DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is a process. Claim 19 is a manufacture. Claim 20 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea: a mental process and/or a mathematical concept.
Claim 1 recites the limitations: determining a sequence of 3D gaze positions of the eyes in the 3D virtual environment based on the sequence of eye images, and determining a visual processing performance factor for the user based on the sequence of stimulation positions and the sequence of 3D gaze positions. This is merely observing two sets of special data and evaluating them to produce a performance score. That evaluation can be performed in the human mind, or with pen and paper. This is the same class of abstract idea as collecting physiological or sensor data and calculating diagnostic or performcae metrics from it.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality. Displaying stimuli in a 3D virtual environment is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. AN HMD with a processor, a memory, a displayed 3D environment, on-screen stimuli, and cameras that capture eye images are well-understood, routine, and conventional in VR vision testing and HMD eye tracking. Using those conventional tools to collect stimulus locations and gaze locations is an ordinary application of the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Claims 19 and 20 add only a CRM and a system comprising an HMD, processors, and memory. These are generic components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sinha et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0197168) teaches a VR headset-based electronic system that can be used to perform visual tests.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
