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 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 of this claim includes an inappropriate period. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-8, 13, 14, and 17-20 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 for display media content, comprising:
at an electronic device including a display, one or more processors, and memory (See, e.g., device 100 in Fig. 1 which includes a display in headset 110 and processors/memory as shown):
obtaining the media content to be rendered on the display (See, e.g., paragraph [0003] which explains the field of view test includes a digital object rendered on the display of a VR headset);
obtaining information of a visual deficiency of a user associated with the display (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explain that this test is for users who have or are suspected to have a TBI, which is associated with various visual deficiencies including reduce peripheral vision, here that corresponds to the visual deficiency);
based on the information of the visual deficiency of the user, compensating the media content to generate compensated media content (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explains this test can include a sequence of the digital objects moving farther into the periphery, i.e., a user identifies the initial media content, then it is modified by moving it farther away, and another response is measured); and
rendering the compensated media content on the display for the user (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] and note given the citations above this is the case).
Regarding claim 2, Guzik teaches the method set forth above and further teaches rendering a sequence of visual stimuli on a user interface (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which indicates a sequence of the digital objects are used in a VR headset); obtaining a plurality of user responses to the sequence of visual stimuli (Note this is how the test decides whether to add another farther away digital object); and identifying the visual deficiency of the user based on the plurality of user responses (Note that as claim 1 requires a similar limitation involving media content, here the first two instances of the digital object correspond to the visual stimuli of this claim and the next two instances correspond to the media content from claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Guzik teaches the method set forth above and further teaches wherein the visual deficiency comprises a vision field impairment (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explains this), and the information of the visual deficiency identifies a first location of the vision field impairment, compensating the media content further comprises: displaying a mark identifying the first location of the vision field impairment (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] and the rejection of claim 1 above which describes the compensating and displaying a mark among other elements of this limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Guzik teaches the method set forth above and further teaches wherein the visual deficiency comprises a vision field impairment (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explains this), and the information of the visual deficiency identifies a first location of the vision field impairment (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] and here the first location of the vision field impairment corresponds to the first digital object shown, as a baseline for the impairment test), compensating the media content further comprises: displaying a subset of media content corresponding to the first location of the vision field impairment in a distinct location (Note the second digital object shown, farther away, meets this limitation insofar as the second object is the compensated media content and the second object can be considered a subset of the overall set of objects used in the test and the second object is necessarily corresponding to the first location and a distinct new location if the user indicated they could respond to the first location).
Regarding claim 7, Guzik teaches the method set forth above and further teaches wherein compensating the media content further comprises adjusting one or more display parameters of: a resolution, a contrast level, a brightness level, and a refresh rate of the display (Note this limitation is met insofar as areas of the display have a brightness level increased/decreased during the test as a location of a digital object will go from black to illuminated so a user can respond).
Regarding claim 8, Guzik teaches the method set forth above and further teaches wherein the display comprises a head-mounted display (HMD), and a user interface comprises a virtual reality (VR) user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment, and wherein the compensated media content is rendered on the user interface and in the 3D virtual environment (See, e.g., paragraph [0003] and [0019] and Fig. 1 which shows the VR device having a head mounted display, and controllers which interface with a three dimensional VR space where the content is rendered in said space).
Regarding claim 13, Guzik teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing one or more programs for execution by one or more processors of an electronic display having a display (See, e.g., Fig. 1 which shows storage medium, processors, and an electronic display having a display in the form of a VR headset), the one or more programs including instructions for:
obtaining the media content to be rendered on the display (See, e.g., paragraph [0003] which explains the field of view test includes a digital object rendered on the display of a VR headset);
obtaining information of a visual deficiency of a user associated with the display (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explain that this test is for users who have or are suspected to have a TBI, which is associated with various visual deficiencies including reduce peripheral vision, here that corresponds to the visual deficiency);
based on the information of the visual deficiency of the user, compensating the media content to generate compensated media content (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explains this test can include a sequence of the digital objects moving farther into the periphery, i.e., a user identifies the initial media content, then it is modified by moving it farther away, and another response is measured); and
rendering the compensated media content on the display for the user (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] and note given the citations above this is the case).
Regarding claim 14, Guzik teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the one or more programs further comprising instructions for: rendering a sequence of visual stimuli on a user interface (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which indicates a sequence of the digital objects are used in a VR headset); obtaining a plurality of user responses to the sequence of visual stimuli (Note this is how the test decides whether to add another farther away digital object); and identifying the visual deficiency of the user based on the plurality of user responses (Note that as claim 1 requires a similar limitation involving media content, here the first two instances of the digital object correspond to the visual stimuli of this claim and the next two instances correspond to the media content from claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Guzik teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a display (See, e.g., device 110 in Fig. 1 which includes a display as it is a VR headset);
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
obtaining the media content to be rendered on the display (See, e.g., paragraph [0003] which explains the field of view test includes a digital object rendered on the display of a VR headset);
obtaining information of a visual deficiency of a user associated with the display (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explain that this test is for users who have or are suspected to have a TBI, which is associated with various visual deficiencies including reduce peripheral vision, here that corresponds to the visual deficiency);
based on the information of the visual deficiency of the user, compensating the media content to generate compensated media content (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explains this test can include a sequence of the digital objects moving farther into the periphery, i.e., a user identifies the initial media content, then it is modified by moving it farther away, and another response is measured); and
rendering the compensated media content on the display for the user (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] and note given the citations above this is the case).
Regarding claim 18, Guzik teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the visual deficiency comprises a vision field impairment (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explains this), and the information of the visual deficiency identifies a first location of the vision field impairment, compensating the media content further comprises: displaying a mark identifying the first location of the vision field impairment (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] and the rejection of claim 1 above which describes the compensating and displaying a mark among other elements of this limitation).
Regarding claim 19, Guzik teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the visual deficiency comprises a vision field impairment (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] which explains this), and the information of the visual deficiency identifies a first location of the vision field impairment (See, e.g., paragraph [0019] and here the first location of the vision field impairment corresponds to the first digital object shown, as a baseline for the impairment test), compensating the media content further comprises: displaying a subset of media content corresponding to the first location of the vision field impairment in a distinct location (Note the second digital object shown, farther away, meets this limitation insofar as the second object is the compensated media content and the second object can be considered a subset of the overall set of objects used in the test and the second object is necessarily corresponding to the first location and a distinct new location if the user indicated they could respond to the first location).
Regarding claim 20, Guzik teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein compensating the media content further comprises adjusting one or more display parameters of: a resolution, a contrast level, a brightness level, and a refresh rate of the display (Note this limitation is met insofar as areas of the display have a brightness level increased/decreased during the test as a location of a digital object will go from black to illuminated so a user can respond).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzik (US 2019/0008441 A1) in view of Kaminsky (US 2012/0147163 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Guzik teaches the method set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the visual deficiency comprises a color vision deficiency corresponding to a difficulty in telling a difference among a plurality of colors, and compensating the media content further comprises adjusting the plurality of colors in the media content based on the visual deficiency of the user, thereby generating the compensated media content.
However, in an analog field of endeavor Kaminsky teaches a visual deficiency test designed to assess a visual deficiency corresponding to a red-green colorblindness including a media content that is compensated to give a further testing step (See, e.g., the flow chart in Fig. 9 which shows that a user selects an initial media content which is then altered and presented to the user again, and paragraph [0084] which explains they are concerned with red-green color deficiency specifically).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the testing of Guzik to include a red-green colorblindness test with the filters, as taught by Kaminsky, for the purpose of increasing the utility of the device (Note adding in a second/additional type of vision deficiency test would allow the device to be used by more patients, thus increasing utility).
Regarding claim 4, Guzik in view of Kaminsky teaches the method set forth above and as modified above further teaches wherein the color vision deficiency comprises a red-green color blindness (See, e.g., paragraph [0084] and the rejection of claim 3 above), and the information of the visual deficiency comprises a severity level of insensitivity to a difference between red and green colors (Note this is what red-green colorblindness is, as these colors blend together in a user’s eyes), and wherein compensating the media content further comprises adjusting a color shade of at least one of the red or green colors to generate the compensated media content (Note the flow chart cited above includes the step of filtering the colors to change the shade to determine if the user can see the target better after alteration).
Regarding claim 15, Guzik teaches the method set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the visual deficiency comprises a color vision deficiency corresponding to a difficulty in telling a difference among a plurality of colors, and compensating the media content further comprises adjusting the plurality of colors in the media content based on the visual deficiency of the user, thereby generating the compensated media content.
However, in an analog field of endeavor Kaminsky teaches a visual deficiency test designed to assess a visual deficiency corresponding to a red-green colorblindness including a media content that is compensated to give a further testing step (See, e.g., the flow chart in Fig. 9 which shows that a user selects an initial media content which is then altered and presented to the user again, and paragraph [0084] which explains they are concerned with red-green color deficiency specifically).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the testing of Guzik to include a red-green colorblindness test with the filters, as taught by Kaminsky, for the purpose of increasing the utility of the device (Note adding in a second/additional type of vision deficiency test would allow the device to be used by more patients, thus increasing utility).
Regarding claim 16, Guzik in view of Kaminsky teaches the method set forth above and as modified above further teaches wherein the color vision deficiency comprises a red-green color blindness (See, e.g., paragraph [0084] and the rejection of claim 3 above), and the information of the visual deficiency comprises a severity level of insensitivity to a difference between red and green colors (Note this is what red-green colorblindness is, as these colors blend together in a user’s eyes), and wherein compensating the media content further comprises adjusting a color shade of at least one of the red or green colors to generate the compensated media content (Note the flow chart cited above includes the step of filtering the colors to change the shade to determine if the user can see the target better after alteration).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 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 an examiner’s reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the media content is compensated and rendered such that the user can review the media content without wearing a correction eyewear and with an updated acuity level that is greater than the visual acuity threshold.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach obtaining a document including a medical history of the user; and extracting the information of the visual deficiency of the user from the document.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, these claims depend on a rejected base claim and are rejected 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