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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 10-20 in the reply filed on 09 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 have been cancelled. Claims 21-29 have been added.
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.
Claims 20 and 26 are 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 20 recites “the system of claim 15” in the preamble. However, claim 15 is a dependent claim for the processor of claim 10. It is unclear if claim 20 should be dependent to claim 15 or claim 16 (the system). For examination reasons, claim 20 is interpreted as being dependent on claim 16.
The term “substantially” in claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what it means for the head position to be “substantially fixed” as the head is either moving or fixed. Clarification is requested.
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 10-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 10 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites a series of structural element, including one or more circuits. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of
cause an automated light device to present a pattern of light movement;
cause image data of a person to be captured during a presentation of the pattern of light movement;
receive an inferred impairment value for the person, the inferred impairment value being computed using the neural network based on the portion of the image data; and
perform a responsive action corresponding to the indication of impairment.
set forth a judicial exception. The causing steps describe a concept of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Thus, the claim is drawn to Organizing Human Activity, which is an Abstract Idea. The receiving and performing steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is also drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 10 recites performing a responsive action corresponding to the indication of impairment, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The performed responsive action does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the performed responsive action, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional step of: providing a portion of the image data, corresponding to an eye region of the person, as input to a neural network.
The providing step is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the providing step is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The processor recited in claim 10 is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited processor and one or more circuits are configured to perform insignificant extra-solution activity, and the processor is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The same rationale applies to claims 16 and 21.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims. Claims 11, 13, 14, 17-19, 22, and 26-29 add to the Abstract Idea as these claims recite steps that are directed to mental processors and/or organizing human activity. Claims 12, 15, 20, and 23-25 merely recite where the automated light device is mounted to and what the processor/system is, which does not add anything significantly more. The steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(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.
Claims 10, 11, 14-22, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sicconi et al. ‘487 (US Pub No. 2020/0057487).
Regarding claim 10, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches a processor (Fig. 3 processing unit 315 and [0069]), comprising:
one or more circuits (Fig. 12) to:
cause an automated light device to present a pattern of light movement (Fig. 12 blue LED light 1211 and [0070]);
cause image data of a person to be captured during a presentation of the pattern of light movement (Fig. 12 driver facing camera 1201 and [0069]);
provide a portion of the image data, corresponding to an eye region of the person, as input to a neural network (Fig. 5 and [0052]; “neural network”);
receive an inferred impairment value for the person, the inferred impairment value being computed using the neural network based on the portion of the image data (Fig. 5 attention level of a driver 513 and [0052]); and
perform a responsive action corresponding to the indication of impairment (Fig. 5 warning alerts 500 and [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches wherein the responsive action includes preventing the person from performing an operation or providing a recommendation to the person to not perform the operation in a current state of impairment ([0095]; “recommended actions”).
Regarding claim 14, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches wherein the one or more circuits are further to: dynamically adjust the pattern of light movement based in part upon a determined reaction or state of the person during the presenting ([0070]; “mimicking light patterns with corresponding blinking of eyelids”).
Regarding claim 15, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of:
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for rendering graphical output;
a system for performing deep learning operations ([0065]; “deep learning”);
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content;
a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content ([0098]; “augment”);
a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content;
a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center;
a system for performing hardware testing using simulation;
a system for synthetic data generation;
a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (Fig. 7 cloud 709 and [0054]).
Regarding claim 16, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches a system (Title, Abstract), comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 3 processing unit 315 and [0069]) to capture image data representative of a gaze change of a person during a presentation of a pattern of light movement by an automated light device (Fig. 12 driver facing camera 1201 and [0069]), and to infer an impairment value for the person using a neural network receiving the image data as input (Fig. 5 attention level of a driver 513 and [0052])
Regarding claim 17, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches wherein the one or more processors are further to: perform a responsive action corresponding to the impairment value (Fig. 5 warning alerts 500 and [0052], [0095]; “recommended actions”).
Regarding claim 18, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches wherein the gaze change is determined using at least one neural network taking as input at least a portion of the captured image data corresponding to an eye region of the person (Fig. 5 distraction 507 and [0052]).
Regarding claim 19, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches wherein the impairment value is inferred using at least one neural network trained to infer at least one user behavior from user eye movement (Fig. 12 drowsiness analysis unit 1219, distraction analysis unit 1221 and [0069]).
Regarding claim 20, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches wherein the system comprises at least one of:
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for rendering graphical output;
a system for performing deep learning operations ([0065]; “deep learning”);
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content;
a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content ([0098]; “augment”);
a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content;
a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center;
a system for performing hardware testing using simulation;
a system for synthetic data generation;
a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (Fig. 7 cloud 709 and [0054]).
Regarding claim 21, Sicconi et al. ’487 teaches an impairment determination system (Title, Abstract), comprising:
at least one automated light device comprising one or more light sources configured to present a time-varying spatial pattern of light movement (Fig. 12 blue LED light 1211 and [0070]);
at least one camera configured to capture image data corresponding to an eye region of a person during presentation of the time-varying spatial pattern of light movement (Fig. 12 driver facing camera 1201 and [0069]); and
one or more processors (Fig. 3 processing unit 315 and [0069]) configured to:
provide at least a portion of the image data corresponding to the eye region as input to a neural network (Fig. 5 and [0052]; “neural network”);
receive, from the neural network, an impairment value indicative of a state of impairment of the person, the impairment value being computed based at least in part on eye movement behavior represented in the image data in response to the time-varying spatial pattern of light movement (Fig. 5 attention level of a driver 513 and [0052]); and
perform a responsive action based at least in part on the impairment value (Fig. 5 warning alerts 500 and [0052]).
Regarding claim 22, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches wherein the responsive action comprises preventing the person from performing the operation or generating an output indicating that performance of the operation is not permitted based on the impairment value ([0095]; “recommended actions”).
Regarding claim 25, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches wherein the automated light device comprises at least one of a light bar, a two-dimensional light array ([0066]; “Blue LED array for retinal stimulation and/or alertness restoration”), or a heads-up display projector configured to present the time-varying spatial pattern of light movement.
Regarding claim 28, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to adjust at least one parameter of the time-varying spatial pattern of light movement during presentation based at least in part on eye movement behavior of the person determined from the image data ([0070]; “mimicking light patterns with corresponding blinking of eyelids”).
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.
Claims 12, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicconi et al. ‘487 in view of Kobetski et al. ‘771 (US Pub No. 2018/0206771).
Regarding claim 12, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the automated light device is mounted to present the pattern of light movement at a location above the eye region of the person over at least a determined horizontal angular range.
Kobetski et al. ‘771 teaches an array or set of IR or NIR light sources 12a-12g are arranged on a windscreen post 13 of a vehicle 10 (Fig. 1 and [0059]). Fig. 1 shows that the light sources 12a-12d are above the eye region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated light device of Sicconi et al. ‘487 to include being mounted to present the pattern of light movement at a location above the eye region of the person over at least a determined horizontal angular range as Kobetski et al. ‘771 teaches that this will aid in directing the light emitted onto the eye or eyes of the driver ([0042]).
Regarding claim 23, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the automated light device is mounted in a vehicle or machine and configured to present the pattern of light movement at a location above the eye region of the person over at least a determined horizontal angular range.
Kobetski et al. ‘771 teaches an array or set of IR or NIR light sources 12a-12g are arranged on a windscreen post 13 of a vehicle 10 (Fig. 1 and [0059]). Fig. 1 shows that the light sources 12a-12d are above the eye region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated light device of Sicconi et al. ‘487 to include being mounted in a vehicle or machine and configured to present the pattern of light movement at a location above the eye region of the person over at least a determined horizontal angular range as Kobetski et al. ‘771 teaches that this will aid in directing the light emitted onto the eye or eyes of the driver ([0042]).
Regarding claim 24, Sicconi et al. ‘487 in view of Kobetski et al. ‘771 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the automated light device is mounted on a sun visor or positioned to present the light pattern on a windshield of the vehicle or machine.
Kobetski et al. ‘771 teaches an array or set of IR or NIR light sources 12a-12g are arranged on a windscreen post 13 of a vehicle 10 (Fig. 1 and [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated light device of Sicconi et al. ‘487 in view of Kobetski et al. ‘771 to include being mounted on a sun visor or positioned to present the light pattern on a windshield of the vehicle or machine as Kobetski et al. ‘771 teaches that this will aid in directing the light emitted onto the eye or eyes of the driver ([0042]).
Claims 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicconi et al. ‘487 in view of Lister ‘657 (US Patent No. 10,470,657).
Regarding claim 13, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the one or more circuits are further to: provide instructions for presentation to the person to avoid head motion and to follow the pattern of light movement only using a change in gaze direction, during the presentation.
Lister ‘657 teaches the HGN test tracks the movement or coordination and balance of the eye. The HGN test requires an object for a subject to follow with their eye, such as a pen or the tip of a penlight. The officer places the object approximately twelve to fifteen inches from the subject's face and slightly higher than eye level and instructs the subject to follow the object with the eyes only with the head held still (Column 1 Lines 44-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one or more circuits of Sicconi et la. ‘487 to include providing instructions for presentation to the person to avoid head motion and following the pattern of light movement only using a change in gaze direction, during the presentation as Lister ‘657 teaches that this will aid in tracking the movement or coordination and balance of the eye.
Regarding claim 26, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the one or more processors are further to generate at least one instruction indicating that the person is to maintain a substantially fixed head position and to follow the time-varying spatial pattern of light movement using changes in gaze direction.
Lister ‘657 teaches the HGN test tracks the movement or coordination and balance of the eye. The HGN test requires an object for a subject to follow with their eye, such as a pen or the tip of a penlight. The officer places the object approximately twelve to fifteen inches from the subject's face and slightly higher than eye level and instructs the subject to follow the object with the eyes only with the head held still (Column 1 Lines 44-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one or more processors of Sicconi et la. ‘487 to include generating at least one instruction indicating that the person is to maintain a substantially fixed head position and to follow the time-varying spatial pattern of light movement using changes in gaze direction as Lister ‘657 teaches that this will aid in tracking the movement or coordination and balance of the eye.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicconi et al. ‘487 in view of Whillock et al. ‘754 (US Pub No. 2010/0016754).
Regarding claim 27, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the neural network is trained to compute the impairment value based at least in part on eye movement behavior including one or more of smooth pursuit characteristics, presence of nystagmus, onset of nystagmus relative to gaze angle, pupil response to changes in illumination, or convergence behavior determined using image data corresponding to both eyes of the person.
Whillock et al. ‘754 teaches law enforcement personnel may check a subject's eye motion as a field test for people driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or the like. Law enforcement personnel may regularly use a horizontal gaze nystagmus test (HGN) for testing field sobriety ([0008]). A module may perform an assessment of the eye motion pattern results from module 30 to detect specific features of impairment such as deviations from a smooth track that may point to nystagmus ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the neural network of Sicconi et al. ‘487 to be trained to compute the impairment value based at least in part on eye movement behavior including one or more of smooth pursuit characteristics, presence of nystagmus, onset of nystagmus relative to gaze angle, pupil response to changes in illumination, or convergence behavior determined using image data corresponding to both eyes of the person as Whillock et al. ‘754 teaches that this will aid in testing people driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or the like.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicconi et al. ‘487 in view of Pavlidis ‘422 (US Patent No. 4,889,422)
Regarding claim 29, Sicconi et al. ‘487 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the one or more processors are further to compare a frequency of eye movement of the person to a frequency of motion of the pattern of light movement.
Pavlidis ‘422 teaches the comparison of dyslexics, advanced, normal and retarded readers shows that eye movement patterns and characteristics in the non-reading "lights" test can differentiate dyslexics from other groups of readers (Column 9 Lines 25-28). Although the invention of Pavlidis ‘422 is used for detecting neurological conditions, particularly dyslexia, the neurological condition include schizophrenia, nystagmus, attentional deficit, inebriation, brain damage, multiple sclerosis, brain dystrophy, as well as the effects of certain drugs, i.e., valium, amphetamines, lithium, etc. (Column 3 Lines 26-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one or more processors of Sicconi et al. ‘487 to include comparing a frequency of eye movement of the person to a frequency of motion of the pattern of light movement as Pavlidis ‘422 teaches that this will aid in detecting nystagmus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights