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 statement filed June 13, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, no English explanation of relevance of HU185600 was provided. Therefore, this reference has been crossed out and it has not been considered, however the other documents in the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The extensive drawings have 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 drawings.
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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: apparent inadvertent typographical error. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “a memory …”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment” in claim 1;
“rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display in claim 1;
“simulating various real-world scenarios in the VR user interface in claim 1;
“evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance in claim 1;
“presenting tasks involving color-critical situations in claim 2;
“incorporating dynamic changes in lighting and context that affect color perception in claim 3;
“presenting a sequence of different color-critical situations, each situation lasting for a predetermined duration; progressively increasing the complexity of color perception challenges throughout the sequence; and incorporating transitions between different lighting conditions to assess the user’s adaptability to changing environments in claim 4;
“assessing color identification accuracy; measuring reaction times to color-based cues; evaluating performance in color-dependent tasks; and determining error rates for color-critical decisions in claim 6;
“comparing the user’s color identifications with known color values in the simulated scenarios in claim 7;
“analyzing the user’s ability to complete tasks that require accurate color perception in claim 8;
“assessing color perception separately for different types of real-world scenarios and lighting conditions” in claim 9;
“mapping the user’s color identification accuracy, reaction times, and task performance to specific types of color blindness” in claim 10;
“generating a color vision profile based on the evaluated tracked data; and providing personalized recommendations for adaptive eyewear” in claim 11;
“presenting a sequence of real-world simulations” in claim 13;
“compiling a comprehensive report including detailed color vision capabilities, personalized adaptive eyewear recommendations, and performance metrics” in claim 15;
“calibrating the system using a control group with known color vision profiles” in claim 16;
“establishing baseline performance metrics by comparing the user’s color perception data with profiles of individuals with normal color vision; identifying specific types and degrees of color blindness based on deviations from the established baseline; and providing recommendations for further medical evaluation if significant color vision deficiencies are detected” in claim 17;
“simulating the effect of different adaptive eyewear options in the virtual environment; allowing the user to experience and compare the simulated adaptive eyewear in real-time across various scenarios; receiving user feedback on the simulated adaptive eyewear options; and providing final recommendations that balance objective color perception data with subjective user preferences and comfort” in claim 18;
“generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment” in claim 19;
“rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display” in claim 19;
“simulating various color perception tasks under varying luminosities and backgrounds in the VR user interface” in claim 19;
“evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance” in claim 19; and
“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” in claim 20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5 “wherein the eye-tracking sensors comprise high-precision sensors capable of tracking micro-movements and pupil dilation in response to different color stimuli” raises clarity issues. The claim is a method (a series of steps) limitation is directed at a structure. It is unclear how this structure is further limiting the method. Particularly, there is no changes to the method, per se. The metes and bounds of the method is unclear, since it is unclear if/how these sensors limit the method. It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited-structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961). Thus, the limitation is interpreted as not further limiting the method. The examiner respectfully suggests having this claim depend from claim 19.
Regarding claim 18 “providing final recommendations that balance objective color perception data with subjective user preferences and comfort” raises clarity issues. Particularly “subjective user preferences and comfort” is a subjective limitation is solely dependent upon the opinion of a person. It has been held that a claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite; In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970), see MPEP 2173.05(b)IV. In this case the subjective limitation causes metes and bounds of the claim to be vague and indefinite. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “providing final recommendations
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Insofar as claim 5 is understood, as set forth above, the sole limitation in claim 5 fails to further limit the method. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form (e.g. having it depend from claim 19), rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In particular, claim 19 “a memory” reads on both transitory signals and non-transitory signals as currently construed. However, a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination “a non-transitory memory …”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 & 2) as being anticipated by Sinha et al. US Patent Application Publication 2024/0188818.
Regarding claim 1 Sinha disclose a method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for testing and recommending adaptive eyewear for color blindness (title & abstract e.g. see figures 1, 2A & 3-6), comprising: generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment (e.g. VR headset 1 & paragraph [0017] “give the user the illusion that an object they see … which may be displayed in 2D or in 3D”); rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display (axiomatic); simulating various real-world scenarios in the VR user interface (implicit feature e.g. paragraph [0017] notes seeing a pine tree); and while simulating the real-world scenarios, in real time: continuously tracking (e.g. title), using the eye-tracking sensors (e.g. eye tracking subsystem 8), user responses to the simulated scenarios (inter alia paragraph [0002] “eye tracking color vision testing using motion stimuli”); and evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance (inter alia paragraph [0018] “output eye tracking data can be interpreted”).
Regarding claim 2 Sinha disclose the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses wherein simulating various real-world scenarios comprises presenting tasks involving color-critical situations (inter alia e.g. paragraph [0035] “asking user to follow the object they see moving”).
Regarding claim 3 Sinha disclose the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses wherein simulating various real-world scenarios comprises incorporating dynamic changes in lighting and context that affect color perception (inter alia e.g. paragraph [0035] “various levels and types of color vs amplitude contrast, can determine color perception threshold”).
Regarding claim 5 Sinha disclose the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses wherein the eye-tracking sensors comprise high-precision sensors capable of tracking micro-movements and pupil dilation (no patentable weight as set forth in 112 section, further paragraph [0018] “independently tracking the positions of the left and right eyes, and for detecting blinks and pupil size or diameter of each eye”) in response to different color stimuli (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 6 Sinha disclose the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises: assessing color identification accuracy (inter alia paragraph [0030] “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”); measuring reaction times to color-based cues (inter alia paragraph [0022] “processor quantifies hesitancy by the user”); evaluating performance in color-dependent tasks (inter alia paragraph [0028] “the processor evaluates the re-arranged sequence to determine a color vision score for the user”); and determining error rates for color-critical decisions (inter alia paragraph [0020] “processor then records an indication … as a correct or incorrect answer to the question”).
Regarding claim 7 Sinha disclose the method of claim 6, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses wherein assessing color identification accuracy comprises comparing the user’s color identifications with known color values in the simulated scenarios (inter alia paragraph [0020] “processor then records an indication as to whether the user has seen a stimulus figure in the PIP (operation 18), based on a comparison between the stimulus figure and the user selected figure—as a correct or incorrect answer to the question”).
Regarding claim 8 Sinha disclose the method of claim 6, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses wherein evaluating performance in color-dependent tasks comprises analyzing the user’s ability to complete tasks that require accurate color perception (axiomatic e.g. paragraph [0020] “results in several indications being recorded, as to whether the user has (correctly or incorrectly) seen the various stimulus figure”).
Regarding claim 9 Sinha disclose the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises assessing color perception separately for different types of real-world scenarios and lighting conditions (inter alia e.g. paragraph [0035] “various levels and types of color vs amplitude contrast, can determine color perception threshold”).
Regarding claim 10 Sinha disclose the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises mapping the user’s color identification accuracy (inter alia e.g. paragraph [0020] “results in several indications being recorded, as to whether the user has (correctly or incorrectly) seen the various stimulus figure”), reaction times (inter alia paragraph [0022] “processor quantifies hesitancy by the user”), and task performance to specific types of color blindness (inter alia paragraph [0029] “test for a particular type of color blindness”).
Regarding claim 11 Sinha disclose the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses it is further comprising: generating a color vision profile based on the evaluated tracked data; and providing personalized recommendations for adaptive eyewear (inter alia paragraph [0005] “results of the test may then be used by, for example, an eye care professional to diagnose a health problem with the person that might call for additional testing or a recommended treatment”).
Regarding claim 13 Sinha disclose the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses it is further comprising presenting a sequence of real-world simulations, wherein each simulation tests different aspects of color perception relevant to daily life (e.g. see figures 2A & 3-6).
Regarding claim 14 Sinha disclose the method of claim 13, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses wherein the sequence of real-world simulations comprises progressively challenging scenarios to assess the full range of the user’s color perception capabilities (implicit e.g. see figures 2A & 3-6).
Regarding claim 16 Sinha disclose the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses it is further comprising calibrating the system using a control group with known color vision profiles to establish baseline performance metrics (inherent that system is that provides quantitate results is in comparison to a reference).
Regarding claim 17 Sinha disclose the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses it is further comprising: establishing baseline performance metrics by comparing the user’s color perception data with profiles of individuals with normal color vision (inherent that system is that provides quantitate results of deficiency is in comparison to a reference without deficiency); identifying specific types and degrees of color blindness based on deviations from the established baseline (inherent that system is that provides quantitate results of deficiency is in comparison to a reference without deficiency); and providing recommendations for further medical evaluation if significant color vision deficiencies are detected (inter alia paragraph [0005] “results of the test may then be used by, for example, an eye care professional to diagnose a health problem with the person that might call for additional testing or a recommended treatment”).
Regarding claim 19 Sinha further discloses a virtual reality (VR) system (e.g. figure 1) for testing and recommending adaptive eyewear for color blindness, comprising: a head-mounted display (e.g. 1); eye-tracking sensors (e.g. 8); one or more processors (paragraph [0019] “system has a processor”); and a non-transitory memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (paragraph [0019] “processor is configured by software, or instructions stored in a machine readable medium such as solid state memory, to conduct a color vision test”), where the instructions are for executing the method of claim 1 (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 20 Sinha further discloses 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 (paragraph [0019] “processor is configured by software, or instructions stored in a machine readable medium such as solid state memory, to conduct a color vision test”), where the instructions are for executing the method of claim 1 (as set forth above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha et al. US Patent Application Publication 2024/0188818 in view of Nordstrom US Patent Application Publication 2024/0000309.
Regarding claim 4 Sinha disclose the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses wherein simulating various real-world scenarios comprises: incorporating transitions between different lighting conditions to assess the user’s adaptability to changing environments (inter alia e.g. paragraph [0035] “various levels and types of color vs amplitude contrast, can determine color perception threshold”).
Sinha does not explicitly disclose presenting a sequence of different color-critical situations, each situation lasting for a predetermined duration; and progressively increasing the complexity of color perception challenges throughout the sequence.
Nordstrom teaches a similar method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for testing and recommending adaptive eyewear for color blindness (title & paragraph [0008 & 0110] “virtual reality or augmented reality headset”), comprising: generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment (inter alia paragraph [0163] “presentations options include … 3-D space”); rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display (inter alia paragraph [0171[ “computer-driven headset where color contrast stimuli may be presented as 2 or 3-D images”); simulating various scenarios in the VR user interface (implicit feature e.g. see figures 27A-34); and while simulating the scenarios, in real time: continuously tracking (inter alia paragraph [0017] “eye tracking input”), using the eye-tracking sensors (inter alia paragraph [0110] “eye tracking sensors”), user responses to the simulated scenarios (inter alia paragraph [0171] “eye tracking software monitors the patient's gaze and determines whether the patient has identified the colored stimuli”); and evaluating the tracked data for color perception performance (inter alia paragraph [0171] “response may be recorded as correct … response may be recorded as incorrect”); and further teaches presenting a sequence of different color-critical situations, each situation lasting for a predetermined duration (inter alia paragraph [0030] “presenting each region or area for a specific, limited duration”) for the purpose of preventing a color deficient patient from potentially perceiving visual clues to aid in a response and potentially affecting the score (paragraph [0030]); progressively increasing the complexity of color perception challenges throughout the sequence (inter alia paragraph [0171] “patient's threshold for that cone-isolating color is determined by the lowest color contrast stimulus the patient can see for that color” for the purpose of determining the patient's threshold (paragraph [0171]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the method as disclosed by Sinha to have the steps of presenting a sequence of different color-critical situations, each situation lasting for a predetermined duration; and progressively increasing the complexity of color perception challenges throughout the sequence as taught by Nordstrom for the purpose of determining the patient's threshold and determining the patient's threshold.
Claims 12, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha et al. US Patent Application Publication 2024/0188818 in view of Fogel et al. US Patent 12,285,213.
Regarding claims 12, 15 and 18 Sinha discloses the method of claims 11 and 1, as set forth above. Sinha further discloses it is further comprising compiling a comprehensive report including detailed color vision capabilities and performance metrics (inter alia paragraph [0016 & 0028] “device 9 for presenting results of the color vision test” & “determine a color vision score for the user”), as required by claim 15.
Sinha does not disclose wherein the recommendations comprise suggestions for specific tints or filters that enhance the user’s color perception in identified challenging scenarios, as required by claim 12; or that the report includes personalized adaptive eyewear recommendations, as required by claim 15; or it is further comprising: simulating the effect of different adaptive eyewear options in the virtual environment; allowing the user to experience and compare the simulated adaptive eyewear in real-time across various scenarios; receiving user feedback on the simulated adaptive eyewear options; and providing final recommendations, as required by claim 18.
Fogel teaches a similar method (title e.g. see figure 1) using scenarios (inter alia 8 lines 13-18 “[t]esting can be embedded within the context of an analog or digital game”); and further teaches recommendations comprise suggestions for specific tints or filters that enhance the user’s color perception (inter alia column 6 lines 13-18 & 31-33 “test can be provided in different luminosities to generate sets of filters that are appropriate in different lighting conditions” & “present invention can be used to design analog glasses that are unique to each individual based on their unique color filter”) for the purpose of designing glasses that are unique for an individual (column 6 lines 31-33) to provide them with filters that would improve their level of performance whether for work or recreation (column 6 lines 27-30); and that the report includes personalized adaptive eyewear recommendations (inter alia column 6 lines 13-18 & 31-33) for the purpose of designing glasses that are unique for an individual (column 6 lines 31-33) to provide them with filters that would improve their level of performance whether for work or recreation (column 6 lines 27-30); and it is further comprising: simulating (see figure 1 & column 7 line 27-column 8 line ) the effect of different adaptive eyewear options in the virtual environment (inter alia column 7 lines 60-61 “colors of the display being used for the user are then adjusted” e.g. step 114); allowing the user to experience and compare the simulated adaptive eyewear in real-time across various scenarios (inter alia column 8 lines 1-11 “process is once again repeated over many colors until a revised set of sampled wavelengths” e.g. steps 120 & 122); receiving user feedback on the simulated adaptive eyewear options (inter alia column 8 lines 1-11 “user observations is collected” e.g. steps 120 & 122); and providing final recommendations (inter alia column 8 lines 1-11 “result of this iterative process is a revised spectral filter for the user” e.g. step 124) for the purpose of maximizing the ability of the user to see as many unique colors as possible (column 8 lines 10-11). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the method as disclosed by Sinha to have the steps of ; receiving user feedback on the simulated adaptive eyewear options, having the recommendations comprise suggestions for specific tints or filters that enhance the user’s color perception in identified challenging scenarios including personalized adaptive eyewear recommendations, and simulating the effect of different adaptive eyewear options in the virtual environment thereby allowing the user to experience and compare the simulated adaptive eyewear in real-time across various scenarios as taught by Fogel for the purpose of designing glasses that are unique for an individual to provide them with filters that would improve their level of performance whether for work or recreation and maximizing the ability of the user to see as many unique colors as possible.
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, 3-4, 6, 11-12 and 15-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13 and 15-20 of copending Application No. 18/885503 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are functional equivalents covering substantially identical methods/systems and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Claims 1, 4, 11-12 and 15-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 15-20 of copending Application No. 18/885508 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are functional equivalents covering substantially identical methods/systems and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Claims 1, 4, 11 and 16-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 13 and 16-20 of copending Application No. 18/885511 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are functional equivalents covering substantially identical methods/systems and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Instant application
18/885503
1. A method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for testing and recommending adaptive eyewear for color blindness, comprising: generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment; rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display; simulating various real-world scenarios in the VR user interface; and while simulating the real-world scenarios, in real time: continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors, user responses to the simulated scenarios; 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.
3. The method of Claim 1, wherein simulating various real-world scenarios comprises incorporating dynamic changes in lighting and context that affect color perception.
11. The method of Claim 1, further comprising presenting a sequence of color differentiation tasks, wherein the tasks are ordered from easier primary color distinctions to more challenging subtle shade distinctions.
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein simulating various real-world scenarios comprises: presenting a sequence of different color-critical situations, each situation lasting for a predetermined duration; progressively increasing the complexity of color perception challenges throughout the sequence; and incorporating transitions between different lighting conditions to assess the user’s adaptability to changing environments.
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.
6. The method of Claim 1, wherein evaluating the tracked data comprises: assessing color identification accuracy; measuring reaction times to color-based cues; evaluating performance in color-dependent tasks; and determining error rates for color-critical decisions.
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.
11. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: generating a color vision profile based on the evaluated tracked data; and providing personalized recommendations for adaptive eyewear.
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.
12. The method of Claim 11, wherein the recommendations comprise suggestions for specific tints or filters that enhance the user’s color perception in identified challenging scenarios.
15. The method of Claim 1, further comprising compiling a comprehensive report including detailed color vision capabilities, personalized adaptive eyewear recommendations, and performance metrics.
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 vision profiles to establish baseline performance 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 specific types and degrees of color blindness based on deviations from the established baseline; and providing recommendations for further medical evaluation if significant color vision deficiencies 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 adaptive eyewear options in the virtual environment; allowing the user to experience and compare the simulated adaptive eyewear in real-time across various scenarios; receiving user feedback on the simulated adaptive eyewear options; and providing final recommendations that balance objective color perception data with subjective user preferences and comfort.
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 testing and recommending adaptive eyewear for color blindness, 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 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.
Instant application
18/885508
1. A method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for testing and recommending adaptive eyewear for color blindness, comprising: generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment; rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display; simulating various real-world scenarios in the VR user interface; and while simulating the real-world scenarios, in real time: continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors, user responses to the simulated scenarios; 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 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.
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein simulating various real-world scenarios comprises: presenting a sequence of different color-critical situations, each situation lasting for a predetermined duration; progressively increasing the complexity of color perception challenges throughout the sequence; and incorporating transitions between different lighting conditions to assess the user’s adaptability to changing environments.
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.
11. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: generating a color vision profile based on the evaluated tracked data; and providing personalized recommendations for adaptive eyewear.
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.
12. The method of Claim 11, wherein the recommendations comprise suggestions for specific tints or filters that enhance the user’s color perception in identified challenging scenarios.
15. The method of Claim 1, further comprising compiling a comprehensive report including detailed color vision capabilities, personalized adaptive eyewear recommendations, and performance metrics.
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.
16. The method of Claim 1, further comprising calibrating the system using a control group with known color vision profiles to establish baseline performance 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 specific types and degrees of color blindness based on deviations from the established baseline; and providing recommendations for further medical evaluation if significant color vision deficiencies 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 perception 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 adaptive eyewear options in the virtual environment; allowing the user to experience and compare the simulated adaptive eyewear in real-time across various scenarios; receiving user feedback on the simulated adaptive eyewear options; and providing final recommendations that balance objective color perception data with subjective user preferences and comfort.
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.
19. A virtual reality (VR) system for testing and recommending adaptive eyewear for color blindness, 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 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: 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.
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 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.
Instant application
18/885511
1. A method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for testing and recommending adaptive eyewear for color blindness, comprising: generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment; rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display; simulating various real-world scenarios in the VR user interface; and while simulating the real-world scenarios, in real time: continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors, user responses to the simulated scenarios; 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 wavelength tasks in the VR user interface; and while simulating the color wavelength tasks, in real time: continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors, user responses to the simulated tasks; and evaluating the tracked data for color wavelength sensitivity performance.
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein simulating various real-world scenarios comprises: presenting a sequence of different color-critical situations, each situation lasting for a predetermined duration; progressively increasing the complexity of color perception challenges throughout the sequence; and incorporating transitions between different lighting conditions to assess the user’s adaptability to changing environments.
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein simulating various color wavelength tasks comprises: presenting a sequence of different color scenarios, each scenario lasting for a predetermined duration; progressively increasing the complexity of color wavelength distinctions throughout the sequence; and incorporating transitions between different color wavelengths to assess the user’s adaptability to changing conditions.
11. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: generating a color vision profile based on the evaluated tracked data; and providing personalized recommendations for adaptive eyewear.
13. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: generating a color sensitivity profile based on the evaluated tracked data; and providing recommendations for specialized eyewear prescriptions.
16. The method of Claim 1, further comprising calibrating the system using a control group with known color vision profiles to establish baseline performance metrics.
16. The method of Claim 1, further comprising calibrating the system using a control group with established color sensitivity profiles to establish baseline performance 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 specific types and degrees of color blindness based on deviations from the established baseline; and providing recommendations for further medical evaluation if significant color vision deficiencies are detected
17. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: establishing baseline performance metrics by comparing the user’s color wavelength sensitivity data with profiles of individuals with normal color vision; identifying potential color wavelength sensitivity issues 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 adaptive eyewear options in the virtual environment; allowing the user to experience and compare the simulated adaptive eyewear in real-time across various scenarios; receiving user feedback on the simulated adaptive eyewear options; and providing final recommendations that balance objective color perception data with subjective user preferences and comfort.
18. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: simulating the effect of different specialized eyewear prescriptions in the virtual environment; allowing the user to experience and compare the simulated prescriptions in real-time; receiving user feedback on the simulated prescriptions; and providing final recommendations that balance objective color wavelength sensitivity data with subjective user preferences.
19. A virtual reality (VR) system for testing and recommending adaptive eyewear for color blindness, 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 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 system for recommending lens tints through an interactive vision sensitivity test, 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 wavelength tasks in the VR user interface; and while simulating the color wavelength tasks, in real time: continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors, user responses to the simulated tasks; and evaluating the tracked data for color wavelength sensitivity 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 wavelength tasks in the VR user interface; and while simulating the color wavelength tasks, in real time: continuously tracking, using the eye-tracking sensors, user responses to the simulated tasks; and evaluating the tracked data for color wavelength sensitivity performance.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oz et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0329961; in regards to a similar method (e.g. see figure 35 & paragraph [0407]) on a VR headset (e.g. see figure 4).
Pohl US Patent Application Publication 2019/0042698; in regards to a similar method (e.g. see figure 6 & paragraph [0042-45]) on a VR headset (e.g. see figure 8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights