DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 07/08/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. A typo (end of claim) in Claim 13: “…displaying a user interface to create the 3D virtual environment;”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
1. Independent claims 1, 15 and 18 all recite the limitation: “determining a directionality indicator of the user's visual system quantitatively representing a capability of the user's visual system following the at least one direction”. It is unclear what is meant by “a directionality indicator”, since such a term is defined with respect to “a capability of the user's visual system”. The directionality indicator is defined with respect to an ambiguous relative term, i.e., it is unclear in what manner the capability of the user’s visual system is evaluated/measured. The as-filed specification fails to provide any objective standard for measuring such a visual system capability or for measuring a directionality indicator. Rather, the instant disclosure merely restates in ipsis verbis the generic claim language. When subjective terminology is used in a claim, some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) Sections I & IV, citing Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970) and Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1344-45. Furthermore, a confusion of claim scope arises due to the fact that it is unclear what the correlation is between user’s visual system capability and the following of at least one direction (i.e., is it a following by virtue of walking or body movement? Is it a following by virtue of eye movement? etc.). The as-filed specification appears to be silent with respect to any explanation for the measurement of a capability of the user’s visual system and/or directionality indicator. Therefore, such a limitation is rendered as subjective terminology and therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “determining a directionality indicator of the user's visual system quantitatively representing a capability of the user'”.
2. Claim 7 recites the limitation: “selecting a directionality analysis model from a plurality of predefined model options based on the destination and the target path”. It is unclear what such a directionality analysis model refers to, and what the predefined model options are, since such a term may refer to an indeterminate multiplicity of analysis models such that one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to envisage what such a model refers to. The as-filed specification appears to be silent with respect to any example or explanation for the model options as claimed. The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the specification at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." Applicants are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.03 citing In re Anderson, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 167 (Fed. Cir. January 6, 1997) (unpublished). The Examiner respectfully suggests that the analysis model be clarified such that the claimed term finds clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the term may be ascertainable by reference to the specification.
Claims 2-12, 16-17 and 19-20 inherit the deficiencies of the aforementioned independent claims, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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:
Claims 1-14 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 15-17 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture), and claims 18-20 are directed to a device (i.e., a product)). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC §101.
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a). Independent claims 1, 15 and 18 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, claims 1, 15 and 18 all recite: “an electronic device having a head-mounted display (HMD), one or more motion sensors, one or more processors, and memory; displaying a destination and a target path leading to the destination in a 3D virtual environment, the target path following at least one direction; rendering a request for a user associated with the electronic device to follow the target path to reach the destination; obtaining a stream of sensor data from the one or more motion sensors, the stream of sensor data being collected from the one or more motion sensors while the user moves along the target path; and based on the stream of sensor data, determining a directionality indicator of the user's visual system quantitatively representing a capability of the user's visual system following the at least one direction.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite “certain methods of organizing human activity” because they relate to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For instance, determining a directionality indicator indicating the visual capability of the user associated with the electronic device to the stimuli (i.e., how well the user can follow target path to reach a destination in a 3D virtual environment based on the user responses) are, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, similar to the concept of a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitations recite “mental processes” because they are observations, evaluations, judgments and/or analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found to be "mental processes" in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. For instance, in the case where a medical professional is observing a patient's response to a particular visual stimulus, the medical professional could observe how the patient focuses on the stimulus for a few seconds (one segment of a sequential user response), gradually begins to move by walking along target path (another segment of the sequential user response), and then pauses by standing for a few second before walking again (another segment of the sequential user response). The medical professional could then "extract" a number of "feature vectors" from the segments via recording various user features such as eye and/or body movement. They could also apply an analysis model (e.g., a basic logistic regression function or the like) to generate an output vector and/or scores corresponding to the directionality indicator(s) and change the stimuli accordingly, thereby repeating the process for a desired result in the subsequent recording.
The dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract). Claims 6 and 9 calls for generation of directionality indicator during the user activity or after completion of the activity. Claim 10 recite details directed to sampling frequency and assessment frequency, which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes") and relates to managing relationships or interactions between people ("certain methods of organizing human activity"). Claims 4, 7-8, 11-12 and 19 recite that the directionality indicator includes extracting sensor data as a vector and performing analysis of said data (e.g., claims 4 and 19: “comparing the user path with the target path to determine a path fitting level, wherein the directionality indicator is determined based on the path fitting level”; claim 7: “applying the selected directionality analysis model to process the sensor feature vectors”) to generate output vector(s) that can be interpreted as scores (claim 8: “generating the plurality of directionality scores based on the respective elements of the output vector corresponding to the plurality of directions, wherein the output vector includes a subset of respective elements corresponding to each of a plurality of directions”) such that the output scores are utilized to subsequently and/or dynamically change the visual stimuli for a desired directionality criterion to be satisfied (claim 11: “after determining a set of first directionality indicator samples, dynamically adjusting at least the target path associated with the destination”; claim 12: “determining whether the set of first directionality indicator samples satisfies a directionality criterion; and adjusting a difficulty level of the target path”), which amounts to details of the mental processes combined with methods of organizing human activity that are practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in claims 1, 15 and 18 are as follows: “An electronic device having a head-mounted display (HMD), one or more motion sensors, one or more processors, and memory; displaying a destination and a target path leading to the destination in a 3D virtual environment, the target path following at least one direction; rendering a request for a user associated with the electronic device to follow the target path to reach the destination; obtaining a stream of sensor data from the one or more motion sensors, the stream of sensor data being collected from the one or more motion sensors while the user moves along the target path”. For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of the electronic device including the HMD, one or more sensors, one or more processors, and memory for storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitations of displaying a target path and a destination in a 3D virtual environment according to a display scheme, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2). For these reasons, independent claims 1, 15 and 18 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims 2-12, 16-17 and 19-20 also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they recite details directed to sensors for recording user responses, sequential order for assessment frequency followed by visual stimuli changes, data organization followed by analysis and output which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea or altering how the abstract idea is carried out (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, claims 13-14 call for executing a visual assessment application, including displaying a user interface to create a 3D virtual environment which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, independent claims 1, 15 and 18 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of the electronic device including the HMD, one or more motion sensors, one or more processors, and memory for storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitations of displaying a target path and a destination in a 3D virtual environment according to a display scheme, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 2-12, 16-17 and 19-20 recite details directed to sensors for recording user responses, sequential order for assessment frequency followed by visual stimuli changes, data organization followed by analysis and output, thereby amounting to insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea or altering how the abstract idea is carried out (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). For instance, claims 2-3, 5, 16-17 and 19 recite how the data gathering of each of the sequential user responses is done by utilizing respective sensors and/or controllers (claims 2 and 16: “the one or more motion sensors of the electronic device includes an outward camera, a set of accelerometers, and a set of a gyroscopes”; claims 3 and 17: “one or two controllers configured to be held by the user's hands, the one or more motion sensors further includes supplemental sensors located in the one or two controllers” claims 5 and 19: “determining a speed of the user associated with each of the plurality of positions based on the stream of sensor data, wherein the directionality indicator is determined based on the path fitting level and the speeds of the user at the plurality of positions”), thereby amounting to data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea discussed above. Claims 13-14 call for executing a visual assessment application, including displaying a user interface to create a 3D virtual environment which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 1-20 do not raise the abstract idea to the level of patentable subject matter and are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-6, 9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20200109614 A).
The Examiner notes that the text of foreign references as cited throughout this Office Action are to the English translation retrieved from the Patent Translate feature of https://worldwide.espacenet.com on 06/17/2026 and provided herewith.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses: A method of implementing a vision test, comprising: at an electronic device having a head-mounted display (HMD) (¶0015: an HMD unit structured to be worn on the user's head, capable of displaying a virtual reality or augmented reality screen and outputting sound), one or more motion sensors (¶0016: a motion sensor for detecting the user's movement in space), one or more processors, and memory (¶0032: Tobii Eye Tracking Retrofit hardware, specifically equipped with TobiiEyeChip ASIC processing; ¶0026: a content providing server (300) [memory]): displaying a destination and a target path leading to the destination in a 3D virtual environment, the target path following at least one direction (¶0105: movement of a target along the X, Y, and Z axes in space training, where the target can move randomly in a forward or reverse direction; ¶0104: a training guidance popup UI when the direction of movement of the star is set to the Y-axis and the speed is set to normal; ¶0076, 0079, 0082; see FIGS. 14-20 showing 3D virtual environments); rendering a request for a user associated with the electronic device to follow the target path to reach the destination (¶0066: an interaction is designed to provide visual and auditory feedback that encourages the user to continuously modify their movements during training; ¶0083: displaying separate guides such to allow exercise to be performed according to walking speed and direction, and displaying guides on the screen); obtaining a stream of sensor data from the one or more motion sensors, the stream of sensor data being collected from the one or more motion sensors while the user moves along the target path (¶0016: The body tracking device may comprise a treadmill structure that allows walking in all directions, a movable platform that is rotatable in the horizontal direction and has an adjustable incline to tilt up, down, forward, backward, left, and right, a pressure sensor for detecting the user's foot pressure on the movable platform, a motion sensor for detecting the user's movement in space); and based on the stream of sensor data, determining a directionality indicator of the user's visual system quantitatively representing a capability of the user's visual system following the at least one direction (¶0026: the exercise and training system for improving dizziness and balance according to the present invention includes an eye tracking device (100); ¶0029: content is provided to the eye tracking device (100) that links the stimulation information of multiple collected sensory organs, measures, evaluates, and analyzes the degree of dizziness and balance function of the user [directionality indicator] through this; ¶0073, 0076, 0082: measurement is converted into a score, and the final score is displayed on the screen after the training ends).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Lee further discloses: wherein the one or more motion sensors of the electronic device includes an outward camera, a set of accelerometers, and a set of a gyroscopes (¶0041: the motion sensor (240) may be implemented as a gyro sensor, a 3-axis (X, Y, Z) accelerometer; ¶0032, 0073: 10 IR illuminators for each eye, and one Eye Tracking sensor for each eye).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Lee further discloses: wherein the electronic device further includes one or two controllers configured to be held by the user's hands, and the one or more motion sensors further includes supplemental sensors located in the one or two controllers (¶0037: the body tracking device (200) [controller(s)] comprises a moving platform (210), an input unit (220), a stop button (230), a motion sensor (240), an anti-detachment unit (250), a driving unit (260), and a pressure sensor (270); ¶0016, 0039: The input unit (220) is provided for the user to input control commands on a screen displayed on the HMD unit (120) and can be implemented in the form of a joystick [in user’s hands]; see FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Lee further discloses: further comprising: reconstructing a user path based on the stream of sensor data; and comparing the user path with the target path to determine a path fitting level, wherein the directionality indicator is determined based on the path fitting level (¶0028-29: The body tracking device (200) is provided with a movable platform that allows the user to walk, and detects the user's foot pressure through the movable platform, detects the user's movement in space, and collects the user's somatosensory information. Then, eye stimulation information is collected from the eye tracking device (100). Content is provided to the eye tracking device (100) that links the stimulation information and analyzes the balance function of the user through this, and performs exercise and training programs for improvement [path fitting] according to the analyzed symptoms and function of the user; ¶0079: a virtual space consisting of walls and a floor is displayed, and a guide display is provided on the screen to correct the posture [path fitting] if it is misaligned by measuring the posture in real time. Through this content, mobility can be improved).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 4, as above. Lee further discloses: wherein the user path includes a plurality of positions, further comprising: determining a speed of the user associated with each of the plurality of positions based on the stream of sensor data, wherein the directionality indicator is determined based on the path fitting level and the speeds of the user at the plurality of positions (¶0041: motion sensor implemented; ¶0028: the body tracking device (200) is provided with a movable platform that allows the user to walk, and detects the user's foot pressure through the movable platform, detects the user's movement in space, and collects the user's somatosensory information; ¶0045: when the interruption button (230) is touched, the content providing server (300) measures and analyzes/evaluates the eye tracking data, pressure data, and movement data up to that point, and can provide content that enables the performance of exercise and training programs based on this).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Lee further discloses: wherein the directionality indicator of the user's visual system is generated after the user reaches the destination (¶0082, 0076: when the direction of the individual and the eye aligns is measured relative to the total time and converted into a score, and the final score is displayed on the screen after the training ends… it is judged as a success, and if not, it is judged as a failure, and this is converted into a score; ¶0097: FIG. 33 is a training completion popup UI, in which results such as score and training time are displayed, and FIG. 34 is a game completion popup UI, in which results such as score and training time are displayed).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Lee further discloses: wherein the directionality indicator of the user's visual system is generated concurrently while the user moves along the target path (¶0066: an intuitive UI is implemented to make the exercise and training process easier and more accessible through exercise and training guides, result scoring, and status display; and an interaction is designed to provide visual and auditory feedback that encourages the user to directly check their condition and continuously modify their movements during training; ¶0069: FIGS. 7 to 18 illustrate visual dizziness and balance improvement training content with real time intensity adjustment).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Lee further discloses: further comprising executing a visual assessment application, including displaying a user interface to create the 3D virtual environment (¶0055: Data on abnormalities in the vestibular system is collected through a video ophthalmic analyzer, a video head impulse analyzer, the collected data includes abnormal nystagmus/eye movement gain values and the number, direction, and frequency of waveforms/abnormal rapid movements; ¶0014: a content providing server that provides virtual reality or augmented reality content to the eye-tracking device for display and collects gaze stimulation information from the eye-tracking device; ¶0088: FIGS. 23 to 43 illustrate a content UI (User Interface); ¶0076, 0079, 0082: 3D virtual environments);
Regarding Claim 14, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 13, as above. Lee further discloses: further comprising: executing a sport training application configured to manage training of athletes, wherein the visual assessment application is coupled to the sport training application via an application programming interface (API), and the sport training application is executed within the visual assessment application via the API; and feeding the directionality indicator of the user's visual system to the sport training application via the API (¶0012: augmented reality-based exercise and training system; ¶0045: the content providing server (300) measures and analyzes/evaluates the eye tracking data, pressure data, and movement data up to that point, and can provide content that enables the performance of exercise and training programs based on this. ¶0084: the effectiveness of training can be maximized by implementing visual stimulation, vestibulo-ocular reflex stimulation occurring while moving to hit the ball with a table tennis racket, hand movements, and posture maintenance; ¶0087: dizziness and balance improvement exercises or games can be performed in the order of selecting content, selecting a background, selecting a training method, and setting the difficulty level).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee discloses: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing one or more programs for execution by one or more processors of an electronic device having an HMD and one or more motion sensors (¶0031-32: the eye tracking device (100) comprises an eye tracking unit (110) and a Head Mounted Display (HMD) unit (120); the eye tracking unit (110) can be implemented with Tobii Eye Tracking Retrofit hardware, specifically equipped with TobiiEyeChip ASIC processing; ¶0052: balance control device is designed to control a program of visual stimulation using a virtual reality), the one or more programs including instructions for: displaying a destination and a target path leading to the destination in a 3D virtual environment, the target path following at least one direction; rendering a request for a user associated with the electronic device to follow the target path to reach the destination; obtaining a stream of sensor data from the one or more motion sensors, the stream of sensor data being collected from the one or more motion sensors while the user moves along the target path; and based on the stream of sensor data, determining a directionality indicator of the user's visual system quantitatively representing a capability of the user's visual system following the at least one direction (see rejection of claim 1 supra).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to Claim 15, as above. Lee further discloses: wherein the one or more motion sensors of the electronic device includes an outward camera, a set of accelerometers, and a set of a gyroscopes (see rejection of claim 2 supra).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to Claim 15, as above. Lee further discloses: wherein the electronic device further includes one or two controllers configured to be held by the user's hands, and the one or more motion sensors further includes supplemental sensors located in the one or two controllers (see rejection of claim 3 supra).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee discloses: An electronic device, comprising: an HMD; one or more motion sensors; one or more processors; and memory for storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors (¶0031-32: the eye tracking device (100) comprises an eye tracking unit (110) and a Head Mounted Display (HMD) unit (120); the eye tracking unit (110) can be implemented with Tobii Eye Tracking Retrofit hardware, specifically equipped with TobiiEyeChip ASIC processing; ¶0052: balance control device is designed to control a program of visual stimulation using a virtual reality; ¶0026, 0045: a content providing server (300) [memory] that enables the training programs), the one or more programs including instructions for: displaying a destination and a target path leading to the destination in a 3D virtual environment, the target path following at least one direction; rendering a request for a user associated with the electronic device to follow the target path to reach the destination; obtaining a stream of sensor data from the one or more motion sensors, the stream of sensor data being collected from the one or more motion sensors while the user moves along the target path; and based on the stream of sensor data, determining a directionality indicator of the user's visual system quantitatively representing a capability of the user's visual system following the at least one direction (see rejection of claim 1 supra).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee discloses the electronic device according to Claim 18, as above. Lee further discloses: the one or more programs further comprising instructions for: reconstructing a user path based on the stream of sensor data; and comparing the user path with the target path to determine a path fitting level, wherein the directionality indicator is determined based on the path fitting level (see rejection of claim 4 supra).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee discloses the electronic device according to Claim 19, as above. Lee further discloses: wherein the user path includes a plurality of positions, the one or more programs further comprising instructions for: determining a speed of the user associated with each of the plurality of positions based on the stream of sensor data, wherein the directionality indicator is determined based on the path fitting level and the speeds of the user at the plurality of positions (see rejection of claim 5 supra).
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.
Claims 7-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20200109614 A) et al. in view of Kerasidis et al. (US 2019/0246890 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 6, as above. Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose: determining the directionality indicator of the user's visual system further comprising: extracting a sensor feature vector based on a subset of sensor data corresponding to each of the one or more motion sensors; selecting a directionality analysis model from a plurality of predefined model options based on the destination and the target path; and applying the selected directionality analysis model to process the sensor feature vectors of the one or more motion sensors and generate an output vector, wherein the directionality indicator is determined based on the output vector.
Kerasidis is related to Lee with respect to a method of implementing a vision test, comprising an electronic device having a head-mounted display (HMD), one or more motion sensors, one or more processors, and memory, obtaining a stream of sensor data and determining a directionality indicator (¶0002, 0046, 0055, 0063, 0065, 0068, 0071, 0080, 0133-34), and Kerasidis teaches: determining the directionality indicator of the user's visual system further comprising: extracting a sensor feature vector based on a subset of sensor data corresponding to each of the one or more motion sensors; selecting a directionality analysis model from a plurality of predefined model options based on the destination and the target path; and applying the selected directionality analysis model to process the sensor feature vectors of the one or more motion sensors and generate an output vector, wherein the directionality indicator is determined based on the output vector (¶0054: system embodiment can also send raw sensor data, preprocessed and sent to computing device for analysis; ¶0065-66: the testing protocol assesses sampled ‘real-time’ accelerometer data, records that data, and analyzes it to provide that assessment of postural sway and stability, and provides different scores…accelerometer data is collected during each testing condition. The data is transformed through computational algorithm locally on the device or in an internet connected computer or server to yield a number or set of numbers [feature vector] which reflect the motion of the user; ¶0067: the purpose of one embodiment of the balance assessment is to identify (1) absolute amount of movement, and to (2) compare that movement with a statistical model/estimated norm, an average, of balance; ¶0068: Results are calculated and displayed locally on the MCD display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee in view of Kerasidis to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a data extraction followed by analysis and output are well known and would be selected as part of testing protocol for a clinician with the beneficial result of also providing biofeedback for rehabilitation or balance training, or for a learning paradigm, making the test subject aware of those test scores, which he or she may not normally be conscious so that they can influence or improve that function, as taught in paragraphs ¶0065, 0071 of Kerasidis.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 7, as above, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations as recited in claim 8. Kerasidis is related to Lee (see rejection of claim 7 supra) and Kerasidis teaches: wherein the output vector includes a subset of respective elements corresponding to each of a plurality of directions, and the directionality indicator includes a plurality of directionality scores corresponding to the plurality of directions, determining the directionality indicator of the user's visual system further comprising: generating the plurality of directionality scores based on the respective elements of the output vector corresponding to the plurality of directions (¶0061: sensor data within OTS VR/MCD 2 transmit (or preprocess and then store or transmit) the head/body movements of the test subject 8. These movements, combined with the VR imaging, provide the balance algorithm with spatiotemporal data for the balance assessments. That sensor data, in different embodiments, (other embodiments use other spatial MCD sensors, for example, a gyroscope or digital compass) provides spatiotemporal x 42, y 40, and z 44 locations of test subject 8 head movements during the test, that is yaw 40, pitch 44, and roll 42 data from the MCD accelerometer, for processing; ¶0069: the distance between each sampled 3D displacement is calculated using Pythagorean theorem distance difference between each x, y, z accelerometer reading. Those difference or displacement samples are stored during each test; ¶0065: the testing protocol assesses sampled ‘real-time’ accelerometer data, records that data, and analyzes it to provide that assessment of postural sway and stability, and provides different balance scores).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee in view of Kerasidis to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a data extraction followed by analysis and output are well known and would be selected as part of testing protocol for a clinician with the beneficial result of also providing biofeedback for rehabilitation or balance training, or for a learning paradigm, making the test subject aware of those test scores, which he or she may not normally be conscious so that they can influence or improve that function, as taught in paragraphs ¶0065, 0071 of Kerasidis.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 9, as above, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations as recited in claims 10-11. Kerasidis is related to Lee (see rejection of claim 7 supra) and Kerasidis teaches: wherein each sensor has a sensor sampling frequency, and the directionality indicator is generated at a directionality assessment frequency corresponding to a directionality time window, the directionality assessment frequency is smaller than the sensor sampling frequency (¶0053: the processing within the OTS VR/MCD system or through its wireless interface with computing device 12 can set sampling rates for each assessment, and the number of iterations per assessment; ¶0067: balance algorithm then interrogates the MCD accelerometers 68 during the test, each test having within a given test period, and the accelerometer data sampled at a given sample rate during that test time; ¶0135: This data is sampled at rates not lower than 256 Hz from each channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee in view of Kerasidis to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a data extraction with a sampling rate followed by analysis are well known and would be selected for averaging and as part of testing protocol for a clinician with the beneficial result of also providing biofeedback for rehabilitation or balance training, or for a learning paradigm, making the test subject aware of those test scores, which he or she may not normally be conscious so that they can influence or improve that function, as taught in paragraphs ¶0065, 0067, 0071, 0080-81, 0087 of Kerasidis.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 10, as above. Lee further discloses: further comprising: after determining a set of first directionality indicator samples, dynamically adjusting at least the target path associated with the destination for one or more subsequent directionality time windows (¶0045: the content providing server (300) measures and analyzes/evaluates the eye tracking data, pressure data, and movement data up to that point, and can provide content that enables the performance of exercise and training programs based on this; ¶0066: an interaction is designed to provide visual and auditory feedback that encourages the user to directly check their condition and continuously modify their movements during training. In addition, the difficulty level is adjusted step by step based on medical data; ¶0069: FIGS. visual dizziness and balance improvement training content with real time intensity adjustment).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses the method according to Claim 11, as above. Lee further discloses: wherein dynamically adjusting at least the target path further comprises: determining whether the set of first directionality indicator samples satisfies a directionality criterion; and adjusting a difficulty level of the target path for the one or more subsequent directionality time windows (¶0045: when the interruption button (230) is touched, the content providing server (300) measures and analyzes/evaluates the eye tracking data, pressure data, and movement data up to that point, and can provide content that enables the performance of exercise and training programs based on this; ¶0066: an interaction is designed to provide visual and auditory feedback that encourages the user to directly check their condition and continuously modify their movements during training. In addition, the difficulty level is adjusted step by step based on medical data).
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Samec et al. (US 2017/0365101 A1) discloses a method of implementing a vision test comprising an electronic device as claimed, and further satisfying some of the additional conditions as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights