DETAILED ACTION
Note: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments filed in the reply on March 20, 2026 were received and fully considered. Claims 35-44 are new. The current action is FINAL. Please see corresponding rejection headings and response to arguments section below for more detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 21, 22, and 33-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of independent claims 1, 37, and 42 follows.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a system for deception detection assessment and credibility analysis”. Thus, the claim is directed to a product/machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
“…wherein the processor analyzes the detected physiological activity and the detected oculomotor movement and assigns one or more weights to at least one of the detected physiological activity and the detected oculomotor movement; wherein the processor generates an emotional assessment from analysis of the physiological activity and generates a cognitive assessment from analysis of the oculomotor movement; wherein the processor performs a logistic regression analysis on the emotional assessment to calculate a probability of deception; wherein the processor performs a logistic regression analysis on the cognitive assessment and adjusts the probability of deception based on the analysis of the cognitive assessment; wherein the processor compares the probability of deception to a cutoff score and designates the subject as pass, fail, or inconclusive based on the cutoff score.”
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation (emphasis on underlined limitations, which describe mathematical concepts1). Furthermore, the limitations also describe a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human, or using simple pen/paper.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“A system for deception detection assessment and credibility analysis comprising: a processor, the processor presenting to a subject a plurality of questions in an assessment protocol, wherein the assessment protocol comprises a first phase and a second phase; an eye tracking device connected to the processor comprising an infrared camera configured to detect oculomotor movement of the subject during the assessment protocol; and a plurality of physiological sensors in operative communication with the processor configured to detect physiological activity, comprising: an electrodermal sensor configured to be attached to the subject and configured to detect electrodermal activity of the subject during the assessment protocol; a respiration sensor configured to be attached to the subject and configured to detect respiration activity of the subject during the assessment protocol; and at least one cardiovascular sensor configured to be attached to the subject and configured to detect cardiovascular activity of the subject during the assessment protocol; wherein, during the first phase, the plurality of physiological sensors detects the physiological activity and during the second phase, the eye tracking device detects the oculomotor movement…”
These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the additional limitations are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the identified judicial exception2.
The additional limitations also do not add significantly more to the identified judicial exception because they relate to widely understood, conventional, and routine components in the technology3. Moreover, the recited hardware components (processor, eye tracking device comprising an infrared camera, electrodermal sensor, respiration sensor, and cardiovascular sensor) are recited at a high level of generality such that they fail to amount to a particular machine4.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 7-9, 21, 22, 33, and 34 also merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
New Dependent claims 35 and 36 merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above. Examiner also notes that utilizing a chin rest in the manner recited is widely understood, routine, and conventional in the art of detecting deception5.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 37:
Regarding claim 37, the claim recites “a system for deception detection assessment and credibility analysis”. Thus, the claim is directed to a product/machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
“… wherein the processor analyzes the detected physiological activity and the detected oculomotor movement and assigns one or more weights to at least one of the detected physiological activity and the detected oculomotor movement; wherein the processor generates an emotional assessment from analysis of the physiological activity and generates a cognitive assessment from analysis of the oculomotor movement; wherein the processor performs a logistic regression analysis on the emotional assessment to calculate a probability of deception; wherein the processor performs a logistic regression analysis on the cognitive assessment and adjusts the probability of deception based on the analysis of the cognitive assessment; wherein the processor compares the probability of deception to a cutoff score and designates the subject as pass, fail, or inconclusive based on the cutoff score.”
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation (emphasis on underlined limitations, which describe mathematical concepts6). Furthermore, the limitations also describe a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human, or using simple pen/paper.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“A system for deception detection assessment and credibility analysis comprising: a processor, the processor presenting to a subject a plurality of questions in an assessment protocol, wherein the assessment protocol comprises a first phase and a second phase; an eye tracking device connected to the processor comprising an infrared camera configured to detect oculomotor movement of the subject during the assessment protocol, wherein the infrared camera captures up to 60 measurements per a second, detects changes in eye movement as small as one-tenth of a millimeter, and has a +/- 200 horizontal and + 200 / - 400 vertical range at a predetermined distance from the subject; and a chin rest to receive a chin of the subject during the first phase and the second phase, wherein the chin rest is placed relative to the infrared camera such that an eye of the subject is located at the predetermined distance relative to the infrared camera; a plurality of physiological sensors in operative communication with the processor configured to detect physiological activity, comprising: an electrodermal sensor configured to be attached to the subject and configured to detect electrodermal activity of the subject during the assessment protocol; a respiration sensor configured to be attached to the subject and configured to detect respiration activity of the subject during the assessment protocol; and at least one cardiovascular sensor configured to be attached to the subject and configured to detect cardiovascular activity of the subject during the assessment protocol; wherein, during the first phase, the plurality of physiological sensors detects the physiological activity and during the second phase, the eye tracking device detects the oculomotor movement.”
These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the additional limitations are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the identified judicial exception7.
The additional limitations also do not add significantly more to the identified judicial exception because they relate to widely understood, conventional, and routine components in the technology8. Moreover, the recited hardware components (processor, chin rest, eye tracking device comprising an infrared camera, electrodermal sensor, respiration sensor, and cardiovascular sensor) are recited at a high level of generality such that they fail to amount to a particular machine9.
Dependent claims 38-41 also merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 42:
Regarding claim 42, the claim recites “a method for determining credibility”. Thus, the claim is directed to a method/process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
“…analyzing, via the processor, the physiological activity data and the oculomotor movement data and assigning one or more weights to at least one of the physiological activity data and the oculomotor movement data; generating, via the processor, an emotional assessment from analyzing of the physiological activity data and generating a cognitive assessment from analyzing of the oculomotor movement data; performing, via the processor, a logistic regression analysis on the emotional assessment to calculate a probability of deception; performing, via the processor, a logistic regression analysis on the cognitive assessment and adjusts the probability of deception based on the analysis of the cognitive assessment; comparing, via the processor, the probability of deception to a cutoff score and designates the subject as pass, fail, or inconclusive based on the cutoff score…”
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation (emphasis on underlined limitations, which describe mathematical concepts10). Furthermore, the limitations also describe a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human, or using simple pen/paper.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“…presenting a first set of questions, via a display and/or a speaker, to a subject during a first phase of an assessment protocol; continuously capturing physiological activity data related to the subject during the first phase via a plurality of physiological sensors including an electrodermal sensor, a respiration sensor, and at least one cardiovascular sensor, wherein the physiological activity data includes electrodermal activity data, respiration activity data, and cardiovascular activity data; controlling a first pacing of the first set of questions, via a processor, during the first phase such that each question of the first set of questions is presented at a first interval period; presenting a second set of questions, via the display and/or the speaker, to the subject during a second phase of the assessment protocol; continuously capturing oculomotor movement data related to eye movement of the subject during the second phase via an eye tracking device comprising an infrared camera, wherein the infrared camera captures up to 60 measurements per a second and detects changes in eye movement as small as one-tenth of a millimeter; controlling a second pacing of the second set of questions, via the processor, during the second phase such that each question of the second set of questions is presented at a second interval period… and sending a report of the comparing.”
These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the additional limitations are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the identified judicial exception11.
The additional limitations also do not add significantly more to the identified judicial exception because they relate to widely understood, conventional, and routine components in the technology12. Moreover, the recited hardware components (processor, eye tracking device comprising an infrared camera, electrodermal sensor, respiration sensor, and cardiovascular sensor) are recited at a high level of generality such that they fail to amount to a particular machine13.
Dependent claims 43 and 44 also merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
Therefore, claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 21, 22, and 33-44 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections raised in the previous office action have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. While Examiner greatly appreciates applicant’s attempt to advance prosecution, via current arguments and new claims 35-44, the claimed invention remains patent ineligible for the following reasons.
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole are not an abstract idea and are not extra-solution activity (remarks, pgs. 14-16). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent claim 1 was not amended, and thus is not patent eligible for the reasons set forth in previous office actions, which Examiner further maintained during the recent applicant-initiated interview held on March 18, 2026. Applicant continues to argue that claim 1 recites physical components (eye tracking device comprising an infrared camera, physiological sensors including an electrodermal sensor, a respiration sensor, at least one cardiovascular sensor) that are not an abstract idea and therefore the claims as a whole is not directed to an abstract idea (remarks, pg. 14). Applicant appears to misconstrue Examiner’s patent eligibility analysis. These structural limitations are not being considered as part of the abstract idea. To that extent, Examiner agrees that the recited sensors do not amount to mathematical calculations and/or a mental process. However, Examiner maintains that the identified structural limitations are additional limitations that (1) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application; and (2) do not recite significantly more. Rather, the additional/structural limitations amount to mere data gathering which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g): additional limitations corresponding to mere data gathering does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, Examiner maintains that the additional/structural limitations (1) are recited at a high level of generality such that they fail to amount to a particular machine14; and (2) are widely understood, routine, and conventional in the art of detecting deception, polygraphs, etc. (See prior art cited in previous and current office actions15).
Applicant argues that new claims 35-44 are directed to a particular machine (see remarks, pgs. 16-18). Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(b) provides specific examples that amount to a particular machine16, none of which are similar to the highly generalized structural limitations recited in the instant claims. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Claim 1 recites a practical application of an alleged mathematical calculation that cannot be performed solely in the human mind (remarks, pgs. 18-19). Examiner respectfully disagrees as nothing from the claims suggest that the skilled artisan would not be able to practically perform the limitations corresponding to the abstract idea mentally, or using simple pen/paper.
Applicant argues that the claimed combination integrates any abstract into a practical application (remarks, pgs. 19-20). Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the additional (structural) limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they pertain to mere data gathering techniques. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant argues that the claims provide a technological improvement (remarks, pg. 21). Examiner respectfully disagrees as the purported improvement appears to lie within the judicial exception itself. Examiner further argues that the additional/structural limitations do not recite an improvement, e.g. the processor is not being improved but rather being utilized as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea. Moreover, the sensors are recited at a high level of generality and are also not being improved as they are functioning in a conventional manner, e.g. infrared camera is being utilized to track eye movement which is widely known in the art for detecting deception. It is also conventional to utilize a chin rest in the manner recited17.
Applicant argues that the claim elements cannot perform the alleged mathematical algorithm in the human mind (remarks, pg. 21). Again, Examiner respectfully disagrees as nothing from the claims suggest that the skilled artisan would not be able to practically perform the limitations corresponding to the abstract idea mentally, or using simple pen/paper.
Applicant argues that precedent supports patent eligibility of applicant’s claims (remarks, pgs. 22-23). Examiner respectfully disagrees as the relied upon precedent has fact patterns that are different from the instant claims.
For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the 35 USC 101 rejections. Please see corresponding rejection heading above for more detailed analysis.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PUYA AGAHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1906. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."
2 MPEP 2106.05(g) mere data gathering does not integrate an identified judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two of the 101 Analysis
3 See previous office actions, which cited example teachings demonstrating that the additional (structural) limitations are widely understood, conventional, and routine in the art of detecting deception, polygraphs, etc.: 2009/0216092 & 2020/0383621
4 MPEP 2106.05(b), see Section I The Particularity or Generality of the Elements of the Machine or Apparatus: Particular machine, some examples include “type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged… a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web…It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.””
5 The following references demonstrate that utilizing a chin rest in the manner recited is conventional:2009/0216092 (previously cited): par.222020/0383621 (previously cited): par.20, 23, claim 3
2017/0135577 (newly cited): par.148, 160, 373, 408
6 See Footnote #1
7 See Footnote #2
8 See Footnotes #3, #5
9 MPEP 2106.05(b), see Section I The Particularity or Generality of the Elements of the Machine or Apparatus: Particular machine, some examples include “type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged… a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web…It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.””
10 See Footnote #1
11 See Footnote #2
12 See Footnote #3
13 MPEP 2106.05(b), see Section I The Particularity or Generality of the Elements of the Machine or Apparatus: Particular machine, some examples include “type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged… a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web…It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.””
14 See Footnote #4
15 See also Footnotes #3, #5
16 See Footnote #4
17 See Footnote #5