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 § 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 2 and 10-11 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.
The term “gradual” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradual” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The acronyms/initialism “AI” in claims 10 and 11 are without a corresponding long-hand word or phrase, rendering the claims indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Krueger (US 20180008141 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Krueger teaches a method of implementing a virtual eye test for evaluating visual acuity ([Abstract] “method for measuring human ocular performance can be implemented using an eye sensor, a head orientation sensor, an electronic circuit and a display that presents one of virtual reality information, augmented reality information, or synthetic computer-generated 3-dimensional information;” [0322] “Eye movement, eye position, visual acuity, pupil function, peripheral and central vision testing can all be easily performed with this technology in these platform systems”), comprising:
at an electronic device including a head-mounted display (HMD) and a camera (Fig. 5; [0087] “FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B show a virtual reality (VR) goggles embodiment of a head-worn device for measuring human ocular performance.” [0087] “eye tracking video camera(s) 210 (left eye camera) and 211 (right eye camera)”):
generating a virtual reality (VR) user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment ([0165] FIG. 13, FIG. 14, and FIG. 15 illustrate other AR/VR/synthetic 3D display scenes that can be used for ocular performance testing such as VOR, DVA, visual pursuit, and/or fixation ability testing. These scenes can include a test environment comprising natural background features combined with a visual element or target whose shape, color, size, motion, or other attributes have been selected or added to facilitate testing of vestibulo-ocular performance.); rendering the VR user interface on the HMD ([0075] “(a) Presenting virtual reality, augmented reality, or synthetic computer-generated 3-dimensional information (VR/AR/synthetic 3D) on a display;” [0095] “FIG. 6 shows a vestibulo-ocular performance calibration test that can be implemented using a head-worn AR/VR unit”);
generating and displaying a testing sequence in the VR user interface, wherein the testing sequence including progressively finer details and varying depths in the three-dimensional virtual environment ([0153] “Visual acuity, visual fixation ability, DVA (dynamic visual acuity) and FVS (foveal visual stability) can be tested using a system and method similar to the vestibulo-ocular performance (VOP) test shown in FIG. 7… asking the subject to identify characters of various sizes, positions, and/or locations. [0155] Step 2. The subject is presented a visual element (such as a number or letter) in the display center in a manner similar to step 610 of FIG. 7, but in the case of a DVA or FVS test, the target visual element also comprises a character that the subject must identify. [0156] Step 3. The size and character of the target visual element in the display center changes at random times while the subject is performing the steps described at 622 and 624 in FIG. 7. [0157] Step 4. The subject speaks out the character observed each time it changes.” Fig. 18; [0165] “FIG. 13, FIG. 14, and FIG. 15 illustrate other AR/VR/synthetic 3D display scenes that can be used for ocular performance testing such as VOR, DVA, visual pursuit, and/or fixation ability testing... For more complex testing, the surrounding courtside scene can be filled with fans who are in motion. … DVA measurement can also be performed with dynamic changes of the target or visual element of interest, requiring the person to identify characteristics of the element while it is in motion and the person is in motion and comparing this to the SVA prior to the onset of the DVA test. ” [0252] “the images or visual elements presented for VOP tests (which can include DVA [dynamic visual acuity] or other oculomotor measurements) can correspond to a plurality of depth planes provided to a viewer in the VR or AR display. The target image or visualized element may be different for each depth plane, which can provide a slightly different presentation of a scene or object. The target or visual element may be separately focused by each of the viewer's eyes, to provide depth cues based on the accommodation of the eye required to bring into focus different image features for the scene located on different depth plane and/or based on observing different image features on different depth planes being out of focus. These depth cues can provide credible perceptions of depth and add complexity to the testing and measurement.” [0234] “The comparison of the smallest image, visual image or optotypes correctly identified or the comparison of the correct numbers of images, visual elements or optotypes in both the DVA and SVA tests can determine if the person has a defect in his or her vestibulo-ocular reflex functions.”);
tracking, using the camera, eye movements and response times to visual stimuli presented in the testing sequence ([0080] “Embodiments of the present invention can include systems and methods that measure reaction times and/or responses for head, eye, eyelid movements, and/or changes in pupil geometry. Such systems and methods can include eyewear or headwear that comprise one or more eye-tracking cameras for monitoring the position and geometry of at least one eye and its components of the user, one or more scene cameras for monitoring the user's surroundings, and/or one or more processors to determine reaction times”); and
evaluating user response based on the eye movements and the response times for testing visual acuity ([0118] “Processor: The processor in the AR/VR system then compares eye movement to timing and appearance/disappearance of visual elements on display, and the location of these visual elements to determine vestibulo-ocular performance 644. Performance could be measured as accuracy, gain, phase, symmetry, velocity, saccades, and/or visual acuity.” [0320] “The same use of scoring on a continuous scale and multi-frequency composite scoring can apply to DVA, DVS and RIS.”).
Regarding claim 2, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the testing sequence comprises gradual reduction of object size and increased complexity of visual tasks as the test progresses, thereby requiring increased focus and clarity as the test progresses ([0131] “Some of these embodiments can include combinations of the variations listed here:” [0132] “a. The visual target element (an example of which would be a white dot or a visually enhanced target element) can be any other shape, size, or coloring or have any other features capable of being understood by anyone skilled in the art. Examples of these variations in the target visual element could include:” [0133] “A different shape (such as a shape comprising a cross hair);” [0134] “Different contrast, either more or less;” [0135] “Different intensity;” [0136] “Different size;” [0137] “Different focus, either more in-focus or out of focus;” [0138] “Having one or more features in the visual element that move relative to the rest of the visual element;” [0139] “The appearance of a natural object (such as a baseball, a basketball, or a bird); and/or; [0140] Any combination of any of the above.” [0234] “The comparison of the smallest image, visual image or optotypes correctly identified or the comparison of the correct numbers of images, visual elements or optotypes in both the DVA and SVA tests can determine if the person has a defect in his or her vestibulo-ocular reflex functions.”).
Regarding claim 3, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the testing sequence comprises depth testing by having objects appear at different distances and requiring identification or interaction ([0234] “Virtually, dynamic visual acuity (DVA), and retinal image stability (RIS), and foveal visual stability (FVS) testing can be used to determine the condition of a person's vestibulo-ocular reflex function. A DVA assessment can also include identifying a series of images or optotypes but with the addition of a head movement along an axis at a minimum rotational rate, engaging the vestibular system. The displayed images may also be dynamically moving in any direction, and can be random in position, appearance and presentation. Specifically, the image or visual element to be identified can be seen coming from any direction, randomly or with a specified pattern of motion, and may have different shapes, features, colors, sizes, orientation, patterns, or identifying characteristics, in a specific plane of axis or in variable plane, which the person must identify while the head in motion or rotating. The person can then provide feedback regarding what they see via an on-screen gesture, keyboard, smart device (e.g. defined as an electronic device, generally connected to other devices or networks via different wireless protocols such as Bluetooth, NFC, Wi-Fi, 3G, etc., that can operate to some extent interactively and autonomously), eye or other physical response or by voice response. The comparison of the smallest image, visual image or optotypes correctly identified or the comparison of the correct numbers of images, visual elements or optotypes in both the DVA and SVA tests can determine if the person has a defect in his or her vestibulo-ocular reflex functions.”).
Regarding claim 5, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the testing sequence comprises one or more tests for testing nuances of depth perception, spatial awareness, and varying visual stimuli, for vision testing ([0164] “FIG. 12 shows a scene that can be used for optokinetic testing in a virtual or augmented environment… Examples of natural scenes that are similar to the drum with lines can include examples such as being seated in a car and watching a train go by or driving and watching the telephone poles move by, such as the scene 910 shown in FIG. 12. Similarly flying objects can be visualized as moving across the visual field or along another plane of motion beside the person. These visual elements can also change in size, color or other dimensions, as the person gets closer to the virtual object or further from the visual element. Motion can occur in any direction relative to the person, as the eye movement is being assessed and measured.” [0165] “FIG. 14 shows letters that could be superimposed onto the moving element (such as the tennis ball in FIG. 13) to test DVA. The target visual element 920 in FIG. 13, 930 and 932 in FIG. 14, or 940 in FIG. 15 could move in different trajectories, the letters could be of different sizes, and the ball could move at different speeds and accelerations to provide a meaningful test as shown by comparing visual element 930 with visual element 932. The targets can be static or rapidly moving is a specific plane or scan path for (such as watching a tennis ball move across the court or with tracking tests that have a rotating target visual element) depending on the ocular parameter being tested.” [0252] “the images or visual elements presented for VOP tests (which can include DVA [dynamic visual acuity] or other oculomotor measurements) can correspond to a plurality of depth planes provided to a viewer in the VR or AR display. The target image or visualized element may be different for each depth plane, which can provide a slightly different presentation of a scene or object. The target or visual element may be separately focused by each of the viewer's eyes, to provide depth cues based on the accommodation of the eye required to bring into focus different image features for the scene located on different depth plane and/or based on observing different image features on different depth planes being out of focus. These depth cues can provide credible perceptions of depth and add complexity to the testing and measurement.” [0234] “The comparison of the smallest image, visual image or optotypes correctly identified or the comparison of the correct numbers of images, visual elements or optotypes in both the DVA and SVA tests can determine if the person has a defect in his or her vestibulo-ocular reflex functions.””).
Regarding claim 6, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 5, wherein the one or more tests comprises at least one scenario with realistic depth cues, varying object distances, or diverse visual elements, for vision testing ([0164] “FIG. 12 shows a scene that can be used for optokinetic testing in a virtual or augmented environment… Examples of natural scenes that are similar to the drum with lines can include examples such as being seated in a car and watching a train go by or driving and watching the telephone poles move by, such as the scene 910 shown in FIG. 12. Similarly flying objects can be visualized as moving across the visual field or along another plane of motion beside the person. These visual elements can also change in size, color or other dimensions, as the person gets closer to the virtual object or further from the visual element. Motion can occur in any direction relative to the person, as the eye movement is being assessed and measured.” [0165] “Visual pursuit can also be virtually measured using the basketball as the visual element to be tracked as it is in motion from player to player and being thrown upwards to the basketball hoop. This can be a more realistic method of assessing ocular performance with VOR and visual pursuit measurement.”).
Regarding claim 8, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the progressively finer details correspond to increasing granularity of vision performance testing ([0165] “The target visual element 920 in FIG. 13, 930 and 932 in FIG. 14, or 940 in FIG. 15 could move in different trajectories, the letters could be of different sizes, and the ball could move at different speeds and accelerations to provide a meaningful test as shown by comparing visual element 930 with visual element 932. The targets can be static or rapidly moving is a specific plane or scan path for (such as watching a tennis ball move across the court or with tracking tests that have a rotating target visual element) depending on the ocular parameter being tested.” [0234] “The comparison of the smallest image, visual image or optotypes correctly identified or the comparison of the correct numbers of images, visual elements or optotypes in both the DVA and SVA tests can determine if the person has a defect in his or her vestibulo-ocular reflex functions.” [0252] “These depth cues can provide credible perceptions of depth and add complexity to the testing and measurement.”).
Regarding claim 9, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional virtual environment comprises a simulated environment that replicates real-world depth, movement, and spatial relationships, allowing for detailed interaction and testing of visual acuity ([0139] “The appearance of a natural object (such as a baseball, a basketball, or a bird);” [0164] “Examples of natural scenes that are similar to the drum with lines can include examples such as being seated in a car and watching a train go by or driving and watching the telephone poles move by, such as the scene 910 shown in FIG. 12. Similarly flying objects can be visualized as moving across the visual field or along another plane of motion beside the person. These visual elements can also change in size, color or other dimensions, as the person gets closer to the virtual object or further from the visual element. Motion can occur in any direction relative to the person, as the eye movement is being assessed and measured.” [0165] “For more complex testing, the surrounding courtside scene can be filled with fans who are in motion. For As another example, if the VOR is being tested on a basketball player, the dynamic background features may be a basketball court surrounded by fans, who are yelling and moving and the visual element (e.g. basketball) may suddenly appear in the hands of a player on one side, then dimmed and then alternatively appear in the hands of another player on the other side, requiring the individual being tested to move the head in a horizontal manner. Visual pursuit can also be virtually measured using the basketball as the visual element to be tracked as it is in motion from player to player and being thrown upwards to the basketball hoop. This can be a more realistic method of assessing ocular performance with VOR and visual pursuit measurement.”).
Regarding claim 14, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the testing sequence includes tasks requiring rapid shifts in focus between objects at different depths in the three-dimensional virtual environment, and wherein tracking eye movements includes monitoring the speed and accuracy of focus adjustments ([0079] “In embodiments of the present invention, vestibular ocular performance (VOP), saccades, visual pursuit performance, nystagmus, vergence, eyelid closure, dynamic visual acuity, dynamic visual stability, retinal image stability, foveal fixation stability, and focused position of the eyes could be measured in a VR, AR or synthetic 3D environment... Accuracy of the shift of the eyes from target fixation to another can be measured. Analysis for gain and phase of tracking can also be measured… Natural or realistic images can be used in the visualized scene, as well as with the target of interest being viewed and measurement of the eye's ability to focus on the target can easily be measured.” [0080] “Embodiments of the present invention can include systems and methods that measure reaction times and/or responses for head, eye, eyelid movements, and/or changes in pupil geometry. Such systems and methods can include eyewear or headwear that comprise one or more eye-tracking cameras for monitoring the position and geometry of at least one eye and its components of the user, one or more scene cameras for monitoring the user's surroundings, and/or one or more processors to determine reaction times;” [0252] “the images or visual elements presented for VOP tests (which can include DVA or other oculomotor measurements) can correspond to a plurality of depth planes provided to a viewer in the VR or AR display. … The target or visual element may be separately focused by each of the viewer's eyes, to provide depth cues based on the accommodation of the eye required to bring into focus different image features for the scene located on different depth plane and/or based on observing different image features on different depth planes being out of focus. These depth cues can provide credible perceptions of depth and add complexity to the testing and measurement.” [0327] “The same use of scoring on a continuous scale and multi-frequency composite scoring can apply to DVA, DVS and RIS.”).
Regarding claim 18, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the testing sequence includes scenarios requiring simultaneous performance of multiple visual tasks, including tracking moving objects and reading text at varying depths and detail levels in the three-dimensional virtual environment ([0132] “a. The visual target element (an example of which would be a white dot or a visually enhanced target element) can be any other shape, size, or coloring or have any other features capable of being understood by anyone skilled in the art. Examples of these variations in the target visual element could include:” [0133] “A different shape (such as a shape comprising a cross hair);” [0134] “Different contrast, either more or less;” [0135] “Different intensity;” [0136] “Different size;” [0137] “Different focus, either more in-focus or out of focus;” [0138] “Having one or more features in the visual element that move relative to the rest of the visual element;” [0165] “FIG. 14 shows letters that could be superimposed onto the moving element (such as the tennis ball in FIG. 13) to test DVA. The target visual element 920 in FIG. 13, 930 and 932 in FIG. 14, or 940 in FIG. 15 could move in different trajectories, the letters could be of different sizes, and the ball could move at different speeds and accelerations to provide a meaningful test as shown by comparing visual element 930 with visual element 932.”).
Regarding claim 19, Krueger teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing one or more programs for execution by one or more processors of a computer system, the one or more programs including instructions ([0279] “The processor may execute instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium, such as the memory, to control functions of the system.”) for:
generating a virtual reality (VR) user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment ([0165] FIG. 13, FIG. 14, and FIG. 15 illustrate other AR/VR/synthetic 3D display scenes that can be used for ocular performance testing such as VOR, DVA, visual pursuit, and/or fixation ability testing. These scenes can include a test environment comprising natural background features combined with a visual element or target whose shape, color, size, motion, or other attributes have been selected or added to facilitate testing of vestibulo-ocular performance.); rendering the VR user interface on the HMD ([0075] “(a) Presenting virtual reality, augmented reality, or synthetic computer-generated 3-dimensional information (VR/AR/synthetic 3D) on a display;” [0095] “FIG. 6 shows a vestibulo-ocular performance calibration test that can be implemented using a head-worn AR/VR unit”);
generating and displaying a testing sequence in the VR user interface, wherein the testing sequence including progressively finer details and varying depths in the three-dimensional virtual environment ([0153] “Visual acuity, visual fixation ability, DVA (dynamic visual acuity) and FVS (foveal visual stability) can be tested using a system and method similar to the vestibulo-ocular performance (VOP) test shown in FIG. 7… asking the subject to identify characters of various sizes, positions, and/or locations. [0155] Step 2. The subject is presented a visual element (such as a number or letter) in the display center in a manner similar to step 610 of FIG. 7, but in the case of a DVA or FVS test, the target visual element also comprises a character that the subject must identify. [0156] Step 3. The size and character of the target visual element in the display center changes at random times while the subject is performing the steps described at 622 and 624 in FIG. 7. [0157] Step 4. The subject speaks out the character observed each time it changes.” Fig. 18; [0165] “FIG. 13, FIG. 14, and FIG. 15 illustrate other AR/VR/synthetic 3D display scenes that can be used for ocular performance testing such as VOR, DVA, visual pursuit, and/or fixation ability testing... For more complex testing, the surrounding courtside scene can be filled with fans who are in motion. … DVA measurement can also be performed with dynamic changes of the target or visual element of interest, requiring the person to identify characteristics of the element while it is in motion and the person is in motion and comparing this to the SVA prior to the onset of the DVA test. ” [0252] “the images or visual elements presented for VOP tests (which can include DVA [dynamic visual acuity] or other oculomotor measurements) can correspond to a plurality of depth planes provided to a viewer in the VR or AR display. The target image or visualized element may be different for each depth plane, which can provide a slightly different presentation of a scene or object. The target or visual element may be separately focused by each of the viewer's eyes, to provide depth cues based on the accommodation of the eye required to bring into focus different image features for the scene located on different depth plane and/or based on observing different image features on different depth planes being out of focus. These depth cues can provide credible perceptions of depth and add complexity to the testing and measurement.” [0234] “The comparison of the smallest image, visual image or optotypes correctly identified or the comparison of the correct numbers of images, visual elements or optotypes in both the DVA and SVA tests can determine if the person has a defect in his or her vestibulo-ocular reflex functions.”);
tracking, using the camera, eye movements and response times to visual stimuli presented in the testing sequence ([0080] “Embodiments of the present invention can include systems and methods that measure reaction times and/or responses for head, eye, eyelid movements, and/or changes in pupil geometry. Such systems and methods can include eyewear or headwear that comprise one or more eye-tracking cameras for monitoring the position and geometry of at least one eye and its components of the user, one or more scene cameras for monitoring the user's surroundings, and/or one or more processors to determine reaction times”); and
evaluating user response based on the eye movements and the response times for testing visual acuity ([0118] “Processor: The processor in the AR/VR system then compares eye movement to timing and appearance/disappearance of visual elements on display, and the location of these visual elements to determine vestibulo-ocular performance 644. Performance could be measured as accuracy, gain, phase, symmetry, velocity, saccades, and/or visual acuity.” [0320] “The same use of scoring on a continuous scale and multi-frequency composite scoring can apply to DVA, DVS and RIS.”).
Regarding claim 20, Krueger teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, head-worn VR device 300), comprising:
an HMD and a camera (VR goggles embodiment 300, displays 306 and 307, eye tracking video camera(s) 210 (left eye camera) and 211 (right eye camera);
one or more processors (Fig. 5, an electronic module 120, an orientation signal preprocessor 122, an eye camera video processor 124, a display interface 126, a central processing unit 132); and
memory for storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors (memory unit 134), the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a virtual reality (VR) user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment ([0165] FIG. 13, FIG. 14, and FIG. 15 illustrate other AR/VR/synthetic 3D display scenes that can be used for ocular performance testing such as VOR, DVA, visual pursuit, and/or fixation ability testing. These scenes can include a test environment comprising natural background features combined with a visual element or target whose shape, color, size, motion, or other attributes have been selected or added to facilitate testing of vestibulo-ocular performance.); rendering the VR user interface on the HMD ([0075] “(a) Presenting virtual reality, augmented reality, or synthetic computer-generated 3-dimensional information (VR/AR/synthetic 3D) on a display;” [0095] “FIG. 6 shows a vestibulo-ocular performance calibration test that can be implemented using a head-worn AR/VR unit”);
generating and displaying a testing sequence in the VR user interface, wherein the testing sequence including progressively finer details and varying depths in the three-dimensional virtual environment ([0153] “Visual acuity, visual fixation ability, DVA (dynamic visual acuity) and FVS (foveal visual stability) can be tested using a system and method similar to the vestibulo-ocular performance (VOP) test shown in FIG. 7… asking the subject to identify characters of various sizes, positions, and/or locations. [0155] Step 2. The subject is presented a visual element (such as a number or letter) in the display center in a manner similar to step 610 of FIG. 7, but in the case of a DVA or FVS test, the target visual element also comprises a character that the subject must identify. [0156] Step 3. The size and character of the target visual element in the display center changes at random times while the subject is performing the steps described at 622 and 624 in FIG. 7. [0157] Step 4. The subject speaks out the character observed each time it changes.” Fig. 18; [0165] “FIG. 13, FIG. 14, and FIG. 15 illustrate other AR/VR/synthetic 3D display scenes that can be used for ocular performance testing such as VOR, DVA, visual pursuit, and/or fixation ability testing... For more complex testing, the surrounding courtside scene can be filled with fans who are in motion. … DVA measurement can also be performed with dynamic changes of the target or visual element of interest, requiring the person to identify characteristics of the element while it is in motion and the person is in motion and comparing this to the SVA prior to the onset of the DVA test. ” [0252] “the images or visual elements presented for VOP tests (which can include DVA [dynamic visual acuity] or other oculomotor measurements) can correspond to a plurality of depth planes provided to a viewer in the VR or AR display. The target image or visualized element may be different for each depth plane, which can provide a slightly different presentation of a scene or object. The target or visual element may be separately focused by each of the viewer's eyes, to provide depth cues based on the accommodation of the eye required to bring into focus different image features for the scene located on different depth plane and/or based on observing different image features on different depth planes being out of focus. These depth cues can provide credible perceptions of depth and add complexity to the testing and measurement.” [0234] “The comparison of the smallest image, visual image or optotypes correctly identified or the comparison of the correct numbers of images, visual elements or optotypes in both the DVA and SVA tests can determine if the person has a defect in his or her vestibulo-ocular reflex functions.”);;
tracking, using the camera, eye movements and response times to visual stimuli presented in the testing sequence ([0080] “Embodiments of the present invention can include systems and methods that measure reaction times and/or responses for head, eye, eyelid movements, and/or changes in pupil geometry. Such systems and methods can include eyewear or headwear that comprise one or more eye-tracking cameras for monitoring the position and geometry of at least one eye and its components of the user, one or more scene cameras for monitoring the user's surroundings, and/or one or more processors to determine reaction times”); and
evaluating user response based on the eye movements and the response times for testing visual acuity ([0118] “Processor: The processor in the AR/VR system then compares eye movement to timing and appearance/disappearance of visual elements on display, and the location of these visual elements to determine vestibulo-ocular performance 644. Performance could be measured as accuracy, gain, phase, symmetry, velocity, saccades, and/or visual acuity.” [0320] “The same use of scoring on a continuous scale and multi-frequency composite scoring can apply to DVA, DVS and RIS.”).
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) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (US 20180008141 A1) in view of Batta (US 20210015357 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1. However, Krueger fails to disclose driving through varying weather conditions, reading signs at different distance, or navigating through crowded areas.
Batta teaches facilitation of dynamic eye condition diagnosis. Batta discloses wherein the testing sequence comprises testing scenarios selected from the group consisting of: reading signs at different distances ([0027] In another example, the test component 112 can test a user's ability to identify moving text or objects in the context of video. For example, tests relating to a user's ability to identify moving text of a certain size can be conducted by displaying store signs or street signs in the context of a video. In another example, tests associated with a user's ability to identify moving objects of a certain size can be conducted by displaying pedestrians or road hazards in the context of a video that simulates driving a vehicle. In another example, the test component 112 can generate tests that alter other variables of a video such as speed, placement of objects, level of contrast or hue in order to test how other variables may affect a user's ability to identify moving text or moving objects in different contexts that may affect a user's vision.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krueger to include reading signs at different distances as disclosed in Batta to test how a user's vision and ability to identify moving text or objects in the context of video is affected by depth perception and other variables in a realistic scenario (Batta [0003 and 0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 6. However, Krueger fails to disclose at one scenario comprising moving pedestrian. Batta discloses, wherein the at least one scenario comprises moving pedestrians or fluctuating light levels, to mimic everyday challenges ([0027] “tests associated with a user's ability to identify moving objects of a certain size can be conducted by displaying pedestrians or road hazards in the context of a video that simulates driving a vehicle. In another example, the test component 112 can generate tests that alter other variables of a video such as speed, placement of objects, level of contrast or hue in order to test how other variables may affect a user's ability to identify moving text or moving objects in different contexts that may affect a user's vision.”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krueger to include at least one scenario comprises moving pedestrians as disclosed in Batta to test how a user's vision and ability to identify moving text or objects in the context of video is affected by depth perception and other variables in a realistic scenario (Batta [0003 and 0027]).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (US 20180008141 A1) in view of Alvarez (US 20210275013 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising optimizing the testing sequence for individual needs using one or more AI algorithms ([0216] “Regarding the use of artificial neural networks (ANNs) for computation… extracts a smaller, rectangular part of the video image (typically only 40 by 15 pixels) centered at the glint, and feeds this to an ANN. The output of the ANN is a set of display coordinates. The ANN requires more than the simple calibration that is required by the other techniques; it must be trained by gathering images of the user's eye and head for at least three minutes while the user visually tracks a moving cursor on the display. This is followed by an automatic training session that uses the stored images lasting approximately 30 minutes using the current technology, but then the system should not require re-calibration on the next encounter.”).
However, Krueger fails to disclose the AI adapting the virtual environment in real-time. Alvarez teaches systems, methods, and apparatus to objectively assess binocular dysfunction for screening, diagnoses, and evaluation of vision/oculomotor function.
Alvarez discloses using one or more AI algorithms that adapt the three-dimensional virtual environment in real-time based on user responses and physiological data ([0052] “The computing system can receive the position and/or angle of the user's eyes as inputs in response to the right and left images being displayed. For example, the position of the right and left eye of the user can be tracked to determine a point in three-dimensional virtual reality space at which the user's eyes are fused. Based on the monitored or tracked eye position and/or angle, the computing system 170, executing the OASP, can generate subsequent right and left images to assess oculomotor function of the user's eyes.” [0063] “Another example of the use of a neural network or machine learning algorithm can be the change in difficulty of visually demanding task in oculomotor/binocular endurance assessment. The computing system 170 can execute the OASP 172 to implement the machine learning models to dynamically adjust which oculomotor characteristics are measured for a user based on how the user's visual system responds to the stimuli for measuring the oculomotor characteristics. In this manner, embodiments of the system 100 can render different stimulus and different measurements for different patients while still providing accurate assessment of the users' oculomotor function, which can reduce the amount of resources required to assess some users and/or can reduce the amount of time required to assess some users.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krueger to include adjusting the virtual environment in real-time as disclosed in Alvarez to render different stimulus and different measurements for different patients while providing accurate assessment of the users' oculomotor function, reducing the amount of resources required to assess some users and/or can reduce the amount of time required to assess some users (Alvarez [0063]).
Regarding claim 11, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising generating a personalized and dynamic testing environment by adjusting visual stimuli including object speed and lighting ([0163] “the element being viewed can be in the shape of a familiar object, such as a basketball, football, helmet or object used in one's occupation.” [0190] “This type of measurement can also be performed in other environments more familiar to the user (e.g. a football field, tennis court, military activity).” [0131] “Examples of these variations in the target visual element could include:” [0134] “Different contrast, either more or less;” [0135] “Different intensity;” [0151] “The background can be low intensity/contrast or high intensity/contrast relative to target of interest;” [0165] “the target visual element 920 in FIG. 13, 930 and 932 in FIG. 14, or 940 in FIG. 15 could move in different trajectories, the letters could be of different sizes, and the ball could move at different speeds and accelerations to provide a meaningful test as shown by comparing visual element 930 with visual element 932”).
However, Krueger fails to disclose adjusting the testing based on eye movement and pupil response, using real-time AI adaptation. The combination of Krueger/Alvarez discloses based on eye movement and pupil response, using real-time AI adaptation (Krueger: [0193] “for eye tracking and/or measurement, … a camera tracks the reflection of the light source and visible ocular features such as the pupil features and/or cornea surface reflection(s). The information can then be analyzed to extract eye rotation and ultimately the direction of gaze from changes in reflections. … as blink frequency and changes in pupil diameter can also be detected by the eye tracker. … Beyond the analysis of visual attention, stored eye data can be examined to measure the cognitive state or other information.” Alvarez: [0052] “The computing system can receive the position and/or angle of the user's eyes as inputs in response to the right and left images being displayed. For example, the position of the right and left eye of the user can be tracked to determine a point in three-dimensional virtual reality space at which the user's eyes are fused. Based on the monitored or tracked eye position and/or angle, the computing system 170, executing the OASP, can generate subsequent right and left images to assess oculomotor function of the user's eyes.” [0063] “Another example of the use of a neural network or machine learning algorithm can be the change in difficulty of visually demanding task in oculomotor/binocular endurance assessment. The computing system 170 can execute the OASP 172 to implement the machine learning models to dynamically adjust which oculomotor characteristics are measured for a user based on how the user's visual system responds to the stimuli [eye tracking and pupil diameter per Kreuger [0193]] for measuring the oculomotor characteristics. In this manner, embodiments of the system 100 can render different stimulus [different lighting/speed per Kreuger [0131-0135] and [0165]] and different measurements for different patients while still providing accurate assessment of the users' oculomotor function, which can reduce the amount of resources required to assess some users and/or can reduce the amount of time required to assess some users.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krueger to include adjusting the virtual environment in real-time as disclosed in Alvarez to render different stimulus and different measurements for different patients while providing accurate assessment of the users' oculomotor function, reducing the amount of resources required to assess some users and/or can reduce the amount of time required to assess some users (Alvarez [0063]).
Regarding claim 13, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising dynamically adjusting the granularity of progressively finer details in the testing sequence ([0079] “ocular testing can be performed in a mode where the object is static and the person moves the head in a horizontal or vertical manner, or the object can be dynamically changing in size, position, or other features, while the person is rotating the head.” [0131] “Examples of these variations in the target visual element could include:” [0133] “A different shape (such as a shape comprising a cross hair);” [0134] “Different contrast, either more or less;” [0135] “Different intensity;” [0136] “Different size;” [0137] “Different focus, either more in-focus or out of focus;” [0151] “The background can be low intensity/contrast or high intensity/contrast relative to target of interest;” [0165] “the target visual element 920 in FIG. 13, 930 and 932 in FIG. 14, or 940 in FIG. 15 could move in different trajectories, the letters could be of different sizes, and the ball could move at different speeds and accelerations to provide a meaningful test as shown by comparing visual element 930 with visual element 932” [0234] “The comparison of the smallest image, visual image or optotypes correctly identified or the comparison of the correct numbers of images, visual elements or optotypes in both the DVA and SVA tests can determine if the person has a defect in his or her vestibulo-ocular reflex functions.”).
However, Krueger fails to disclose dynamically adjusting granularity based on real-time analysis of the user’s performance. Alvarez discloses, based on real-time analysis of the user’s performance (Alvarez: [0052] “The computing system can receive the position and/or angle of the user's eyes as inputs in response to the right and left images being displayed. For example, the position of the right and left eye of the user can be tracked to determine a point in three-dimensional virtual reality space at which the user's eyes are fused. Based on the monitored or tracked eye position and/or angle, the computing system 170, executing the OASP, can generate subsequent right and left images to assess oculomotor function of the user's eyes.” [0063] “Another example of the use of a neural network or machine learning algorithm can be the change in difficulty of visually demanding task in oculomotor/binocular endurance assessment. The computing system 170 can execute the OASP 172 to implement the machine learning models to dynamically adjust which oculomotor characteristics are measured for a user based on how the user's visual system responds to the stimuli for measuring the oculomotor characteristics. In this manner, embodiments of the system 100 can render different stimulus [different smaller size/lower contrast/higher speed/etc. per Kreuger [0131-0135] and [0165]] and different measurements for different patients while still providing accurate assessment of the users' oculomotor function, which can reduce the amount of resources required to assess some users and/or can reduce the amount of time required to assess some users.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krueger to include adjusting the test sequence based on real-time analysis of the users performance as disclosed in Alvarez to render different stimulus and different measurements for different patients while providing accurate assessment of the users' oculomotor function, reducing the amount of resources required to assess some users and/or can reduce the amount of time required to assess some users (Alvarez [0063]).
Claim(s) 12 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (US 20180008141 A1) in view of Bradley (US 20220160223 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1. However, Krueger fails to disclose customizing testing to a match a user’s visual profile. Bradley discloses further comprising performing personalized adaptive testing by customizing one or more scenarios of the testing sequence and/or the three-dimensional virtual environment, to match a user’s visual profile, ensuring that each test is relevant to their specific vision challenges and daily experiences ([0208] “The adaptive algorithm/mapping function is developed by using prior published information about the user's acuity relations, estimates from clinical tests for specific optotypes with gradual adjustment for refinement, estimates from results of other users of the device and method of the present specification that are subjected to optotypes to be tested after their visual acuity has been established.” [0242] “a plurality of voice commands and eye/hand gestures may be predefined to be interpreted in different ways by the device, corresponding to different user vision profiles and the different modes of operation of the device. In an embodiment, a set of voice commands and/or gestures may be predefined via which users may use the vision assist device to administer a test, interact with clinicians, or adjust settings on a device filter.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krueger to include customizing testing to a match a user’s visual profile as disclosed in Bradley to allow for accurate, personalized vision assessment in a time-efficient manner (Bradley [0179 and 0183]).
Regarding claim 15, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising quantifying stereopsis and depth perception abilities ([0314] “vestibulo-ocular performance could be measured in a virtual environment that was created by attaching a smartphone to a person's head, using the smartphone screen to display stereoscopic images;” [0252] “using depth cues to provide credible perceptions of depth and add complexity to the testing and measurement.” However, Krueger fails to disclose user’s accuracy in identifying the positions of object at different depths. Bradley discloses by measuring the user’s accuracy in identifying relative positions of objects at varying depths in the three-dimensional virtual environment ([0179] “the diagnostic mode of operation 1944 may have a number of different functions 194a-194n which present one or more visual tests to help determine the visual acuity of an individual and/or profile the vision characteristics of the individual, including field of view, peripheral vs. central visual accuracy, color blindness, ocular motility, depth perception, eye alignment, light reflection, and/or refraction testing.” [0219] “the head mounted vision device accesses a database comprising accurate evaluation results corresponding to optotypes used for vision testing including the ones presented to the user, and compares the user submitted evaluation results with corresponding pre-stored results for determining the user's accuracy. In the multiple alternative forced choice paradigm (m-AFC), as described above, accuracy is determined from a given trial, or assessment session, by scoring the subject's response as either correct or incorrect and correlating the provided responses with a probability correct value assessed across many trials at the same stimulus size (for acuity) or same contrast level (for contrast sensitivity).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krueger to include accuracy in identifying the positions of object at different depths as disclosed in Bradley to better determine the visual acuity of an individual and/or profile the vision characteristics of the individual (Bradley [0179]).
Regarding claim 16, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1. While Krueger discloses testing the visual fields consists of confrontation field testing, in which each eye is tested separately to assess the extent of the peripheral field in [0236], Kreuger fails to explicitly disclose visual stimuli at varying angles from the user’s central focus point. Bradley discloses, wherein the testing sequence includes presenting visual stimuli at varying angles from the user’s central focus point, and wherein tracking eye movements includes monitoring the user’s ability to detect and respond to peripheral stimuli ([0252] In some embodiments, the head-mounted vision device (HMVD) may be used for conducting visual field and peripheral vision tests such as, but not limited to Humphrey VFT and Amsler grid tests. The HMVD provides a controlled environment for conducting the tests (where both luminance and visual angle degrees are controlled), thereby yielding improved accuracy compared to the tests being done without the use of HMVD.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krueger to include visual stimuli at varying angles from the user’s central focus point as disclosed in Bradley to yield improved peripheral test accuracy compared to the tests being done without the use of head-mounted vision device (Bradley [0252]).
Regarding claim 17, Krueger teaches the method of Claim 1. While Krueger adjust contrast as part of the acuity testing, Krueger fails to explicitly output a measure for differentiating different levels of contrast.
Bradley discloses wherein the testing sequence includes assessing the user's ability to distinguish between different levels of contrast in various simulated lighting conditions within the three-dimensional virtual environment ([0224] It should be appreciated that the head mounted visual assist device may also implement a contrast sensitivity test that varies the contrast of the Landolt C from 0 to 1 (e.g. from 85 cd/m.sup.2 down to 0 cd/m.sup.2) with the size of the Landolt C fixed at 20/800. In an embodiment, the contrast sensitivity test uses the same adaptive algorithm as described above with reference to the distance visual acuity test to determine the contrast level of the next stimulus/optotype presented to the user undertaking the test. More specifically, a final estimated contrast sensitivity threshold is the maximum likelihood estimate given the responses to all presented stimuli during the test given a predefined psychometric function, such as a Weibull, cumulative normal, logistic, or any other sigmoidal function.” [0189] “the present specification provides a method of conducting vision tests such as, but not limited to: a distance visual acuity test, a contrast sensitivity test, and a contrast acuity by using the Landolt C (or Landolt ring) or any other m-AFC testing paradigm..”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krueger to include assessing the user's ability to distinguish between different levels of contrast as disclosed in Bradley to measure contrast sensitivity of a user, which may also be used to extrapolate an acuity threshold of the user (Bradley [0189]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLY HALPRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1520. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM ET.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DEVIN B HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights