DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
35 U.S.C.101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
● Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 8 and 15 as the representative claim, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
[collect] a first reference image, a second reference image, a plurality of training images, stereoscopic vision information;
[show] the first reference image to a first area, and [show] the second reference image to a second area;
set training coordinates based on a coordinate change for the first reference image and the second reference image;
[present] the plurality of training images with different stereoscopic effects based on the training coordinates; and
perform a stereoscopic vision training of receiving a selection response to a training image with a high stereoscopic effect.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior, since a person is presented with stereoscopic vision training, which requires the user to respond to one or more visual stimuli, etc., and such training effectively influences the real-world interaction behavior of the person; such as, visuomotor behaviors that the person performs on daily basis, which encompasses a scenario where vision guides movement, etc.
Similarly, given the limitations that recite the process of: collecting information that involves a first reference image, a second reference image, a plurality of training images, and stereoscopic vision information; outputting or presenting the first reference image to a first area, and the second reference image to a second area; setting training coordinates based on a coordinate change for the first reference image and the second reference image, etc., the current claims also correspond to mental processes; such as, concepts that can be performed in the human mind and/or using a pen and paper (e.g., an evaluation, an observations, a judgment, etc.).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong Two:
The claims recite additional element(s), wherein a computer-based apparatus that comprises basic computer units (e.g., a control module, a memory, a display module, an input module, etc.) is utilized as a tool to facilitate the recited functions or steps regarding: collecting textual and/or pictorial information (e.g., “a first reference image, a second reference image, a plurality of training images, stereoscopic vision information”); presenting/displaying pictorial information (e.g., “output the first reference image to a first area of the display module, and output the second reference image to a second area of the display module”); setting coordinates for one or more pictures (e.g., “set training coordinates based on a coordinate change signal for the first reference image and the second reference image”); displaying additional pictorial information (e.g., “output the plurality of training images with different stereoscopic effects to the display module based on the training coordinates”); performing training based on a selection of a response being received (e.g., “perform a stereoscopic vision training operation of receiving a selection response to a training image with a high stereoscopic effect”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions.
Accordingly, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole (e.g., see the discussion under Prong Two above regarding such consideration of the claim as a whole), none of the claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth noting—per the original disclosure—that the claimed invention is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the specification describes that the stereoscopic vision training apparatus comprises one or more commercially available computing devices (e.g., a desktop PC, a mobile phone, a smartphone, etc.), wherein the computing device communicates with an online service provider or server via the conventional communication network (e.g., the Internet); and thereby, the apparatus provides the claimed stereoscopic vision training to the user ([0039] to [0044]).
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the presentation of interactive content items to a user, including the process of presenting interactive training materials that are pertinent to address the user’s specific condition(s), etc., is already directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2010/0073469; US 2012/0307203, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-7 and 9-14). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
● Claim 15 further fail to comply with 35 U.S.C.101 since it is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Particularly, claim 15 is directed to a computer-readable recording medium.
It is worth noting that a computer readable recording medium broadly covers both statutory and non-statutory subject matter (e.g., signal per se). However, claim 15 does not positively exclude the non-statutory subject matter; see MPEP 2106.03(I) (emphasis added),
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory
categories include:
• Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;
It is further worth noting, per the original disclosure, that the term “computer-readable medium” includes “all kinds of recording media” ([0128], emphasis added). Thus, claim 15 further fails to comply with the statutory requirement per section §101. Note that making the following amendment, -- A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium--, to the preamble of claim 15 corrects the issue above.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
4. 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.
● Claims 1-15 invoke 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre AIA 35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph for the following reasons.
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. The limitations are: “a display module”, “an input module”, “a control module”.
Thus, per the original specification, the “display module” appears to correspond to an LCD, OLED or an AMOLED display, including a touch screen (see [0048]); the “input module” appears to correspond to a keyboard, a keypad, a button, etc. ([0046]); and the “control module” appears to correspond to software and/or hardware component, including a field programmable gate array (FPGA), or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), etc. ([0056]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Vendel 2012/0307203.
Regarding each of claims 1, 8 and 15, Vendel teaches the following claimed limitations: a stereoscopic vision training providing apparatus (or a method, per claim 8; or a computer-readable medium, per claim 8), the apparatus comprising: a display module; a memory including a first reference image, a second reference image, a plurality of training images, stereoscopic vision information ([0074]; [0088] to [0090]: e.g., a computer-based system/method for providing vision training to a user; wherein the system comprises one or more displays for displaying images; and also a memory that multiple images, including first image and second image, wherein the image contents of the first image and second image differ. Note that the term “first reference” image and “second reference” images are merely labels assigned to the images; and thus, the stored images above already involves a first reference image and a second reference image); an input module configured to receive a response of a trainee ([0111]: e.g., the system already incorporates one or more basic input devices—such as, a keyboard); and a control module configured to: output the first reference image to a first area of the display module, and output the second reference image to a second area of the display module ([0081]; [0114]: e.g. the system displays two images—such as, a first image on the left portion of the display, which aligns with the left eye; and a second image on the right side of the display, which aligns with the right eye); set training coordinates based on a coordinate change signal for the first reference image and the second reference image; output the plurality of training images with different stereoscopic effects to the display module based on the training coordinates ([0115] to [0117]; [0120]; and the sequence of images, FIG 10a to 10h: e.g., the system sets, based on the conditions of the user, one or more vision parameters to be manipulated with respect to the first image and/or the second image; and thereby, the system manipulates the first and/or the second image based on one or more of the vision parameters—such as: changing the position of the first and/or the second image; moving the fist and/or second image, etc. Note that changing the position of one or more of the images—such as, moving the images close to each other until they partially/fully overlap, or moving them away from each other, etc., indicates that the system already sets training coordinates based on a coordinate change signal for the first reference image and the second reference image; and subsequently outputs the plurality of training images with different stereoscopic effects to the display module based on the training coordinates).
Although Vendel does not expressly describe, as part of the stereoscopic vision training operation above, receiving a selection response to a training image with a high stereoscopic effect, Vendel already teaches a calibration phase that requires the user to provide a response when the user detects a distorted vision due to the change in one or more vision parameters related to the first image and/or the second image; so that the boundary value appropriate for the patient is determined ([0091] to [0093]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Vendel’s system; for example, by incorporating an additional option, which requires the user to provide a response when he/she detects vision changes as one or more of the vision parameters relates to the first and/or second image changes; such as, the user providing a response as he/she detects a significant change in the degree of depth perception (e.g., high depth perception or low depth perception, etc.) as the first and/or the second image is positioned at a particular point, etc., so that the system utilizes the user’s response to generate customized training regimen in order to further strengthen the quality of the user’s vision.
Regarding each of claims 2 and 9, Vendel teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 8.
The limitation, “the first area is an area corresponding to a left eye of the trainee, wherein the second area is an area corresponding to a right eye of the trainee, and wherein the coordinate change signal is a signal for moving the first reference image or the second reference image in left and right directions”, is already addressed per the discussion presented with respect to claims 1 and 8. This is because the system, as part of the training it is providing to the user, changes one or more vision parameters with respect to the first and/or the second image, including moving the first image and the second image close to each other, wherein the two images partially or fully overlap, etc.
The above confirms that the system is moving the first reference image, which is depicted in the first area that corresponds to a left eye of the trainee, and/or the second reference image that is depicted in the second area that corresponds to the right eye of the trainee, to the left and right directions.
Vendel teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 8. Vendel further teaches:
Regarding claims 3 and 10, move the first reference image or the second reference image depending on the coordinate change signal; calculate center coordinates of a boundary area including the first reference image and the second reference image; and set the training coordinates based on the calculated center coordinates ([0094]; [0101] to [103]; [0114]; [0120]: e.g., once establishing a corresponding initial position to each first and second images, the system moves the first and/or the second image towards each other; and an area is reached where the two images starts to overlap; and accordingly, the process of generating the area, which represents the spot where at least the initial partial overlap between two images occurs, does indicate the calculation of center coordinates of a boundary area that includes both the first and second reference images; so that the training coordinates are set based on the center coordinates above);
Regarding claims 4 and 11, correct the training coordinates of at least one of the plurality of training images based on the stereoscopic vision information; and correct training coordinates of the plurality of training images output to an area corresponding to a strabismus eye based on the stereoscopic vision information ([0090]; 0098]; [0102]; [0111]; [0115]; [0117]; [0120]: e.g., the system first acquires vision evaluation results that are specific to the user; such as, evaluation results that a professional determined based on evaluating the user’s vision, etc.; and accordingly, the system uses such specific results to customize training images applicable to the user’s condition, including determining initial settings “for a degree of strabismus”, etc. Thus, besides correcting the training coordinates of at least one of the plurality of training images based on the stereoscopic vision information, the system also corrects—based on the stereoscopic vision information—the training coordinates of the plurality of training images output to an area corresponding to a strabismus eye);
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the stereoscopic vision information has different stereoscopic vision values depending on difficulty for each training of the stereoscopic vision training operation ([0090]; [0115]; [0117]: e.g., the system is applying various visual representations when manipulating the vision parameters, which includes spatial parameters that involve changing the dimension or size of one or more of the images, the position of one or more of the images, rotating the images, etc. Thus, the stereoscopic vision information already has different stereoscopic vision values depending on difficulty for each training of the stereoscopic vision training operation).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Vendel teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 8.
Although Vendel already teaches that the stereoscopic vision training operation includes dynamic stereoscopic vision training configured to select a training image with a high stereoscopic effect among the plurality of training images, which move ([0027]; [0080]; [0114]: e.g., as part of the training session presented to the user, the system fluctuates or oscillates the first and/or second images; and such fluctuation or oscillation includes moving the first and/or the second images. Thus, the stereoscopic vision training operation already includes dynamic stereoscopic vision training configured to select a training image with a high stereoscopic effect among the plurality of training images, which move), Vendel does not expressly teach static stereoscopic vision training configured to select a training image in descending order of a stereoscopic effect among the plurality of training images, which do not move.
However, Vendel already acknowledges at least one prior art training system (e.g., WO 2008/070683) that provides vision therapy—such as, treating amblyopia; and this system employs the static images; and thereby, the patient actively interacts with the system when taking the training or exercises ([0016]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Vendel’s system; for example, by incorporating one or more training regimens that implement static images; wherein the system provides the user with at least one additional option, which allows the user to take, based on one or more conditions specific to the user (e.g., the user is suffering from amblyopia, besides phoria, etc.), one or more training sessions that display static images (e.g., displaying, based on one or more time intervals and/or user response(s), one or more static images from the lowest difficulty level to a higher difficulty level, etc.); so that the user would have further opportunity to acquire a more comprehensive training that addresses various vision issues.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Vendel teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 8.
Vendel further teaches, perform the stereoscopic vision training operation multiple times; and adjust difficulty of a stereoscopic vision training operation in a next sequence based on a training result of a stereoscopic vision training operation in a previous sequence ([0090]; [0095]; [0102]; [0105] to [0108]; [0115]: e.g., besides providing therapy in multiple sessions, the system also adjusts—by fluctuating one or more vision parameters—the difficulty level of one or more subsequent training sessions based on the effect of the current/previous training session on the patient. Accordingly, the system not only performs the stereoscopic vision training operation multiple times, but also adjusts the difficulty of a stereoscopic vision training operation in a next sequence based on a training result of a stereoscopic vision training operation in a previous sequence).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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). 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.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights