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 07/02/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Foreign Reference #4 (HU 185600) was not considered as no translation of the abstract or specification for this reference was provided.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the claims recite “wherein the visual stimulus corresponds to” in line 1 and lines 1-2, respectively. This recitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether “the visual stimulus” refers to the first visual stimulus, the second visual stimulus, or both visual stimuli recited in the independent claims. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted to recite “wherein the first and second visual stimuli corresponds to”.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the claims recite “whether the user catches a prompt” in lines 6-7 and 6-7 respectively. It is unclear what is the intended meaning of “catches a prompt” Due to the nature of the system being implemented within a VR environment within a display, it is unclear if catching a prompt refers to an interactive action where the user performs a catching action on a displayed prompt. This recitation could also refer to the user understanding or recognizing a prompt, or providing a response to a prompt within a given time frame. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as “responds to a prompt”. This interpretation covers all responses to a prompt, including recognizing/understanding a prompt and/or providing a user response to a prompt.
All claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 7-8, 11-12, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2020/0073476 by Tiwari et al., hereinafter “Tiwari” in view of US Patent Publication 2020/0312269 by Nasti et al., hereinafter “Nasti”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 2 of Tiwari teaches a method of implementing a virtual vision test, comprising: at an electronic device (System 100) including a head-mounted display (HMD) (Head Mounted Display (HMD) device 102), one or more head straps (Depiction of HMD 102 with EEG sensors in Fig. 2 shows at least one strap for securing the HMD), and a plurality of electrodes (EEG sensor device 108 is described in Fig. 2 as “EEG sensors”, implying a plurality of EEG sensors): executing a user application configured to enable the virtual vision test (Application interface module 210 shows a user application); generating a virtual reality (VR) user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment (The test is generated in a virtual reality interface ([0030, 0035, 0037]), the 3D environment is shown in element 210 of Fig. 2.); rendering, on the HMD, a user interface including a first visual stimulus corresponding to the virtual vision test (Fig. 12b is a flow chart for checking for a defect in the visual field of the user by using an EEG device. The user response is determined corresponding to a displayed first and second visual stimuli (element 1250)); while displaying the visual stimulus, in real time: collecting a plurality of electrical signals by the plurality of electrodes that contact a head of a user ([0033-0035]; The visual disease/defect can be determined in real-time based on the data from the EEG sensor device 108 in response to the visual stimulus.); and determining information of at least one of a second visual stimulus following the first visual stimulus and a user response to the first visual stimulus based on the plurality of electrical signals (The brain activity in response to the first visual stimulus is considered a user response, as the user responds to the presented stimulus. The diagnosis of a visual defect is considered information based on this response. Further user responses include direct user input to the system regarding the presented stimulus ([0034-0036])).
Tiwari does not teach wherein the plurality of electrodes are integrated within the straps.
Fig. 1 of Nasti teaches a head-mounted display configured to determine a visual acuity of the user based on EEG sensors. The headband 104 comprises multiple straps with EEG sensors 106 integrated within the headband, and communicatively coupled to the display ([0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of Tiwari such that the and a plurality of electrodes were integrated in the one or more head straps, as taught by Nasti. This modification merely comprises a simple substitution of one known element (EEG sensor configuration of Tiwari) for another (EEG sensor configuration of Nasti) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Regarding claim 2, Tiwari in view of Nasti teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of electrodes is configured to form an electroencephalography (EEG) sensor system (Nasti, [0049]; “the electrodes are used to capture electroencephalography (“EEG”) data”), and the plurality of electrical signals have a temporal resolution of milliseconds (Nasti ([0061-0065]) teaches that the EEG data can be analyzed in spectral bands, from 4-30 Hertz. This corresponds to a temporal resolution of at least 33.3 milliseconds).
Regarding claim 7, Tiwari in view of Nasti teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, while displaying a first visual pattern (Tiwari, [0039]; the HMD device displays one or more patterns of visual stimuli): determining a response feature of the user response to the first visual stimulus based on the plurality of electrical signals (See the rejection of claim 1, the response feature is determined from the brain signals); wherein the response feature comprises one or more of: a brain activity level (Tiwari; the EEG data contains brain activity levels (i.e., each EEG data point comprises a brain activity level at that point in time.)), a response time, whether each of one or more feature neural events occurs, whether the user catches a prompt, or whether the user recognizes or speculates about the first visual stimulus.
Regarding claim 8, Tiwari in view of Nasti teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: applying a response analysis model to process a subset of the plurality of electrical signals (Tiwari, [0060]; in an embodiment, a trained SVM model can be applied to a new user’s obtained EEG data), which is recorded immediately after a first visual pattern (See the rejection of claim 7; Tiwari [0039]; The visual stimuli comprise patterns. The plurality of electrical signals are obtained in response to the display of the first visual stimulus, and therefore after the first visual pattern), determining the user response to the first visual pattern (The user response is the brain activity that is input to the SVM model), the user response including whether the user speculates about the first visual pattern (Either a recognition (i.e., or speculation about) or a lack of recognition about the pattern due to defects in the visual field or other visual defects would be captured in the brain activity. Therefore the brain activity includes whether the user speculates about the first visual pattern).
Regarding claim 11, Tiwari in view of Nasti teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach the method further comprising: obtaining a response analysis model from a server associated with the electronic device; and applying the response analysis model to process the plurality of electrical signals, thereby determining the information of at least one of the second visual stimulus and the user response to the first visual stimulus.
Tiwari teaches that the system 100 may further include a server and a database in a different location ([0032]). Fig. 4 of Tiwari teaches a method of training and using a support vector machine (SVM) model to predict the presence of a disease/defect of the user. The SVM model can be considered a response analysis model as it is capable of identifying defects from the EEG data (i.e., plurality of electrical signals), which comes from at least the first visual stimulus ([0060]). This allows the EEG features for a new user to be input to the model and identify defects (See Fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of Tiwari in view of Nasti to further comprise obtaining a response analysis model from a server associated with the electronic device; and applying the response analysis model to process the plurality of electrical signals, thereby determining the information of at least one of the second visual stimulus and the user response to the first visual stimulus, as taught by Tiwari. This combination comprises the use of a known technique (using an SVM model to make predictions using EEG data) to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2143.I.C. It is noted that if the system 100 of Tiwari comprises a server and database in a different location, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have stored the model at the server and subsequently obtain it from the server. This would preserve memory space on the HMD.
Regarding claim 12, Tiwari in view of Nasti teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising, before applying the response analysis model, at the server (In the combination of Tiwari and Nasti as applied to claim 11, the response analysis model is generated and stored at the server, therefore the training would occur at the server): collecting a plurality of historical visual stimuli; collecting, from a plurality of users, a collection of historical electrical signals that are associated with the plurality of historical visual stimuli (See The Training section of Fig. 4 of Tiwari, [0060]; the Labelled training dataset includes the previously obtained EEG features corresponding VR inputs (i.e., stimuli) from a plurality of users); and training a response analysis model based on the plurality of historical visual stimuli and the collection of historical electrical signals (The model is trained based on these previously obtained results).
Regarding claim 14, Tiwari in view of Nasti, as applied to claim 1, teaches at the electronic device, wherein the electronic device includes a head-mounted display (HMD), one or more head straps, and a plurality of electrodes integrated in the one or more head straps: executing a user application configured to enable the virtual vision test; generating a virtual reality (VR) user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment; rendering, on the HMD, a user interface including a first visual stimulus corresponding to the virtual vision test; while displaying the visual stimulus, in real time: collecting a plurality of electrical signals by the plurality of electrodes that contact a head of a user; and determining information of at least one of a second visual stimulus following the first visual stimulus and a user response to the first visual stimulus based on the plurality of electrical signals (See the rejection of claim 1).
Tiwari In view of Nasti does not teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing one or more programs for execution by one or more processors of an electronic device. Tiwari teaches that the electronic device comprises a storage unit, and a memory unit, and that the processing module executes machine readable instructions causes the electronic device to acquire data in accordance with system 100 ([0033]). It would have been prima facie obvious to store the machine readable instructions for the operation of the device within a non-transitory computer readable storage medium of device, such that the operations of the device can be executed within the device.
Regarding claim 17, Tiwari in view of Nasti, as applied to claim 14, teaches an electronic device, comprising: a head-mounted display (HMD); one or more head straps; a plurality of electrodes integrated in the one or more head straps (See the rejection of claim 1); one or more processors (processing module; See the rejection of claim 14); memory for storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (See the rejection of claim 14): executing a user application configured to enable the virtual vision test; generating a virtual reality (VR) user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment (See the rejection of claim 1); rendering, on the HMD, a user interface including a first visual stimulus corresponding to the virtual vision test; while displaying the visual stimulus, in real time: collecting a plurality of electrical signals by the plurality of electrodes that contact a head of a user (See the rejection of claim 1); and determining information of at least one of a second visual stimulus following the first visual stimulus and a user response to the first visual stimulus based on the plurality of electrical signals (See the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Tiwari in view of Nasti teaches the electronic device of claim 17, wherein the plurality of electrodes is configured to form an electroencephalography (EEG) sensor system (See the rejection of claim 2), and the plurality of electrical signals have a temporal resolution of milliseconds (See the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 19, Tiwari in view of Nasti teaches the electronic device of claim 17, the one or more programs further comprising instructions for, while displaying a first visual pattern: determining a response feature of the user response to the first visual stimulus based on the plurality of electrical signals (See the rejection of claim 7); wherein the response feature comprises one or more of: a brain activity level, a response time, whether each of one or more feature neural events occurs, whether the user catches a prompt, or whether the user recognizes or speculates about the first visual stimulus (See the rejection of claim 7).
Regarding claim 20, Tiwari in view of Nasti teaches the electronic device of claim 17, the one or more programs further comprising instructions for: applying a response analysis model to process a subset of the plurality of electrical signals, which is recorded immediately after a first visual pattern (See the rejection of claim 8), determining the user response to the first visual pattern, the user response including whether the user speculates about the first visual pattern (See the rejection of claim 8).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari in view of Nasti in view of US Patent Publication 2017/0293356 by Khaderi et al., hereinafter “Khaderi”.
Regarding claim 9, Tiwari in view of Nasti teaches the method of claim 8, but does not teach wherein the virtual vision test comprises a color vision test, and the first visual pattern is applied in the color vision test to evaluates whether there are difficulties distinguishing between different colors, and the user response to the color vision test is automatically determined from the plurality of electrical signals without user intervention.
Khaderi teaches a method of presenting a stimulus in a virtual reality setting, and determining the ability of the subject to identify the differences in the stimuli. Khaderi teaches that Detection/Discrimination (D) may refer to the ability of the user to detect the presence of an object, or to differentiate among multiple objects, and that unconscious processing may be revealed from electrophysiological or other responses (i.e., EEG) ([0470]). One such measure of Detection/Discrimination is detecting and/or discriminating color ([0471]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Tiwari in view of Nasti such that the virtual vision test comprises a color vision test, and the first visual pattern is applied in the color vision test to evaluates whether there are difficulties distinguishing between different colors, and the user response to the color vision test is automatically determined from the plurality of electrical signals without user intervention, as taught by Khaderi, in order to enable the ability to determine and/or detect of color is a characteristic of vision, providing a more comprehensive understanding of a patient’s vision. It is noted that Khaderi is drawn to optical tests that can be tested in a VR environment (See Abstract), and using EEG signals to determine visual defects do not require user intervention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari in view of Nasti in view of Khaderi in view of US Patent Publication 2022/0125299 by Abou Shousha et al., hereinafter “Abou Shousha”.
Regarding claim 10, Tiwari in view of Nasti teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: applying a response analysis model to process a subset of the plurality of electrical signals, which is recorded immediately after the first visual pattern (See the rejection of claim 8). Tiwari in view of Nasti does not teach collecting the user response to a first visual pattern using a microphone or a camera of the electronic device; and generating a confidence score associated with the user response.
Khaderi teaches a method of presenting a stimulus in a virtual reality setting, and determining the ability of the subject to identify the differences in the stimuli. User responses to the stimuli may be measured in different ways, including with head-mounted cameras and microphones. The efferent responses are paired with the presented stimuli to be subsequently analyzed ([0317-0318]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of Tiwari in view of Nasti to include collecting the user response to a first visual pattern using a microphone or a camera of the electronic device, in order to enable more modalities to obtain user responses, as taught by Khaderi ([0317-0318]).
The combination of Tiwari, Nasti, and Khaderi does not teach generating a confidence score associated with the user response.
Fig. 49 of Abou Shousha teaches a method 4900 of facilitating vision testing via confidence-based selection of a testing location subset. This method relies on obtaining feedback (i.e., user responses) to one or more stimuli presented on a user interface. A prediction model generates a set of predicted characteristics and confidence scores for a set of locations. This prediction allows adjustments to be made to the stimulus, such that the subsequently presented stimulus may be detected by the user in order to determine the threshold of the characteristic pertaining to the user’s vision ([0353-0359]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by the combination of Tiwari, Nasti, and Khaderi such that the method further includes generating a confidence score associated with the user response, in order to determine the threshold of the vision characteristic pertaining to the user’s vision, as taught by Abou Shousha ([0353-0359]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari in view of Nasti in view of US Patent Publication 2021/0345912 by Zakharov et al., hereinafter “Zakharov”.
Tiwari in view of Nasti teaches the method of claim 12, but does not teach wherein the plurality of historical visual stimuli and the collection of historical electrical signals are communicated to the server in an encrypted format, the method further comprising, at the server: after receiving the plurality of historical visual stimuli and the collection of historical electrical signals, decrypting the plurality of historical visual stimuli and the collection of historical electrical signals.
Zakharov teaches a wearable device 100 configured to collect data from a patient that can be accessed by a clinician after being stored. The data collected from the device may be encrypted and transmitted to a cloud server. When a clinic obtains a valid consent of the patient and the key from the patient, the clinic may download and decrypt the data from the cloud server ([0054]). This ensures that personal information of patient data is sufficiently protected when/after it is collected and transmitted to a cloud server ([0044]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Tiwari in view of Nasti to include the plurality of historical visual stimuli and the collection of historical electrical signals are communicated to the server in an encrypted format, the method further comprising, at the server: after receiving the plurality of historical visual stimuli and the collection of historical electrical signals, decrypting the plurality of historical visual stimuli and the collection of historical electrical signals, in order to protect personal information of patient data, as taught by Zakharov ([0044]).
Examiner’s Note
The following is a statement of reasons for the lack of prior art rejections of claims 3-6 and 15-16. Any amendments to the claims to overcome the rejections under 35 112(b) may require further search and consideration due to changes in the scope of the claim resulting from amendments, and could result in the application of prior art rejections in future actions.
Regarding claim 3, Tiwari in view of Nasti teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the visual stimulus corresponds to a temporal sequence of visual patterns (Tiwari, Fig. 12b, the visual stimulus includes a first and second visual stimulus, wherein the second visual stimulus is presented after the first temporal stimulus, defining a temporal sequence), and includes a first visual pattern (Tiwari, Fig. 12b, the visual stimulus includes a first and second visual stimulus. [0039]; The HMD device displays one or more patterns of visual stimuli), while displaying the first visual pattern: determining a response feature of the user response to the first visual pattern based on the plurality of electrical signals (Tiwari, See the rejection of claim 11, the user EEG data in response to the first stimulus is used in order to determine the prediction based on the response to the visual pattern). Tiwari in view of Nasti does not teach based on the response feature, dynamically selecting a subsequent visual pattern immediately following the first visual pattern and determining a next temporal separation between the first visual pattern and the subsequent visual pattern, the subsequent visual pattern corresponding to the second visual stimulus.
Fig. 49 of Abou Shousha teaches a method 4900 of facilitating vision testing via confidence-based selection of a testing location subset. This method relies on obtaining feedback (i.e., user responses) to one or more stimuli presented on a user interface. A prediction model generates a set of predicted characteristics and confidence scores for a set of locations. This prediction allows adjustments to be made to the stimulus (i.e., dynamically selecting a subsequent visual pattern immediately following the first visual pattern), such that the subsequently presented stimulus may be detected by the user in order to determine the threshold of the characteristic pertaining to the user’s vision ([0353-0359]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Tiwari in view of Nasti such that the method includes based on the response feature, dynamically selecting a subsequent visual pattern immediately following the first visual pattern, in order to determine the threshold of the vision characteristic pertaining to the user’s vision, as taught by Abou Shousha ([0353-0359]).
The combination of Tiwari, Nasti, and Abou Shousha fails to teach determining a next temporal separation between the first visual pattern and the subsequent visual pattern. Similar limitations are present in dependent claim 15.
The limitations of these claims are patentably distinct over the prior art cited in this Office action and any other prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication 2023/0293004 by Tavakkoli teaches a head mounted display configured to administer eye tests to a patient that measure visual function such as Visual Acuity, Contrast Sensitivity, Color Vision, Stereo Vision and Visual Fields.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON A GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)270-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/NELSON ALEXANDER GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights