DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 14 January 2026.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are canceled. Claim(s) 1, 9, 12, and 15 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-15 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 15, which is representative of claim 1, recites
a method for determining a modification or a change of an initial myopia control solution used by a myopic subject, comprising:
measuring or retrieving a real initial value and real ulterior value of an eye state parameter representative of a myopia degree of an eye of the subject at an initial time and at an ulterior time; providing statistical data relative to a statistical evolution of said eye state parameter with time while said initial myopia control solution is implemented; determining an expected ulterior value of a magnitude linked to said eye state parameter at said ulterior time based on said statistical data relative to the statistical evolution of said eye state parameter with time while said initial myopia control solution is implemented, and a real ulterior value of said magnitude; comparing said real ulterior value of said magnitude with said expected ulterior value of said magnitude; and determining said modification or change to said initial myopia control solution for said subject based on the result of this comparison,
wherein the method comprises: determining a high threshold value of statistically usual values for said magnitude at said ulterior time; comparing said real ulterior value of the magnitude with said high threshold value; and determining said modification or change of said initial myopia control solution taking into account the result of this comparison; and when said real ulterior value of the magnitude is comprises between said expected ulterior value and said high threshold value, the method comprises: when said magnitude increases when myopia degree of the eye increases, determining said modification or change of said initial myopia control solution as comprising a modification of at least one implementation parameter of said initial myopia control solution; or when said real ulterior value of the magnitude is higher than said high threshold value, the method comprises: when said magnitude increases when the myopia degree of the eye increases, determining said modification or change of said initial myopia control solution as comprising a change from said initial myopia control solution to a different myopia control solution, and when said magnitude decreases when the myopia degree of the eye increases, determining said modification or change of said initial myopia control solution as comprising a modification of at least an implementation parameter of said initial myopia control solution or a change to no myopia control solution, or
the method comprises: determining a high threshold value of statistically usual values for said magnitude at said ulterior time; comparing said real ulterior value of the magnitude with said high threshold value; and
determining said modification or change of said initial myopia control solution taking into account the result of this comparison; and when said real ulterior value of the magnitude is comprised between said expected ulterior value and said high threshold value, the method comprises: when said magnitude increases when the myopia degree of the eye increases, determining said modification or change of said initial myopia control solution as comprising a modification of at least one implementation parameter of said initial myopia control solution; or when said real ulterior value of the magnitude is higher than said high threshold value, the method comprises: when said magnitude increases when the myopia degree of the eye increases, determining said modification or change of said initial myopia control solution as comprising a change from said initial myopia control solution to a different myopia control solution, and when said magnitude decreases when the myopia degree of the eye increases, determining said modification or change of said initial myopia control solution as comprising a modification of at least an implementation parameter of said initial myopia control solution or a change to no myopia control solution.
These limitations describe a concept of comparing a change in eye parameters over time to an expected change in eye parameters to determine an adjustment to a treatment for myopia. This concept describes a mental process that an eye care provider should follow to determine how to adjust treatment for myopia, similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Alternatively, the identified concept is analogous to the examples of “observation”, “evaluation”, “judgement”, and “opinion” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and can be performed in the human mind. As such, these limitations set forth a mental process. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites no additional elements. As there are no additional elements, claim 15 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a system comprising: one or more memories and one or more processors. This additional element is recited at an extremely high level of generality, and may be interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites an additional element of a device that includes circuitry configured to measure or retrieve a real value of an eye state parameter representative of a myopia degree of an eye of the subject. The disclosure notes at [0140] (pre-grant publication US20240047037A1) that the device “may comprise a device programmed to retrieve these real initial and ulterior values or deduce them from measurements performed by another device”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation as claimed includes a generic computing device used to implement the abstract idea. As previously noted, such additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, claim 15 recites no additional elements. As there are no additional elements, claim 15 does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
As previously noted, claim 1 recites additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more. There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, any additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8-14 further describes the abstract idea set forth by the claim, but these claims are determined to continue to recite an abstract idea, albeit a narrowed one. Dependent claims 8-14 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, for the same reasons as articulated above, fail to integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims remain directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, for the same reasons as articulated above, do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea. Thus as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding Objection of Claim 15: Applicant believes the present amendment renders this objection moot.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments file 14 January 2026 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue. The objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(f) Interpretation of claims 1-14: Applicant believes the present amendment renders this interpretation moot.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments file 14 January 2026 have been fully considered. Examiner agrees that the amendments eliminate the 112(f) interpretation of the claim limitation.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(d) Rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9: Applicant believes the present amendment renders this rejection moot.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments file 14 January 2026 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue. The rejection under 112(d) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-15:
The pending claims are not (and cannot be) directed to “organizing human activity” because the features therein are not directed to “fundamental economic principles,” “commercial or legal interactions,” or “managing personal behavior.” In order for the claims to fall into the “organizing human activity” category, the claims must actually be directed to the aforementioned practices. However this is simply not the case in the present application.
The claims cannot be directed to a “mental process” because the claimed features cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The system comprises a device that includes circuitry configured to measure or retrieve a real initial value and real ulterior value of an eye state parameter representative of a myopia degree of an eye of the subject at an initial time and at an ulterior time, and comprises one or more memories and one or more processor which are programmed to perform various functions. The elements of Claim 1 cannot be performed in the human mind – let alone be practically performed.
Paragraph [0020] of the … printed publication of the present application) recites the following: [T]he system according to the invention enables to improve the global strategy for limiting the progression of myopia in a subject by determining in an objective manner if a modification or change of myopia control solution is needed. The claims are thus directed to a “practical application,” and the rejection must therefore be withdrawn. Further, it is believed the claims are also directed to “significantly more” at least due to the technical improvements noted above and because the recited features are not “well-understood, routine, or conventional.”
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As noted in the current and prior office action, the claims are considered to describe a concept falling in the managing personal behavior sub-grouping. Applicant's argument amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out why the claim does not describe the managing of personal behavior.
Applicant’s argument appears to be focused on the hardware of the claim preventing the claim from reciting a mental process. However, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Thus the recitation of hardware in a claim does not prevent the claim from reciting a mental process.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.“ The articulated improvement appears to be entirely of the abstract idea. As such, the asserted improvement does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, Examiner notes that any argument that the claims are eligible based on the unconventionality of the claims as a whole, effectively reduces the eligibility analysis to an enhanced novelty threshold, which is clearly contrary to current guidelines and caselaw.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 103 Rejections of claims 1 and 8-15: Claim 1 has been amended to recite the features of (Claim 3 or 4) or (Claim 6 or Claim 7). In other words, Claim 1 now recites: Claim 1 AND [(Claim 3 OR Claim 4) OR (Claim 6 or Claim 7)]. Brennan and Drobe fail to disclose or suggest the features recited therein. Further evidence of this is given by the fact that none of Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 were rejected over Brennan and Drobe or any other art.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejections under 103 are withdrawn.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 14 October 2025.
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 Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-02-05