DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
1. Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS(s) have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. Applicant is invited to point out any particular reference(s) in the IDS that they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office Action. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. The examiner respectfully suggests eliminating clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to Applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. These suggestions or best practices are presented to avoid duty of disclosure problems. See MPEP § 609.05(b) and MPEP § 2004 citing Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The examiner notes that several of the references cited by Applicant in the IDS documents appear to be completely unrelated to the claimed invention. For example, the IDS of 12/11/2024 cites to a Non-Patent Literature document discussing gene therapy for a mutation. It is unclear what relevancy this has to the claimed invention directed to a virtual mobility test. The inclusion of non-relevant references in IDS documents carries the risk of imposing an undue burden on the examiner. The inclusion of non-relevant references in IDS documents carries a further risk of inadequate attention being paid to cited documents which actually are relevant to the claimed invention. In all future applications, Applicant is encouraged to carefully consider the appropriateness of each reference prior to citing such reference in an IDS document.
2. The four information disclosure statement(s) filed on various dates is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms “VIVE”, “Oculus”, etc. (see ¶0035, 0038 of PG-PUB (US 2025/0176822 A1) of as-filed specification) which appear to be a trade name(s) used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term(s) should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term(s) should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, ™ , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
A typo (period) in Claim 9: “…assessing the visual function of the user includes. assessing…”.
Claims 6-9 recite a large number of alternative limitations mixed with required limitations that render the claim generally unclear due to the usage of a large number of “or” terms. The Examiner respectfully suggests clarifying the present claim language of these claims such that the distinguishing of alterative limitations from the required limitations can be easily ascertained.
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 3-5 is 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.
Claim 3 recites: “wherein the tagging procedure includes interacting, by the user or a virtual avatar of the user, with an untagged virtual object in the virtual environment and providing input…”. These limitations are directed to method steps of using the system/apparatus, i.e., “user interacting with untagged virtual object” and “providing input”, wherein the claim limitations are not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual users, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05 (p), citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749. For the purposes of examination, Claim 3 limitation will be treated as inherent.
Claims 4-5 are rejected as being dependent on Claim 3 and fail to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
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 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis et al. (US 2021/0259539 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lewis discloses: A system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory (¶0077, 0083, 0137, 0148: The user system 130 includes a processor 132 connected to a main memory 134), wherein the system is configured for:
A. providing, via a display, a virtual mobility test in a virtual environment for testing visual function of a user (¶0060, 0070: vision assessments are performed using a virtual navigation course 202 (including for example a head-mounted display 110 and controllers 120) and a physical room 20 of sufficient size to use the virtual reality system 100);
B. displaying, during the virtual mobility test, virtual objects for intentional tagging by the user (¶0100, 0102: the virtual navigation course also includes a plurality of virtual obstacles that can be removed (referred to hereinafter as removable virtual obstacles)…the user can press a button 122 on the controller 120 with the virtual obstacle in the center of his or her field of view, and in response to the input received from the button 122 the virtual reality system 100 removes the virtual obstacle);
C. counting, during or after the virtual mobility test, a number of tagged virtual objects tagged by the user; and assessing the visual function of the user using the count of tagged virtual objects tagged by the user during the virtual mobility test (¶0010, 0100: the number of collisions with the removeable virtual obstacles is an example of a performance metric used to evaluate the performance of the user 10 and as a method of evaluating visual impairment); and
Regarding Claim 2, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 1, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein counting the number of tagged virtual objects includes sorting and/or analyzing the tagged virtual objects and untagged virtual objects by size, shape, location and/or other characteristics (¶0100: The user 10 is instructed to remove the obstacles as they are encountered along the path. If the user 10 does not remove the removable virtual obstacle, the user 10 may collide with the obstacle and the collision may be determined as discussed above for collisions with the virtual furniture. The number of collisions with the removeable virtual obstacles is an example of a performance metric used to evaluate the performance of the user 10).
Regarding Claim 3, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 1, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein each of the tagged virtual objects is tagged via a tagging procedure, wherein the tagging procedure includes interacting, by the user or a virtual avatar of the user, with an untagged virtual object in the virtual environment and providing input via a physical input device (¶0100, 0102: The user 10 is instructed to remove the obstacles as they are encountered along the path…when the user can press a button 122 on the controller 120 with the virtual obstacle in the center of his or her field of view, and in response to the input received from the button 122 the virtual reality system 100 removes the virtual obstacle from the virtual reality environment).
Regarding Claim 4, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 3, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein interacting with the untagged virtual object includes touching the untagged virtual object, pointing at the untagged virtual object, or identifying the untagged virtual object (¶0102: when the user can press a button 122 on the controller 120 with the virtual obstacle in the center of his or her field of view, and in response to the input received from the button 122 the virtual reality system 100 removes the virtual obstacle from the virtual reality environment).
Regarding Claim 5, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 3, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein providing the input includes pressing a button, pressing a sequence of buttons, inputting identification information, and/or moving a joystick or directional input control; and wherein the physical input device includes a game controller, a remote controller, a keyboard, a wireless handheld device, a wired handheld device, or a button device (¶0102, 0114: there are brightly colored virtual toys (removeable virtual obstacles) obstructing the path 210 that can be removed if the participant looks directly at the toy and presses a button 122 on the controller 120 in their hand).
Regarding Claim 6, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 1, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein the display includes an immersive or interactive display system (¶0086-87: a patient navigates a path through the virtual navigation course including a starting location and an ending location, set in a simulated room with virtual obstacles, simulated walls and a virtual floor) and wherein the virtual environment includes an extended reality (XR) environment, an augmented reality (AR) environment, a mixed reality (MR) environment, or a virtual reality (VR) environment (¶0070: the suitable virtual reality system can be a Windows Mixed Reality systems); or wherein the system is configured for providing auditory or haptic feedback to the user when a feedback condition occurs, wherein the feedback condition includes a successful tagging procedure or an unsuccessful tagging procedure (¶0088, 0142-43: when the processor identifies that the user 10 has reached a predetermined position in the path, the processor 132 plays an audio instruction…the virtual reality system includes audio prompts to tell the participant what virtual item to identify or identifying that the user 10 has pointed to the correct entry and pressed a button 122 of the controller 120).
Regarding Claim 7, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 1, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein assessing the visual function of the user using the count of tagged virtual objects includes weighting the count of tagged virtual objects or weighting each of the tagged virtual objects based on environmental attributes, wherein the environmental attributes includes luminance, shadow, color, contrast, gradients of contrast or color on the surface of one or more of the tagged virtual objects, reflectance or color of borders of one or more of the tagged virtual objects, or a lighting condition associated with one or more of the tagged virtual objects, a height of one or more of the tagged virtual objects, a size of one or more of the tagged virtual objects, or a motion or speed of one or more of the tagged virtual objects (¶0104-05: the removable virtual obstacles of this embodiment are brightly colored children's toys, which stand out from the light, neutral-colored background. On the other hand, the third virtual room 220c is a low-contrast room in which the virtual obstacles, have coloring similar to that of the background. For example, the virtual obstacles, may be white or gray in color with the background being a light tan or white…The placement of the virtual objects, their color, light intensity, and other physical attributes, thus may be strategized to test for specific visual functions; ¶0108, 0118: performance metrics evaluated in this study included the lowest luminance level passed (measured in cd/m2)… the least squares mean (LSMean) time to complete the virtual navigation course of all participants for a given impairment condition for each test and retest at the different luminance levels).
Regarding Claim 9, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 1, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein assessing the visual function of the user includes. assessing the user's ability to tag the virtual objects in a proper or predetermined sequence during the virtual mobility test (¶0111: The position of the virtual obstacles and the order in which they appear also may be changed between each of the plurality of unique course configurations; ¶0094-95, 0118: One of the performance metrics used to evaluate the patient's vision and efficacy of any treatment is the time it takes for the user to navigate (traverse) the path); assessing an amount of time that it takes for the user to recognize one or more configuration parameters of the virtual mobility test, wherein the one or more configuration parameters include a start indicator, a start location, or a direction of a path of the virtual mobility test; or assessing the user's ability to perform a plurality of visual tasks concurrently, wherein a first task of the plurality of visual tasks includes following a path of the virtual mobility test and a second task of the plurality of visual tasks includes tagging the virtual object (¶0094-95, 0118: performance metrics evaluated in this study included the time to complete the virtual navigation course 202, and the total distance traveled…Although the virtual navigation course is designed to be readily apparent to the user and there is an optimal, shortest way to traverse the path).
Regarding Claim 10, Lewis discloses: A method, the method comprising: providing, via a display, a virtual mobility test in a virtual environment for testing visual function of a user; displaying, during the virtual mobility test, virtual objects for intentional tagging by the user; counting, during or after the virtual mobility test, a number of tagged virtual objects tagged by the user; and assessing the visual function of the user using the count of tagged virtual objects tagged by the user during the virtual mobility test (see rejection of claim 1 supra).
Regarding Claim 11, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 10, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein counting the number of tagged virtual objects includes sorting and/or analyzing the tagged virtual objects and untagged virtual objects of the virtual mobility test by size, shape, location, and/or other characteristics (see rejection of claim 2 supra).
Regarding Claim 12, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 10, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein each of the tagged virtual objects is tagged via a tagging procedure, wherein the tagging procedure includes interacting, by the user or a virtual avatar of the user, with an untagged virtual object in the virtual environment and providing input via a physical input device (see rejection of claim 3 supra).
Regarding Claim 13, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 12, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein the user or the virtual avatar of the user interacts with the untagged virtual object by touching the virtual object, pointing at the virtual object, or identifying the virtual object (see rejection of claim 4 supra).
Regarding Claim 14, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 12, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein providing the input includes pressing a button, pressing a sequence of buttons, inputting identification information, and/or moving a joystick or directional input control; and wherein the physical input device includes a game controller, a remote controller, a keyboard, a wireless handheld device, a wired handheld device, or a button device (see rejection of claim 5 supra).
Regarding Claim 15, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 10, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein the display includes an immersive or interactive display system and wherein the virtual environment includes an extended reality (XR) environment, an augmented reality (AR) environment, a mixed reality (MR) environment, or a virtual reality (VR) environment; or wherein the system is configured for providing auditory or haptic feedback to the user when a feedback condition occurs, wherein the feedback condition includes a successful tagging procedure or an unsuccessful tagging procedure (see rejection of claim 6 supra).
Regarding Claim 16, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 10, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein assessing the visual function of the user using the count of tagged virtual objects includes weighting the count of tagged virtual objects or weighting each of the tagged virtual objects based on environmental attributes, wherein the environmental attributes includes luminance, shadow, color, contrast, or gradients of contrast or color on the surface of one or more of the tagged virtual objects, reflectance or color of borders of one or more of the tagged virtual objects, or a lighting condition associated with one or more of the tagged virtual objects, a height of one or more of the tagged virtual objects, a size of one or more of the tagged virtual objects, or a motion or speed of one or more of the tagged virtual objects (see rejection of claim 7 supra).
Regarding Claim 18, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 10, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein assessing the visual function of the user includes: assessing the user's ability to tag the virtual objects in a proper or predetermined sequence during the virtual mobility test; assessing an amount of time that it takes for the user to recognize one or more configuration parameters of the virtual mobility test, wherein the one or more configuration parameters include a start indicator, a start location, or a direction of a path of the virtual mobility test; or assessing the user's ability to perform a plurality of visual tasks concurrently, wherein a first task of the plurality of visual tasks includes following a path of the virtual mobility test and a second task of the plurality of visual tasks includes tagging the virtual objects (see rejection of claim 9 supra).
Regarding Claim 19, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 18, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein each of the plurality of visual tasks includes one or more independent variables that affect at least one visual element associated with the respective visual task, wherein the independent variables affect size, shape, location, color, luminance, shadow, color, contrast, light intensity, or reflectivity of the at least one visual element (¶0104-05: the removable virtual obstacles of this embodiment are brightly colored children's toys, which stand out from the light, neutral-colored background. On the other hand, the third virtual room 220c is a low-contrast room in which the virtual obstacles, have coloring similar to that of the background. For example, the virtual obstacles, may be white or gray in color with the background being a light tan or white…The placement of the virtual objects, their color, light intensity, and other physical attributes, thus may be strategized to test for specific visual functions; ¶0108, 0118: performance metrics evaluated in this study included the lowest luminance level passed (measured in cd/m2)).
Regarding Claim 20, Lewis discloses: A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions that when executed by at least one processor of a computer cause the computer to perform steps comprising (¶0012: invention include non-transitory computer readable storage media having stored thereon sequences of instruction for a processor to execute the forgoing methods and those discussed further below; ¶0078, 0083, 0085: a processor and computer-readable storage medium to store instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform a method or other specific actions): providing, via a display, a virtual mobility test in a virtual environment for testing visual function of a user; displaying, during the virtual mobility test, virtual objects for intentional tagging by the user; counting, during or after the virtual mobility test, a number of tagged virtual objects tagged by the user; and assessing the visual function of the user using the count of tagged virtual objects tagged by the user during the virtual mobility test (see rejection of claim 1 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 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 2021/0259539 A1) in view of Ashtari (US 2021/0045628 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 1, as above. Lewis does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein assessing the visual function of the user using the count of tagged virtual objects includes: comparing the count of tagged virtual objects to a second count of tagged virtual objects associated with a person or a population that has or does not have a vision condition; or comparing a computed score associated with the count of tagged virtual objects to a second computed score associated with a second count of tagged virtual objects associated with a person or a population that has or does have not a vision condition.
Ashtari is related to Lewis with respect to a system comprising a display, a virtual mobility test in a virtual environment for testing visual function of a user that involves a virtual tagging procedure and assessing the visual function of the user based on performance during the virtual mobility test (¶0035, 0053, 0171, 0175), and Ashtari teaches: wherein assessing the visual function of the user using the count of tagged virtual objects includes: comparing the count of tagged virtual objects to a second count of tagged virtual objects associated with a person or a population that has or does not have a vision condition; or comparing a computed score associated with the count of tagged virtual objects to a second computed score associated with a second count of tagged virtual objects associated with a person or a population that has or does have not a vision condition (¶0082: VMTS 100 or one or more modules therein may administer a test to normally-sighted control individuals; ¶0083-84: a control population of normally-sighted individuals is used to compare responses with a set of individuals with a form of RP that can result in decreased light sensitivity, blurring of vision, and visual field defects. In some examples, the virtual mobility test that is given to both normally-sighted individuals and those with RP may be the same. After the virtual mobility test has been administered to the normally-sighted individuals, those individuals may be given another set of tests where the symptoms of RP are mimicked in presentation of the scene. The test may be easy for the normally-sighted individuals until their second round of testing. The performance of the individuals tested under conditions mimicking this disorder may be measured).
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 system of Lewis in view of Ashtari to satisfy the claimed condition, because such an assessment procedure may use results from the affected tests to generate ‘condition-affected’ baseline results obtained using normally-sighted users and/or for educating people about certain vision conditions (¶0075), while the produced data under those conditions can be used as either a “control” group for virtual mobility performance or to control for the validity of the test (¶0083), as taught in paragraphs ¶0075, 0083 of Ashtari.
Regarding Claim 17, Lewis discloses the system according to Claim 10, as above. Lewis further discloses: wherein assessing the visual function of the user using the count of tagged virtual objects includes: comparing the count of tagged virtual objects to a second count of tagged virtual objects associated with a person or a population that has or does not have a vision condition; or comparing a computed score associated with the count of tagged virtual objects to a second computed score associated with a second count of tagged virtual objects associated with a person or a population that has or does have not a vision condition. (see rejection of claim 8 supra)
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Kim et al. (US 2017/0262049 A1) & Bradski et al. (US 2016/0026253 A1) disclose a system comprising a display, a virtual mobility test in a virtual environment for testing visual function of a user that involves a virtual tagging procedure and assessing the visual function of the user based on performance during the virtual mobility test, 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