or supplying a previously generated visual stimuli. In some implementations of the process 181, the process 181 to provide the visual stimuli includes forming a spatial visual stimulus display having multiple regions or sectors at different spatial locations, where for each region, the particular region includes an optical effect (e.g., light flickering) that changes at a unique frequency with respect to at least a proximate region or any other region of the visual stimulus display”);
collect EEG information during the test via the EEG apparatus (see Figures 4-5B and [0042] – “The method 180 includes a process 184 to acquire EEG signals from one or more electrodes in contact with the head of the subject. The method 180 includes a process 186 to data process (e.g., analyze) the acquired EEG signals to extract mfSSVEP data associated with the subject's EEG signal response to the presented visual stimuli”);
determine from portions of the EEG information the extent of the visual spatial neglect of the patient (see [0042] – “The method 180 includes a process 188 to produce a quantitative assessment of the visual field of the subject based on the MfSSVEP data” and [0043] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, the quantitative assessment produced by the process 188 can provide an indication if there is a presence of a visual field defect in the user's visual field. In some implementations, for example, the process 188 can include a process to determine the presence of the visual field defect in a sector having a mfSSVEP signal below a predetermined threshold”); and
provide an indication of the extent of the visual spatial neglect of the patient via the output device (see [0042] – “The method 180 includes a process 188 to produce a quantitative assessment of the visual field of the subject based on the MfSSVEP data”, [0043] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, the quantitative assessment produced by the process 188 can provide an indication if there is a presence of a visual field defect in the user's visual field. In some implementations, for example, the process 188 can include a process to determine the presence of the visual field defect in a sector having a mfSSVEP signal below a predetermined threshold”, and [0046] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1E, the method can include a process 190 to determine if the presence of a visual field defect based on the quantitative assessment, e.g., if the mfSSVEP signal for a particular frequency falls below the predetermined threshold or substantially lower than the comparative signal(s) from other mfSSVEP data at that particular frequency, in which the visual field deficiency is determined to be in the region of the visual stimulus display associated with the spatial location to which that frequency is mapped”).
It is noted Jung et al. does not specifically teach wherein in providing the software-based test to the patient via the display device, the controller is programmed to selectively display a target object on the display device among an environment for a plurality of distinct time periods, with the target object displayed in a different location on the display device during each time period. However, Simpson teaches wherein in providing the software-based test to the patient via the display device, the controller is programmed to selectively display a target object on the display device among an environment for a plurality of distinct time periods, with the target object displayed in a different location on the display device during each time period (see col. 11, lines 48-55 – “As illustrated by screenshots 300C & 400C, a randomized plurality of targets and/or distractors, e.g., target 352 and/or distractor 452, can be presented to user 180 either in attended circle 328 and/or ignored circle 438 (step 530). Target(s) and/or optional distractor(s) are generally present between approximately one and five seconds, and can be varied with respect to presentation rate, location and/or duration, depending on the training protocol(s)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jung et al. to include wherein in providing the software-based test to the patient via the display device, the controller is programmed to selectively display a target object on the display device among an environment for a plurality of distinct time periods, with the target object displayed in a different location on the display device during each time period, as disclosed in Simpson, so as to prevent the patient from anticipating where or when the target will be presented on the display device.
Regarding claim 15, Jung et al. discloses the indication of the extent of the visual spatial neglect of the patient comprises a mapping of the visual spatial neglect of the patient over a field of view of the patient (see Figures 1B, 1D, and 1E and [0045] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1D, the process 188 can include a process 189 to analyze the mfSSVEP data with respect to a frequency spectrum including the designated frequencies mapped to the spatial regions of the visual stimulus display, in which the analyzing can include comparing the mfSSVEP signal at the particular frequencies to a predetermined threshold, or in relation to another mfSSVEP signal or other mfSSVEPs (e.g., including from an averaged population or individual group of mfSSVEP data with respect to that particular frequency), to determine if the signal falls below the predetermined threshold or is substantially lower with respect to a comparative mfSSVEP signal” and [0046] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1E, the method can include a process 190 to determine if the presence of a visual field defect based on the quantitative assessment, e.g., if the mfSSVEP signal for a particular frequency falls below the predetermined threshold or substantially lower than the comparative signal(s) from other mfSSVEP data at that particular frequency, in which the visual field deficiency is determined to be in the region of the visual stimulus display associated with the spatial location to which that frequency is mapped”).
Regarding claim 16, it is noted Jung et al. does not specifically teach a duration of one or more of the time periods varies from a duration of another one or more of the time periods. However, Simpson teaches a duration of one or more of the time periods varies from a duration of another one or more of the time periods (see col. 11, lines 48-55 – “As illustrated by screenshots 300C & 400C, a randomized plurality of targets and/or distractors, e.g., target 352 and/or distractor 452, can be presented to user 180 either in attended circle 328 and/or ignored circle 438 (step 530). Target(s) and/or optional distractor(s) are generally present between approximately one and five seconds, and can be varied with respect to presentation rate, location and/or duration, depending on the training protocol(s)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jung et al. to include a duration of one or more of the time periods varies from a duration of another one or more of the time periods, as disclosed in Simpson, so as to prevent the patient from anticipating where or when the target will be presented on the display device.
Regarding claim 18, it is noted Jung et al. does not specifically teach the controller is programmed to display the target object concurrently with a plurality of distractors on the display device such that the target object and the distractors blend with the environment. However, Simpson teaches the controller is programmed to display the target object concurrently with a plurality of distractors on the display device such that the target object and the distractors blend with the environment (see col. 5, lines 24-38 – “To do this we measure activity reflecting the processing of two different stimuli (target and distractor) concurrently. However, it is challenging to define EEG measures that can be used unambiguously to measure the responses to each of multiple stimuli presented simultaneously. The SSVEP frequency tagging method allows the attended target signal and the ignored distractor signal to be identified by the frequency of the SSVEP. Each stimulus type (target, distractor) is assigned a flicker frequency (e.g., 15, 17 Hz respectively) that drives visual sensory cortices at the flicker frequency of each stimulus, thereby isolating and stabilizing the EEG activity corresponding to each stimulus type even when they are presented at the same time or even in the same location, e.g. in figure/background configuration”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jung et al. to include the controller is programmed to display the target object concurrently with a plurality of distractors on the display device such that the target object and the distractors blend with the environment, as disclosed in Simpson, so as to measure activity reflecting the processing of two different stimuli (target and distractor) concurrently (see Simpson: col. 5, lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 19, it is noted Jung et al. does not specifically teach a duration of one or more of the time periods varies from a duration of another one or more of the time periods. However, Simpson teaches a duration of one or more of the time periods varies from a duration of another one or more of the time periods (see col. 11, lines 48-55 – “As illustrated by screenshots 300C & 400C, a randomized plurality of targets and/or distractors, e.g., target 352 and/or distractor 452, can be presented to user 180 either in attended circle 328 and/or ignored circle 438 (step 530). Target(s) and/or optional distractor(s) are generally present between approximately one and five seconds, and can be varied with respect to presentation rate, location and/or duration, depending on the training protocol(s)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jung et al. to include a duration of one or more of the time periods varies from a duration of another one or more of the time periods, as disclosed in Simpson, so as to prevent the patient from anticipating where or when the target will be presented on the display device.
Regarding claim 21, it is noted Jung et al. does not specifically teach the target object is displayed concurrently with a plurality of distractors on the display device such that the target object and the distractors blend with the environment. However, Simpson teaches the target object is displayed concurrently with a plurality of distractors on the display device such that the target object and the distractors blend with the environment (see col. 5, lines 24-38 – “To do this we measure activity reflecting the processing of two different stimuli (target and distractor) concurrently. However, it is challenging to define EEG measures that can be used unambiguously to measure the responses to each of multiple stimuli presented simultaneously. The SSVEP frequency tagging method allows the attended target signal and the ignored distractor signal to be identified by the frequency of the SSVEP. Each stimulus type (target, distractor) is assigned a flicker frequency (e.g., 15, 17 Hz respectively) that drives visual sensory cortices at the flicker frequency of each stimulus, thereby isolating and stabilizing the EEG activity corresponding to each stimulus type even when they are presented at the same time or even in the same location, e.g. in figure/background configuration”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jung et al. to include the target object is displayed concurrently with a plurality of distractors on the display device such that the target object and the distractors blend with the environment, as disclosed in Simpson, so as to measure activity reflecting the processing of two different stimuli (target and distractor) concurrently (see Simpson: col. 5, lines 24-26).
Claim(s) 2, 6, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. and Simpson, further in view of Samec et al. (US Publication No. 2017/0365101 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, it is noted Jung et al. does not specifically teach the presentation apparatus comprises an augmented reality apparatus. However, Samec et al. teaches the presentation apparatus comprises an augmented reality apparatus (see [0401] – “Advantageously, in some embodiments, augmented reality (AR) display systems disclosed herein may be configured to determine the presence of neurological conditions, including visual processing abnormalities. Moreover, the AR display systems may be configured to address and/or alter neurological conditions, including the brain's processing of information”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Jung et al. to include the presentation apparatus comprises an augmented reality apparatus, as disclosed in Samec et al., so as to display virtual content to a user while still allowing the user to see the world around them (see Samec et al.: [0402]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jung et al. and Samec et al. teaches providing the software-based test to the patient comprises displaying the target object in a dynamic background via the augmented reality apparatus, and collecting the EEG information during the test comprises matching a corresponding portion of the EEG information to the location at which the target object was displayed (see Jung et al.: Figures 1B, 1D, and 1E and [0045] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1D, the process 188 can include a process 189 to analyze the mfSSVEP data with respect to a frequency spectrum including the designated frequencies mapped to the spatial regions of the visual stimulus display, in which the analyzing can include comparing the mfSSVEP signal at the particular frequencies to a predetermined threshold, or in relation to another mfSSVEP signal or other mfSSVEPs (e.g., including from an averaged population or individual group of mfSSVEP data with respect to that particular frequency), to determine if the signal falls below the predetermined threshold or is substantially lower with respect to a comparative mfSSVEP signal” and [0046] – “In some implementations of the method 180, for example, as shown in FIG. 1E, the method can include a process 190 to determine if the presence of a visual field defect based on the quantitative assessment, e.g., if the mfSSVEP signal for a particular frequency falls below the predetermined threshold or substantially lower than the comparative signal(s) from other mfSSVEP data at that particular frequency, in which the visual field deficiency is determined to be in the region of the visual stimulus display associated with the spatial location to which that frequency is mapped” and Samec et al.: [0523] – “Referring to block 1710 in FIG. 11, in such tests, the display system may be configured to provide stimuli that may include images having a stationary portion and a moving portion. For example, an image comprising a stationary portion among a moving background may be provided to the user's eyes” and [0686] – “ERP may utilize electrodes (e.g., EEG) to obtain information regarding nervous system activity of the user, including the response of the user to stimuli”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. and Simpson, further in view of Kim et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0103917 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted Jung et al. does not specifically teach determining from the EEG information the extent of the visual spatial neglect of the patient comprises employing portions of the EEG information in a machine learning classifier to provide the mapping of the visual spatial neglect of the patient. However, Kim et al. teaches determining from the EEG information the extent of the visual spatial neglect of the patient comprises employing portions of the EEG information in a machine learning classifier to provide the mapping of the visual spatial neglect of the patient (see [0053] – “The present technology utilizes electroencephalogram (EEG)-based brain sensing methods, systems, and devices for visual-field examination by using EEG to associate the dynamics of visual-event-related responses (VERPs) with visual field defects” and [0111] – “An exemplary system can employ dry microelectromechanical system EEG sensors, low-power signal acquisition, amplification and digitization, wireless telemetry, online artifact cancellation and real-time processing. In addition, the present technology can include analytical techniques, including machine learning or signal separation techniques 651-654 such as principal component analysis or independent component analysis, which can improve detectability of VERP signals”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jung et al. to include determining from the EEG information the extent of the visual spatial neglect of the patient comprises employing portions of the EEG information in a machine learning classifier to provide the mapping of the visual spatial neglect of the patient, as disclosed in Kim et al., so as to improve detectability of visual-event related potential signals (see Kim et al.: [0111]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. and Simpson, further in view of Krueger (US Publication No. 2016/0262608 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, it is noted neither Jung et al. nor Simpson specifically teach each frame comprises the target object positioned amongst a background that is transparent to the patient. However, Krueger teaches each frame comprises the target object positioned amongst a background that is transparent to the patient (see [0313] – “A visual target is provided in the eye worn lens, which can be otherwise transparent, translucent or opaque” and [0347] – “The target the user is focused on can be seen through a see-through lens (e.g. such as looking at a dot on a wall projected in front of them) or, if wearing other semi-transparent or non-transparent head worn applications (such as a pair of goggles), the target may be displayed as a 3D image, hologram or some other light source image”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jung et al. and Simpson to include each frame comprises the target object positioned amongst a background that is transparent to the patient, as disclosed in Krueger, so as to allow the wearer to see external objects as well as the virtual display targets (see Krueger: [0297]).
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. and Simpson, further in view of Tiwari et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0073476 A1).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, it is noted neither Jung et al. nor Simpson specifically teach the target object is not displayed for a period of time between each of the time periods in which the target object is displayed at different locations. However, Tiwari et al. teaches the target object is not displayed for a period of time between each of the time periods in which the target object is displayed at different locations (see [0039] – “The visual stimuli may be displayed around the center weighted object. Also, the visual stimuli can be displayed in each region of display of the HMD device 102”, [0050] – “Each visual stimulus may be displayed for a pre-determined time interval (for example, 200 milliseconds) and the time interval between two stimuli ranges pre-determined time range (for example, 1100-2000 milliseconds). The time interval may ensure that the user may not register false responses by predicting the next displayed visual stimulus”, and [0063] – “The visual stimuli may be displayed at random points and random times in the field of vision as directed by the physician”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Jung et al. and Simpson to include the target object is not displayed for a period of time between each of the time periods in which the target object is displayed at different locations, as disclosed in Tiwari et al., so as to ensure that the user may not register false responses by predicting the next displayed visual stimulus (see Tiwari et al.: [0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Instead, Applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly added subject matter of the amended claims, which is addressed in the new grounds of rejection as outlined above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN B HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM ET - 5 PM ET.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/DEVIN B HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights