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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
This a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 02 September 2025, wherein:
Claims 1-28, 32, and 41 are canceled.
Claims 29, 30, 36-39, 45, and 46 are amended.
Claims 31, 33-35, 40, 42-44 are previously presented.
Claims 29-31, 33-40, and 42-46 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Provisional Application No. 62/444,610, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, the disclosure of the prior-filed application fail to provide sufficient written description for “c) monitoring the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA using an eye tracker device arranged proximate to the display; d) collecting user gaze data from the eye tracker device when the first VTA is presented to the user, the user gaze data comprising user gaze time information and user gaze location information for one or more of the user’s left and right eye; e) determining, by the processor, an event wherein the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA meets predetermined success criteria comprising one or more of i) a determination that user gaze coordinates are within the first set of VTA coordinates; ii) a user gaze time within the first VTA is greater than a predetermined minimum threshold user gaze time; iii) a time to initial user eye contact within the first VTA is less than a predetermined initial user eye contact threshold; iv) a user gaze deviation time is within a predetermined user gaze deviation time threshold; f) upon determining the user’s gaze meets the predetermined success criteria, updating the display by removing the first VTA, and replacing the first VTA with a second VTA overlayed on a second area of the first face; g) repeating steps b) – e) for the second VTA to monitor and determine the user's ability to focus on the second VTA; and h) issuing a repositioning alert when the eye tracker device detects one or more of the user’s left eye or right eye is outside a predetermined capture field” in claim 29 and “c) monitoring the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA using eye tracker measurement data transmitted by the eye tracker device to the processor; d) collecting user gaze data from the eye tracker device when the first VTA is presented to the user, the user gaze data comprising user gaze time information and user gaze location information for one or more of the user’s left and right eye; e) determining, by way of transmission of eye tracking measurement data, whether the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA meets a first predetermined success criteria comprising one or more of i) a determination that user gaze coordinates are within the first set of VTA coordinates; ii) a user gaze time within the first VTA is greater than a predetermined minimum threshold user gaze time; iii) a time to initial user eye contact within the first VTA is less than a predetermined initial user eye contact threshold; iv) a user gaze deviation time is within a predetermined user gaze deviation time threshold; f) updating the display upon meeting the first predetermined success criteria by removing the first VTA, and replacing the first VTA with a second VTA overlayed on a second area of the first face; g) repeating steps b) – e) for the second VTA to monitor and determine the user's ability to focus on the second VTA; and h) issuing a repositioning alert when the eye tracker device detects one or more of the user’s left eye or right eye is outside a predetermined capture field” in claim 38, “the step of using one or more physiological measuring devices comprising at least one of an electroencephalogram device (EEG), electrocardiogram device (ECG), and galvanic skin resistance measuring device (GSR), where the one or more physiological measuring devices are capable of capturing and transmitting physiological state data of the user to the processor” in claim 30, “measuring a physiological state of the user in reaction to the method using one or more monitoring devices comprising at least one of an electroencephalogram device (EEG), electrocardiogram device (ECG), and galvanic skin resistance measuring device (GSR), where the one or more physiological measuring devices are capable of capturing and transmitting physiological state data of the user to the processor” in claim 39, “adapting the g) repeating step to maintain the physiological state of the user” in claims 31 and 40, “wherein the second VTA is smaller in area than the first VTA” in claims 33 and 42, and “displaying a second face on the display and introducing a third VTA in step i) comprising repeating steps b) – e) replacing the first VTA with the third VTA when the processor determines the user's gaze fails to meet the predetermined success criteria” in claims 37 and 46 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosures of the prior-filed application fails to provide sufficient written description for at least the same reasons as the instant disclosure as identified under 35 USC 112(a), below. Additionally, the specification of US 62/444,610 is 30 pages and multiple drawings shorter, thereby providing substantially less than the insufficient disclosure of the instant application. See the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a), below, regarding insufficient written description.
Thus, claims 29-31, 33-40, and 42-46 do not gain benefit of priority to US Application 62/444,610. Therefore, claims 29-31, 33-40, and 42-46 have an effective filing date of 10 January 2018.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(f) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“monitoring the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA using an/the eye tracker device” in claims 29 and 38.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 29-31, 33-40, and 42-46 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.
Claim limitation “monitoring the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA using an/the eye tracker device” in claims 29 and 38 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites that this is performed in results-based language by “eye tracking glasses” (see, for example, at least para. 47 and 49) or a non-descript “Eye Tracker device” (see, for example, at least para. 48, 57, 87, 109, 112, 125, 128, 147, 150, 162, 165, 166, 200, and 202), but is silent any mechanism or device within the non-descript eye tracking glasses and Eye Tracker device that actually performs the function of collecting eye tracking measurement data indicating the user’s gaze. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 30, 31, 33-37, 39, 40, and 42-46 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 30 and 39 have been amended to recite “using one or more physiological measuring devices comprising at least one of an electroencephalogram device (EEG), electrocardiogram device (ECG), and galvanic skin resistance measuring device (GSR) capable of capturing and transmitting the physiological state data of the user to the processor” in claim 30 and “using one or more monitoring devices comprising at least one of an electroencephalogram device (EEG), electrocardiogram device (ECG), and galvanic skin resistance measuring device (GSR), where the one or more physiological measuring devices are capable of capturing and transmitting physiological state data of the user to the processor” in claim 39. It is unclear how “one or more… comprises at least one of an EEG, an ECG, and a GSR”. In particular, this causes a lack of clarity because “one or more” and “at least one” are synonymous, and thus at least redundant if not unclear what “one or more comprises at least one of” connotes. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation is construed such that the claim recites “further comprising the step of using one or more physiological measuring devices capable of capturing physiological state data of the user and transmitting the physiological state data of the user to the processor, wherein the one or more physiological measuring devices comprises: an electroencephalogram device (EEG), an electrocardiogram device (ECG), or a galvanic skin resistance measuring device (GSR).” Dependent claims 31 and 40 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 36 and 45 have each been amended to recite “wherein step g) further comprises removing the visual cue.” It is unclear when the visual cue is removed because step (g) recites “repeating steps b) – e) for the second VTA to monitor and determine the user’s ability to focus on the second VTA”. (Bolded for emphasis). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Claims 37 and 46 each recite the limitation "step i) comprising repeating steps b) – e)" in line 3 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, “step (i)” is not a step. (i) is a condition in step (e) that is recited in the alternative for “predetermined success criteria”, wherein condition (i) recites “a determination that user gaze coordinates are within the first set of VTA coordinates”.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(a) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 29-31, 33-40, and 42-46 are 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.
Regarding claims 29 and 38, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “c) monitoring the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA using an eye tracker device arranged proximate to the display; d) collecting user gaze data from the eye tracker device when the first VTA is presented to the user, the user gaze data comprising user gaze time information and user gaze location information for one or more of the user’s left and right eye; e) determining, by the processor, an event wherein the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA meets predetermined success criteria comprising one or more of i) a determination that user gaze coordinates are within the first set of VTA coordinates; ii) a user gaze time within the first VTA is greater than a predetermined minimum threshold user gaze time; iii) a time to initial user eye contact within the first VTA is less than a predetermined initial user eye contact threshold; iv) a user gaze deviation time is within a predetermined user gaze deviation time threshold; f) upon determining the user’s gaze meets the predetermined success criteria, updating the display by removing the first VTA, and replacing the first VTA with a second VTA overlayed on a second area of the first face; g) repeating steps b) – e) for the second VTA to monitor and determine the user's ability to focus on the second VTA; and h) issuing a repositioning alert when the eye tracker device detects one or more of the user’s left eye or right eye is outside a predetermined capture field” in claim 29 and “c) monitoring the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA using eye tracker measurement data transmitted by the eye tracker device to the processor; d) collecting user gaze data from the eye tracker device when the first VTA is presented to the user, the user gaze data comprising user gaze time information and user gaze location information for one or more of the user’s left and right eye; e) determining, by way of transmission of eye tracking measurement data, whether the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA meets a first predetermined success criteria comprising one or more of i) a determination that user gaze coordinates are within the first set of VTA coordinates; ii) a user gaze time within the first VTA is greater than a predetermined minimum threshold user gaze time; iii) a time to initial user eye contact within the first VTA is less than a predetermined initial user eye contact threshold; iv) a user gaze deviation time is within a predetermined user gaze deviation time threshold; f) updating the display upon meeting the first predetermined success criteria by removing the first VTA, and replacing the first VTA with a second VTA overlayed on a second area of the first face; g) repeating steps b) – e) for the second VTA to monitor and determine the user's ability to focus on the second VTA; and h) issuing a repositioning alert when the eye tracker device detects one or more of the user’s left eye or right eye is outside a predetermined capture field” in claim 38 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. 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 not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, these functions are merely recited to be performed in results-based language without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionalities. For instance, while the specification identifies that a non-descript “eye tracking device”, “eye tracker device”, or “eye tracking glasses” is used, it is silent regarding any mechanism within these devices for tracking an eye of a user indicating the user’s gaze. It is also silent regarding any analysis of eye tracking data, or any other physiological or behavioral data, from which any subsequent function is based on. For example, para. 64, 71, 79, 86, 100-102, 172 of the specification merely recite that the system may also provide for application of algorithms, including machine learning algorithms, to perform the functions without any substantive description. In particular, the most description is merely results-based language that recite that the algorithms will “use the data to programmatically refine and/or create [Computer Generated Experience] Parameters in order to maximize or optimize some outcome variable.” See, for example, at least para. 100-102 and 172. Dependent claims 30, 31, 33-37, 39, 40, and 42-46 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 30, 31, 39, and 40, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the step of using one or more physiological measuring devices comprising at least one of an electroencephalogram device (EEG), electrocardiogram device (ECG), and galvanic skin resistance measuring device (GSR), where the one or more physiological measuring devices are capable of capturing and transmitting physiological state data of the user to the processor” in claim 30, “measuring a physiological state of the user in reaction to the method using one or more monitoring devices comprising at least one of an electroencephalogram device (EEG), electrocardiogram device (ECG), and galvanic skin resistance measuring device (GSR), where the one or more physiological measuring devices are capable of capturing and transmitting capable of capturing and transmitting the physiological state data of the user to the processor” in claim 39, and “adapting the g) repeating step to maintain the physiological state of the user” in claims 31 and 40 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. 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 not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, these functions, at best, are merely recited to be performed in results-based language without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionalities. In addition to the lack of clarity regarding the second VTA step and the VTA step as identified above, the specification merely recites that three physiological measuring devices (ECG measuring device, GSR measuring device, and EEG measuring device) are applied to the body of the user (see, for example, at least para. 143 and 144), but are silent regarding relating any physiological data to “a physiological state of the user in reaction to the method”, and thus also to “adapting the g) repeating step to maintain the physiological state of the user”. For instance, the only physiological data identified in the disclosure is heart rate of the user measured by an ECG. However, in addition to being silent regarding any other form of physiological data, the disclosure is silent regarding relating the heart rate data to the claimed functions. Thus, these limitations are new matter. Dependent claims 31 and 40 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 33 and 42, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the second VTA is smaller in area than the first VTA” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. 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 not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding any analysis based on the user’s gaze meeting predetermined criteria for selecting the second VTA that is smaller or larger than the first VTA. Dependent claims 34 and 43 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 37 and 46, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “displaying a second face on the display and introducing a third VTA in step i) comprising repeating steps b) – e) replacing the first VTIA with the third VTA when the processor determines the user's gaze fails to meet the predetermined success criteria” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. 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 not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In addition to the lack of clarity regarding a third VTA step, the disclosure is silent regarding any analysis based on the user’s gaze meeting predetermined success criteria to produce a result of displaying a second face on the display and introducing a third VTA.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 101 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 29-31, 33-40, and 42-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
STEP 1
The instant claims are directed to a method and a product which fall under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
STEP 2A, PRONG 1
Independent claim 29 recites:
A computer-implemented method for training a user’s focus as part of a comprehensive program for treatment or prophylaxis of medical conditions where the user benefits from focus training, the medical conditions comprising autism spectrum disorder, the method comprising:
a) displaying a first face on a display;
b) presenting on the display, by the processor, a computer-generated experience (CGE) comprising a first visual training area (VTA) overlayed on a first area of the first face, and wherein a VTA step for the first VTA comprises generating a first set of VTA coordinates in a coordinate space defining the first VTA and a visual cue to direct the user’s attention to the first area;
c) monitoring the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA using an eye tracker device arranged proximate to the display;
d) collecting user gaze data from the eye tracker device when the first VTA is presented to the user, the user gaze data comprising user gaze time information and user gaze location information for one or more of the user’s left eye and right eye;
e) determining, by the processor, an event wherein the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA meets predetermined success criteria comprising one or more of i) a determination that user gaze coordinates are within the first set of VTA coordinates; ii) a user gaze time within the first VTA is greater than a predetermined minimum threshold user gaze time; iii) a time to initial user eye contact within the first VTA is less than a predetermined initial user eye contact threshold; iv) a user gaze deviation time is within a predetermined user gaze deviation time threshold;
f) upon determining the user's gaze meets the predetermined success criteria, updating the display by removing the first VTA, and replacing the first VTA with a second VTA overlayed on a second area of the first face;
g) repeating steps b) – e) for the second VTA to monitor and determine the user's ability to focus on the second VTA; and
h) issuing a repositioning alert when the eye tracker device detects one or more of the user’s left eye or right eye is outside a predetermined capture field.
Independent claim 38 recites:
A system for training a user’s focus as part of a comprehensive program for treatment or prophylaxis of medical conditions where the user benefits from focus training, the medical conditions comprising autism spectrum disorder, the system comprising:
a display;
an eye tracker device arranged proximate to the display; and
a processor configured to perform steps of:
a) displaying a first face on the display,
b) presenting on the display a computer-generated experience (CGE) comprising a first visual training area (VTA) overlayed on a first area of the first face, and wherein a VTA step comprises generating a first set of VTA coordinates in a coordinate space defining the first VTA and a visual cue to direct the user's attention to the first area;
c) monitoring the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA using eye tracking measurement data transmitted by the eye tracker device to the processor;
d) collecting user gaze data from the eye tracker device when the first VTA is presented to the user, the user gaze data comprising user gaze time information and user gaze location information for one or more of the user’s left eye and right eye;
e) determining, by way of transmission of eye tracking measurement data, whether the user's gaze with respect to the first VTA meets a first predetermined success criteria comprising one or more of i) a determination that user gaze coordinates are within the first set of VTA coordinates; ii) a user gaze time within the first VTA is greater than a predetermined minimum threshold user gaze time; iii) a time to initial user eye contact within the first VTA is less than a predetermined initial user eye contact threshold; iv) a user gaze deviation time is within a predetermined user gaze deviation time threshold;
f) updating the display upon meeting the first predetermined success criteria by removing the first VTA, and replacing the first VTA with a second VTA overlayed on a second area of the first face;
g) repeating steps b) – e) for the second VTA to monitor and determine the user's ability to focus on the second VTA; and
h) issuing a repositioning alert when the eye tracker device detects one or of more of the user’s left eye or right eye is outside a predetermined capture field.
All of the foregoing underlined elements amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by merely presenting, collecting, and assessing information in an iterative manner.
At least the monitoring, collecting, determining, detecting, updating, repeating, and issuing steps also amount to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
STEP 2A, PRONG 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: reciting that the method is “computer-implemented” (claim 29), a display (claims 29 and 38), a processor (claims 29 and 38), reciting the experience as “computer-generated” (claims 29 and 38), an eye tracker device arranged proximate to the display (claims 29 and 38), a system (claim 38), one or more physiological measuring devices comprising at least one of an electroencephalogram device (EEG), electrocardiogram device (ECG), and galvanic skin resistance measuring device (GSR) (claims 30 and 39). Although the claims recite the components, identified above, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., collecting, processing, outputting data). Evidence is found in at least Fig. 1-15B which illustrates the components as stock images and non-descript black boxes ancillary to the claimed invention, as well as the specification which identifies that the system is not comprised of a particular machine nor consists of a particular arrangement. See, for example, at least para. 47-54, 62-84, 86-91, 93-174, 179, 184, and 258-267. For instance, para. 48 identifies that “[eye tracking] devices are known in the art and generally any [eye tracking] device may be used” and para. 49 identifies that the system is any combination of software and hardware that includes a form of visual presentation to the user. Furthermore, the Declaration filed 02 September 2025 explicitly asserts that the “exact implementation of the components and software is irrelevant as along as the functionality of tracking the user’s eyes is accomplished.” See Declaration at item 12. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Additionally, the claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system because the claimed functions are merely performing the steps of processing data but are not tied to improving any functionality of the computer system. The components, identified above, are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. This is evidenced by the absence of specificity of the components and their organization in the disclosure. Again, see, for example, at least Fig. 1-15B and para. 47-54, 62-84, 86-91, 93-174, 179, 184, and 258-267 of the specification as identified above. This also evidences that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. The system is merely recited to be used, not improved. For instance, the eye tracker device, EEG, ECG, and GSR, as claimed and organized, merely add insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). Furthermore, in the event that the presenting steps are construed as additional elements, they would merely add insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere pre-solution stimulating in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. While the preamble of each independent claim recite that the respective method or system is “for training a user’s focus as part of a comprehensive program for treatment or prophylaxis of medical conditions where the user benefits from focus training, the medical conditions comprising autism spectrum disorder”, the bodies of the claims are silent regarding training a user’s focus nor do they identify or effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for any particular disease or medical condition. The language "of medical conditions where the user benefits from focus training, the medical conditions comprising autism spectrum disorder" further evidence the absence of a particular treatment or prophylaxis because "medical conditions", while explicitly recited to include autism spectrum disorder, is unbounded. In other words, under Applicant's assertion that the claim is a treatment, it is unclear how a treatment can be particular, as required by MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), when it is a "treatment" for any and all medical conditions as claimed (see MPEP 2111.03 which explain that the transitional term “including” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements). Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
STEP 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05.
As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. Additionally, the process is, at best, merely an automation of a manual process performed between humans. The mere automation of manual processes has repeatedly been determined by the courts to be patent ineligible, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP 2106.05(a), section I. Although the claims recite components (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., collecting, processing, outputting data). BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243-44 (2016)), Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). They are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer, as evidenced by the Applicant’s written description which describe the elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Evidence is found in at least Fig. 1-15B which illustrates the components as stock images and non-descript black boxes untethered to the claimed invention, and in the specification, which identify that the system is not comprised of a particular machine nor consists of a particular arrangement. See, for example, at least para. 47-54, 62-84, 86-91, 93-174, 179, 184, and 258-267. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this evidences that the components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, see, for example, at least Fig. 1-15B and para. 47-54, 62-84, 86-91, 93-174, 179, 184, and 258-267 of the specification as identified above. Furthermore, in the event that the presenting steps are construed as additional elements, they would merely add insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere pre-solution stimulating in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). Similarly, the eye tracker device, EEG, ECG, and GSR merely add insignificant extrasolution activity the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide any meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 29-31, 35-40, and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin (WO 2015/127441) in view of Maass et al. (US 2013/0268033, hereinafter referred to as Maass).
Regarding claims 29 and 38, Sahin teaches a computer-implemented method (claim 29) and a system (claim 23) for training a user’s focus as part of a comprehensive program for treatment or prophylaxis of medical conditions where the user benefits from focus training, the medical conditions comprising autism spectrum disorder, the method comprising:
a) displaying a first face on a display (Sahin, para. 203, “one or more faces of individuals are identified within the video data (804). The faces, for example, can include family members, social peers, colleagues, or other people in the surroundings. Additionally, in some embodiments, the faces can include animals or inanimate objects, such as a family pet, a therapy dog, or a toy doll.”);
b) presenting on the display, by the processor, a computer-generated experience (CGE) comprising a first visual training area (VTA) overlayed on a first area, and wherein a VTA step for the first VTA comprises generating a first set of VTA coordinates in a coordinate space defining the first VTA and a visual cue to direct the user's attention to the first area (Sahin, para. 204, “at least a first face of the one or more faces in captured video data is augmented to draw attention to the face within the video output to the user (806). In some examples, the face may be outlined in colors, overlaid with a shimmer, or caricatured in an animated fashion to draw the attention of the user. In other examples, silly hair may be applied to an individual identified within the video data or a distortion field applied to the face region. Alternatively or additionally, in some examples, background video surrounding the face may be dimmed, reduced in complexity, or blurred to reduce focus on any aspects in the video besides the face. In a particular example, a favorite cartoon character may be superimposed upon the face region of an individual (e.g., in an opaque or semi-transparent manner) within the video data to draw the attention of the user to the face of the individual.” Para. 111, “the machine vision language tutor algorithm 532a, executing upon or in conjunction with the wearable data collection device 504, correlates identified object indices 506a with the location coordinates 506g of the index elements 512 at the time of acquisition. The location coordinates 506g, for example, may include two-dimensional coordinates (e.g., within a video frame reference) or three-dimensional coordinates (e.g., with respect to the individual 102). Identification of the object indices 506a, furthermore, may be associated with a time-date stamp identifying the time of acquisi