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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112f interpretation and 112b: Only one 112f term was deemed to not have any support in the specification: -‘contact lens sensor device’ with the function of ‘wirelessly transmit’ in claim 11. Applicant points to Figures 1-3 which do not show any specific structure. No specific structures that make up the sensor device are labeled. The specification does not provide any structure in the sensor device that allows for the functionality of wirelessly transmitting data. No description of any specific structures that make up the sensor device are provided in the spec so adding any would likely be new matter.
Regarding the 101:
(1): The hazardous environment is merely indicating field of use and thus does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(h): “Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
Outputting data falls under the abstract idea listings and per MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.”.
(5) “the distress signal includes a spoken phrase indicating the user is in distress, and the spoken phrase includes a specific medical condition.” These limitations merely limit the abstract idea and is just opinion/judgement which fall under the mental process category of abstract ideas. They are not additional elements.
(6) The claims merely acquire data, do generic analysis, and provide an output. This is clearly an abstract idea without significantly more. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A: “Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: • a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
Regarding the prior art rejection: The applicant's amendments and arguments/remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections presented herein. Specifically, the examiner has provided the Barkley reference to teach the limitations presented in the newly amended claims.
Response to Amendment
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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:
-‘eye tracking device’ in claims 1 and 12 with the function of ‘monitor’ and ‘output’ interpreted to be an accelerometer or sensors to track eye movement per the specification and equivalents thereof
-‘a distress monitoring module’ in claims 1 and 12 with the function of ‘receive’, ‘determine’, ‘output’ interpreted to be a computer and software combination per the specification and equivalents thereof
-‘a transmission module’ in claims 2 and 13 interpreted to be a radio per the specification and equivalents thereof
-‘contact lens sensor device’ with the function of ‘wirelessly transmit’ in claim 11
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 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.
Claim 11 is 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 “contact lens sensor device” in claim 11 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. There appears to be no structure disclosed as part of the contact lens sensor device that allows the functionality of ‘wirelessly transmit’. 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.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Step 1, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four categories (claims 1-20 being apparatuses).
Regarding Step 2, the independent claim 1 recites:
monitor one or more of an eye position, an eye movement, and/or an eye quality of the user
output eye tracking data
receive the eye tracking data
determine whether the user is in distress based on the eye tracking data
output a distress signal if the user is determined to be in distress
the distress signal includes a spoken phrase indicating the user is in distress, and
the spoken phrase includes a specific medical condition.
independent claim 12 recites:
monitor one or more of an eye position, an eye movement, and/or an eye quality of the user
output eye tracking data
receive the eye tracking data
determine whether the user is in distress based on the eye tracking data
output a distress signal if the user is determined to be in distress.
the distress signal includes a spoken phrase indicating the user is in distress, and
the spoken phrase includes a specific medical condition.
Independent claim 19 recites:
monitoring eye tracking data of a user;
determining if the user is in medical distress based on the eye tracking data; and
outputting a distress signal to indicate the user is in the medical distress
the distress signal includes a spoken phrase indicating the user is in the medical distress, and
the spoken phrase includes a specific medical condition.
The above claim limitations are tied to the abstract idea of mental processes in that they are concepts that can be performed in the human mind. These limitations describe a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental process steps.
The claimed steps of monitor(ing), output(ting), receive(ing), and determine(ing) can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Regarding Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exceptions (abstract ideas) in claims 1-20 are not integrated into a practical application because:
•The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for monitor(ing), output(ting), receive(ing), and determine(ing) merely invoke a computer as a tool.
•The data-gathering step (monitor(ing), receiving(ing)) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
•There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for monitor(ing), output(ting), receive(ing), and determine(ing)
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide a medical measurement.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer for monitor(ing), output(ting), receive(ing), and determine(ing). The claims do not apply the obtained response measurement to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Regarding Step 2B:
The additional elements are identified as follows: ‘an eye tracking device’ in claim 1, ‘a distress monitoring module’ in claim 1, ‘a transmission module’ in claim 2, ‘an autonomous vehicle’ in claim 6, ‘head worn device’ in claim 7, ‘glasses’ in claim 8, ‘helmet mounted device’ in claim 9, ‘helmet’ in claim 9, ‘helmet’ in claim 10, ‘space suit helmet’ in claim 10, ‘contact lens sensor device’ in claim 11, ‘air tight suit’ in claim 12, ‘eye monitoring system’ in claim 12, ‘an eye tracking device’ in claim 12, ‘a distress monitoring module’ in claim 12, ‘a transmission module’ in claim 13, ‘an autonomous vehicle’ in claim 17, ‘a non-transitory computer readable medium’ in claim 19, ‘a computer’ in claim 19, ‘air tight suit’ in claim 19, and ‘hazardous environment’ in claims 1, 12, and 19.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant’s Specification (Page 3, Lines 3-7) for sensors
Applicant’s Specification (Page 3, Lines 8-14) for the helmet and air tight suit
Applicant's specification (Page 12, Line 15-Page 14, Line 15) which discloses that the processor and memory comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; and
The prior art provided by the Applicant in the IDS and by the Examiner in PTO-892 which disclose each of the elements as being known and conventional in the art elements;
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The hazardous environment, helmet, glasses, contact lens, air tight suit and autonomous vehicle limitations merely at best indicate a field-of-use. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry or 3) further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art.
Claims 2-4, 6, 13-15, 17, and 20 is additional data output
Claims 7-11 and 18 recites additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art and either are for extra-solutionary data gathering or indicate field of use.
Claims 5, 16, 20 are steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrlich (US 2020/0348754) in view of Williams et al. (US 2019/0176837) and Barkley (US Patent No. 3866204).
Regarding claim 1, Ehrlich teaches an eye monitoring system for distress monitoring with respect to a user in a hazardous environment (Abstract), comprising:
an eye tracking device configured to monitor one or more of an eye position, an eye movement, and/or an eye quality of the user while the user is in the hazardous environment, and to output eye tracking data (Paragraph 0059; 1000 and 1001; Paragraphs 0031-0033); and
a distress monitoring module (1005) configured to receive the eye tracking data from the eye tracking device and to determine whether the user is in distress based on the eye tracking data (Paragraph 0059 and 0035),
Ehrlich is silent on the distress signal.
Williams teaches wherein the distress monitoring module is configured to output a distress signal if the user is determined to be in distress (Paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Williams because it aids in preventing dangerous situations and enabling quicker emergency/medical response as needed (Paragraphs 0033-0034 of Williams).
Barkley teaches the distress signal includes a spoken phrase indicating the user is in distress (Claim 1; “a warning signal annunciator which when activated repeatedly emits a recorded verbal message to inform bystanders of the nature of such person's condition or seizure and how he is to be treated prior to the arrival of medical aid”), and
the spoken phrase includes a specific medical condition (Claim 1; “a warning signal annunciator which when activated repeatedly emits a recorded verbal message to inform bystanders of the nature of such person's condition or seizure and how he is to be treated prior to the arrival of medical aid”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Barkley because it enables potential bystanders of the nature of person’s condition and how the person should be treated prior to the arrival of professional medical aid (Claim 1 of Barkley).
Regarding claim 2, Ehrlich is silent on the distress signal. Williams teaches wherein the system includes a transmission module operatively connected to the distress monitoring module to receive the distress signal (Paragraphs 0033 and 0049; Figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Williams because it aids in preventing dangerous situations and enabling quicker emergency/medical response as needed (Paragraphs 0033-0034 of Williams).
Regarding claim 3, Ehrlich is silent on the distress signal. Williams teaches wherein the transmission module is a radio configured to output the distress signal as a radio signal (Paragraph 0049; radio frequency constitutes a radio signal; Figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Williams because it aids in preventing dangerous situations and enabling quicker emergency/medical response as needed (Paragraphs 0033-0034 of Williams).
Regarding claim 5, Ehrlich and Williams teach wherein the distress monitoring module is configured to determine a type of distress, wherein the distress signal includes an indication of the type of distress (Paragraph 0059 of Ehrlich for monitoring different types of distress and Paragraph 0080 of Ehrlich for the ability to send processed data and thus a signal with an indication of the type of distress and Paragraph 0033 of Williams for the distress signal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Williams because it aids in preventing dangerous situations and enabling quicker emergency/medical response as needed (Paragraphs 0033-0034 of Williams).
Regarding claim 6, Ehrlich is silent on the distress signal with autonomous vehicle instructions. Williams teaches wherein the distress signal includes autonomous vehicle instructions configured to allow an autonomous vehicle to bring the user to a base location (Paragraph 0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Williams because it aids in preventing dangerous situations and enabling quicker emergency/medical response as needed (Paragraphs 0033-0034 of Williams).
Regarding claim 7, Ehrlich teaches wherein the eye tracking device is mounted to a head worn device such that the eye tracking device is fixed relative to a head position of the user (Paragraph 0059)
Regarding claim 8, Ehrlich teaches wherein the head worn device includes glasses (Paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 9, Ehrlich teaches wherein the eye tracking device is a device mounted on a helmet worn by the user such that a head of the user moved relative to the eye tracking device and the helmet (Paragraph 0059)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrlich (US 2020/0348754) in view of Williams et al. (US 2019/0176837) and Barkley (US Patent No. 3866204) and in further view of Osorio (US 2015/0080670).
Regarding claim 4, Ehrlich is silent on the medical condition being hypoxia. Osorio teaches wherein the distress signal (Paragraph 0145) wherein the specific medical condition comprises hypoxia (Paragraphs 0046 and 0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Osorio because it allows for measures to be taken that protect the subject’s well being and those of others (Paragraph 0145 of Osorio) and is a serious medical condition that an alarm would be necessary for (Paragraph 0046 of Osorio).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrlich (US 2020/0348754) in view of Williams et al. (US 2019/0176837) and Barkley (US Patent No. 3866204) and in further view of Osterhout et al. (US 2013/0314303).
Regarding claim 10, Ehrlich teaches a helmet (Paragraph 0059) but is silent specifically on it being a space suit helmet. Osterhout teaches wherein the helmet is a space suit helmet, wherein the eye tracking device is mounted on an inside or an outside of the helmet (Paragraph 0238). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Osterhout because Ehrlich teaches being able to apply the system to multiple types of apparatuses including helmets as desired (Paragraph 0059 of Ehrlich) and therefore it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the helmet of Ehrlich with the space suit helmet of Osterhout which would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Ehrlich is silent on the eye tracking device being a contact lens sensor device. Osterhout teaches wherein the eye tracking device is a contact lens sensor device configured to be worn on an eye of the user and to wirelessly transmit eye tracking data to the distress monitoring module (Paragraph 0454). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Osterhout because it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the eye tracking system of Ehrlich with that of Osterhout, which would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stivoric et al. (US 2007/0100666) in view of Ehrlich (US 2020/0348754) and Williams et al. (US 2019/0176837) and Barkley (US Patent No. 3866204).
Regarding claim 12, Stivoric teaches a hazardous environment suit assembly (Abstract; Paragraph 0193), comprising:
an air tight suit configured to enclose a user in an air tight environment (Paragraph 0193; hazmat suit); and
an eye monitoring system for distress monitoring with respect to a user in a hazardous environment (Paragraph 0098; Table 1), comprising:
Stivoric is silent on the distress monitoring module.
Ehrlich teaches an eye tracking device configured to monitor one or more of an eye position, an eye movement, and/or an eye quality of the user, and to output eye tracking data while the user is in the hazardous environment (Paragraph 0059; 1000 and 1001; Paragraphs 0031-0033); and
a distress monitoring module (1005) configured to receive the eye tracking data from the eye tracking device and to determine whether the user is in distress based on the eye tracking data (Paragraph 0059 and 0035),
Stivoric in view of Ehrlich is silent on the distress signal.
Williams teaches wherein the distress monitoring module is configured to output a distress signal if the user is determined to be in distress (Paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stivoric with Ehrlich because it allows for monitoring of potential generous medical/health conditions/situations (Paragraph 0059 of Ehrlich). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stivoric with Williams because it aids in preventing dangerous situations and enabling quicker emergency/medical response as needed (Paragraphs 0033-0034 of Williams).
Barkley teaches the distress signal includes a spoken phrase indicating the user is in distress (Claim 1; “a warning signal annunciator which when activated repeatedly emits a recorded verbal message to inform bystanders of the nature of such person's condition or seizure and how he is to be treated prior to the arrival of medical aid”), and
the spoken phrase includes a specific medical condition (Claim 1; “a warning signal annunciator which when activated repeatedly emits a recorded verbal message to inform bystanders of the nature of such person's condition or seizure and how he is to be treated prior to the arrival of medical aid”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stivoric with Barkley because it enables potential bystanders of the nature of person’s condition and how the person should be treated prior to the arrival of professional medical aid (Claim 1 of Barkley).
Regarding claim 13, Stivoric is silent on the distress signal. Williams teaches further comprising a transmission module operatively connected to the distress monitoring module to receive the distress signal (Paragraph 0049; radio frequency constitutes a radio signal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stivoric with Williams because it aids in preventing dangerous situations and enabling quicker emergency/medical response as needed (Paragraphs 0033-0034 of Williams).
Regarding claim 14, Stivoric is silent on the distress signal. Williams teaches wherein the transmission module is a radio configured to output the distress signal as a radio signal (Paragraph 0049; radio frequency constitutes a radio signal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stivoric with Williams because it aids in preventing dangerous situations and enabling quicker emergency/medical response as needed (Paragraphs 0033-0034 of Williams).
Regarding claim 16, Stivoric is silent on the distress signal. Ehrlich and Williams teach wherein the distress monitoring module is configured to determine a type of distress, wherein the distress signal includes an indication of the type of distress (Paragraph 0059 of Ehrlich for monitoring different types of distress and Paragraph 0080 of Ehrlich for the ability to send processed data and thus a signal with an indication of the type of distress and Paragraph 0033 of Williams for the distress signal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stivoric with Ehrlich because it allows for monitoring of potential generous medical/health conditions/situations (Paragraph 0059 of Ehrlich). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stivoric with Williams because it aids in preventing dangerous situations and enabling quicker emergency/medical response as needed (Paragraphs 0033-0034 of Williams).
Regarding claim 17, Stivoric is silent on the distress signal with autonomous vehicle instructions. Williams teaches wherein the distress signal includes autonomous vehicle instructions configured to allow an autonomous vehicle to bring the user to a base location (Paragraph 0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stivoric with Williams because it aids in preventing dangerous situations and enabling quicker emergency/medical response as needed (Paragraphs 0033-0034 of Williams).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stivoric et al. (US 2007/0100666) in view of Ehrlich (US 2020/0348754) and Williams et al. (US 2019/0176837) and Barkley (US Patent No. 3866204) and in further view of Osorio (US 2015/0080670)
Regarding claim 15, Stivoric is silent on the medical condition being hypoxia. Osorio teaches wherein the distress signal (Paragraph 0145) wherein the specific medical condition comprises hypoxia (Paragraphs 0046 and 0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stivoric with Osorio because it allows for measures to be taken that protect the subject’s well being and those of others (Paragraph 0145 of Osorio) and is a serious medical condition that an alarm would be necessary for (Paragraph 0046 of Osorio).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stivoric et al. (US 2007/0100666) in view of Ehrlich (US 2020/0348754) and Williams et al. (US 2019/0176837) and Barkley (US Patent No. 3866204) and in further view of Keith (US 2022/0019078).
Regarding claim 18, Stivoric is silent on the air tight suit being a space suit. Keith teaches a system with eye movement tracking wherein the air tight suit is a space suit (Claims 9 and 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stivoric with Keith because it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the air tight suit of Stivoric with that of Keith.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrlich (US 2020/0348754) in view of Williams et al. (US 2019/0176837) and Stivoric et al. (US 2007/0100666) and Barkley (US Patent No. 3866204).
Regarding claim 19, Ehrlich teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising computer executable instructions configured to cause a computer to perform a method (Paragraph 0144; Abstract), the method comprising:
monitoring eye tracking data of a user (Paragraph 0059; 1000 and 1001; Paragraphs 0031-0033);
determining if the user is in medical distress based on the eye tracking data (Paragraph 0059 and 0035); and
Ehrlich is silent on outputting a distress signal and the user being in an air tight suit.
Williams teaches outputting a distress signal to indicate the user is in the medical distress (Paragraph 0033).
Stivoric teaches a user in an air tight suit while the user is in a hazardous environment (Paragraph 0193; hazmat suit) with eye tracking (Paragraph 0098; Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Williams because it aids in preventing dangerous situations and enabling quicker emergency/medical response as needed (Paragraphs 0033-0034 of Williams).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Stivoric because Ehrlich teaches being able to implement the system in a variety of ways/applications (Paragraph 0059 of Ehrlich) and it would aid in monitoring a user for risk of dangerous situations (Paragraph 0193 of Stivoric).
Barkley teaches the distress signal includes a spoken phrase indicating the user is in distress (Claim 1; “a warning signal annunciator which when activated repeatedly emits a recorded verbal message to inform bystanders of the nature of such person's condition or seizure and how he is to be treated prior to the arrival of medical aid”), and
the spoken phrase includes a specific medical condition (Claim 1; “a warning signal annunciator which when activated repeatedly emits a recorded verbal message to inform bystanders of the nature of such person's condition or seizure and how he is to be treated prior to the arrival of medical aid”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Barkley because it enables potential bystanders of the nature of person’s condition and how the person should be treated prior to the arrival of professional medical aid (Claim 1 of Barkley).
Regarding claim 20, Ehrlich and Williams teach wherein outputting the distress signal includes outputting a radio signal indicating the user in the medical distress and a distress type if determined (Paragraph 0059 of Ehrlich for monitoring different types of distress and Paragraph 0080 of Ehrlich for the ability to send processed data and thus a signal with an indication of the type of distress and Paragraph 0033 of Williams for the distress signal), or Erhlich teaches utilizing one or more auxiliary biometrics along with the eye tracking data to determine a medical distress condition (Paragraph 0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ehrlich with Williams because it aids in preventing dangerous situations and enabling quicker emergency/medical response as needed (Paragraphs 0033-0034 of Williams).
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 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 PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791