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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 9 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
According to Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claim(s) are directed to a “method” which is within a statutory category of invention.
According to Revised Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the claims recite(s) details of mathematical processing: “determining… a severity and probability…” (which refers to specific mathematical relationships as part of the method) and thus recite abstract ideas.
According to Revised Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, this judicial exception (abstract ideas: mathematical concepts) is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only provide details drawn to generic processing aspects beyond the judicial exception, as no other detail of the claims materially influence or is influenced by the judicial exception. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated, additional elements are not recited or required for the details of the exception to be able to do the “determining”. Examiner particularly notes that in the claims two aspects are determined, but no positively set forth details related to collecting data for the processing are set forth. A virtual reality headset of the claim conducts tasks and collects inputs independent of the requirements of the “determining” and thus cannot serve to meaningfully limit the manner in which the judicial exception is analyzed. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated, any additional elements in the claims are merely recited in a generalized/high level manner or do not positively limit execution of the exception.
Further, no details in any dependent claim are sufficient to show integration of the judicial exception, nor do any of those claims recite details that are considered to amount to significantly more under the eligibility analysis Step 2B, since they merely recite aspects of the judicial exception and/or mere generalized details that do not impact the exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kerasidis et al. (USPGPub 2019/0246890). Kerasidis et al. (Figure 2) teach a method for performing neuro-ophthalmology assessments in virtual reality, wherein a variety of ocular performance parameters may be assessed including Convergence/Divergence (Figures 6 – 7 and the descriptions thereof in paragraphs [0074] – [0081]), Visual Field (Figures 8 – 9 and the descriptions thereof in paragraphs [0082] – [0087]), and Ocular motility (Figures 10 – 11 and the descriptions thereof in paragraphs [0088] – [0098]) aspects. At least some of the testing, as discussed in the cited paragraphs, relies on providing plural images having different nature (and/or difficulty) to the subject and measuring responses thereto for assessment of the corresponding parameters relating to visual alignment/misalignment. The results may be provided on the VR device or transmitted to a separate display/storage element.
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) 2 – 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerasisis et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 and 7 above. Kerasisis et al. teach a method of detecting eye misalignment, as discussed above. Further, Kerasisis et al. recognize that the analysis will rely on software algorithms (paragraphs [0123] – [0129]) but do not provide the particular details of the algorithms to rely on a ‘multi-layered’ algorithm. However, one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been aware of plural software/programming approaches to implement the tests and analysis as disclosed by Kerasisis et al. As such, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been within the skill level of the art to determine appropriate software/algorithm approaches for implementing the method of Kerasisis et al., including to use known multi-layer algorithm based analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Samec et al. (USPN 10,332,315); Krueger (USPGPub 2018/0008141); Ooi et al. (USPGPub 2023/0337911); Powers et al. (USPGPub 2024/0293022); and Kim (USPGPub 2025/0255478) teach various arrangements that provide diagnostic testing of a user’s visual system as part of a virtual reality (VR) system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC FRANK WINAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 6 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, Chuck Marmor, II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights