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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities: “a/the user interface” should read “a/the graphical user interface” for clarity throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al. (US PUB 2021/0290053; herein after “Tran”).
Regarding claim 1, Tran teaches a method for testing vision (see Abstract, para. [0029]), comprising: at an electronic device a system including a head-mounted display (HMD) (i.e., a computerized system (an electronic device) in communication with a head-mountable display (HMD) 100/208, see Abstract, FIGS. 1A-2A, para. [0073] and [0107]): executing a visual assessment application (i.e., a generalized method 400, which can be implemented as computerized steps configured to be executed by one or more processors for performing visual assessment (and/or training) utilizing the devices and systems, para. [0141]), including generating a user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment (i.e., as the user 212 is wearing the VR device 208 (user interface), the virtual environment (3D) provided to the user 212, para. [0118], also see para. [0110], [0114] and [0139]); displaying a plurality of visual stimuli in the user interface (i.e., displaying a series of visual stimuli to the user, para. [0009] and [0022]), each visual stimulus being displayed in duplication with respect to a respective target depth (i.e., a user can indicate that an image (stimulus) changes from blurred to clear (target depth) or that an image changes from a single image to a duplicate image (or vice versa) via a user input, para. [0150] … visual targets that are stereoscopic that induce disparity to an individual's vision and are seen to have depth that can be used for testing, see para. [0084] … and the display 210 of the VR device 208 can display a different image to each eye of the user, thereby providing the user a sense of depth and 3D vision, para. [0114]); receiving one or more user responses (i.e., the accommodative and vergence responses of the observer/user, para. [0139]), each user response indicating whether a user perceives a corresponding visual stimulus in duplication at the respective target depth (i.e., while viewing the displayed visual stimuli, the user/patient can move one of the objects in one of the eyes, or both objects in opposite directions in the two eyes, until the patient perceives that the objects (the chicken and the egg) are aligned, as shown in each of the patient perception views 500b for the scenarios 510k and 510l, para. [0190]. FIGS. 5K & 5L …. an image changes from a single image to a duplicate image (or vice versa) via a user input, para. [0150]); and based on the one or more user response, determining a depth perception profile of the user (i.e., the ability to cycloverge may be compromised in an individual, in which case the individual may show symptoms of strain and reduced binocular vision such as depth perception, para. [0071]), the depth perception profile including a plurality of depth perception levels (e.g., colors, contrast, resolution etc.) corresponding to a plurality of target depths (i.e., accommodation velocity and vergence velocity can be measured by moving a 3D target through various depths over time, para. [0146], FIG. 4, also see para. [0084], [0085], [0097] and [0098]).
Tran teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of determining a depth perception profile of the user, the depth perception profile including a plurality of depth perception levels corresponding to a plurality of target depths.
However, Tran further teaches the stimuli can be a stereoscopic or a flat visual target configured to stimulate fusion, which is adjustable in size, shape, location, disparity, contrast, and/or color, para. [0186] …, and as shown in each of the patient perception views 500b for the scenarios 510k and 510l, para. [0190].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stimuli can be a stereoscopic or a flat visual target configured to stimulate fusion, which is adjustable in size, shape, location, disparity, contrast, and/or color, where each of the patient perception views (user profile) for the scenarios are present for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the vision test and the overall user experience, where the measured degree of cyclo vergence may be applied to the in-HMD tests and activities, and may be adjusted over time to improve a user's cyclo vergence.
Regarding claim 13, Tran according to claim 1 further teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (i.e., a non-transient solid-state memory or a magnetic hard drive or any equivalent storage medium, para. [0215]), storing one or more programs for execution by one or more processors of an electronic device including an HMD (i.e., a computerized system (an electronic device) in communication with a head-mountable display (HMD) 100/208, see Abstract, FIGS. 1A-2A, para. [0073] and [0107]), the one or more programs including instructions for: executing a visual assessment application (i.e., a processor executing a program to control the accommodative demand, para. [0096], also see para. [0029]), including generating a user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment (i.e., as the user 212 is wearing the VR device 208 (user interface), the virtual environment (3D) provided to the user 212, para. [0118], also see para. [0110], [0114] and [0139]); displaying a plurality of visual stimuli in the user interface, each visual stimulus being displayed in duplication with respect to a respective target depth (i.e., while viewing the displayed visual stimuli, the user/patient can move one of the objects in one of the eyes, or both objects in opposite directions in the two eyes, until the patient perceives that the objects (the chicken and the egg) are aligned, as shown in each of the patient perception views 500b for the scenarios 510k and 510l, para. [0190]. FIGS. 5K & 5L …. an image changes from a single image to a duplicate image (or vice versa) via a user input, para. [0150]); receiving one or more user responses, each user response indicating whether a user perceives a corresponding visual stimulus in duplication at the respective target depth (i.e., while viewing the displayed visual stimuli, the user/patient can move one of the objects in one of the eyes, or both objects in opposite directions in the two eyes, until the patient perceives that the objects (the chicken and the egg) are aligned, as shown in each of the patient perception views 500b for the scenarios 510k and 510l, para. [0190]. FIGS. 5K & 5L …. an image changes from a single image to a duplicate image (or vice versa) via a user input, para. [0150]; and based on the one or more user response, determining a depth perception profile of the user, the depth perception profile including a plurality of depth perception levels (e.g., colors, contrast, resolution etc.) corresponding to a plurality of target depths (i.e., accommodation velocity and vergence velocity can be measured by moving a 3D target through various depths over time, para. [0146], FIG. 4, also see para. [0084], [0085], [0097] and [0098]).
Tran teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of determining a depth perception profile of the user, the depth perception profile including a plurality of depth perception levels corresponding to a plurality of target depths.
However, Tran further teaches the stimuli can be a stereoscopic or a flat visual target configured to stimulate fusion, which is adjustable in size, shape, location, disparity, contrast, and/or color, para. [0186] …, and as shown in each of the patient perception views 500b for the scenarios 510k and 510l, para. [0190].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stimuli can be a stereoscopic or a flat visual target configured to stimulate fusion, which is adjustable in size, shape, location, disparity, contrast, and/or color, where each of the patient perception views (user profile) for the scenarios are present for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the vision test and the overall user experience, where the measured degree of cyclo vergence may be applied to the in-HMD tests and activities, and may be adjusted over time to improve a user's cyclo vergence.
Regarding claim 17, Tran according to claim 1 further teaches an electronic device, comprising: an HMD (i.e., a computerized system (an electronic device) in communication with a head-mountable display (HMD) 100/208, see Abstract, FIGS. 1A-2A, para. [0073] and [0107]); one or more processors; and memory for storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors (i.e., computerized steps configured to be executed by one or more processor for performing visual assessment (and/or training) utilizing the devices and systems, para. [0141]), the one or more programs including instructions for: executing a visual assessment application, including generating a user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment (i.e., as the user 212 is wearing the VR device 208 (user interface), the virtual environment (3D) provided to the user 212, para. [0118], also see para. [0110], [0114] and [0139]); displaying a plurality of visual stimuli in the user interface, each visual stimulus being displayed in duplication with respect to a respective target depth (i.e., while viewing the displayed visual stimuli, the user/patient can move one of the objects in one of the eyes, or both objects in opposite directions in the two eyes, until the patient perceives that the objects (the chicken and the egg) are aligned, as shown in each of the patient perception views 500b for the scenarios 510k and 510l, para. [0190]. FIGS. 5K & 5L …. an image changes from a single image to a duplicate image (or vice versa) via a user input, para. [0150]); receiving one or more user responses, each user response indicating whether a user perceives a corresponding visual stimulus in duplication at the respective target depth; and based on the one or more user response, determining a depth perception profile of the user (i.e., the ability to cycloverge may be compromised in an individual, in which case the individual may show symptoms of strain and reduced binocular vision such as depth perception, para. [0071]), the depth perception profile including a plurality of depth perception levels (e.g., colors, contrast, resolution etc.) corresponding to a plurality of target depths (i.e., accommodation velocity and vergence velocity can be measured by moving a 3D target through various depths over time, para. [0146], FIG. 4, also see para. [0084], [0085], [0097] and [0098]).
Tran teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of determining a depth perception profile of the user, the depth perception profile including a plurality of depth perception levels corresponding to a plurality of target depths.
However, Tran further teaches the stimuli can be a stereoscopic or a flat visual target configured to stimulate fusion, which is adjustable in size, shape, location, disparity, contrast, and/or color, para. [0186] …, and as shown in each of the patient perception views 500b for the scenarios 510k and 510l, para. [0190].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stimuli can be a stereoscopic or a flat visual target configured to stimulate fusion, which is adjustable in size, shape, location, disparity, contrast, and/or color, where each of the patient perception views (user profile) for the scenarios are present for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the vision test and the overall user experience, where the measured degree of cyclo vergence may be applied to the in-HMD tests and activities, and may be adjusted over time to improve a user's cyclo vergence.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Tran teaches each visual stimulus is displayed in duplication at a first position and a second position, and the first position, the second position, and an intermediate position between the first position and the second position are aligned to one another on a respective line of sight, and wherein the intermediate position corresponds to the respective target depth (i.e., the 2D position of the monocularly visible display elements (stimulus) can be adjusted (positions) through control of their (x,y) positions in the display (or equivalently, elevation, azimuth) so as to achieve a perceptual match in position (horizontally, vertically, or rotationally for torsion) of a marker visible to the left eye with a marker visible to the right eye, para. [0161], … using an associated stimulus, the relative positions of the first and second visual stimuli (e.g., the spot and line), alter the user has adjusted them to appear coincident or collinear or parallel, can be used measure the difference between the vergence demand of the stimulus and the vergence eye posture of the user, para. [0165]).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Tran teaches the plurality of visual stimuli are distributed in a binocular area of a field of view of a user associated with the electronic device (i.e., the system (e.g., electronic device) can be configured to perform a Maddox rod test to assess binocular alignment (e.g., binocular area of a field of view) of the eyes, para. [0175], also see para. [0090], [0115] and [0169]).
Regarding claim 4, Tran teaches the binocular area includes a focus area and a peripheral area (i.e., within each of the scenarios 510e-510i, the actual combined display 500a is illustrated below the corresponding perceived binocular display 500b (with a focus and a peripheral area, as shown in FIGS. 5E-I), para. [0169]); a first set of visual stimuli are distributed in the focus area with a first density, and a second set of visual stimuli are distributed in the peripheral area with a second density; and the first density is greater than the second density (i.e., when viewing a binocular stimulus, the eye(s) may rotate about their visual axes to bring the retinal images into rotational alignment. The ability to cycloverge may be compromised in an individual, in which case the individual may show symptoms of strain and reduced binocular vision such as depth perception (e.g., first and second density), para. [0071]).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Tran teaches the plurality of visual stimuli are displayed concurrently on the user interface (i.e., While viewing the displayed visual stimuli, the user/patient can move one of the objects in one of the eyes, or both objects in opposite directions in the two eyes, until the patient perceives that the objects (the chicken and the egg) (i.e., plurality of visual stimuli displayed concurrently) are aligned, para. [0083], as shown in FIGS. 5K-5L, also see para. [0067]).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Tran teaches the plurality of visual stimuli are divided into a plurality of groups of visual stimuli, and each group of visual stimuli are displayed concurrently on the user interface, and wherein the plurality of groups of visual stimuli are displayed successively on the user interface (i.e., While viewing the displayed visual stimuli, the user/patient can move one of the objects in one of the eyes, or both objects in opposite directions in the two eyes, until the patient perceives that the objects (the chicken and the egg) (i.e., plurality of visual stimuli displayed concurrently and/or successively) are aligned, para. [0083], as shown in FIGS. 5K-5L).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Tran teaches the one or more user responses include a user input captured by one or more first sensors of the electronic device (i.e., user input can be acquired via tracking of movements of head and/or eyes of the user wearing a head-mountable device via built-in head-tracking and/or eye-tracking sensors, para. [0104]), and the one or more first sensors include a controller for receiving a hand action, a forward facing camera for detecting a hand gesture (i.e., user input can be received via a head tracking sensor, … and at least one camera, para. [0105]), and a microphone for collecting an audio response (i.e., a microphone that receives audible/voice input from the user, para. [0105]).
Regarding claim 8, Tran teaches the one or more user responses include a spontaneous user response monitored by one or more second sensors of the electronic device, and the one or more second sensors include one or more of: an eye tracking camera, a heart rate sensor, a body temperature sensor, a blood oxygen level, a Galvanic skin response sensor, a hand gesture camera, a body gesture camera, a microphone, a motion sensor, and a set of one or more brain activity electrodes (i.e., user input can be received via a head tracking sensor, a face tracking sensor, a hand tracking sensor, a body tracking sensor, a voice recognition sensor, a heart rate sensor, a skin capacitance sensor, an electrocardiogram sensor, a brain activity sensor, a geolocation sensor, at least one retinal camera, a balance tracking sensor, a body temperature sensor, a blood pressure monitor, and/or a respiratory rate monitor, para. [0105]).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Tran teaches obtaining one or more user responses further includes obtaining a plurality of eye images of eyes of the user while a first stimulus is displayed at a first depth and a second depth sequentially (i.e., the display 210 of the VR device 208 can display a different image to each eye of the user, thereby providing the user a sense of depth and 3D vision, para. [0114], also see para. [0144] and [0146]), and each eye image corresponds to a respective focal length (i.e., a lens with multiple focal distances (e.g., focal length) placed between the user's eye and the display of the can change the accommodative demand in the headset when the user views the visual targets/stimuli, para. [0086]).
Regarding claim 10, Tran teaches applying a focus extraction model to process the plurality of eye images and determine two distinct focal lengths corresponding to the first depth and the second depth a lens with multiple focal distances (e.g., focal length) placed between the user's eye and the display of the can change the accommodative demand in the headset when the user views the visual targets/stimuli, para. [0086]; and automatically and without user intervention (para. [0128], [0149] and [0150]), determining whether the eyes differentiates the first depth from the second depth based on the two distinct focal lengths (i.e., multiple focal distances (focal lengths) can be achieved either simultaneously for viewing through one part of the lens, in which case the virtual image or visual target may have reduced contrast, but can be in focus for more than one accommodative state of the eye (e.g., eyes differentiates the first depth from the second depth), para. [0095]).
Regarding claim 11, Tran teaches selecting a background view (i.e., a perspective view of a room with a first chair at a near location and a second chair at a far location, para. [0178], as illustrated in FIG. 5J); rendering a static image or a stream of video data associated with the background view on the user interface (i.e., a similarly textured background in the display for both eyes (as shown in FIGS. 5C and 5D), para. [0165], also see para. [0085] and [0130]); and overlaying the plurality of visual stimuli on the static image or a set of respective image frames in the stream of video data associated with the background view (i.e., The user can adjust their vision to move the location of the line in such a way that the horizontal line (stimuli) overlaps a point in space, para. [0167], also see para. [0214]).
Regarding claim 12, Tran teaches the background view is one of: a static beach view, a static city night scene, and a dynamic traffic view (i.e., a display can be created that simulates viewing of a scene in the distance (e.g., background view) … an exemplary scenario 510j (a simulated scene) is illustrated in FIG. 5J, para. [0178]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith et al. (US PUB 2019/0298166) teaches “A virtual reality system can perform a visual field test for detecting an ocular disorder. The system can include a display unit and a virtual reality headset.,” see Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (571)272-2333. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights