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 accompanying information disclosure statement (IDS) submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 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.
The term “a nature of at least one task” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a nature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what may be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded by the recitation and/or the degree of “a nature” required. In light of the instant Specification one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the scope of the claimed invention. Depending claims 2-17 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “a nature… of the visual tasks” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a nature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what may be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded by the recitation and/or the degree of “a nature” required. In light of the instant Specification one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the scope of the claimed invention.
The term “long-term effectiveness” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long-term” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what may be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded by the recitation and/or the degree or length of “long-term” required. In light of the instant Specification one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the scope of the claimed invention.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, wherein the abstract idea may reasonably be considered a mental process.
For independent claims 1 and 18, the claim(s) recite(s) a process of monitoring and processing eye movements during vision assessment to identify visual deficiencies/progress in order to determine an adjusted vision therapy based on the assessment.
As broadly as claimed these steps may be reasonably considered as the judicial exception of a mental process performable within the human mind, including by observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion forming, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection III). For example, at least, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional capturing data, printing it out, and using the data to mentally extract, classify or learn from data features to identify and treat a vision deficiency based on the vision assessment. Further, monitoring of eyes/vision is not only routinely conducted in the security sector but is especially commonplace in vision improvement related to optometry.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the process steps as broadly as claimed are not tied to nor required to be performed, executed, or programmed on a special purpose computer. Further, the judicial exception is not even required to be performed on or tied to a mere generic processing device, controller, or the like.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the preliminary steps of administering vision assessment using a virtual reality screen is well-known, routine and conventional amounting to insignificant data gathering as pre-solution activity.
Depending claims 2-17 inherit and do not remedy the non-statutory deficiency noted above, despite further specifying steps relating to vision assessment or therapy adjustment, the steps do not integrate into a practical application nor include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea that could be performed mentally.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tran et al. (US 2021/0290053 A1, hereinafter Tran).
For claim 1, Tran discloses a method for adapting personalized vision therapy sessions (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]), the method comprising inter alia:
at a first session:
administering a series of visual tasks on a screen (210) of a virtual reality (VR) headset (208) worn by a user (212), wherein the series of visual tasks comprises a quantity of visual tasks, an order of visual tasks, a nature of at least one visual task, and a difficulty of the at least one visual task (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]);
monitoring a user’s eye movements while the user completes the series of visual tasks (via 214) (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0104-0110]);
processing the user’s eye movements to analyze a user’s vision progress (via 202 and 216) (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]); and
adjusting the series of visual tasks based on the user’s vision progress (via 218 and 220) (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]); and
at a second session, administering the adjusted series of visual tasks (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0130]).
For claim 2, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein administering the series of visual tasks comprises displaying moving objects in a virtual environment and prompting the user to track the moving objects (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]).
For claim 3, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein administering the series of visual tasks comprises displaying objects at varying distances from the user and prompting the user to target the objects (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 4, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein monitoring the user’s eye movements comprises monitoring a user’s gaze direction (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 5, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein monitoring the user’s eye movements comprises monitoring a user’s fixation stability (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 6, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein monitoring the user’s eye movements comprises monitoring a user’s response accuracy (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 7, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein monitoring the user’s eye movements comprises monitoring a user’s response times (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 8, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein processing the user’s eye movements comprises processing the user’s eye movements in real-time as the user completes the series of visual tasks (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 9, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein adjusting the series of visual tasks comprises changing the quantity of visual tasks (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 10, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein adjusting the series of visual tasks comprises changing the order of visual tasks (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 11, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein adjusting the series of visual tasks comprises changing the nature of the at least one visual task (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 12, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein adjusting the series of visual tasks comprises changing the difficulty of the at least one visual task (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 13, Tran discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein changing the difficulty of the at least one visual task comprises changing a speed of a moving object when the at least one visual task comprises tracking the moving object (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 14, Tran discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein changing the difficulty of the at least one visual task comprises changing a size of an object when the at least one visual task comprises targeting the object (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 15, Tran discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein changing the difficulty of the at least one visual task comprises changing a duration of the at least one visual task (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 16, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein adjusting the series of visual tasks comprises changing at least two of the quantity of visual tasks, the order of visual tasks, the nature of the at least one visual task, and the difficulty of the at least one visual task (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 17, Tran discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising changing the difficulty of the at least one visual task in real-time as the user completes the series of visual tasks (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]) (particularly also [0140-0158]).
For claim 18, Tran discloses a method for developing a personalized vision therapy session (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]), the method comprising inter alia:
administering an assessment on a screen (210) of a virtual reality (VR) headset (208) worn by a user (212) (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]), wherein the assessment comprises a series of vision tests configured to identify visual deficiencies (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]);
monitoring a user’s eye movements while the user completes the assessment (via 214) (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]);
processing the user’s eye movements to identify a type and a severity of a user’s visual deficiencies (via 202 and 216) (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]);
accessing a library of visual tasks (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216], especially [0142, 0157]); and
based on the type and the severity of the user’s visual deficiencies, determining a quantity, an order, a nature, and a difficulty of the visual tasks from the library that constitute the personalized vision therapy session (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]).
For claim 19, Tran discloses a system for creating a vision therapy plan (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]), the system comprising inter alia:
a virtual reality (VR) headset (208) worn by a user (212), the VR headset comprising
a screen (210) (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216], especially [0104-0110]),
one or more eye-tracking sensors ([0104]) (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216], especially [0104-0110]), and
one or more eye-tracking cameras ([0106]) (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216], especially [0104-0110]); and
a computing device (202) in electronic communication with the VR headset (Fig 2A)(, the computing device being configured to administer an assessment on the screen of the VR headset and develop a vision therapy plan for the user by processing a user’s responses to the assessment and accessing a library of visual tasks (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216], especially [0104-0110, 0142, 0157]),
wherein the one or more eye-tracking sensors and cameras are configured to collect the user’s responses to the assessment (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216], especially [0104-0110]).
For claim 20, Tran discloses the system of Claim 19, wherein the computing device is further configured to assess a long-term effectiveness of the personalized vision therapy plan and generate recommendations for adjustments to the vision therapy plan (Figs 2A & 4) ([0104-0120, 0123-0216]).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record on the accompanying PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, relating to means for adapting visual tasks based on analysis of a user’s vision.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-3pm 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, Charles A. Marmor II can be reached at (571)272-4730. 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.
Jeffrey G. Hoekstra
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights