CTFR 18/318,381 CTFR 95453 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered. All objections have been withdrawn besides the objection to [0028], where one objection was not amended. Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the objection to Claims 1, 4, 13, 19, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claims 4, 13, 19, and 20 has been withdrawn. However, an objection to Claim 1 remains due to one unresolved objection. Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn. However, Claim 8 remains rejected due to one unresolved indefiniteness issue. 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, in the interests of compact prosecution, the rejection of Claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 involving Nie have been updated to rely on Kerr, Torch, Prat Bartomeu, Weisberg and Richardson . 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Kerr) /35 U.S.C. § 103 (Kerr in view of Nie) The applicant has argued “The ocular camera in Kerr is shown as a tethered device in Fig. 1 and as explicitly described. "In particular the miniature tethered mobile camera system 1 shown in FIG. 1 is small and light enough to be carried by small rodents (mice and rats)." [0167] (emphasis added). Claim 20 requires that "wherein the mount, vision assembly and data collection circuitry are untethered such that the animal can move freely." (emphasis added). Applicant notes that [0215] mentions "expansion of the systems capabilities by using alternative camera chips (e.g. CMOSIS 300 fps); untethered (wireless or optical) operation; precise gaze direction estimation." This is more an aspirational statement than a disclosure, and there is no disclosure of untethered capability of the system of Fig. 1, which is necessarily to compare to other features of claim 20” . However, even an aspirational statement means that Kerr still discloses the claimed invention, because a statement that the system of Fig. 1 can be untethered means that Kerr had an untethered version of this system in mind. When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable/enabling. See MPEP 2121. No further explanation in Kerr regarding an untethered version of Fig. 1 is needed in order to prove an enabling disclosure. The applicant has also argued “ The Examiner's stated motivation for modify Kerr on page 11 is unrelated to any purpose of Kerr... There is no need for forward view cameras for Kerr's system, as Kerr is concerned only with tracking eye (and head) movement in response to external known stimulus. In contrast, the system of Fig. 1 provides a much more powerful system that allows camera signals from the forward views (world) and eye position cameras to be sent to a microcontroller in the mounted system and synchronized. ” However, absent a clear disclaimer of particular subject matter, the fact that the inventor anticipated that the invention may be used in a particular manner does not limit the scope to that narrow context. See MPEP 2111.01. 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Kerr in view of Nie and Prat Bartomeu) The Applicant has also argued the helmet of Prat Bartomeu conflicts with Kerr. Specifically, the Applicant states “Kerr requires " In particular the miniature tethered mobile camera system 1 shown in FIG. 1 is small and light enough to be carried by small rodents (mice and rats)." [0167]. Helmets like that disclosed in Bartomeu are not "small and light enough to be carried by small rodents," and Bartomeu discloses no mirrors or structures that meet that requirement .”. However, absent a clear disclaimer of particular subject matter, the fact that the inventor anticipated that the invention may be used in a particular manner does not limit the scope to that narrow context. See MPEP 2111.01. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill in the art could have imported the side curved member of Prat Bartomeu into the system of Kerr while keeping the system small and light enough to be carried by rodents. 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Kerr in view of Nie, Council and Zakariaie) The Applicant has also argued “ The Examiner has again overlooked Kerr's requirements regarding small and light gear to be carried by small rodents. No artisan would look to Council that concerns "An optical sensor and a scene camera are installed on a headgear, such as a football helmet." Abstract (emphasis added). No artisan would look to Council to modify Kerr .” However, it is not the hardware of Council being imported into the system of Kerr but rather an algorithm. As Council is still directed towards a head mounted camera and eye track system, it is still pertinent to the problem the inventor is trying to solve. The Applicant has also argued “ Even if Council is considered, it does not meet claim 7. Claim 7 requires "machine learning trained to identify the pupil and superimpose a calibrated eye position on to the forward-facing view camera images." The Examiner points to [0025], which only discusses "data representing measurements of vectors of infrared light being reflected off the cornea of a user." There is no discussion of "superimpose a calibrated eye position on to the forward-facing view camera images." Applicant finds no such feature in [0025], and further explanation should be provided or the rejection withdrawn .” However, the term “ superimpose a calibrated eye position on to the forward-facing view camera images ” is anticipated by “ The system and method track a user's eye movements in real time and superimpose the user's point of gaze onto streaming video data captured by a scene camera that captures an area of a field of view of the user ” in [0006] of Council, as the field of view of a user is forward-facing . Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In [0028] , “ Every pair has a raw image and a masked image as shown in FIG. 2B with the iris of the eye colored white while rest of the image shaded black ” should read “ Every pair has a raw image and a masked image as shown in FIG. 2B with the iris of the eye colored white while the rest of the image is shaded black ” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 are objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 1 , “ wherein the data collection circuitry comprises a microcontroller receiving image data from the eye camera and the forward-facing view camera and configured to synchronize the image data from the eve camera and the forward-facing view camera such that the animal's gaze from the image data of the eye camera is synchronized with the image data of the forward-facing view camera ” should read “ wherein the data collection circuitry comprises a microcontroller for receiving image data from the eye camera and the forward-facing view camera and configured to synchronize the image data from the eve camera and the forward-facing view camera such that the animal's gaze from the image data of the eye camera is synchronized with the image data of the forward-facing view camera ”. In Claim 2, “ wherein the microcontroller synchronizes animal gaze data and forward-facing world data ” should read “ wherein the microcontroller synchronizes animal gaze data and forward-facing view image data ” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 8 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 8 recites “ The system of claim 1, wherein the machine learning is trained on pairs of images, wherein each pair of images comprises a raw eve image and a masked image in which the iris of the eye is colored white while rest of the masked image is shaded black ”. The clause “ the machine learning ” has a lack of antecedent basis, as no machine learning is recited in Claim 1. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “ The system of claim [[1]] 7 , wherein the machine learning is trained on pairs of images, wherein each pair of images comprises a raw eve image and a masked image in which the iris of the eye is colored white while rest of the masked image is shaded black ”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Kerr et al (US 20150077543 A1, hereinafter Kerr) . Regarding Claim 20 , Kerr discloses a head mounted eye track system for an animal (See Fig. 1; “The present invention relates to an Ocular Videography System for tracking eye movements of an animal”, Abstract) , comprising: a mount configured to the shape of the head of the animal (Element 2, Fig. 1) , a vision assembly (Element 1, Fig. 1) configured to attach to the mount (“the camera system 1 is designed and mounted securely on the head mount 2 without interfering with the animal's field of view”, [0171]) , and data collection circuitry (Element 4, Fig. 1) ; wherein the vision assembly comprises an eye camera (“the Ocular Videography System 100 comprises at least one image sensor 3 as well as at least one decoder 4, for decoding a signal detected by the image sensor 3, each being comprised by the camera system 1”, [0169]; “the Ocular Videography System the camera system comprises at least one light emitting element for guiding and emitting light towards the animal's eye, at least one light reflector for reflecting at least partially the light reflected from the animal's eye to the image sensor of the camera system”, [0022]) , a mirror (Elements 7, Fig. 1) arranged to be outside of a forward field of view of the animal while being angled to provide an image of an eye of the animal to the eye camera (“Reflectors 7 (hot mirrors) (reflecting infrared (IR) but passing visible light) mounted on the end of the objective lens allow the cameras to be positioned to provide the best image of the eye while minimizing disturbance to the rat's visual field”, [0170]) , and an illumination source that illuminates the animal's eye (“IR light-emitting diodes (LEDs) were used for illumination of the eye”, [0170]) ; wherein the data collection circuitry comprises a microcontroller receiving image data from the eye camera (“A core engine 13 is implemented within a processor 12 of the camera system 1 controlling measurement parameters of the camera system 1 and capable of streaming data onto one or several hard drives, wherein the core engine 13 is capable of processing independent eye movements of both eyes of the animal”, [0177]) and configured to provide synchronization information regarding the image data from the eye camera (See Collage Figure 2; “To allow synchronization of all cameras in the position-tracking and ocular videography systems, the frame signals of each of the position tracking cameras were digitally recorded (Power1401 with Spike2 software, Cambridge Electronic Design, Cambridge England). The oculography cameras did not have a frame synchronization signal, and were instead synchronized using the computer clock times at which the individual frames were recorded combined with periodic modulations of the IR-LEDs used for illumination of the eyes. The voltage driving the modulations of the eye illumination LEDs were recorded on the same analogue to digital converter as the frame synchronization signals from the position-tracking cameras, with the modulations consisting of a slowly increasing ramp (250 ms duration) with a sudden offset occurring about once per minute”, [0048]) ; and a power supply for the vision assembly and the data collection circuitry (“supply voltage”, [0199]) , the power supply being configured to be worn by the animal (“In particular the electronics comprised within the ocular videography system comprises at least one of the following technical features or combinations thereof…”, [0194]; “According to at least one embodiment of the Ocular Videography System the camera system is designed and mounted securely on the head mount”, [0020]) , and wherein the mount, vision assembly and data collection circuitry are untethered such that the animal can move freely (“wherein the camera system 1 is designed in such a way that it detects a movement of the eye and/or a movement of a head of the animal in a vertical and/or horizontal and/or a torsional direction to an optical axis 5 of the camera system 1 and/or of the optical axis of the animal's eye without interfering with the animal's natural motion dynamics”, [0169]; “Favourable is also the following taking the ocular videography system described above into account:...untethered (wireless or optical) operation...”, [0215]- [0217]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 9-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr in view of Torch (WO 2005094667 A2, hereinafter Torch) . Regarding Claim 1 , Kerr discloses a head mounted camera and eye track system for an animal (“The present invention relates to an Ocular Videography System for tracking eye movements of an animal”, Abstract; See Fig. 1) , comprising: a mount configured to the shape of the head of the animal (Element 2, Fig. 1) , a vision assembly (Element 1, Fig. 1) configured to attach to the mount (“the camera system 1 is designed and mounted securely on the head mount 2 without interfering with the animal's field of view”, [0171]) , and data collection circuitry (Element 4, Fig. 1) ; wherein the vision assembly comprises an eye camera (“the Ocular Videography System 100 comprises at least one image sensor 3 as well as at least one decoder 4, for decoding a signal detected by the image sensor 3, each being comprised by the camera system 1”, [0169]; “the Ocular Videography System the camera system comprises at least one light emitting element for guiding and emitting light towards the animal's eye, at least one light reflector for reflecting at least partially the light reflected from the animal's eye to the image sensor of the camera system”, [0022]) , and a mirror (Elements 7, Fig. 1) arranged to be outside of a forward field of view of the animal while being angled to provide an image of an eye of the animal to the eye camera (“Reflectors 7 (hot mirrors) (reflecting infrared (IR) but passing visible light) mounted on the end of the objective lens allow the cameras to be positioned to provide the best image of the eye while minimizing disturbance to the rat's visual field”, [0170]) ; wherein the data collection circuitry comprises a microcontroller receiving image data from the eye camera (“A core engine 13 is implemented within a processor 12 of the camera system 1 controlling measurement parameters of the camera system 1 and capable of streaming data onto one or several hard drives, wherein the core engine 13 is capable of processing independent eye movements of both eyes of the animal”, [0177]) and configured to synchronize the image data from the eye camera (See Collage Figure 2; “To allow synchronization of all cameras in the position-tracking and ocular videography systems, the frame signals of each of the position tracking cameras were digitally recorded (Power1401 with Spike2 software, Cambridge Electronic Design, Cambridge England). The oculography cameras did not have a frame synchronization signal, and were instead synchronized using the computer clock times at which the individual frames were recorded combined with periodic modulations of the IR-LEDs used for illumination of the eyes. The voltage driving the modulations of the eye illumination LEDs were recorded on the same analogue to digital converter as the frame synchronization signals from the position-tracking cameras, with the modulations consisting of a slowly increasing ramp (250 ms duration) with a sudden offset occurring about once per minute”, [0048]) ; and a power supply for the vision assembly and the data collection circuitry (“supply voltage”, [0199]) , the power supply being configured to be worn by the animal (“In particular the electronics comprised within the ocular videography system comprises at least one of the following technical features or combinations thereof…”, [0194]; “According to at least one embodiment of the Ocular Videography System the camera system is designed and mounted securely on the head mount”, [0020]) , and wherein the mounting, vision assembly and data collection circuitry are untethered such that the animal can move freely (“wherein the camera system 1 is designed in such a way that it detects a movement of the eye and/or a movement of a head of the animal in a vertical and/or horizontal and/or a torsional direction to an optical axis 5 of the camera system 1 and/or of the optical axis of the animal's eye without interfering with the animal's natural motion dynamics”, [0169]) . Kerr discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the vision assembly comprises a forward-facing view camera; and wherein the data collection circuitry comprises a microcontroller receiving image data from the forward-facing view camera and configured to synchronize the image data from the eve camera and the forward-facing view camera such that the animal's gaze from the image data of the eye camera is synchronized with the image data of the forward-facing view camera data. However, Torch, which is also directed towards a head mounted camera (See Figs. 2, 8, 11A, 18A-18B, 19) and eye track system (“The video signals from the camera 830 may be processed to monitor various eye parameters, such as pupillary size, location, e.g., within the four quadrant defined by the crossed bands 850, eye tracking movement, eye gaze distance, and the like”, page 30; “To facilitate monitoring pupillary size (e.g., dilation, constriction, and/or eccentricity) and or eye movement, the system may include a processor communicating with the camera 922 for processing the video signals and identifying a pupil of the eye from the video signals”, page 40) , teaches wherein the vision assembly (Element 910, Fig. 19) comprises a forward-facing view camera (“Optionally, the apparatus 910 may include an "exocamera" 944 oriented away from the user's head, e.g., to monitor the user's surroundings, similar to the embodiments described elsewhere herein”, page 35) ; and wherein the data collection circuitry comprises a microcontroller receiving image data from the forward-facing view camera (“images from the fiberoptic bundles 924 and/or exocamera 944 may be carried from the apparatus 910 to one or more remote devices, e.g., camera, detector, and/or processor (not shown), similar to other embodiments described herein”, page 37) and configured to synchronize the image data from the eve camera and the forward-facing view camera such that the user’s gaze from the image data of the eye camera is synchronized with the image data of the forward-facing view camera data (“the camera 922 may simultaneously capture images from one or more "endocameras," i.e., from fiber optic bundles 924 and from the exocamera 944. This may ensure that the images captured by each device are synchronized with one another, i.e., linked together in time such that an image of one eye taken at a specific time correspond to an image of the other taken at substantially the same time”, page 36; “FIGS. 20A and 20B illustrate exemplary outputs from a camera receiving simultaneous image signals from two endocameras 2010 and an exocamera 2020 (or from a device compiling images from separate cameras and/or detectors). As shown, an endocamera is directed towards each of the user's eyes, and the exocamera is directed outwardly at the user's surroundings (i.e., generally straight in front of the user's face)”, page 37) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the forward-facing view camera and the image synchronization of Torch to the system for an animal of Kerr, because this allows for additional monitoring and/or studying of the user's behavior (See Torch, page 30) . Regarding Claim 2 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 1. Modified Kerr discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the microcontroller synchronizes animal gaze data and forward-facing view data. However, Torch teaches wherein the microcontroller synchronizes user gaze data and forward-facing view data (“the images from the exocamera 944 may be delivered onto the same active area 942 as the images of each of the user's eyes received from the image guides 928, similar to other embodiments described herein. This configuration may allow or facilitate temporal and/or spatial synchronization, allowing for overlaying or superimposing endocamera image(s) over exocamera images, or through "triangulation measurements" or other algorithms for eye tracking purposes to identify "where," "what," and/or "how long" (duration of gaze) the user's eyes are looking at relative to the user's head directional position . Thus, the camera 922 may simultaneously capture images from one or more "endocameras," i.e., from fiber optic bundles 924 and from the exocamera 944. This may ensure that the images captured by each device are synchronized with one another, i.e., linked together in time such that an image of one eye taken at a specific time correspond to an image of the other taken at substantially the same time”, page 36) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the user gaze data and forward-facing view image data of Torch to the system for an animal of Kerr, because this allows for additional monitoring and/or studying of the user's behavior (See Torch, page 30) . Regarding Claim 3 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising an illumination source that illuminates the animal's eye (“IR light-emitting diodes (LEDs) were used for illumination of the eye”, [0170]) . Regarding Claim 4 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the illumination source comprises an infrared (IR) LED (“IR light-emitting diodes (LEDs) were used for illumination of the eye”, [0170]) . Regarding Claim 5 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the mirror comprises a hot mirror that reflects IR light and passes visible light (“Reflectors 7 (hot mirrors) (reflecting infrared (IR) but passing visible light) mounted on the end of the objective lens allow the cameras to be positioned to provide the best image of the eye while minimizing disturbance to the rat's visual field”, [0170]) . Regarding Claim 6 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the eye camera comprises a visible light filter that passes IR light (“The camera is equipped with an IR-transmission filter to prevents light sources in the visible range from interfering with eye tracking”, [0016]) . Regarding Claim 9 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the vision assembly comprises a main curved frame matching a curve of the animal's head (See the curve of element 2 in Fig. 1) . Regarding Claim 10 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the eye camera is mounted on the main curved frame (“the camera system 1 is designed and mounted securely on the head mount 2 without interfering with the animal's field of view”, [0171]) . Modified Kerr discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the forward-facing view camera is mounted on the main curved frame. However, Torch teaches wherein the forward-facing view camera (Element 944, Fig. 19) is mounted on the main curved frame (“the exocamera 944 may be provided at other locations on the helmet 912”, page 36) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the forward-facing view camera on to the main curved frame of modified Kerr, because it has been held by the courts that a simple rearrangement of parts is a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Regarding Claim 11 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the main curved frame comprise post holders configured to lock onto posts of the mount (“Three tracking arms (91) were also mounted on the housing 2”, [0170]; “The mounting arm was approximately 1 cm long, and was attached to the housing via a ball joint to allow the camera to be positioned accurately for acquiring images of the animal's eyes”, [0047]) . Regarding Claim 12 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the posts extend from a head plate that is matched to a top of the animal's head and is configured to be attached to the animal's head (“Animals were first implanted with a custom designed titanium headplate which was used for restraining the position of the animal's head during positioning of the system for video oculography”, [0039]) . Regarding Claim 15 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the mount is configured to be fixedly attached to the animal's head (“Animals were first implanted with a custom designed titanium headplate which was used for restraining the position of the animal's head during positioning of the system for video oculography”, [0039]) and the vision assembly is configured to be attachable to the mount (“the oculography system was attached to the headplate”, [0041]) . Modified Kerr discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the vision assembly is configured to be removably attachable to the mount. However, it has been held that making an apparatus separable is obvious (See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) and MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the vision assembly of modified Kerr removably attachable to the mount, for the known advantages of replacing faulty parts or cleaning. Regarding Claim 16 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the mount comprises titanium (“Animals were first implanted with a custom designed titanium headplate which was used for restraining the position of the animal's head during positioning of the system for video oculography”, [0039]) . Regarding Claim 17 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the mount comprises posts that extend from a head plate that is matched to a top of the animal's head and is configured to be fixedly attached to the animal's head (“Three tracking arms (91) were also mounted on the housing 2”, [0170]) . Regarding Claim 18 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 1. Modified Kerr discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the mount and vision assembly are part of a virtual reality headset. However, Torch teaches the need for virtual reality headsets with mounts and vision assemblies (“In another application, the system may be used in a video game or other simulation, e.g., to enhance virtual reality immersion”, page 46) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Kerr with the virtual reality headset of Torch, for usage in simulation (See Torch, page 46) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr in view of Torch, and further in view of Prat Bartomeu (US 7931370 B2, hereinafter Prat Bartomeu) . Regarding Claim 13 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 12. Modified Kerr discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the system further comprising a side curved member that mounts the mirror, the side curved member being configured to curve away from the animal's forward field of view so that the mirror is below the animal's field of view. However, Prat Bartomeu, which also discloses a head mounted camera and eye track system (Abstract) , teaches a side curved member (Element 1c, Fig. 4) that mounts the mirror (Element 7, Fig. 4) , the side curved member being configured to curve away from the animal's forward field of view so that the mirror is below the animal's field of view (“a pair of mirrors (7), under each eye respectively on one side of the helmet (1)”, 7:16-17) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the side curved member and mirror configuration of Prat Bartomeu to the system of modified Kerr, because this configuration enables the recording of all the possible positions of the eyes (Prat Bartomeu, 7:19-20) . Regarding Claim 14 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 13. Modified Kerr discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the mirror comprises an adjustable mirror mount that permits adjustments that provide an optical path between an eye of the animal and the eye view camera. However, it has been held that making an apparatus adjustable is, where needed, not a patentable advance (See In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) and MPEP 2144.04(V)(D)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the mirror mount of modified Kerr adjustable (such that an optical path is provided between an eye of the animal and the eye view camera . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K err in view of Nie, and further in view of Council (US 20210149482 A1, hereinafter Council) and Weisberg et al (US 12265935 B2, hereinafter Weisberg). R egarding Claim 7 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 1. Modified Kerr discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the system comprising machine learning trained to identify the pupil and superimpose a calibrated eye position on to the forward-facing view camera images. However, Council, which also discloses a head mounted camera and eye track system (Abstract) , teaches an algorithm trained to identify the pupil (“The term “vector quantity data” and grammatical equivalents thereof are used herein to mean data representing measurements of vectors of infrared light being reflected off the cornea of a user and measured from two points with one point representing the center of the pupil of the user and the other point representing a fixed location on the cornea of the user”, [0025]) and superimpose a calibrated eye position on to the forward-facing view camera images (“The system and method track a user's eye movements in real time and superimpose the user's point of gaze onto streaming video data captured by a scene camera that captures an area of a field of view of the user”, [0006]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kerr with Council, because superimposing a calibrated eye position on to the forward-facing view camera images allows a trainer to evaluate the gaze decisions of an end-user (see Council, [0028]-[0029])—the examiner notes this advantage also applies to a researching evaluating the gaze decisions of an animal as taught in Kerr) . Weisberg teaches the use of machine learning in eye tracking systems (“evaluating, via the computing device, the changes in ocular signals from the convolutional neural networks combined with the at least one oculomotor task corresponding to the changes in ocular signals by a machine learning algorithm”, 3:2-6) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Kerr with the machine learning of Weisberg (i.e. machine learning trained to identify the pupil and superimpose a calibrated eye position on to the world camera images), for the advantages of greater processing power and greater accuracy that machine learning provides . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K err in view of Nie, Council, and Weisberg, and further in view of the Non-Patent Literature (NPL) to Trokielewicza et al (“Post-mortem iris recognition with deep-learning-based image segmentation”, hereinafter Trokielewicza). R egarding Claim 8 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 1. Modified Kerr discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the machine learning is trained on pairs of images, wherein each pair of images comprises a raw eve image and a masked image in which the iris of the eye is colored white while rest of the masked image shaded black. However, Trokielewicza, which is also directed towards machine learning trained to identify and segment eye tissues (See Abstract) , teaches wherein the machine learning is trained on pairs of images, wherein each pair of images comprises a raw eve image and a masked image (“The first stage of the proposed scheme consists of employing a data-driven segmentation model based on a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) for the purpose of localizing the iris within an image. Our models are based on the solution described in one of our previous papers [10], which employs a re-trained off-the-shelf SegNet model [20], and offers a large improvement over the OSIRIS segmentation method measured with the IoU (Intersection over Union) metric. We fine-tuned it with a database of cadaver iris images and their corresponding ground truth binary masks. The neural networks were trained and tested with entirely subject-disjoint sets of iris images”, Section 4.2) in which the iris of the eye is colored white while rest of the masked image shaded black (See Fig. 2 “Segmentation results for samples from Fig. 1, obtained from the unmodified OSIRIS method and the coarse segmentation model—the iris of the eye is colored white while rest of the masked image shaded black) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kerr with the machine learning training data of Trokielewicza, because isolating the element of interest in training datasets for deep convolutional neural network is well-known in the machine learning arts . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr in view of Torch, and further in view of Richardson et al (US 20160213317 A1, hereinafter Richardson) . Regarding Claim 19 , modified Kerr discloses the system of claim 1. Modified Kerr discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the system further comprising a backpack configured to be worn by the animal, the backpack containing the power supply. However, Richardson teaches a backpack configured to be worn by the animal (“in an embodiment, the RSM may rest on the dorsal surface of an animal (i.e., similar to a backpack”, [0105]) , the backpack containing the power supply (“In an embodiment, the RSM jacket 505 encloses the circuit board 503 and battery 507”, [0068]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Kerr with the backpack and power supply configuration of Richardson, because this allows for the subject to be monitored while wearing the subject wearable interface without being tethered to any sensing device or data acquisition device that would be wired and restrain the subject from normal movement (Richardson, [0009]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Kaplan et al (WO 2021236738 A1; [0075]), relevant to Claim 8. 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 JONATHAN EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-2860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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. /JONATHAN E. COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 2 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 3 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 4 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 5 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 6 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 7 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 8 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 9 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 10 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 11 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 12 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 13 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 14 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 15 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 16 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 17 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 18 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/318,381 Page 19 Art Unit: 3791
Prosecution Insights