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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200183495 A1, hereinafter “Oh”).
Regarding Claim 1, Oh teaches a method for testing motion sensitivity (Abstract line 1), the method comprising:
displaying a virtual scene on screens of a virtual reality (VR) headset worn by a patient (par 0033 Fig 3-6 VR content scenes are provided, par 0090 Fig 1 on a [VR] head mounted display, par 0083 worn on the head of a participant), wherein
the virtual scene comprises continuously moving elements (par 0060 Figs 3-6 a content scene may comprise one created using the movement and rotation of a complex camera with multi-axis motion control; par 0052 continually playing);
prompting the patient to provide an input (par 0081 Fig 8 after the participants view the content scenes of each session, an SSQ implemented in the form of a Graphical User Interface (GUI) as shown in FIG. 8 is additionally provided to the participants, and a result may be acquired therefrom), wherein
the input comprises a degree of motion sickness that the patient experiences in response to viewing the virtual scene (par 0080 Figs 7,8 after the participants view the content scenes of each session, the degrees of VR motion sickness experienced by the participants may be checked. For example, the degree of VR motion sickness may be checked as five levels, corresponding to comfort, slight motion sickness, moderate motion sickness, strong motion sickness, and severe motion sickness);
processing the input (par 0028 e.g. the processor may extract a difference between pieces of objective data, acquired before and after the experiment is conducted, and a difference between pieces of subjective data, acquired before and after the experiment is conducted, for each of the multiple participants and analyze the degree of motion sickness induced by each of the content elements based on the differences); and
comparing the input to a database (par 0049 Fig 1 the motion sickness analysis database 100 configured as shown in Fig. 1 may enable an experiment to be conducted using the VR content 110 according to the predetermined experimental protocol 120 and analyze the degree of motion sickness induced by each content element using statistical information based on the output data 130, which is acquired before and after the experiment; par 0093 the degree of motion sickness for each VR content scene may be analyzed using each participant's susceptibility to motion sickness and the result of at least comparison of the degree of motion sickness in a normal state with the degree of motion sickness measured after the experiment is conducted), wherein
the database comprises inputs from individuals with known motion sensitivity statuses (par 0041 Fig 1 database 100; par 0008 collected data pertaining to VR content scenes, creatively produced by incorporating elements inducing VR motion sickness therein, a large number of study participants, is used to provide a large-scale database related to VR motion sickness).
Regarding Claim 2, Oh teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
displaying a different virtual scene (par 0062 a low-speed content scene [e.g. Fig 7 evaluation session #2] may be displayed after a high speed content scene [e.g. Fig 7 evaluation session #1]), wherein
the different virtual scene moves in a manner that is different from the virtual scene (par 0062 the different virtual content scene moves in a low-speed manner different from the high speed content scene);
prompting the patient to provide an additional input (par 0080 Fig 7 SSQ after evaluation session #2; after the participants view the content scenes of each session, the degrees of VR motion sickness experienced by the participants may be checked), wherein
the additional input comprises the degree of motion sickness that the patient experiences in response to viewing the different virtual scene (par 0080 Fig 7 after the participants view the content scenes of each session, the degrees of VR motion sickness experienced by the participants may be checked);
processing the additional input (par 0028 e.g. the processor may extract a difference between pieces of objective data, acquired before and after the experiment is conducted, and a difference between pieces of subjective data, acquired before and after the experiment is conducted, for each of the multiple participants and analyze the degree of motion sickness induced by each of the content elements based on the differences); and
comparing the additional input to the database (par 0049 Fig 1 the motion sickness analysis database 100 configured as shown in Fig. 1 may enable an experiment to be conducted using the VR content 110 according to the predetermined experimental protocol 120 and analyze the degree of motion sickness induced by each content element using statistical information based on the output data 130, which is acquired before and after the experiment; par 0093 the degree of motion sickness for each VR content scene may be analyzed using each participant's susceptibility to motion sickness and the result of at least comparison of the degree of motion sickness in a normal state with the degree of motion sickness measured after the experiment is conducted).
Regarding Claim 4, Oh teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
increasing a speed at which each element of the continuously moving elements moves (par 0062 Table 1 sixth column, a high-speed content scene [e.g. Fig 7 evaluation session #2] may be displayed after a low speed content scene [e.g. Fig 7 evaluation session #1]);
prompting the patient to provide an additional input (par 0080 Fig 7 SSQ after evaluation session #2; after the participants view the content scenes of each session, the degrees of VR motion sickness experienced by the participants may be checked), wherein
the additional input comprises the degree of motion sickness that the patient experiences in response to viewing the continuously moving elements with the increased speed (par 0080 Fig 7 after the participants view the content scenes of each session, including that with increased speed, the degrees of VR motion sickness experienced by the participants may be checked);
processing the additional input (par 0028 e.g. the processor may extract a difference between pieces of objective data, acquired before and after the experiment is conducted, and a difference between pieces of subjective data, acquired before and after the experiment is conducted, for each of the multiple participants and analyze the degree of motion sickness induced by each of the content elements based on the differences); and
comparing the additional input to the database (par 0049 Fig 1 the motion sickness analysis database 100 configured as shown in Fig. 1 may enable an experiment to be conducted using the VR content 110 according to the predetermined experimental protocol 120 and analyze the degree of motion sickness induced by each content element using statistical information based on the output data 130, which is acquired before and after the experiment; par 0093 the degree of motion sickness for each VR content scene may be analyzed using each participant's susceptibility to motion sickness and the result of at least comparison of the degree of motion sickness in a normal state with the degree of motion sickness measured after the experiment is conducted).
Regarding Claim 5, Oh teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein
displaying the virtual scene comprises displaying an interactive scene (par 0067 Table 1 last column, VR content according to the present invention may be produced so as to include a user-controllable content scene).
Regarding Claim 6, Oh teaches the method of Claim 5, further comprising
prompting the patient to navigate through the virtual scene (par 0067 Table 1 last column ,VR content according to the present invention may be produced so as to include a user-controllable content scene; in the case of a controllable content scene, it is necessary to provide guidance for the movement direction in VR space. Accordingly, a direction indicator and information about a destination may be displayed, as shown in the content scene 610 in Fig 6).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200183495 A1, hereinafter “Oh”) in view of Berme et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 11712162 B1, hereinafter “Berme”).
Regarding Claim 7, Oh teaches the method of Claim 1. However, Oh appears not to expressly teach further comprising
prompting the patient to provide an additional input, wherein
the additional input comprises a description of what the patient perceives in the virtual scene.
Berme teaches prompting the patient to provide an additional input, wherein
the additional input comprises a description of what the patient perceives in the virtual scene (col 19 lines 51-53 the subject identifies [describes that he has perceived] one or more displayed visual objects 410 (e.g., optotypes) during each vision test; col 57 lines 44-48 the visual display device may be in the form of a head-mounted visual display device (e.g., a display incorporated in a pair of goggles), the visual target displayed on the head-mounted visual display device).
Oh and Berme are analogous art as they each pertain to method for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Oh with the inclusion of the additional input comprising a description of what the patient perceives in the virtual scene of Berme. The motivation would have been in order to provide that the eye position of the subject 418 may be correlated with subject's identification of the optotype to determine if there is a specific relationship between the position of the subject's eyes and whether or not the subject 418 correctly identifies the optotype (Berme col 42 lines 4-6).
Regarding Claim 13, Oh teaches a system for testing motion sensitivity (par 0111 Fig 10 test system), the system comprising:
a virtual reality (VR) headset comprising screens (par 0033 Fig 3-6 VR content scenes are provided, par 0090 Fig 1 on a [VR] head mounted display, par 0083 worn on the head of a participant),
at least one eye-tracking sensor (par 0090 Fig 1 eye-tracking data may be acquired using an eye tracker installed in a head-mounted display), and
the VR headset being configured to collect motion sensitivity input from a patient wearing the VR headset (paras 0141-0142 Fig 8 the degree of VR motion sickness experienced by the participants may be [collected]; the degree of VR motion sickness may be input as five levels, corresponding to comfort, slight motion sickness, moderate motion sickness, strong motion sickness, and severe motion sickness; an SSQ implemented in the form of a Graphical User Interface (GUI) as shown in FIG. 8 is additionally provided to the participants, and a result may be acquired therefrom); and
a computing device in electronic communication with the VR headset (par 0152 Fig 10 processor 1010 acquires subjective data input from each participant), the computing device being configured to
(a) cause a virtual scene to be displayed on the screens of the VR headset (par 0033 Fig 3-6 VR content scenes are provided, par 0090 Fig 1 on a [VR] head mounted display, par 0083 worn on the head of a participant) and
(b) process the motion sensitivity input to determine the motion sensitivity of the patient (at least par 0157 the difference between the objective data acquired before the experiment and that acquired after the experiment and the difference between the subjective data acquired before the experiment and that acquired after the experiment are extracted for each participant, and the degree of motion sickness induced by each of the content elements of the VR content may be determined based on the differences), wherein
the motion sensitivity input comprises responses from the patient regarding a degree of motion sickness that the patient experiences in response to viewing the virtual scene (paras 0141-0142 Fig 8 the degree of VR motion sickness experienced by the participants may be [collected]; the degree of VR motion sickness may be input as five levels, corresponding to comfort, slight motion sickness, moderate motion sickness, strong motion sickness, and severe motion sickness; an SSQ implemented in the form of a Graphical User Interface (GUI) as shown in FIG. 8 is additionally provided to the participants, and a result may be acquired therefrom).
However, Oh appears not to expressly teach
at least one eye-tracking camera.
Berme teaches
at least one eye-tracking camera (col 10 lines 12-14 Fig 1,2 cameras 102,104 measure low-speed eye movements).
Oh and Berme are analogous art as they each pertain to systems for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Oh with the inclusion of the eye-tracking camera of Berme. The motivation would have been in order to provide measurement of low-speed eye movements (Berme col 10 lines 21-23).
Regarding Claim 14, Oh as modified teaches the method of Claim 13, further comprising
a handheld device in electronic communication with the VR headset and the computing device, wherein the patient can use the handheld device to provide the motion sensitivity input (Oh par 0066 Fig 7,8 VR content is controllable using an external controller, because the viewed image can be changed through control over the motion in the VR content depending on the intention of the viewer; paras 0141-0142 Fig 8 the degree of VR motion sickness experienced by the participants may be [collected]; the degree of VR motion sickness may be input as five levels, corresponding to comfort, slight motion sickness, moderate motion sickness, strong motion sickness, and severe motion sickness; an SSQ implemented in the form of a Graphical User Interface (GUI) as shown in FIG. 8 is additionally provided to the participants, and a result may be acquired therefrom).
Regarding Claim 15, Oh as modified teaches the method of Claim 13, further comprising
one or more microphones in electronic communication with the VR headset and the computing device (Berme col 45 lines 45-47 Fig 25 the user input device 724 may be in the form of a voice recognition device), wherein
the patient can use the microphone to provide the motion sensitivity input (Oh par 0080 Figs 7,8 after the participants view the content scenes of each session, the degrees of VR motion sickness experienced by the participants may be checked. For example, the degree of VR motion sickness may be checked as five levels, corresponding to comfort, slight motion sickness, moderate motion sickness, strong motion sickness, and severe motion sickness).
Oh and Berme are analogous art as they each pertain to VR headsets for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the VR headset of Oh with the inclusion of the microphone of Berme. The motivation would have been in order to provide capture of verbal responses of the user so as to obviate a need for a clinician to record the verbal responses of the user (Berme col 4 lines 30-35).
Regarding Claim 16, Oh as modified teaches the method of Claim 13, wherein
the at least one eye-tracking sensor (Berme col 10 lines 2-4 Fig 7 non-video-based sensors 118,120) and at least one eye-tracking camera (Berme col 10 lines 1-2 Fig 1,2 cameras 102,104), the at least one eye-tracking sensor and the at least one eye-tracking camera being configured to track eye movements of the patient (Berme col 10 lines 1-4 configured to detect the high speed eye movements, measure low-speed eye movements) and identify reaction times of the patient (Berme col 55 lines 40-47 Fig 25 eye movement tracking device 725 data may be used to determine reaction time).
Oh and Berme are analogous art as they each pertain to VR headsets for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the VR headset of Oh with the inclusion of the eye-tracking camera and reaction time measurement of Berme. The motivation would have been in order to provide a non-invasive eye movement measurement device that is capable of accurately measuring of both low-speed and high-speed eye movements in a clinical setting (Berme col 2 lines 29-32).
Regarding Claim 18, Oh as modified teaches the method of Claim 13, wherein
the at least one eye-tracking camera is an infrared camera (Berme col 10 lines 14-15 the pair of video cameras may comprise a pair of infrared cameras).
Oh and Berme are analogous art as they each pertain to systems for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Oh with the inclusion of the infrared eye-tracking camera of Berme. The motivation would have been in order to provide non-visible provision of light during measurement, as light emitting diodes remain on during the entirety of the eye movement testing to illuminate the eyes of the user (Berme col 10 lines 4-8).
Regarding Claim 20, Oh teaches a virtual reality (VR) headset for testing motion sensitivity (par 0033 Fig 3-6 VR content scenes are provided, par 0090 Fig 1 on a [VR] head mounted display, par 0083 worn on the head of a participant; Abstract line 1 for testing motion sickness in VR content), the VR headset comprising:
screens configured to display a virtual scene for a patient wearing the VR headset (par 0033 Fig 3-6 VR content scenes are provided, par 0090 Fig 1 on a [VR] head mounted display, par 0083 worn on the head of a participant), wherein
the virtual scene comprises continuously moving elements (par 0060 Figs 3-6 a content scene may comprise one created using the movement and rotation of a complex camera with multi-axis motion control; par 0052 continually playing);
at least one eye-tracking sensor (par 0090 Fig 1 eye-tracking data may be acquired using an eye tracker installed in a head-mounted display), the at least one eye-tracking sensor being configured to track eye movements of the patient (par 0090 Fig 1 eye-tracking data may be acquired using an eye tracker installed in a head-mounted display); and
one or more input devices configured to receive motion sensitivity input from the patient (par 0081 Fig 8 after the participants view the content scenes of each session, an SSQ implemented in the form of a Graphical User Interface [on a display device]) as shown in FIG. 8 is additionally provided to the participants, and a result may be acquired therefrom), wherein
the motion sensitivity input comprises responses from the patient regarding a degree of motion sickness that the patient experiences in response to viewing the virtual scene (par 0080 Figs 7,8 after the participants view the content scenes of each session, the degrees of VR motion sickness experienced by the participants may be checked. For example, the degree of VR motion sickness may be checked as five levels, corresponding to comfort, slight motion sickness, moderate motion sickness, strong motion sickness, and severe motion sickness).
However, Oh appears not to expressly teach
at least one eye-tracking sensor and at least one eye-tracking camera ((52) Fig 1,2 cameras 102,104), the at least one eye-tracking sensor and the at least one eye-tracking camera being configured to track eye movements of the patient and identify reaction times of the patient;
and one or more microphones configured to receive motion sensitivity input from the patient (183 a voice recognition sensor).
Berme teaches
at least one eye-tracking sensor (col 10 lines 2-4 Fig 7 non-video-based sensors 118,120) and at least one eye-tracking camera (col 10 lines 1-2 Fig 1,2 cameras 102,104), the at least one eye-tracking sensor and the at least one eye-tracking camera being configured to track eye movements of the patient (col 10 lines 1-4 configured to detect the high speed eye movements, measure low-speed eye movements) and identify reaction times of the patient (col 55 lines 40-47 Fig 25 eye movement tracking device 725 data may be used to determine reaction time);
and one or more microphones configured to receive motion sensitivity input from the patient (col 45 lines 45-47 Fig 25 the user input device 724 may be in the form of a voice recognition device).
Oh and Berme are analogous art as they each pertain to VR headsets for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the VR headset of Oh with the inclusion of the eye-tracking camera and reaction time measurement of Berme. The motivation would have been in order to provide a non-invasive eye movement measurement device that is capable of accurately measuring of both low-speed and high-speed eye movements in a clinical setting (Berme col 2 lines 29-32).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200183495 A1, hereinafter “Oh”) in view of Kiderman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060235331 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Oh teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
displaying one or more rapidly moving objects in the virtual scene (par 0060 Figs 3-6 a content scene may comprise one created using the movement and rotation of a complex camera with multi-axis motion control; par 0052 continually playing);
monitoring eye movements of the patient (par 0082 eye-tracking data is measured from each of the multiple participants);
prompting the patient to provide an additional input (par 0081 Fig 8 after the participants view the content scenes of each session, an SSQ implemented in the form of a Graphical User Interface (GUI) as shown in FIG. 8 is additionally provided to the participants, and a result may be acquired therefrom), wherein
the additional input comprises the degree of motion sickness that the patient experiences in responses to tracking the one or more rapidly moving objects (par 0080 Figs 7,8 after the participants view the content scenes of each session, the degrees of VR motion sickness experienced by the participants may be checked. For example, the degree of VR motion sickness may be checked as five levels, corresponding to comfort, slight motion sickness, moderate motion sickness, strong motion sickness, and severe motion sickness);
processing the additional input (par 0028 e.g. the processor may extract a difference between pieces of objective data, acquired before and after the experiment is conducted, and a difference between pieces of subjective data, acquired before and after the experiment is conducted, for each of the multiple participants and analyze the degree of motion sickness induced by each of the content elements based on the differences);
comparing using each participant's susceptibility to motion sickness and the result of at least comparison of the degree of motion sickness in a normal state with the degree of motion sickness measured after the experiment is conducted), wherein
the database further comprises inputs from individuals with known motion sensitivity statuses (par 0041 Fig 1 database 100; par 0008 collected data pertaining to VR content scenes, creatively produced by incorporating elements inducing VR motion sickness therein, a large number of study participants, is used to provide a large-scale database related to VR motion sickness).
However, Oh appears not to expressly teach further comprising:
prompting the patient to track the one or more rapidly moving objects with his eyes; and
comparing the eye movements of the patient and the additional input to the database, wherein
the database further comprises eye movements from individuals with known motion sensitivity statuses.
Kiderman teaches
prompting the patient to track the one or more rapidly moving objects with his eyes (par 0027 ask patient to [follow and] identify when a rotating line or arrow is horizontal or vertical); and
comparing the eye movements of the patient and the additional input to the database, wherein the database further comprises eye movements from individuals with known motion sensitivity statuses (par 0048 performance may be compared with a control group).
Oh and Kiderman are analogous art as they each pertain to methods for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Oh with the inclusion of eye movement measurement of Kiderman to provide the method of claim 1 further comprising the comparison database further comprises eye movements from individuals with known motion sensitivity statuses. The motivation would have been in order to provide that characteristics regarding ease of causing a motion sickness related to visual acuity isses may be evaluated among particular population cohorts (Kiderman par 0016).
Regarding Claim 9, Oh teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
displaying a virtual scene (par 0033 Fig 3-6 VR content scenes are provided);
prompting the patient to provide an additional input (par 0081 Fig 8 after the participants view the content scenes of each session, an SSQ implemented in the form of a Graphical User Interface (GUI) as shown in FIG. 8 is additionally provided to the participants, and a result may be acquired therefrom), wherein
the additional input comprises the degree of motion sickness that the patient experiences in responses to
processing the additional input (par 0028 e.g. the processor may extract a difference between pieces of objective data, acquired before and after the experiment is conducted, and a difference between pieces of subjective data, acquired before and after the experiment is conducted, for each of the multiple participants and analyze the degree of motion sickness induced by each of the content elements based on the differences);
comparing using each participant's susceptibility to motion sickness and the result of at least comparison of the degree of motion sickness in a normal state with the degree of motion sickness measured after the experiment is conducted), wherein
the database further comprises inputs from individuals with known motion sensitivity statuses (par 0041 Fig 1 database 100; par 0008 collected data pertaining to VR content scenes, creatively produced by incorporating elements inducing VR motion sickness therein, a large number of study participants, is used to provide a large-scale database related to VR motion sickness).
However, Oh appears not to expressly teach further comprising:
displaying one or more optotypes in the virtual scene;
prompting the patient to locate the one or more optotypes;
calculating an accuracy with which the patient locates the one or more optotypes;
the additional input comprises the degree of motion sickness that the patient experiences in responses to locating the one or more optotypes;
comparing the accuracy and the additional input to the database, wherein
the database further comprises accuracy data from individuals with known motion sensitivity statuses.
Kiderman teaches further comprising:
displaying one or more optotypes in the virtual scene (par 0046 a shape or an image is displayed to the patient, e.g. a C or E pattern);
prompting the patient to locate the one or more optotypes (par 0046 he test may simply ask the patient which way the opening of a letter is facing);
calculating an accuracy with which the patient locates the one or more optotypes (par 0049 test provides a direct measure of visual acuity);
the additional input comprises the degree of motion sickness that the patient experiences in responses to locating the one or more optotypes (par 0052 testing is repeated until the onset of visual vertigo and/or slight motion sickness symptoms [reported/input by the patient]);
comparing the accuracy and the additional input to the database (par 0048 performance may be compared with a control group).
Oh and Kiderman are analogous art as they each pertain to methods for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Oh with the inclusion of optotype location accuracy testing of Kiderman to provide the method of claim 1 further comprising the comparison database further comprises accuracy data from individuals with known motion sensitivity statuses. The motivation would have been in order to provide that characteristics regarding ease of causing a motion sickness related to visual acuity isses may be evaluated among particular population cohorts (Kiderman par 0016).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200183495 A1, hereinafter “Oh”) in view of Saito et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240256042 A1, hereinafter “Saito”).
Regarding Claim 10, Oh teaches the method of Claim 1. However, Oh appears not to expressly teach wherein
processing the input comprises processing the input in real-time.
Saito teaches wherein
processing the input comprises processing the input in real-time (par 0207 characteristics regarding ease of causing a motion sickness may be estimated in real time while the user 1 is viewing video content).
Oh and Saito are analogous art as they each pertain to methods for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Oh with the inclusion of real-time processing of Saito. The motivation would have been in order to provide that characteristics regarding ease of causing a motion sickness may be evaluated upon creation of video content (Saito par 0218).
Regarding Claim 11, Oh teaches the method of Claim 1. However, Oh appears not to expressly teach wherein
comparing the input to the database comprises comparing the input to the database in real-time.
Saito teaches wherein
comparing the input to the database comprises comparing the input to the database in real-time (par 0207 characteristics regarding ease of causing a motion sickness may be estimated in real time while the user 1 is viewing video content).
Oh and Saito are analogous art as they each pertain to methods for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Oh with the inclusion of real-time processing of Saito. The motivation would have been in order to provide that characteristics regarding ease of causing a motion sickness may be evaluated upon creation of video content (Saito par 0218).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200183495 A1, hereinafter “Oh”) in view of Krueger (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140152792 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Oh teaches the method of Claim 1. However, Oh appears not to expressly teach further comprising
generating a report, wherein
the report identifies abnormalities in the motion sensitivity of the patient and indicates underlying visual or neurological conditions.
Krueger teaches
generating a report (par 0111 eye tracker data can be used to analyze the visual path of one or more participants across an interface such as a computer screen. In this case, each eye data observation is translated into a set of pixel coordinates. From there, the presence or absence of eye data points in different screen areas can be examined. This type of analysis is used to determine which features are seen, when a particular feature captures attention, how quickly the eye moves, what content is overlooked and virtually any other gaze-related question; graphics [a report] are often generated to visualize such findings), wherein
the report identifies abnormalities in the motion sensitivity of the patient and indicates underlying visual or neurological conditions (par 0059 since normal vertical height of palpebral fissure is near 10-12 mm in adults, ptosis can be identified when the upper eyelid is less than 2 mm from mid-pupil; when severe ptosis (e.g. 4 mm) is present, this abnormal input value could also be measured [and reported, par 0111] by this invention).
Oh and Krueger are analogous art as they each pertain to methods for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Oh with the inclusion of reporting of Krueger. The motivation would have been in order to provide valuable insight into users' overt visual behavior and attention (Krueger par 0115).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200183495 A1, hereinafter “Oh”) in view of Berme et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 11712162 B1, hereinafter “Berme”) and further in view of Saito et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240256042 A1, hereinafter “Saito”).
Regarding Claim 17, Oh as modified teaches the method of Claim 16. However, Oh as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
the at least one eye-tracking sensor and the at least one eye-tracking camera are configured track the eye movements and identify the reaction times in real-time and communicate corresponding data with the computing device in real-time.
Saito teaches wherein
the at least one eye-tracking sensor and the at least one eye-tracking camera are configured track the eye movements and identify the reaction times in real-time and communicate corresponding data with the computing device in real-time (par 0207 characteristics regarding ease of causing a motion sickness may be estimated in real time while the user 1 is viewing video content).
Oh Berme and Saito are analogous art as they each pertain to methods for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Oh/Berme with the inclusion of real-time processing of Saito. The motivation would have been in order to provide that characteristics regarding ease of causing a motion sickness may be evaluated upon creation of video content (Saito par 0218).
Regarding Claim 19, Oh as modified teaches the method of Claim 13. However, Oh as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
the computing device comprises a user interface at which a report summarizing the eye movement patterns of the patient can be accessed.
Saito teaches wherein
the computing device comprises a user interface at which a report summarizing the eye movement patterns of the patient can be accessed (par 0183 an estimation screen used to rate a visually induced motion sickness is displayed on the display unit 13).
Oh Berme and Saito are analogous art as they each pertain to methods for testing user vision. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Oh/Berme with the inclusion of reporting of Saito. The motivation would have been in order to provide an estimate of degree of visually induced motion sickness (Saito par 0182).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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:
Claim 3:
While closest prior art Oh (20200183495 A1) teaches a portion of the limitations of independent Claim 1, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the particular limitations of independent Claim 1, namely "changing a pixelation direction of each element of the continuously moving elements to suddenly change the movement of the virtual scene; prompting the patient to provide an additional input, wherein the additional input comprises the degree of motion sickness that the patient experiences in response to viewing the continuously moving elements with the changed pixelation direction; processing the additional input; and comparing the additional input to the database" in combination with all other limitations of the claim and of claims on which the claim depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7731. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9a-5p 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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-270-7230. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/ PrivatePair. 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.
/MARK EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights