DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are hereby the present claims under consideration.
Examiner’s Note: all references to Applicant’s specification are made using the paragraph numbers assigned in the US publication of the present application US 20260076554 A1.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0209 of the published specification (paragraph 0188 of the filed specification) recites “Fig. 1G” but appears to refer to figure 16G.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 5 it appears that “digital device use” should read “the digital device use”
Claim 1 line 9 it appears that “sensors, eye movements” should read “sensors, data including eye movements”
Claim 1 line 10 it appears that “the tasks” should read “the digital tasks”
Claim 2 line 3 it appears that “nm” should read “nanometers (nm)”
Claim 3 line 2 it appears that “mm” should read “millimeters (mm)”
Claim 3 line 2 it appears that “to detect subtle eye movement changes” should be deleted
Claim 3 line 2 it appears that “ms” should read “milliseconds (ms)”
Claim 4 line 1 it appears that “presenting a series of digital tasks” should read “presenting the series of digital tasks”
Claim 4 line 2 it appears that “real-world patterns of digital device use” should read “real-world patterns of the digital device use”
Claim 6 line 1 it appears that “increasing task difficulty comprises” should read “the increases in task difficulty comprise”
Claim 7 line 2 it appears that “suggesting potential sensitivity” should read “suggesting potential for the blue light sensitivity”
Claim 7 line 4 it appears that “indicating sensitivity” should read “indicating the blue light sensitivity”
Claim 9 line 2 it appears that “detected sensitivity” should read “the indicators of the blue light sensitivity”
Claim 10 lines 1-2 it appears that “the specific nature” should read “a specific nature”
Claim 12 line 2 it appears that “blue light sensitivity” should read “the blue light sensitivity”
Claim 12 line 3 it appears that “suggesting the use” should read “suggesting use”
Claim 12 line 5 it appears that “based on real-time data” should read “based on the continuously monitored data”
Claim 13 line 2 it appears that “blue light sensitivity” should read “the blue light sensitivity”
Claim 19 line 7 it appears that “digital device use” should read “the digital device use”
Claim 19 line 9 it appears that “the VR environment” should read “the VR user interface”
Claim 19 line 11 it appears that “continuously monitoring eye movements” should read “continuously monitoring, with the eye-tracking sensors, data including eye movements”
Claim 19 line 11 it appears that “the tasks” should read “the digital tasks”
Claim 20 lines 2-3 it appears that “an electronic device a high-resolution VR headset with eye-tracking sensors” should read “an electronic device including a high-resolution VR headset with eye-tracking sensors”
Claim 20 line 7 it appears that “the VR environment” should read “the VR user interface”
Claim 20 line 9 it appears that “continuously monitoring eye movements” should read “continuously monitoring, with the eye-tracking sensors, data including eye movements”
Claim 20 line 9 it appears that “the tasks” should read “the digital tasks”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The term “high-resolution” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-resolution” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, the specification repeatedly references the high-resolution VR headset in exemplary language as having a visual fidelity of at least 60 pixels per degree but fails to set forth such a requirement as a particular definition since each reference to such a fidelity requirement is made using exemplary language. For the purposes of this examination, any VR headset may be considered high-resolution. This rejection and interpretation are further applied to the similar limitations of claim 19 and 20.
Claim 1 recites “evaluating the monitored data for indicators of blue light sensitivity” but it is unclear if this limitation is meant to convey that the monitored data is evaluated to determine the presence of certain indicators that relate to blue light sensitivity but does not determine a blue light sensitivity or if the monitored data is evaluated for certain indicators that thus determine blue light sensitivity in the patient. It is unclear if the limitation requires that blue light sensitivity is determined or not. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “indicators of blue light sensitivity” entails since it is unclear if the limitation requires only the evaluation for the presence of indicators (i.e. parameters related to blue light sensitivity but not indicating sensitivity) or if the limitation requires the evaluation of the monitored data for an indication that the patient is blue light sensitive (i.e. the parameter is present and is indicating blue light sensitivity). For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as requiring a determination of blue light sensitivity to be made to better align with the preamble of the claim which recites “identifying blue light sensitivity”. Thus the claim will be interpreted as requiring both evaluating for the presence of “indicators” and also as requiring the evaluating of the indicators to indicate a sensitivity to blue light.
Claim 1 recites “including simulating blue light exposure during the digital tasks” but it is unclear what “simulating blue light exposure” entails. In particular, it is unclear what a “simulation” of blue light exposure entails. The phrase “simulating blue light exposure” appears to imply that the eye is not actually exposed to blue light but is rather exposed to some other form of stimulation that “simulates” the effect of blue light (For example, if one was to “simulate” exposure to excessive UV radiation such as might cause a sunburn, one would not actually expose the user to the UV radiation but would rather perform some other action such as heating the skin that would be considered analogous or produce similar effects as actually being exposed to too much UV radiation. A simulation of an experience/exposure is generally considered to exclude actually experiencing or being exposed to the thing being simulated). It is unclear what this simulation of blue light would entail. Additionally, virtual reality headsets include a screen which displays images to the user. The screen of the virtual reality headset would seem to inherently expose the user to blue light by portraying an image to the user. Thus it is unclear what action or display is meant to be conveyed by the limitation of “simulating blue light exposure” It is unclear if this limitation is intended to convey a certain quantification or measure of blue light being presented, if the simulated digital devices are intended to be presented with some level of blue light emittance, or if the inclusion of a simulation of blue light exposure is intended to be some form of stimulation separate from the generation of the interface simulating digital device use. The metes and bounds of what the “simulation” of blue light exposure entails and how such a simulation is included in the presentation of a series of digital tasks is unclear. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the presentation of digital tasks also including an exposure to blue light. This rejection and interpretation are further applied to the similar limitations of claim 19 and 20.
Claims 2-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “is calibrated to simulate blue light spectra accurately” but the term “accurately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “accurately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear what particular level of precision is required for the simulation to be considered “accurate”. For the purposes of this examination, any simulation of blue-light may be considered “accurate”.
Claim 7 recites “assessing blink rate, with decreasing rates suggesting potential sensitivity” and “measuring pupil dilation, with sustained dilation under blue light exposure indicating sensitivity” but it is unclear to what reference the blink rate is being compared to in order to be considered “decreasing”. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to convey that the system determines blink rate periodically over the course of the digital tasks and evaluates a trend of blink rate or if the blink rate is assessed and compared to some threshold value. It is unclear to what reference the blink rate is compared to be considered decreasing. Similarly, it is unclear what qualifies as “sustained dilation” under blue light exposure. It is unclear if the pupil size is measured over the course of the digital task and some diameter trend analysis is performed or if the pupil size over time is compared to some form of threshold or baseline value to determine “sustained dilation”. For the purposes of this examination, these limitations will be interpreted as any reduction of blink rate and any measure of pupil dilation respectively.
Claim 7 recites “analyzing fixation stability, with decreased stability indicating discomfort” it is unclear how this measure of discomfort relates to the rest of the claimed method. It is unclear if the measure of discomfort is related to blue light sensitivity or is a separate metric being evaluated. It is additionally unclear what reference the fixation stability is compared to in order to determine it is decreasing. For the purposes of this examination, the fixation stability measure will be interpreted as part of the blue light sensitivity evaluation and any measure of decreasing stability respectively.
Claim 11 recites “simulating different lighting conditions, including day and night conditions, and accounting for natural light fluctuations” but it is unclear how, or if, this simulation relates to the simulations recited in claim 1. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to further limit the presentation of the digital tasks or if it is a separate simulation. If the simulation is intended as a separate simulation then it is unclear how it relates to the claimed method of blue light sensitivity evaluation as it would seem no measurements are taken therefrom and it is not seemingly related to the monitored presentation of tasks. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any presentation of different lighting conditions.
Claim 13 recites “generating a comprehensive report on blue light sensitivity, including sensitivity metrics, visual fatigue indicators, and environmental conditions” but it is unclear what each of these parameters entail and how these parameters they are generated. In particular, the method of claim 1 recites that eye movement and behavior is monitored during the tasks. It is unclear how these monitored movements are processed or otherwise transformed into each of the recited metrics or if the recited metrics are generated from a source other than the monitored data. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as requiring the generation of any report.
Claim 14 recites “a user-friendly interface” but it is unclear what constitutes an interface being “user-friendly” it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the required interface are in order for it to be considered “user-friendly”. For the purposes of this examination, the limitations will be interpreted as any user interface..
Claim 14 recites “actionable recommendations” it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “actionable recommendations” entail. It is unclear what makes a given recommendation “actionable”. It is further unclear what the recommendations are drawn towards. It is unclear if the recommendations are recommendations relating to blue light sensitivity derived from the metrics or if they are some other form of recommendation to the user. The metes and bounds of the recommendations and what the recommendations re made for is unclear. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any form of recommendation.
Claim 15 recites “performing an initial calibration to establish a baseline sensitivity to blue light” but it is unclear how the recited step is being performed. In particular, it is unclear what the “calibration” is being performed on. It would seem that the eye tracking sensors are the only sensing element of the method where a calibration could be performed but it is unclear how calibrating such sensors would result in a baseline sensitivity to blue light. It is unclear what the metes and bound of “performing an initial calibration” entail and how such an activity results in “a baseline sensitivity to blue light”. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any method of establishing a baseline.
Claim 15 recites “user-responses in real-time” but it is unclear if this limitation is the same as, related to, or different from the continuously monitored eye data of claim 1. It is unclear if the user-responses constitute additional data being gathered or if the user-responses are the same as or derived from the eye monitoring data. For the purposes of this examination, the user-responses will be interpreted as any data gathered from the user.
Claim 16 recites “reassessing blue light sensitivity” but it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the “reassessment” entail. It is unclear if the reassessment is intended to convey that the method of claim 1 is repeated after implementing recommendations or if the reassessment involves some other form of blue light sensitivity assessment. The method of claim 1 has not been referred to as an “assessment” of blue light sensitivity which appears to suggest that the “reassessment” involves some other form of blue light sensitivity evaluation. The metes and bounds of what this reassessment entail are unclear. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any form of subsequent evaluation to measure the effects of a “recommendation” being implemented.
Claim 16 recites “after implementing recommended strategies” but it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the recommended strategies entails, how such strategies are determined, and what the strategies are directed towards. In particular, no determination of recommended strategies from any metric assessed by the method has been introduced. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as strategies affecting blue light sensitivity.
Claim 16 recites “the effectiveness” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 16 recites “confirming the effectiveness of the strategies based on the reassessment” but it is unclear what “confirming the effectiveness” entails. In particular, it is unclear what measurements would serve to confirm effectiveness of a strategy. It is unclear if the reassessment results are compared to some form of baseline or the previous assessment. It is unclear if some requisite degree of difference is required in order to “confirm the effectiveness” or if any measurement of the reassessment may serve to “confirm the effectiveness”. For the purposes of this examination, the limitations will be interpreted as any assessment of a treatment effect.
Claim 18 recites “generating customizable reports for occupational health needs” but it is unclear what such reports entail and how they relate to the rest of the claimed method. It is unclear if such reports are generated from any of the measured data or if such reports are generated entirely separately from the method of claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, the limitations are interpreted as the generation of any report.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites “differentiating between general fatigue and blue light sensitivity by analyzing pupil constriction rates and changes in contrast sensitivity under blue light conditions”. However the specification does not appear to describe how such differentiation is carried out. MPEP 2161.01(i) recites the claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are notexplained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarilysufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function mustbe described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand howthe inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsectionIV. In particular, paragraphs 0207 and 0242 recite the functionality of differentiating between general fatigue and blue light sensitivity. Neither of these paragraphs provide the particular steps taken to carry out the recited function. In particular the method of processing and/or analyzing the pupil constriction rate and/or changes to contrast sensitivity have not seemingly been disclosed. The specification provides only generic statements of functionality and does not describe how the differentiation is carried out. Thus the claim lacks sufficient written description support.
Prior Art
Due to the nature of the 112(b) rejections above, the scope of the claims is generally indefinite, and the claims are not meaningfully understood to apply prior art at this time. Particularly, the limitation of claims 1, 19 and 20 drawn towards the evaluating of the monitored data for indicators of blue light sensitivity is unclear and it is unclear if this limitation requires a determination of blue light sensitivity to be made. This inhibits effective examination.
As a result, regarding claims 1-20, which have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims, it would not be proper to reject such claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation regarding the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claim.
The closest prior art of record as best understood in light of the above presented clarity rejections are:
US Patent Application Publication Number US 20250235098 A1 hereinafter Musti which teaches performing eye tracking on a user using a display device such as from a computer smartphone or other digital device (Paragraphs 0020-0021 and 0043). The eye tracking system may provide breakdowns of a user’s eye ergonomics in real time or over a period of time broken down based on the tasks that user is performing (Paragraph 0027). The system may track eye usage patterns and other parameters such as blink rate (Paragraphs 0048-0049). Musti teaches that many people use digital tools for multiple hours a day and that such usage of digital tools may present health related hazards to the user’s eyes such as digital eye strain or compute vision syndrome (Paragraphs 0052-0053). Proper eye ergonomics may include blinking at a given rate, having a certain posture, viewing the display at a proper distance and viewing angle, and using digital devices for proper periods of time. Each of these eye ergonomic parameters can be tailored to the different devices a user uses, different tasks the user forms, and other factors (Paragraph 0054). There are various tools and behavioral changes that can mitigate the ricks of digital eye strain such as blue light filters, appropriate viewing distance and angle, appropriate break durations, appropriate posture, maintaining a proper blink rate, and other factors. The system may be configured to continuously track a user’s eyes using computer vision techniques while they are performing digital tasks to ensure that the eye ergonomic guidelines are followed (Paragraphs 0059-0061).
US Patent Application Publication Number US 20170365101 A1 hereinafter Samec teaches a head mounted augmented reality display system (Abstract). Samec teaches that light sensitivity can be measured by presenting visual stimulation including light or patterns of light of particular ranges or wavelengths of colors and measuring the pupil constriction response to each of the different wavelengths. The differing amounts of pupil constriction when illuminated by lights of different wavelengths shows the relative level of sensitivity of the eye to different wavelengths (Paragraph 0745).
US Patent Number US 9977263 B2 hereinafter Iordanis teaches that digital eye strain is associated with the blue light emitted from digital monitors and that spending significant amounts of time in front of a monitor causes a decreased blink rate (Col 1 line 62 – Col 2 line 5).
US Patent Application Publication Number US 20200218342 A1 hereinafter Murali teaches a VR system which personalizes the content shown to a user based on their measured eye strain (Abstract). Murali teaches a VR headset with sensors from tracking the eye including parameters such as blink rate, iris enlargement, or pupil dilation, contraction event data, and an eye fatigue index (Paragraph 0022). The system continuously tracks the user’s eye strain and adapts the displayed VR content based on the user’s eye strain (Paragraphs 0027-0031).
US Patent Number US 6315412 B1 hereinafter Snodderly teaches a viewing system for measuring visual sensitivity (Abstract). Snodderly teaches a measuring method involving flicker photometry where a blue and green light are turned on and off at a given frequency while the intensity of one of the colors changes so that the test colors approach the same brightness until no flicker is perceived. This intensity measure compared to a baselines is a measure of visual sensitivity to the color being tested for which may be a blue light (Col 2 lines 29-58).
US Patent Application Publication Number US 20180333092 A1 hereinafter Roshan teaches a portable ocular response testing device (Abstract). Roshan teaches that the testing device may illuminate both eyes with a different colored light at given intensity for a duration of time. The system may then measure the size of each pupil. The differences in the pupil size determines the variation in sensitivity of the patient’s eyes to different colors such as the color blue versus other colors (Paragraph 0117).
US Patent Application Publication Number US 20090153800 A1 hereinafter Bassi teaches a light sensitivity measurement device (Abstract). Bassi teaches a device for emitting light of various wavelengths, including blue light, at various intensities onto a subject’s eye (Paragraphs 0016-0019). The system is configured to emit a particular wavelength of light starting at a low intensity and gradually increasing until the user indicates discomfort at which point the intensity increase is halted and the intensity which caused discomfort is recorded (Paragraph 0033).
The above prior art illustrates a connection between eye strain measures including blink rate and pupil size and user’s viewing device screens and being afflicted with digital eye strain or computer vision syndrome. The above art further illustrates that blue light is considered as being the cause of digital eye strain. The above prior art of record is not considered to teach a determination of blue light sensitivity based on measures recorded during simulated digital device use. In particular, the prior art of record appears to determine blue light sensitivity though specific intensity or flicker tests and does not teach or reasonably suggest the determination of such a sensitivity from measures taken during device use. Musti does teach the evaluation of eye parameters during device use and Samec teaches a VR system for making a health diagnosis for the eye. Thus a combination of these two system may be considered to teach the evaluation of parameters related to blue light sensitivity since Iordanis teaches that digital eye strain is contemplated as being caused by blue light from monitors and a combination of Musti and Samec would teach the monitoring of parameters such as blink rate while a user carries out a digital task. Additional parameters may be monitored as they relate to eye fatigue as taught by Murali. However the possible combination of Musti in view of Samec and/or Murali in light of the teachings of Iordanis could not be considered to teach or reasonably suggest the determination of blue light sensitivity for the user from the monitored parameters as Snodderly, Roshan, and Bassi each teach that blue light sensitivity is a particular condition determined by specific intensity and/or flicker tests rather than from metrics during digital device use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ERIC OGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-7313. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jason Sims can be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM – 4:00PM at (571) 272 – 7540. 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.
/MATTHEW ERIC OGLES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights