DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/22/2025 and 9/17/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2, the follow phrase is assumed to be a typographic error “… vision in simulated underwater environments, the method comprising: …”. Examiner assumes that the phrase should have been written: “… vision in simulated underwater environments, the system comprising: …” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbons et al. (US 2020/0121235), in view of Ross (US 2009/0271915), and further in view of Lai (US 2010/0303455).
Regarding Claim 1, Gibbons discloses a method for evaluating a user's vision (Abstract), the method comprising:
displaying a simulated environment (Paragraphs 0010, and 0018-0019, displaying a virtual environment, Fig. 11, virtual screen, Paragraph 0036) on a screen (Fig. 1, screen 108, Paragraph 0065) of a VR headset (Fig. 1, VR headset 102, Paragraph 0065) of worn by a user;
administering a visual task in the simulated environment (Paragraph 0087, lines 21-23, test subject is instructed to focus their gaze on the target object when detected);
monitoring a user's eye movements while the user completes the visual task (Paragraph 0087, lines 3-6, eye position is measured by the tracking hardware 106 and tracking software 120, Fig. 1); and
comparing the user's eye movements to a database to evaluate the user's vision (Paragraph 0080, processing/comparison component 152 compares results to baseline standards, Fig. 2).
Gibbons does not specifically disclose a simulated underwater environment … evaluating user's underwater vision.
However, Ross, in the same field of endeavor teaches a simulated underwater environment (Paragraph 0009k lines 3-4, Paragraph 0025, lines 13-15 and Paragraph 0027, lines 4-7, simulated flora and fauna of an underwater environment), for the purpose of providing an underwater visual training for underwater divers outside the water.
Additionally, Lai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches evaluating user's underwater vision (Paragraph 0077, lines 1-2, Paragraph 0078, lines 1-3, adjustments to camera can be made underwater), for the purpose of adjusting an optical device for an individual user’s underwater vision.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Gibbons with a simulated underwater environment of Ross, with the evaluating user's underwater vision of Lai, for the purpose of adjusting an optical device for an individual user’s underwater vision for underwater divers outside the water.
Regarding Claim 8, Gibbons in view of Ross, further in view of Lai discloses and Gibbons further discloses wherein monitoring the user's eye movements comprises monitoring a user's gaze direction (Paragraph 0067, line 3, eye gaze direction 166).
Regarding Claim 9, Gibbons in view of Ross, further in view of Lai discloses and Gibbons further discloses wherein monitoring the user's eye movements comprises monitoring a user's fixation stability (Paragraph 0008, lines 5-7, eye stability tests).
Regarding Claim 10, Gibbons in view of Ross, further in view of Lai discloses and Gibbons further discloses wherein monitoring the user's eye movements comprises monitoring a user's response accuracy (Paragraph 0120, lines 1-5, accuracy of convergence is assessed).
Regarding Claim 11, Gibbons in view of Ross, further in view of Lai discloses and Gibbons further discloses wherein monitoring the user's eye movements comprises monitoring a user's saccadic movements (Fig. 19, “jerky tracking”, Paragraph 0116, lines 10-12).
Regarding Claim 12, Gibbons in view of Ross, further in view of Lai discloses and Gibbons further discloses wherein monitoring the user's eye movements comprises monitoring a user's smooth pursuit movements (Fig. 18, example of smoothly tracking, Paragraph 0116, lines 6-7).
Regarding Claim 20, Gibbons discloses a system for testing vision in simulated environments (Abstract, Paragraphs 0010, and 0018-0019, displaying a virtual environment, Fig. 11, virtual screen, Paragraph 0036), the system comprising:
a virtual reality (VR) headset worn by a user, the VR headset comprising a screen (Fig. 1, screen 108, Paragraph 0065), one or more eye-tracking sensors (Fig. 1, sensors 110, Paragraph 0068, Paragraph 0070, eye tracking sensors, Paragraph 0076, eye tracking sensor arrays), and one or more eye-tracking cameras Fig. 1, camera 110a, Paragraph 0068, cameras 110a), the one or more eye-tracking sensors and the one or more eye-tracking cameras configured to monitor eye movements (Paragraphs 0070-0071, eye tracking hardware 106), fixation patterns (Target object, Paragraph 0087, lines 21-23, test subject is instructed to focus their gaze on the target object when detected), and blink rates of the user (Paragraph 0014 and Paragraph 0109, blink rate); and
a computing device (Paragraph 0062, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, computer 104) in electronic communication with the VR headset, the computing device being configured to cause a simulated environment to be displayed on the screen (Abstract, Paragraphs 0010, and 0018-0019, displaying a virtual environment, Fig. 11, virtual screen, Paragraph 0036), to cause a visual task to be displayed in the simulated environment (Paragraph 0087, lines 21-23, test subject is instructed to focus their gaze on the target object when detected, Fig. 5-Fig. 8 and Fig. 11, text display in box 26), and to process the eye movements (Paragraphs 0071, 0073, 0075, 0076, 0078, computer 104, test processing/comparison component 152), the fixation patterns (Paragraph 0075, moving target 208), and the blink rates Paragraph 0122, blink frequency) of the user.
Gibbons does not specifically disclose a simulated underwater environment … testing a user's underwater vision.
However, Ross, in the same field of endeavor teaches a simulated underwater environment (Paragraph 0009k lines 3-4, Paragraph 0025, lines 13-15 and Paragraph 0027, lines 4-7, simulated flora and fauna of an underwater environment), for the purpose of providing an underwater visual training for underwater divers outside the water.
Additionally, Lai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches testing a user's underwater vision (Paragraph 0077, lines 1-2, Paragraph 0078, lines 1-3, adjustments to camera can be made underwater), for the purpose of adjusting an optical device for an individual user’s underwater vision.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Gibbons with a simulated underwater environment of Ross, with the testing a user's underwater vision of Lai, for the purpose of adjusting an optical device for an individual user’s underwater vision for underwater divers outside the water.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13-16, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 2, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein administering the visual task comprises prompting the user to identify objects in the simulated underwater environment, wherein the objects are positioned at different distances away from the user and at different depths of the simulated underwater environment.
Specifically, with respect to claim 3, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein administering the visual task comprises prompting the user to grab objects in the simulated underwater environment, wherein the objects are positioned at different distances away from the user and at different depths of the simulated underwater environment.
Specifically, with respect to claim 4, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein administering the visual task comprises prompting the user to use a tool to collect objects in the simulated underwater environment, wherein the objects are positioned at different distances away from the user and at different depths of the simulated underwater environment.
Specifically, with respect to claim 5, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein administering the visual task comprises prompting the user to navigate around obstacles in the simulated underwater environment.
Specifically, with respect to claim 6, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein administering the visual task comprises prompting the user to navigate through different lighting conditions in the simulated underwater environment.
Specifically, with respect to claim 7, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein administering the visual task comprises prompting the user to follow a moving object through the simulated underwater environment.
Specifically, with respect to claim 13, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein further comprising processing the user's eye movements in real-time as the user completes the visual task to adjust a difficulty of the visual task while the user is completing the visual task.
Specifically, with respect to claim 17, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein further comprising: simultaneously displaying the simulated underwater environment on the screen of multiple VR headsets worn by multiple users; simultaneously administering the visual task in the simulated underwater environment for each user of the multiple users; monitoring the eye movements of each user of the multiple users while each user completes the visual task; and comparing the user's eye movements to the eye movements of each user of the multiple users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 2026/0076564), Lee et al. (US 2026/0076566), Lee et al. (US 2026/0076861), Lai (US 8,634,710), Lai (US 2013/0188941), Godoy (US 2008/0074607), and Crawford et al. (US 2020/0226726) are cited to show similar methods and systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights