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 .
The instant application having Application No. 18/885,508 filed on 9/13/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-10, and 13-20 of Lee, copending Application No. 18/885,503 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Lee are obvious over the claims of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Application 18/885,503
1. A method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception, comprising:
at an electronic device including a head-mounted display (HMD) and eye-tracking sensors:
generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment;
rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display;
simulating various color perception tasks under varying luminosities and backgrounds in the VR user interface; and
while simulating the color perception tasks, in real time:
continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors, user responses to the simulated tasks; and
evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance.
1. A method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception, comprising:
at an electronic device including a head-mounted display (HMD) and eye-tracking sensors:
generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment;
rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display;
simulating various color-coded challenges and puzzles under varying luminosities and backgrounds in the VR user interface; and
while simulating the color-coded challenges and puzzles, in real time:
continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors, user responses to the simulated challenges and puzzles; and
evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance.
2. The method of Claim 1, wherein simulating various color perception tasks comprises presenting tasks under luminosities ranging from 10 lux to 100,000 lux.
3. The method of Claim 1, wherein simulating various luminosities comprises varying light intensities ranging from 10 lux to 100,000 lux.
3. The method of Claim 1, wherein simulating various backgrounds comprises presenting solid colors, gradients, and real-world scenes including urban landscapes and natural settings.
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein simulating various backgrounds comprises presenting solid colors, gradients, and real-world scenes including urban landscapes and natural settings.
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein simulating various color perception tasks comprises: presenting a sequence of different scenarios, each scenario lasting for a predetermined duration; progressively increasing the complexity of color distinctions throughout the sequence; and incorporating transitions between different luminosities and backgrounds to assess the user’s adaptability to changing conditions.
5. The method of Claim 1, wherein simulating various color-coded challenges and puzzles comprises: presenting a sequence of different scenarios, each scenario lasting for a predetermined duration; progressively increasing the complexity of color distinctions throughout the sequence; and incorporating transitions between different luminosities and backgrounds to assess the user’s adaptability to changing conditions.
5. The method of Claim 1, wherein the eye-tracking sensors comprise infrared cameras with high-frequency tracking of at least 120 Hz, millisecond latency, and sub-millimeter precision.
6. The method of Claim 1, wherein the eye-tracking sensors comprise infrared cameras with high-frequency tracking of at least 120 Hz, millisecond latency, and sub-millimeter precision.
6. The method of Claim 1, wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises: assessing gaze direction, fixation points, and response times; measuring color discrimination accuracy; calculating reaction times across varying luminosities; and determining error rates under specific conditions.
7. The method of Claim 1, wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises: assessing gaze direction, fixation points, and response times; measuring color discrimination accuracy; calculating reaction times across varying luminosities; and determining error rates under specific conditions.
7. The method of Claim 6, wherein assessing gaze direction comprises identifying frequent shifts in gaze that may indicate difficulty in maintaining focus on certain colors under specific conditions.
8. The method of Claim 7, wherein assessing gaze direction comprises identifying frequent shifts in gaze that may indicate difficulty in maintaining focus on certain colors under specific conditions.
8. The method of Claim 6, wherein assessing fixation points comprises identifying longer fixation durations on particular colors or backgrounds that may suggest challenges in distinguishing these colors from their surroundings.
9. The method of Claim 7, wherein assessing fixation points comprises identifying longer fixation durations on particular colors or backgrounds that may suggest challenges in distinguishing these colors from their surroundings.
9. The method of Claim 1, wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises assessing color perception separately for different lighting conditions and background complexities.
10. The method of Claim 1, wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises assessing color perception separately for different lighting conditions and background complexities.
13. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: generating a color perception profile based on the evaluated tracked data; and providing recommendations for improving color perception in challenging scenarios.
13. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: generating a color vision profile based on the evaluated tracked data; and providing recommendations for corrective measures or adaptive strategies.
14. The method of Claim 13, wherein the recommendations include suggestions for environmental modifications to enhance color perception.
14. The method of Claim 13, wherein the recommendations include suggestions for environmental modifications to enhance color perception in challenging scenarios.
15. The method of Claim 1, further comprising compiling a comprehensive report including detailed color perception capabilities, identified deficiencies, and recommendations for improving color perception.
15. The method of Claim 1, further comprising compiling a comprehensive report including a detailed color vision profile, identified deficiencies, and recommendations for improving color perception.
16. The method of Claim 1, further comprising calibrating the system using a control group with known color perception profiles to establish baseline metrics.
16. The method of Claim 1, further comprising calibrating the system using a control group with known color perception profiles to establish baseline metrics.
17. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: establishing baseline performance metrics by comparing the user’s color perception data with profiles of individuals with normal color vision; identifying potential color perception deficiencies based on deviations from the established baseline; and providing recommendations for further color vision evaluation if significant deviations are detected.
17. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: establishing baseline performance metrics by comparing the user’s color perception data with profiles of individuals with normal color vision; identifying potential color vision deficiencies based on deviations from the established baseline; and providing recommendations for further color vision evaluation if significant deviations are detected.
18. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: simulating the effect of different environmental modifications in the virtual environment; allowing the user to experience and compare the simulated modifications in real-time; receiving user feedback on the simulated modifications; and providing final recommendations that balance objective color perception data with subjective user preferences.
18. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: generating multiple color enhancement options based on the color vision profile; simulating the effect of each enhancement option in the virtual environment under various luminosities and backgrounds; allowing the user to experience and compare the simulated enhancement options in real-time; receiving user feedback on the simulated enhancement options; and providing final recommendations that balance objective color perception data with subjective user preferences.
19. A virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception:
a head-mounted display;
eye-tracking sensors;
one or more processors; and
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment;
rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display;
simulating various color perception tasks under varying luminosities and backgrounds in the VR user interface; and
while simulating the color perception tasks, in real time:
continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors, user responses to the simulated tasks; and
evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance.
19. A virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception, comprising:
a head-mounted display;
eye-tracking sensors;
one or more processors; and
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment;
rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display;
simulating various color-coded challenges and puzzles under varying luminosities and backgrounds in the VR user interface; and
while simulating the color-coded challenges and puzzles, in real time:
continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors, user responses to the simulated challenges and puzzles; and
evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance.
20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device with a head-mounted display and eye-tracking sensors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment;
rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display;
simulating various color perception tasks under varying luminosities and backgrounds in the VR user interface; and
while simulating the color perception tasks, in real time:
continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors, user responses to the simulated tasks; and
evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance.
20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device with a head-mounted display and eye-tracking sensors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment;
rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display;
simulating various color-coded challenges and puzzles under varying luminosities and backgrounds in the VR user interface; and
while simulating the color-coded challenges and puzzles, in real time:
continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors, user responses to the simulated challenges and puzzles; and
evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), in view of Samec (US 20170017083 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sinha discloses a method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception, in at least Figure 1, comprising:
at an electronic device (“virtual reality, VR, headset-based system”, paragraph 0016) including a head-mounted display (HMD) (1 "VR headset", Figure 1) and eye-tracking sensors (8 "eye tracking subsystem", Figure 1):
generating a VR user interface (3 "left display", 4 "right display", Figure 1) corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment (paragraph 0017 states "Although not shown, there may also be an eyecup over each of the left and right displays that includes optics (e.g., a lens) serving to give the user the illusion that an object they see in the display (in this example a pine tree, which may be displayed in 2D or in 3D)");
rendering the VR user interface (3 "left display", 4 "right display") on the head-mounted display (1 "VR headset", paragraph 0017 states "The VR headset 1 may be composed of a left visible light display 3 to which a left compartment 5 is coupled that fits over the left eye of the user, and a right visible light display 4 to which a right compartment 6 is coupled that fits over the right eye of the user", Figure 1);
simulating various color perception tasks under varying backgrounds in the VR user interface (3 "left display", 4 "right display", paragraph 0029 states "The method may begin in operation 51 where the processor signals the visible light display to display a motion stimulus in a visual field of the left eye, the right eye, or both the left eye and the right eye simultaneously. The motion stimulus has a background and a region that contrasts in color relative to the background, e.g., a PIP. A ‘color pair’ in any PIP is the object or figure hue and the background hue, meant to test for a particular type of color blindness. The region changes position or moves relative to rest of the motion stimulus, to form a pattern"); and
while simulating the color perception tasks (paragraph 0029), in real time:
continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors (8 "eye tracking subsystem"), user responses to the simulated tasks (paragraph 0030 states "In operation 52, the processor uses the tracking data from the eye tracking subsystem 8 to record a tracked movement of the right eye or a tracked movement of the left eye, as the right eye or the left eye moves while the motion stimulus is displayed in operation 51. It also interprets the tracked movement to determine whether the user's gaze follows the pattern (operation 54.)"); and
evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance (paragraph 0030 states "These operations 51-54 are repeated several times each time with a different motion stimulus, and then in operation 56 the processor evaluates the interpreted tracked movements to determine a color vision score for the user, e.g., how sensitive the user is to the color contrast in each motion stimulus based on how accurately the user's eye tracked the pattern in that motion stimulus").
However, Sinha does not disclose simulating various color perception tasks under varying luminosities.
Samec teaches simulating various color perception tasks under varying luminosities (paragraph 1694 states “the system can be configured to administer a brightness acuity test to determine the functional visual acuity in various bright light conditions. For example, the system can be configured to simulate three or more bright-light conditions: 1) high-direct overhead sunlight; 2) medium-partly cloudy day; and 3) low-bright overhead commercial lighting … the ophthalmic system can be configured to determine refractive errors for individual colors (e.g., red, green, blue, yellow, etc.)”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception of Sinha modified by simulating various color perception tasks, as taught by Samec, in order to test for sensitivity to bright light, photophobia, and impaired scotopic vision (paragraph 1694).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sinha does not disclose wherein simulating various color perception tasks comprises presenting tasks under luminosities ranging from 10 lux to 100,000 lux.
Samec teaches wherein simulating various color perception tasks comprises presenting tasks under varying luminosities (paragraph 1694 states “the system can be configured to administer a brightness acuity test to determine the functional visual acuity in various bright light conditions. For example, the system can be configured to simulate three or more bright-light conditions: 1) high-direct overhead sunlight; 2) medium-partly cloudy day; and 3) low-bright overhead commercial lighting”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception of Sinha modified by simulating various color perception tasks comprises presenting tasks under varying luminosities, as taught by Samec, in order to test for sensitivity to bright light, photophobia, and impaired scotopic vision (paragraph 1694).
It is well known in the art that a brightness of 10 lux corresponds to dim indoor lighting while a brightness of 100,000 lux corresponds to direct outdoor sunlight. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to simulate various color perception tasks comprising presenting tasks under luminosities ranging from 10 lux to 100,000 lux, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sinha does not disclose presenting a sequence of color perception tasks, wherein the tasks progress from low luminosity to high luminosity conditions.
Samec teaches presenting a sequence of color perception tasks, wherein the tasks include low luminosity and high luminosity conditions (paragraph 1694 states “the system can be configured to administer a brightness acuity test to determine the functional visual acuity in various bright light conditions. For example, the system can be configured to simulate three or more bright-light conditions: 1) high-direct overhead sunlight; 2) medium-partly cloudy day; and 3) low-bright overhead commercial lighting. The visual acuity measurements can be similar to those that would be measured in these three conditions using a standard eye chart (e.g. the eye chart 1420). The result of such a test may be an assessment of functional visual acuity. Such tests can be used to test for sensitivity to bright light, photophobia, impaired scotopic vision, and the like. In some embodiments, the system can be configured to test individual colors. For example, the ophthalmic system can be configured to determine refractive errors for individual colors (e.g., red, green, blue, yellow, etc.)”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception of Sinha modified by presenting a sequence of color perception tasks, wherein the tasks include low luminosity and high luminosity conditions, as taught by Samec, in order to test for sensitivity to bright light, photophobia, and impaired scotopic vision (paragraph 1694).
The combination of Sinha and Samec discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the tasks progress from low luminosity to high luminosity conditions. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to allow the tasks to progress from low luminosity to high luminosity conditions, since applicant has not disclosed that progression from low luminosity to high luminosity conditions solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the tasks progressing from high luminosity to low luminosity conditions. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 11, however Sinha does not disclose wherein the sequence of color perception tasks includes transitioning between different backgrounds to assess adaptability in color perception.
Samec teaches wherein the sequence of color perception tasks includes transitioning between different backgrounds to assess adaptability in color perception (paragraph 1694 states “the system can be configured to administer a brightness acuity test to determine the functional visual acuity in various bright light conditions. For example, the system can be configured to simulate three or more bright-light conditions: 1) high-direct overhead sunlight; 2) medium-partly cloudy day; and 3) low-bright overhead commercial lighting. The visual acuity measurements can be similar to those that would be measured in these three conditions using a standard eye chart (e.g. the eye chart 1420). The result of such a test may be an assessment of functional visual acuity. Such tests can be used to test for sensitivity to bright light, photophobia, impaired scotopic vision, and the like. In some embodiments, the system can be configured to test individual colors. For example, the ophthalmic system can be configured to determine refractive errors for individual colors (e.g., red, green, blue, yellow, etc.)”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception of Sinha modified by wherein the sequence of color perception tasks includes transitioning between different backgrounds to assess adaptability in color perception, as taught by Samec, in order to test for sensitivity to bright light, photophobia, and impaired scotopic vision (paragraph 1694).
Regarding claim 19, Sinha discloses a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception, in at least Figure 1:
a head-mounted display (1 "VR headset", Figure 1);
eye-tracking sensors (8 "eye tracking subsystem", Figure 1);
one or more processors (“processor”, paragraph 0016 states “A human operator, such as an eye care professional, ECP, may interact briefly with software that is being executed by one or more microelectronic data processors (generically, “a processor”) of the system to conduct the color vision test. Once launched or initialized the software may conduct the test automatically (without input from the operator) by controlling the various electronic and optical components of the VR headset 1. The software may have components that are executed by a processor that is in the VR headset 1, and it may have components that are executed by a processor which is part of the external computing device 9”, paragraphs 0019-0020); and
memory (“solid state memory”, paragraph 0019) storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (“processor”, paragraph 0019 states “The system has a processor, e.g., one or more microelectronic processors that are part of the external computing device 9, one or more that are within the housing of the VR headset 1, or a combination of processors in those devices that are communicating with each other through a communication network interface. The processor is configured by software, or instructions stored in a machine readable medium such as solid state memory, to conduct a color vision test, when the headset has been fitted over the user's eyes”), the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a VR user interface (3 "left display", 4 "right display", Figure 1) corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment (paragraph 0017 states "Although not shown, there may also be an eyecup over each of the left and right displays that includes optics (e.g., a lens) serving to give the user the illusion that an object they see in the display (in this example a pine tree, which may be displayed in 2D or in 3D)");
rendering the VR user interface (3 "left display", 4 "right display") on the head-mounted display (1 "VR headset", paragraph 0017 states "The VR headset 1 may be composed of a left visible light display 3 to which a left compartment 5 is coupled that fits over the left eye of the user, and a right visible light display 4 to which a right compartment 6 is coupled that fits over the right eye of the user", Figure 1);
simulating various color perception tasks under varying backgrounds in the VR user interface (3 "left display", 4 "right display", paragraph 0029 states "The method may begin in operation 51 where the processor signals the visible light display to display a motion stimulus in a visual field of the left eye, the right eye, or both the left eye and the right eye simultaneously. The motion stimulus has a background and a region that contrasts in color relative to the background, e.g., a PIP. A ‘color pair’ in any PIP is the object or figure hue and the background hue, meant to test for a particular type of color blindness. The region changes position or moves relative to rest of the motion stimulus, to form a pattern"); and
while simulating the color perception tasks (paragraph 0029), in real time:
continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors (8 "eye tracking subsystem"), user responses to the simulated tasks (paragraph 0030 states "In operation 52, the processor uses the tracking data from the eye tracking subsystem 8 to record a tracked movement of the right eye or a tracked movement of the left eye, as the right eye or the left eye moves while the motion stimulus is displayed in operation 51. It also interprets the tracked movement to determine whether the user's gaze follows the pattern (operation 54.)"); and
evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance (paragraph 0030 states "These operations 51-54 are repeated several times each time with a different motion stimulus, and then in operation 56 the processor evaluates the interpreted tracked movements to determine a color vision score for the user, e.g., how sensitive the user is to the color contrast in each motion stimulus based on how accurately the user's eye tracked the pattern in that motion stimulus").
However, Sinha does not disclose simulating various color perception tasks under varying luminosities.
Samec teaches simulating various color perception tasks under varying luminosities (Samec teaches simulating various color-coded challenges and puzzles under varying luminosities (paragraph 1694 states “the system can be configured to administer a brightness acuity test to determine the functional visual acuity in various bright light conditions. For example, the system can be configured to simulate three or more bright-light conditions: 1) high-direct overhead sunlight; 2) medium-partly cloudy day; and 3) low-bright overhead commercial lighting … the ophthalmic system can be configured to determine refractive errors for individual colors (e.g., red, green, blue, yellow, etc.)”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception of Shinha modified by simulating various color perception tasks under varying luminosities, as taught by Samec, in order to test for sensitivity to bright light, photophobia, and impaired scotopic vision (paragraph 1694).
Regarding claim 20, Sinha discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (“solid state memory”) storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors (“processor”, paragraph 0019 states “The system has a processor, e.g., one or more microelectronic processors that are part of the external computing device 9, one or more that are within the housing of the VR headset 1, or a combination of processors in those devices that are communicating with each other through a communication network interface. The processor is configured by software, or instructions stored in a machine readable medium such as solid state memory, to conduct a color vision test, when the headset has been fitted over the user's eyes”, paragraph 0020) of an electronic device (“virtual reality, VR, headset-based system”, paragraph 0016) with a head-mounted display (1 "VR headset", Figure 1) and eye-tracking sensors (8 "eye tracking subsystem", Figure 1), in at least Figure 1, the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a VR user interface (3 "left display", 4 "right display", Figure 1) corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment (paragraph 0017 states "Although not shown, there may also be an eyecup over each of the left and right displays that includes optics (e.g., a lens) serving to give the user the illusion that an object they see in the display (in this example a pine tree, which may be displayed in 2D or in 3D)");
rendering the VR user interface (3 "left display", 4 "right display") on the head-mounted display (1 "VR headset", paragraph 0017 states "The VR headset 1 may be composed of a left visible light display 3 to which a left compartment 5 is coupled that fits over the left eye of the user, and a right visible light display 4 to which a right compartment 6 is coupled that fits over the right eye of the user", Figure 1);
simulating various color perception tasks under varying backgrounds in the VR user interface (3 "left display", 4 "right display", paragraph 0029 states "The method may begin in operation 51 where the processor signals the visible light display to display a motion stimulus in a visual field of the left eye, the right eye, or both the left eye and the right eye simultaneously. The motion stimulus has a background and a region that contrasts in color relative to the background, e.g., a PIP. A ‘color pair’ in any PIP is the object or figure hue and the background hue, meant to test for a particular type of color blindness. The region changes position or moves relative to rest of the motion stimulus, to form a pattern"); and
while simulating the color perception tasks (paragraph 0029), in real time:
continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors (8 "eye tracking subsystem"), user responses to the simulated tasks (paragraph 0030 states "In operation 52, the processor uses the tracking data from the eye tracking subsystem 8 to record a tracked movement of the right eye or a tracked movement of the left eye, as the right eye or the left eye moves while the motion stimulus is displayed in operation 51. It also interprets the tracked movement to determine whether the user's gaze follows the pattern (operation 54.)"); and
evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance (paragraph 0030 states "These operations 51-54 are repeated several times each time with a different motion stimulus, and then in operation 56 the processor evaluates the interpreted tracked movements to determine a color vision score for the user, e.g., how sensitive the user is to the color contrast in each motion stimulus based on how accurately the user's eye tracked the pattern in that motion stimulus").
However, Sinha does not disclose simulating various color perception tasks under varying luminosities.
Samec teaches simulating various color perception tasks under varying luminosities (Samec teaches simulating various color-coded challenges and puzzles under varying luminosities (paragraph 1694 states “the system can be configured to administer a brightness acuity test to determine the functional visual acuity in various bright light conditions. For example, the system can be configured to simulate three or more bright-light conditions: 1) high-direct overhead sunlight; 2) medium-partly cloudy day; and 3) low-bright overhead commercial lighting … the ophthalmic system can be configured to determine refractive errors for individual colors (e.g., red, green, blue, yellow, etc.)”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Shinha modified by simulating various color perception tasks under varying luminosities, as taught by Samec, in order to test for sensitivity to bright light, photophobia, and impaired scotopic vision (paragraph 1694).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), in view of Samec (US 20170017083 A1), and further in view of Lange (WO 2024105178 A1)(see attached copy).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sinha does not disclose wherein simulating various backgrounds comprises presenting solid colors, gradients, and real-world scenes including urban landscapes and natural settings.
Lange teaches wherein simulating various backgrounds comprises presenting solid colors, gradients, and real-world scenes (paragraph 0083 states “examples of the images are, but not limited to, solid white, grey, or color images, gradient images or images captured by a camera”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception of Sinha modified by wherein simulating various backgrounds comprises presenting solid colors, gradients, and real-world scenes, as taught by Lange, in order to provide the user with a range of images to determine color blindness more thoroughly.
Lange discloses the claimed limitation except for real-world scenes including urban landscapes and natural settings. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize real-world scenes including urban landscapes and natural settings, since applicant has not disclosed that using real-world scenes including urban landscapes and natural settings solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other types of scenes or imagery. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), in view of Samec (US 20170017083 A1), and further in view of Mihali (WO 2023081170 A1)(see attached copy).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sinha does not disclose wherein the eye-tracking sensors comprise infrared cameras with high-frequency tracking of at least 120 Hz, millisecond latency, and sub-millimeter precision.
Mihali teaches wherein the eye-tracking sensors (“IR-based eye tracking system for gaze extraction”) comprise infrared cameras with high-frequency tracking of at least 120 Hz, millisecond latency, and sub-millimeter precision (paragraph 00187 states "one non-limiting embodiment of an HMD comprises an embedded IR-based eye tracking system for gaze extraction having the following specifications: a tracking frequency of approximately 200Hz, a field of view greater than approximately 100 degrees, a gaze accuracy of at least approximately 1.0 degrees, a gaze precision of at least approximately 0.08 degrees, a camera latency of approximately 8.5 ms or less", wherein a gaze precision of 0.08 degrees would correspond to a sub-millimeter value if one assumes that the HMD sits an inch (25.4 mm) or less away from the eye using arc length calculation).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception of Sinha modified by wherein the eye-tracking sensors comprise infrared cameras with high-frequency tracking of at least 120 Hz, millisecond latency, and sub-millimeter precision, as taught by Mihali, in order to ensure adequate eye-tracking detection.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), in view of Samec (US 20170017083 A1), in view of Hirji (US 20080309878 A1), and further in view of Abraham (WO 9505621 A1)(see attached copy).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sinha does not disclose generating a color perception profile based on the evaluated tracked data; and providing recommendations for improving color perception in challenging scenarios.
Hirji teaches generating a color perception profile based on the evaluated tracked data (paragraph 0037 states “a comparison module 33 can be configured to perform a comparison of a series of patient Amsler grids stored in the corresponding patient data items 55 in memory 50 and generate a graphical representation of the progression of the patient's disease. This representation can be a color-coded image, with a color gradient corresponding to the age of areas of reduced visual acuity. Alternatively, the representation can be a time-lapse series of images or video, showing the progression of the patient's disease”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception of Sinha modified by generating a color vision profile based on the evaluated tracked data, as taught by Hirji, in order to show the progression of the patient’s ailment (paragraph 0037).
Abraham teaches providing recommendations for improving color perception in challenging scenarios (page 24, paragraph 4 - page 26, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for evaluating color perception of Sinha modified by providing recommendations for improving color perception in challenging scenarios, as taught by Abraham, in order to improve or modify colour vision (page 24, paragraph 4 - page 26, paragraph 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-10, and 14-18 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:
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sinha does not disclose wherein simulating various color perception tasks comprises: presenting a sequence of different scenarios, each scenario lasting for a predetermined duration; progressively increasing the complexity of color distinctions throughout the sequence; and incorporating transitions between different luminosities and backgrounds to assess the user’s adaptability to changing conditions.
Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), Samec (US 20170017083 A1), Sadot (WO 2021211886 A1), Lange (WO 2024105178 A1), Mihali (WO 2023081170 A1), Nordstrom (US 20240000309 A1), Hirji (US 20080309878 A1), and Abraham (WO 9505621 A1), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest wherein simulating various color perception tasks comprises: presenting a sequence of different scenarios, each scenario lasting for a predetermined duration; progressively increasing the complexity of color distinctions throughout the sequence; and incorporating transitions between different luminosities and backgrounds to assess the user’s adaptability to changing conditions, among other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sinha does not disclose wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises: assessing gaze direction, fixation points, and response times; measuring color discrimination accuracy; calculating reaction times across varying luminosities; and determining error rates under specific conditions.
and Sinha further discloses wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises: assessing gaze direction (paragraph 0030 states “the processor uses the tracking data from the eye tracking subsystem 8 to record a tracked movement of the right eye or a tracked movement of the left eye, as the right eye or the left eye moves while the motion stimulus is displayed in operation 51. It also interprets the tracked movement to determine whether the user's gaze follows the pattern (operation 54.)”) and fixation points (paragraph 0031 states “the user may be instructed to look for the hidden figure (within its respective PIP or plate) that appears with highest contrast from its background. There may be several of such plates at similar levels of color contrast, and if the user's gaze is interpreted as having stared at all of them (sequentially of course) then the measurement of color sensitivity obtained from such a stimulus is more likely to be accurate (or has a greater confidence score.)”); measuring color discrimination accuracy (paragraph 0031 states “the user may be instructed to look for the hidden figure (within its respective PIP or plate) that appears with highest contrast from its background. There may be several of such plates at similar levels of color contrast, and if the user's gaze is interpreted as having stared at all of them (sequentially of course) then the measurement of color sensitivity obtained from such a stimulus is more likely to be accurate (or has a greater confidence score.) One or more of these regions or plates may disappear and then reappear elsewhere, as part of the motion stimulus, and the user's gaze upon them is tracked and interpreted to determine the color vision score”).
However, Sinha does not disclose wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises: assessing response times; calculating reaction times across varying luminosities; and determining error rates under specific conditions.
Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), Samec (US 20170017083 A1), Sadot (WO 2021211886 A1), Lange (WO 2024105178 A1), Mihali (WO 2023081170 A1), Nordstrom (US 20240000309 A1), Hirji (US 20080309878 A1), and Abraham (WO 9505621 A1), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises: assessing response times; calculating reaction times across varying luminosities; and determining error rates under specific conditions, among other claim limitations.
Claims 7 and 8 depend on claim 6, so they are allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sinha does not disclose wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises assessing color perception separately for different lighting conditions and background complexities.
Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), Samec (US 20170017083 A1), Sadot (WO 2021211886 A1), Lange (WO 2024105178 A1), Mihali (WO 2023081170 A1), Nordstrom (US 20240000309 A1), Hirji (US 20080309878 A1), and Abraham (WO 9505621 A1), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises assessing color perception separately for different lighting conditions and background complexities, among other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Sinha further discloses wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises mapping the user’s gaze direction (paragraph 0030 states “the processor uses the tracking data from the eye tracking subsystem 8 to record a tracked movement of the right eye or a tracked movement of the left eye, as the right eye or the left eye moves while the motion stimulus is displayed in operation 51. It also interprets the tracked movement to determine whether the user's gaze follows the pattern (operation 54.)”) and fixation points (paragraph 0031 states “the user may be instructed to look for the hidden figure (within its respective PIP or plate) that appears with highest contrast from its background. There may be several of such plates at similar levels of color contrast, and if the user's gaze is interpreted as having stared at all of them (sequentially of course) then the measurement of color sensitivity obtained from such a stimulus is more likely to be accurate (or has a greater confidence score.)”).
However, Sinha does not disclose wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises response times to their color perception accuracy and adaptability.
Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), Samec (US 20170017083 A1), Sadot (WO 2021211886 A1), Lange (WO 2024105178 A1), Mihali (WO 2023081170 A1), Nordstrom (US 20240000309 A1), Hirji (US 20080309878 A1), and Abraham (WO 9505621 A1), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises response times to their color perception accuracy and adaptability, among other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 13, however Sinha does not disclose wherein the recommendations include suggestions for environmental modifications to enhance color perception.
Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), Samec (US 20170017083 A1), Sadot (WO 2021211886 A1), Lange (WO 2024105178 A1), Mihali (WO 2023081170 A1), Nordstrom (US 20240000309 A1), Hirji (US 20080309878 A1), and Abraham (WO 9505621 A1), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest wherein the recommendations include suggestions for environmental modifications to enhance color perception, among other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sinha does not disclose compiling a comprehensive report including detailed color perception capabilities, identified deficiencies, and recommendations for improving color perception.
Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), Samec (US 20170017083 A1), Sadot (WO 2021211886 A1), Lange (WO 2024105178 A1), Mihali (WO 2023081170 A1), Nordstrom (US 20240000309 A1), Hirji (US 20080309878 A1), and Abraham (WO 9505621 A1), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest compiling a comprehensive report including detailed color perception capabilities, identified deficiencies, and recommendations for improving color perception, among other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sinha does not disclose calibrating the system using a control group with known color perception profiles to establish baseline metrics.
Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), Samec (US 20170017083 A1), Sadot (WO 2021211886 A1), Lange (WO 2024105178 A1), Mihali (WO 2023081170 A1), Nordstrom (US 20240000309 A1), Hirji (US 20080309878 A1), and Abraham (WO 9505621 A1), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest calibrating the system using a control group with known color perception profiles to establish baseline metrics, among other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sinha does not disclose establishing baseline performance metrics by comparing the user’s color perception data with profiles of individuals with normal color vision; identifying potential color perception deficiencies based on deviations from the established baseline; and providing recommendations for further color vision evaluation if significant deviations are detected.
Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), Samec (US 20170017083 A1), Sadot (WO 2021211886 A1), Lange (WO 2024105178 A1), Mihali (WO 2023081170 A1), Nordstrom (US 20240000309 A1), Hirji (US 20080309878 A1), and Abraham (WO 9505621 A1), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest establishing baseline performance metrics by comparing the user’s color perception data with profiles of individuals with normal color vision; identifying potential color perception deficiencies based on deviations from the established baseline; and providing recommendations for further color vision evaluation if significant deviations are detected, among other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sinha and Samec disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sinha does not disclose simulating the effect of different environmental modifications in the virtual environment; allowing the user to experience and compare the simulated modifications in real-time; receiving user feedback on the simulated modifications; and providing final recommendations that balance objective color perception data with subjective user preferences.
Sinha (US 20240188818 A1), Samec (US 20170017083 A1), Sadot (WO 2021211886 A1), Lange (WO 2024105178 A1), Mihali (WO 2023081170 A1), Nordstrom (US 20240000309 A1), Hirji (US 20080309878 A1), and Abraham (WO 9505621 A1), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest simulating the effect of different environmental modifications in the virtual environment; allowing the user to experience and compare the simulated modifications in real-time; receiving user feedback on the simulated modifications; and providing final recommendations that balance objective color perception data with subjective user preferences, among other claim limitations.
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Sadot (WO 2021211886 A1) discloses an eye-examining virtual reality headset which includes eye-tracking and gaze recording, while performing a color blindness test (paragraph 0074).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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 at 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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights