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 IDS filed 6/23/2021, 6/21/2022, 2/5/2024, 4/30/2024, 7/12/2024, and 8/28/2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to AU2018902016 filed 6/05/2018.
Claim Election/Restriction
Newly submitted claim 100 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Originally elected claims 80-82 are drawn to a method of identifying risk of a degenerative neurological condition. In contrast newly presented claim 100 is drawn to a driver monitoring system for a vehicle configured to transition to a remote system time and date coded sets of blepharometric data associated with identity data which identifies a unique individual.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 100 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
Amendments to the claims are acknowledged. Claims 83-100 are new.
Claim 100 is withdrawn as being drawn to an unelected invention.
Claims 1-79 are cancelled.
Claims 80-99 are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The instant rejection is maintained from the previous Office Action filed 5/2/2025 and modified in view of Amendments filed 10/02/2025.
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.
Claims 80-99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition
Claims 80-89 are drawn to a method, so a process.
Claims 90-99 are drawn to a computer system configured to perform a method. The claims do not recite any hardware components and read on a program per se or signal and are therefore non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One: Identification of an Abstract Idea
The claim(s) recite(s):
1. wherein the subject identification data uniquely identifies one of a plurality of known unique individuals, the plurality including a unique individual.
This step reads on an abstract idea of correlating received data to the identification of an individual. The breadth of the step also encompasses a natural correlation which is a correlation between sensor data of an individual and an individual which encompasses their phenotype, physical attributes or biological responses.
2. processing the blepharometric data associated with that known unique individual collected across all or a subset of the plurality of distinct hardware environments to identify one or more long-term trends in blepharometric data.
This step reads on a process of analyzing data to determine a trend over time. The step can be performed by the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea.
3. wherein each of the long term trends in blepharometric data is represented by a threshold trend in one or more blepharometric artefacts that satisfies a predefined profile that is representative of prediction of a neurological condition that has developed or increased between the collection of a first subset and second subset of the blepharometric data.
The step reads on identifying artefacts in blepharometric data and comparing to determine that the data satisfies a profile which allows for prediction of a neurological condition. This step can be performed by the human mind or with math because identifying artefacts in blepharometric data can be performed mentally or with math and by comparison to further information in a profile can also be performed with the human mind. The step is therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Consideration of Practical Application
The claims result in processing blepharometric data to identify one or more long-term trends which is a data analysis step which reads on an abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not meet any of the following criteria:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B: Consideration of Additional Elements and Significantly More
The claimed method also recites "additional elements" that are not limitations drawn to an abstract idea. The recited additional elements are drawn to:
1. Receiving from a plurality of hardware environments, sets of sensor data collected from sensor system configured to collect blepharometric data from human subjects, while the subject is engaged in a task associated with the hardware environment, as in claims 80 and 90.
2. Wherein the hardware environments include (i) a first vehicle and (ii) a second vehicle, both having an in-vehicle sensor configured to monitor a vehicle operator, as in claim 81 and 91.
3. A vehicle sensor configured to monitor a vehicle passenger, as in claims 82 and 92.
4. A computer configured with an image capture device to monitor blepharometric data, as in claim 83 and 93.
5. Background or foreground software that captures blepharometric data while a user engages in activities on a computer, as in claim 84, 86, 94 and 96.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited sensor system reads on a vehicle camera system. Vehicle camera systems for monitoring a passenger inside the vehicle are well known, routine, and conventional. At least Prakah-Asante et al. (2019/0232966 at par. 0003-0004) and Rodriguez (2017/0166054 at par. 0018) evidence sensors that receive eye movement data of a driver in a vehicle. Facial recognition sensors for driver monitoring are well known in the prior art. Furthermore, the recited vehicles in claims 81-82 and 91-92 are tangential additional elements with respect to the recited data analysis process. The placement of the sensor inside the vehicle is unrelated to the analysis which is drawn to determining a neurological condition based on collected blepharometric (eyelid movement) data. The recited analysis of blepharometric data to determine a neurological condition is unrelated to driving or any other function related to a subject’s placement inside of a vehicle. This is because the neurological condition is recited generically and is unrelated to driving or the subject’s position inside of a vehicle.
Therefore, the recitation of the vehicles does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because collecting eye movement data with a camera inside a vehicle is well known, routine can conventional for driver monitoring and also because the instant claims tangentially recite the vehicle sensor placement with respect to the analysis being performed.
Furthermore, a generic computer which collects data from a camera is a recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea recited in the instantly presented claims into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue (Remarks, page 10) that the claims as newly amended do not read on steps that can be performed with the human mind. Applicants argue that the claims provide for a practical application of using collected and processing blepharometric data to predict a neurological condition that has developed and/or increased between the collection of a first and second subset of blepharometric data.
In response, the newly amended claims have been analyzed under Step 2A and Step 2B as set forth above. The analysis of the collected blepharometric data is recited with steps that can be performed with the human mind, as set forth above under Step 2A prong One. The results of the blepharometric analysis are not integrated with any additional elements that would be considered a “practical application.” Categories of practical application are listed above under Step 2A Prong Two. The limitations describing sensor data collection are routine, conventional and well understood under Step 2B. Moreover, physical data collection processes before analysis is also deemed extra solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g). For the reasons set forth above, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112-2nd paragraph
The rejection of claims 80-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 10/02/2026. The following rejection is necessitated by Applicant’s amendments filed 10/02/2026.
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 80-99 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 80, lines 32-35, recites “the collection of a first subset of the blepherometric data … and a second subset of the blepherometric data.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. The claim recites receiving sets of sensor data which includes (i) blepharometric data (lines 6-9) and that the sensor systems is configured to collect the blepharometric data from the human subject (lines 15-17). The claim however does not recite any collection of a first and second subset of blepheometric data wherein the two subsets are collected at different times. The claim does not set forth any active steps for collecting two subsets of blephaometric data and therefore the lack of antecedent basis causes the claim to be unclear. Claim 90 recites the same limitations and is therefore also unclear.
Claims 84, 86, 94 and 96 recite “a user engages in other activities on the computer.” It is unclear what the “other” activities is in reference to. The limitation appears to exclude some activities that are not the “other activities.” However it is not clear what is excluded outside the metes and bounds of the “other activities.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 80-82 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Prakah-Asante et al. (US 2019/0232966) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 10/02/2025.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna Skibinsky whose telephone number is (571) 272-4373. The examiner can normally be reached on 12 pm - 8:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ram Shukla can be reached on (571) 272-0735. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Anna Skibinsky/
Primary Examiner, AU 1635