DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application was effectively filed 1/24/2024, thus filed on or after March 16, 2013, and 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 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.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman-Toker (US 20220245812 A1) in view of Morris (US 20240074699 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 2, 13, Newman-Toker teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
at least one processing device (Fig. 3, Health Analysis Platform 310 having computing resources 315) comprising a processor coupled to a memory (¶62, “Computing resource 315 includes one or more personal computers, workstation computers, server devices, or another type of computation and/or communication device.”);
the at least one processing device being configured:
to obtain eye tracking data associated with a computing device (Figs. 1 and 2, ¶53-55, based on video received of patient at 110, e.g. using image sensor of “a camera to capture video of the patient” per ¶5);
to identify, based at least in part on the obtained eye tracking data, presence of a user viewing a display screen associated with the computing device (Fig. 1, showing the video detection, health analysis including analyze physiological activity of patient 120, and output of diagnosis information);
to determine, based at least in part on the obtained eye tracking data, eye usage data of the identified user (Fig. 1, ¶15, (¶15, “identify patterns associated with the movement, generate a signature associated with the movement, determine whether the patient signature matches a reference signature associated with a particular health condition”, and goes on to specifically contemplate gaze tracking detection data as one example of such movement(s));
to process the determined eye usage data (the signature from Signature Analysis Model in Fig. 1) to generate at least one data structure characterizing conformance of the identified user with a set of one or more eye usage patterns (sequitur) for viewing the display screen associated with the computing device (by virtue of the detected user eye movement execution to confer a change in in operating mode toward the various imaging types);
to generate one or more recommendations of the identified user based at least in part on the generated at least one data structure (Fig. 1, ¶84-86, comparison with Reference Data Structure toward identifying a health condition); and to provide the generated one or more recommendations to the computing device (¶48-50, ¶84-86).
Newman-Toker does not explicitly show that the recommendation (e.g. a treatment plan for the identified health condition per ¶48-50) includes altering an eye usage by the user (that is, the patient analyzed in Fig. 1).
However, Morris explicitly shows analogous eye feedback system (Abstract) including emitting an alert to the user of an eye deviation to an amount greater than a predetermined threshold as part of a treatment of an ocular misalignment disorder (Claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Morris’s eye usage recommendations in response to detected ocular feedback using the system of Newman-Toker for the purpose of improving, e.g. strabismus (Morris, ¶1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Newman-Toker teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the eye tracking data associated with the computing device comprises data obtained from one or more depth sensors associated with the computing device (e.g. the camera of Newman-Toker).
Official Notice is taken that depth estimation from images is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented depth sensing using the camera of Newman-Toker and thus obtained a more accurate eye tracking determination.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Newman-Toker teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein identifying the presence of the user viewing the display screen associated with the computing device comprises performing facial recognition of one or more faces detected in a video stream capture utilizing one or more imaging sensors associated with the computing device (¶5, “cause, based on a user input received via the user interface, a camera to capture video of the patient; obtain, from the video and using a facial analysis model, image data associated with one or more physiological characteristics of the patient”).
Regarding claims 15, 16, 18, and 19, the instant claims recite essentially the same limitations as those addressed above and are rejected on the same basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12, 14, 17, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Newman-Toker teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and explicitly shows ensuring proper positioning of the user in a frame to enable optimal video (¶24).
The modified Newman-Toker does not explicitly show wherein determining the eye usage data of the identified user comprises determining a screen distance between one or more eyes of the identified user and the display screen associated with the computing device.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Newman-Toker teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein determining the eye usage data of the identified user comprises determining a viewing angle between one or more eyes of the identified user and the display screen associated with the computing device.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Newman-Toker teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein determining the eye usage data of the identified user comprises determining a duration of time that one or more eyes of the identified user have been viewing the display screen associated with the computing device without an interruption lasting at least a threshold duration of time.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Newman-Toker teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein determining the eye usage data of the identified user comprises determining a blinking rate of one or more eyes of the identified user.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Newman-Toker teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein providing the generated one or more recommendations to the computing device comprises activating one or more indicators associated with the computing device, the one or more indicators comprising at least one of a visual indicator separate from the display screen associated with the computing device, a designated portion of the display screen associated with the computing device, and one or more audio indicators associated with the computing device.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Newman-Toker teaches the computer program product of claim 15, but does not explicitly show wherein determining the eye usage data of the identified user comprises:
determining a screen distance between one or more eyes of the identified user and the display screen associated with the computing device; determining a viewing angle between one or more eyes of the identified user and the display screen associated with the computing device;
determining a duration of time that one or more eyes of the identified user have been viewing the display screen associated with the computing device without an interruption lasting at least a threshold duration of time; and
determining a blinking rate of one or more eyes of the identified user.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Newman-Toker teaches the method of claim 18, but does not explicitly show wherein determining the eye usage data of the identified user comprises:
determining a screen distance between one or more eyes of the identified user and the display screen associated with the computing device;
determining a viewing angle between one or more eyes of the identified user and the display screen associated with the computing device;
determining a duration of time that one or more eyes of the identified user have been viewing the display screen associated with the computing device without an interruption lasting at least a threshold duration of time; and
determining a blinking rate of one or more eyes of the identified user.
Regarding claims 6, 8, 10, and 12, the dependent claims depend from a claim that contains aallowable subject matter and therefore contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and generally disclose eye tracking, blinking detection, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872