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 Objections
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “head-mounted display” should read “head-mounted display (HMD)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mills (US 20230035668 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Mills discloses a method of implementing a virtual eye test for testing effects of prescription glasses, comprising:
at an electronic device (Fig. 3-- element 300, glasses; [0071]) including a head-mounted display (Fig. 3-- element 410, displays; [0064]) and a camera (Fig. 3-- element 408, camera; [0071]):
generating a virtual reality (VR) user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment ([0004]: the head-worn device may display a virtual environment);
rendering the VR user interface ([0126]: user interface may display ophthalmic tests) on the HMD (Fig. 3-- element 410, displays; [0064]);
simulating one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) with visual corrections in the VR user interface ([0126]: user interface may display ophthalmic tests); and
while simulating the one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) , in real time:
continuously tracking, using the camera (Fig. 3-- element 408, camera; [0071]), gaze direction, focus adjustments and visual clarity, in response ([0022]: user response to the eye chart may be captured) to one or more visual stimuli presented in the one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]); and
evaluating visual acuity, field of view, and comfort level with each prescription, based on the gaze direction, focus adjustments and visual clarity ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's prescription may be determined).
With respect to Claim 2, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein simulating the one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) comprises adjusting a visual field to replicate effects of different lens prescriptions ([0119]-[0120]: test displays may be varied to simulate correction for nearsighted or farsighted vision and astigmatisms).
With respect to Claim 3, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein simulating the one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) comprises generating and displaying simulations that recreate optical effects of different prescriptions, including changes in focal length, magnification, and distortion ([0119]-[0120]: test displays may be varied to simulate correction for nearsighted or farsighted vision and astigmatisms).
With respect to Claim 4, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) comprises one or more scenarios where users experience the impact of various prescription strengths and types, including single vision, bifocal and progressive fields, on their visual fields ([0119]-[0120]: test displays may be varied to simulate correction for nearsighted or farsighted vision and astigmatisms; [0099]: options for bifocal/trifocal/progressive lenses etc. may be provided).
With respect to Claim 6, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein simulating the one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) comprises calibrating using a control group of users with predetermined prescription needs to establish baseline performance metrics and validating accuracy of the simulation, prior to evaluating the visual acuity, field of view, and comfort level ([0022]: the user’s results may be compared to expected responses to the eye tests).
With respect to Claim 7, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) comprises reading text at different distances for assessing clarity and comfort ([0073]: the eye test may be displayed at different focal distances), navigating a virtual city for evaluating visual performance while moving through complex environments, or performing everyday tasks including cooking, driving, and office work to gauge real-world effectiveness of prescriptions.
With respect to Claim 8, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein evaluating the visual acuity, field of view, and comfort level ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's prescription may be determined) comprises evaluating visual acuity by measuring clarity of vision at various distances ([0073]: the eye test may be displayed at different focal distances).
With respect to Claim 9, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein evaluating the visual acuity, field of view, and comfort level ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's prescription may be determined) comprises assessing field of view by tracking the extent of the visual field with different lens prescriptions ([0119]-[0120]: test displays may be varied to simulate correction for nearsighted or farsighted vision and astigmatisms).
With respect to Claim 10, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein evaluating the visual acuity, field of view, and comfort level comprises correlating user feedback on comfort ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's prescription may be determined) with objective data on gaze stability and focus adjustments ([0022]: user response to the eye chart may be captured).
With respect to Claim 11, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein evaluating the visual acuity, field of view, and comfort level ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's prescription may be determined) comprises detecting visual distortions through deviations in expected gaze patterns and increased correction attempts by the user ([0119]-[0120]: test displays may be varied to simulate correction for nearsighted or farsighted vision and astigmatisms, the test may repeat if the user does not pass).
With respect to Claim 13, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further comprising generating a report outlining visual performance with each prescription, highlighting any issues including visual distortions, discomfort, or suboptimal correction, and providing one or more recommendations for further optometric consultation if necessary ([0124]: The results and the underlying, intermediate or associated data (such as the contents of the AR eye charts, user responses and a comparison of same, any determined interpupillary distance) may be transmitted to an eye specialist for review or record-keeping).
With respect to Claim 15, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein simulating the one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) includes enabling customization of the VR experience to specific prescription types or visual conditions ([0119]-[0120]: test displays may be varied to simulate correction for nearsighted or farsighted vision and astigmatisms), allowing for personalized assessment ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's prescription may be determined).
With respect to Claim 16, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further comprising generating a visual performance analysis ([0124]: The results and the underlying, intermediate or associated data (such as the contents of the AR eye charts, user responses and a comparison of same, any determined interpupillary distance) may be transmitted to an eye specialist for review or record-keeping) that includes visual acuity scores at different distances and field of view measurements with different prescriptions ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's prescription may be determined).
With respect to Claim 17, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further comprising providing an adaptive prescription interface ([0029]: displaying a user interface element listing characteristics of prescription glasses frames, receiving user selection of one or more specific characteristics, and limiting the selection of glasses frames on the portable device by the specific characteristics) that allows real-time adjustment of prescription parameters and compares performance ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's performance can be scored. An overall visual score can then be generated for each eye, which can be presented to the user or transmitted to a medical office) across different prescriptions ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's prescription may be determined).
With respect to Claim 18, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein evaluating visual acuity, field of view, and comfort level includes generating optimization suggestions based on user performance ([0028]: data, generated during the performance of the eye test using the display device of a head-worn device eye test, may be transmitted to a remote device associated with an eye-care practitioner, and approval data for the user's vision prescription may be received from the remote device.) with different simulated prescriptions ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's prescription may be determined).
With respect to Claim 19, Mills discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Fig. 13—element 1304, memory; [00150]), storing one or more programs (Fig. 13—element 1310, instruction; [0151]) for execution by one or more processors of a computer system (Fig. 13—element 1302, processor; [0150]), the one or more programs (Fig. 13—element 1310, instruction; [0151]) including instructions for:
generating a virtual reality (VR) user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment ([0004]: the head-worn device may display a virtual environment);
rendering the VR user interface ([0126]: user interface may display ophthalmic tests) on the HMD (Fig. 3-- element 410, displays; [0064]);
simulating one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) with visual corrections in the VR user interface ([0126]: user interface may display ophthalmic tests); and
while simulating the one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) , in real time:
continuously tracking, using the camera (Fig. 3-- element 408, camera; [0071]), gaze direction, focus adjustments and visual clarity, in response ([0022]: user response to the eye chart may be captured) to one or more visual stimuli presented in the one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) ; and
evaluating visual acuity, field of view, and comfort level with each prescription, based on the gaze direction, focus adjustments and visual clarity ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's prescription may be determined).
With respect to Claim 20, Mills discloses an electronic device (Fig. 3-- element 300, glasses; [0071]), comprising:
an HMD (Fig. 3-- element 410, displays; [0064]) and a camera (Fig. 3-- element 408, camera; [0071]);
one or more processors; and
memory for storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a virtual reality (VR) user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment ([0004]: the head-worn device may display a virtual environment);
rendering the VR user interface ([0126]: user interface may display ophthalmic tests) on the HMD (Fig. 3-- element 410, displays; [0064]);
simulating one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) with visual corrections in the VR user interface ([0126]: user interface may display ophthalmic tests); and
while simulating the one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) , in real time:
continuously tracking, using the camera (Fig. 3-- element 408, camera; [0071]), gaze direction, focus adjustments and visual clarity, in response ([0022]: user response to the eye chart may be captured) to one or more visual stimuli presented in the one or more test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]) ; and
evaluating visual acuity, field of view, and comfort level with each prescription, based on the gaze direction, focus adjustments and visual clarity ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's prescription may be determined).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills (US 20230035668 A1) in view of Lewis (US 20210259539 A1).
With respect to Claim 5, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses one or more test scenario (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]). However, Mills does not disclose wherein the one or more test scenarios comprises one or more scenarios to test adaptation to and functioning with different prescriptions, when engaging in reading, driving, or performing everyday activities in the virtual environment.
Mills and Lewis are related as both pertaining to the field of head mounted displays. Lewis discloses one or more scenarios to test adaptation to and functioning with different prescriptions ([0094]: patient functioning and efficacy of treatment may be tested by challenging a patient to walk down a virtual hallway with obstacles), when engaging in reading, driving, or performing everyday activities in the virtual environment (Fig. 8—element 200, environment; [0093]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mills with the physical testing in a virtual environment of Lewis in order to evaluate the efficacy of the recommended prescription (Lewis, [0065]).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills (US 20230035668 A1) in view of Samec (US 20170017083 A1).
With respect to Claim 12, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein evaluating the visual acuity, field of view, and comfort level ([0022]: The responses by the user can be compared against expected responses to the prompts and the user's prescription may be determined)
However, Mills does not disclose wherein evaluating the visual acuity, field of view, and comfort level comprises detecting discomfort as indicated by frequent adjustments, prolonged fixation on certain areas, or user-reported discomfort. Mills and Samec are related as both pertaining to the field of head mounted displays. Samec discloses detecting discomfort as indicated by frequent adjustments, prolonged fixation on certain areas, or user-reported discomfort ([1514]: The eye tracking system may detect a fluctuation (e.g., changes) in the accommodation of the eyes, fluctuations in accommodation may indicate an uncomfortable focal depth or blurred image). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mills with the dynamic visual effects of Samec in order to arrive at a comfortable viewing prescription (Samec, [1514]).
With respect to Claim 14, Mills discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses the test scenarios (Fig. 10-- element 1008, display eye chart; [0131]).
However, Mills does not disclose comprising dynamically adjusting visual effects in real-time based on tracking indicators of user discomfort during the test scenarios.
Mills and Samec are related as both pertaining to the field of head mounted displays. Samec discloses comprising dynamically adjusting visual effects in real-time ([1514]: the ophthalmic system may increase or decrease the prescription until the fluctuations cease or lessen) based on tracking indicators of user discomfort during the test scenarios ([1514]: The eye tracking system may detect a fluctuation (e.g., changes) in the accommodation of the eyes, fluctuations in accommodation may indicate an uncomfortable focal depth or blurred image). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mills with the dynamic visual effects of Samec in order to arrive at a comfortable viewing prescription (Samec, [1514]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krueger (US 20180008141 A1) discloses aspects of the instant invention, see Fig. 1 and [0082]-[0084].
Alcaide (US 20200097076 A1) discloses aspects of the instant invention, see Fig. 1 and [0045].
Alonso (US 20210298593 A1) discloses aspects of the instant invention, see Fig. 1B and [0039]-[0064].
Sheets (US 20220218193 A1) discloses aspects of the instant invention, see Fig. 1 and [0016]-[0026].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACKENZI BOURQUINE whose telephone number is (571)272-5956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 4:30 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/MACKENZI BOURQUINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights