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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated July 2nd, 2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6 there is an improper period mid-claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the user response and the biometric data match each other” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear how the response and data need to “match each other” here as this could mean a variety of things. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “the user response and the biometric data exist”.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the user response is not reliable” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what makes a response reliable here. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “the user response exists”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guzik (US 2019/0008441 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guzik teaches a method of implementing a virtual vision test, comprising:
at an electronic device including a head-mounted display (HMD) and a camera (See, e.g., virtual reality headset 110 in Fig. 1 and note that as this device records user responses to visual stimuli there is necessarily a camera present in the device):
directing the camera to an eye area of a user wearing the electronic device (See, e.g., paragraph [0021] which explains the eye tracking, i.e. directing a camera to an eye area);
displaying, on the HMD, a visual stimulus (See, e.g., claim 7 of Guzik which explains this);
while displaying the visual stimulus, in real time, capturing a sequence of eye images using the camera of the electronic device, each eye image including a respective region of interest (ROI) corresponding to a subset of the eye area of the user (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explains the field of view test can provide a sequence of visual stimuli. This limitation is met because the eye tracking camera used to do the test is capturing a sequence of eye images, even if the images are not saved into memory, and the image captured includes a ROI corresponding to a subset of the eye, i.e. the pupil of a user);
extracting biomedical data from the sequence of eye images (See, e.g., Fig. 2A which explains the method, here the biomedical data can be considered to be the movement of eye pupils, as above the sequence of eye images is linked to the eye tracking camera, so in real time the camera is capturing images of the pupil and extracting biomedical data in the form of noting where the eye is moving);
obtaining a user response to the visual stimulus (See, e.g., Fig. 2A which explains the method); and
generating an output based on the user response and the biomedical data, the output indicating at least whether the user response satisfies a criterion (See, e.g., Fig. 2A which explains the method).
Regarding claim 2, Guzik teaches the device set forth above and further teaches extracting a feature event in response to the visual stimulus based on the biomedical data (Note here this corresponds to the user response via the hand controllers shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Guzik teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the user response and the feature event of the biomedical data have delays from the visual stimulus (Note there is necessarily a delay of some kind as even light cannot travel instantaneously), the method further comprising, in accordance with a determination that the user response and the biomedical data match each other and that the delays are below a first threshold delay, determining that the user response satisfies the criterion (See, e.g., Fig. 2A which shows the method, note here the first delay could be set arbitrarily as there is no claimed range, so the limitation is met when one sets the threshold higher than the measured delay, note this limitation is also met in light of the 112 rejection above because the user response and biometric data exist).
Regarding claim 10, Guzik teaches the device set forth above and further teaches executing a user application configured to enable the virtual vision test (Note this is how the device works in normal operation, as a user has to execute the method set forth in Fig. 2A); generating a virtual reality (VR) user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment, wherein the visual stimulus is displayed on the VR user interface (Note that the test is a field of view test via a VR headset, so this limitation is necessarily met given the above citations to various limitations).
Regarding claim 13, Guzik teaches the device set forth above and further teaches obtaining a biomedical data model from a server associated with the electronic device; and applying the biomedical data model to process the biomedical data (See, e.g., paragraphs [0032]- [0033] which explain this).
Regarding claim 15, Guzik teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing one or more programs for execution by one or more processors of an electronic device including an HMD and a camera, the one or more programs including instructions for:
directing the camera to an eye area of a user wearing the electronic device (See, e.g., paragraph [0021] which explains the eye tracking, i.e. directing a camera to an eye area);
displaying, on the HMD, a visual stimulus (See, e.g., claim 7 of Guzik which explains this);
while displaying the visual stimulus, in real time, capturing a sequence of eye images using the camera of the electronic device, each eye image including a respective region of interest (ROI) corresponding to a subset of the eye area of the user (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explains the field of view test can provide a sequence of visual stimuli);
extracting biomedical data from the sequence of eye images (See, e.g., Fig. 2A which explains the method);
obtaining a user response to the visual stimulus (See, e.g., Fig. 2A which explains the method); and
generating an output based on the user response and the biomedical data, the output indicating at least whether the user response satisfies a criterion (See, e.g., Fig. 2A which explains the method).
Regarding claim 17, Guzik teaches the device set forth above and further teaches executing a user application configured to enable the virtual vision test (Note this is how the device works in normal operation, as a user has to execute the method set forth in Fig. 2A); generating a virtual reality (VR) user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment, wherein the visual stimulus is displayed on the VR user interface (Note that the test is a field of view test via a VR headset, so this limitation is necessarily met given the above citations to various limitations).
Regarding claim 18, Guzik teaches an electronic device, comprising:
an HMD (See, e.g., Fig. 1 which shows this);
a camera (See, e.g., virtual reality headset 110 in Fig. 1 and note that as this device records user responses to visual stimuli there is necessarily a camera present in the device);
one or more processors (See, e.g., Fig. 1 which shows this); and
memory for storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors (See, e.g., Fig. 1 which shows this), the one or more programs including instructions for.
directing the camera to an eye area of a user wearing the electronic device (See, e.g., paragraph [0021] which explains the eye tracking, i.e. directing a camera to an eye area);
displaying, on the HMD, a visual stimulus (See, e.g., claim 7 of Guzik which explains this);
while displaying the visual stimulus, in real time, capturing a sequence of eye images using the camera of the electronic device, each eye image including a respective region of interest (ROI) corresponding to a subset of the eye area of the user (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explains the field of view test can provide a sequence of visual stimuli);
extracting biomedical data from the sequence of eye images (See, e.g., Fig. 2A which explains the method);
obtaining a user response to the visual stimulus (See, e.g., Fig. 2A which explains the method); and
generating an output based on the user response and the biomedical data, the output indicating at least whether the user response satisfies a criterion (See, e.g., Fig. 2A which explains the method).
Regarding claim 19, Guzik teaches the device set forth above and further teaches
comprising extracting a feature event in response to the visual stimulus based on the biomedical data (Note here this corresponds to the user response via the hand controllers shown in Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the biomedical data comprises a temporal sequence of heart rate data or a temporal sequence of blood oxygen levels.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein in accordance with a determination that the user response is delayed from the feature event of the biomedical data beyond a second threshold delay, determining that the user has a neural pathway disease, wherein the output is generated to indicate the neural pathway disease and that the user response does not satisfy the criterion.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein in accordance with a determination that the feature event of the biomedical data is delayed from the user response beyond a third threshold delay, determining that the user response is not reliable, wherein the output is generated to indicate the user response does not satisfy the criterion.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach the method further comprising in accordance with a determination that the delays from the visual stimulus are above a first threshold delay for the user response and the feature event of the biomedical data, determining that the user response does not satisfy the criterion, the output including a message indicating that the user needs a break.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein generating the output further comprises: determining an active response time of the user response with respect to the visual stimulus; determining a passive response time with respect to the visual stimulus based on the biomedical data; and comparing the active response time and the passive response time to generate the output.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein cropping each of the plurality of eye images to extract the respective ROI of each eye image; and apply a biomedical data extraction model to process respective ROIs of the plurality of eye images and extract the biomedical data.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the biomedical data corresponds to one of a heart rate, a blood oxygen level, and a galvanic skin response (GSR).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach before applying the biomedical data model, at the server: collecting a plurality of historical visual stimuli; collecting a collection of historical biomedical data that are associated with the plurality of historical visual stimuli; and training a biomedical data model based on the plurality of historical visual stimuli and the collection of historical biomedical data.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein generating the output further comprises: determining an active response time of the user response with respect to the visual stimulus; determining a passive response time with respect to the visual stimulus based on the biomedical data; and comparing the active response time and the passive response time to generate the output.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the biomedical data comprises a temporal sequence of heart rate data or a temporal sequence of blood oxygen levels.
Regarding claim 4, this claim depends on an allowable base claim and is therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights