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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 6, and 17 is/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 2 recites the limitation "the audio output" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The maximum illumination capability in question is unclear and there are no metes and bounds established.
Claim 6 and 17 is/ are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 6 recites “about 10% to about 30%” and claim 17 recites “about 15% to about 50%”. It is unclear how much variance is allowed because “about” is vague and there are no clear metes and bounds established.
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.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim(s) 1-21 are drawn to statutory categories of invention of machine and process.
[Step 2A — Prong 1] Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mathematical concepts (i.e. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III). See underlined portions below.
Claim 1 recites:
A system for credibility analysis including:
a mobile device comprising
at least a first processor, the at least first processor comprising software instructions that, when executed, are configured to present to a subject one or more statements or questions, as part of a credibility test, prompting a response from the subject;
an eye tracking device connected to the at least first processor comprising:
a camera that is configured to obtain oculomotor activity of the subject; and
a light source;
an audio input device connected to the at least first processor positioned to receive a verbal response from the subject;
wherein the at least first processor derives oculomotor data from the oculomotor activity obtained by the camera;
a credibility processor comprising software instruction to analyze the assessment protocol and compute a probability of deception from the oculomotor data and the prompted response.
As indicated above, the “instructions that, when executed, are configured to present to a subject one or more statements or questions, as part of a credibility test, prompting a response from the subject “ and “instruction to analyze the assessment protocol and compute a probability of deception from the oculomotor data and the prompted response” limitations encompass, under broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can practically be certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mathematical concepts. For example, a teacher could provide the subject with the questions/statements for the purpose of assessing credibility. A teacher could also compute the probability of deception mathematically using pen and paper. In other words, the underlined portions could have been done by a teacher instructing/teaching a subject (certain methods of organizing human activity) and through pen and paper calculations (mathematical concepts). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of organizing human activity through the establishment of instructions, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mathematical” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim encompasses an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, processor comprising software instruction is a generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). The additional claim limitations are NOT indicative of integration into a practical application as they add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer/implement the abstract idea in a computer environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. The Specification/ background demonstrates that the oculomotor-based deception detection system is recited for its well- understood, routine, and conventional functionality (i.e., software/application), referring to the additional element in a manner that indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy enablement (See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A)). Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology and/or implements the use of a particular machine. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 is rejected for similar reasoning. The additional limitations of a mobile device and processors recite generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. Claim 12 fail to include additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Accordingly, claims 12 is also not patent eligible.
Claims 2-11, and 13-21 are dependent on claims 1 and 12 respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. Additionally, claims 5, 8, 9, 16 and 20 recite limitations pertaining to the presentation of the question to the subject undergoing evaluation. The formulation of the questions presented to the subject constitutes instruction/teaching (certain methods of organizing human activity) and do not integrate any judicial exceptions. While the dependent claims have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Particularly, the additional limitations further define the insignificant extra-solution of evaluation of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and additional iterations on the existing abstract concepts. Furthermore, these additional limitations encompass the use of generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The dependent claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2021/0369162 A1 to Kircher et al. (hereinafter Kircher), in view of US Publication No. 2021/0338124 A1 to Palti-Wasserman et al. (hereinafter Palti-Wasserman), and further in view of US Publication No. 2017/0119295 A1 to Twyman et al. (hereinafter Twyman).
Concerning claim 1,
Kircher discloses a system for credibility analysis including: a mobile device (0016-0017), wherein a computer can be mobile;
at least a first processor, the at least first processor comprising software instructions that, when executed, are configured to present to a subject one or more statements or questions, as part of a credibility test, prompting a response from the subject (0032);
an eye tracking device connected to the at least first processor (0017-0018) comprising;
a camera that is configured to obtain oculomotor activity of the subject (0017-0018);
wherein the at least first processor derives oculomotor data from the oculomotor activity obtained by the camera (0062);
a credibility processor comprising software instruction to analyze the assessment protocol and compute a probability of deception from the oculomotor data and the prompted response (0062).
Kircher does not disclose:
a light source;
an audio input device connected to the at least first processor positioned to receive a verbal response from the subject;
Palti-Wasserman teaches a light source (0034).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light source in an eye-based lie detector described in Palti-Wasserman with the oculomotor-based deception detection device described in Kircher as Kircher would get clearer eye scans and vascular scans with proper illumination.
Twyman teaches an audio input device connected to the at least first processor positioned to receive a verbal response from the subject (0066).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the audio input device in the deceit detection apparatus described in Twyman with the oculomotor-based deception detection device described in Kircher
Concerning claim 3,
Kircher discloses the one or more oculomotor activities tracked by the eye-tracking device comprises tracking one or more of pupil dilation, eye movement, or vascular activity of the subject (0063).
Concerning claim 4,
Kircher discloses a response time of the verbal response by the subject is tracked by the at least first processor (0063).
Concerning claim 5,
Kircher discloses one or more statements or questions presented by the processor includes one or more of an introductory phrase, a topic phrase, or a declaration phase (0034-0036).
Concerning claim 6,
Kircher fails to discloses a light source is configured to illuminate within a range of about 10% to about 30% of a maximum illumination capability.
Palti-Wasserman teaches a light source is configured to illuminate at various levels of illumination (0034).
Palti-Wasserman fails to teach a range of about 10% to about 30% of a maximum illumination capability. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range to 10% to about 30% of a maximum illumination capability since it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light source in an eye-based lie detector described in Palti-Wasserman with the oculomotor-based deception detection device described in Kircher as Kircher would get clearer eye scans and vascular scans with proper illumination.
Concerning claim 8,
Kircher discloses one or more statements or questions presented by the processor are focused on target behavior or issues (0034-0055).
Concerning claim 9,
Kircher discloses statements or questions repeat with inverted phrasing (0042-0043).
Concerning claim 10,
Kircher discloses an audio output device produces an audible prompt when an eye of the subject is out of view of the eye tracking device (0059).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2011/0257464 A1 to Kircher et al., in view of US Publication No. 2021/0338124 A1 to Palti-Wasserman et al., further in view of US Publication No. 2017/0119295 A1 to Twyman et al., and further in view of US Publication No. 2008/0114603 A1 to Desrochers (hereinafter Desrochers).
Concerning claim 2,
Kircher fails to disclose an audio output device is configured to produce a sound after receiving the verbal response from the subject.
Desrochers teaches an audio output device is configured to produce a sound after receiving the verbal response from the subject (0033, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an audio output device which produces sound after a verbal response with the audio output aspect of the oculomotor-based deception detection device described in Kircher as Kircher would reasonably include confirmation tones to confirm the verbal response of the subject have been received as taught in Desrochers.
Claim(s) 7, 11-12, and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2011/0257464 A1 to Kircher et al., in view of US Publication No. 2021/0338124 A1 to Palti-Wasserman et al., further in view of US Publication No. 2017/0119295 A1 to Twyman et al., and further in view of US Publication No. 2018/0160959 A1 to Wilde et al. (hereinafter Wilde).
Concerning claim 7,
Kircher fails to disclose a camera of the eye tracking device is configured to track one or more oculomotor activities by tracking eye features during the credibility test by taking a series of pictures of at least one of the subject’s eye during the credibility test.
Wilde teaches a camera of the eye tracking device is configured to track one or more oculomotor activities by tracking eye features during the credibility test by taking a series of pictures of at least one of the subject’s eye during the credibility test (0053, Figure 3, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a picture taking eye-based lie detector described in Wilde with the oculomotor-based deception detection device described in Kircher as Kircher discloses video for lie detection. As such, a picture taking configuration of the lie detector as taught in Wilde would be reasonable as the functionality is similar.
Concerning claim 11,
Kircher fails to disclose a credibility processor is a processor to which the at least first processor transmits the collected images for feature extraction and credibility calculation.
Wilde teaches a credibility processor is a processor to which the at least first processor transmits the collected images for feature extraction and credibility calculation (0053-0055, Figure 3, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a picture taking eye-based lie detector described in Wilde with the oculomotor-based deception detection device described in Kircher as Kircher discloses video for lie detection. As such, a picture taking configuration of the lie detector as taught in Wilde would be reasonable as the functionality is similar.
Concerning claim 12,
Kircher discloses transmitting, by one or more processors, one or more statements to a subject aurally using a mobile device, as part of a credibility test, prompting a response from the subject (0033-0034);
determining, by the one or more processors, one or more oculomotor activities of the subject during the credibility test (0016-0017);
computing, by the one or more processor, an overall probability of deception from the determined oculomotor activities and the prompted response (0062).
Kircher does not disclose:
illuminating, by a light source, at least one eye of the subject with a light on the mobile device;
receiving with the mobile device, by the one or more processors, one or more responses to the one or more statements spoken by the subject;
receiving, by the one or more processors, one or more images of the at least one eye of the subject from a camera of the mobile device, wherein the one or more images comprise oculomotor activity;
generating, by the one or more processors, oculomotor data from the one or more images of the at least one eye of the subject based on the oculomotor activity;
Palti-Wasserman teaches illuminating, by a light source, at least one eye of the subject with a light on the mobile device (0034).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light source in an eye-based lie detector described in Palti-Wasserman with the oculomotor-based deception detection device described in Kircher as Kircher would get clearer eye scans and vascular scans with proper illumination.
Twyman teaches receiving with the mobile device, by the one or more processors, one or more responses to the one or more statements spoken by the subject (0066).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the audio input characteristic in the deceit detection apparatus described in Twyman with the oculomotor-based deception detection device described in Kircher as Kircher could take verbal responses in their device, like a traditional polygraph, captured by an audio input device.
Wilde teaches receiving, by the one or more processors, one or more images of the at least one eye of the subject from a camera of the mobile device, wherein the one or more images comprise oculomotor activity (0053-0055, Figure 3, Figure 4);
generating, by the one or more processors, oculomotor data from the one or more images of the at least one eye of the subject based on the oculomotor activity (0053-0055, Figure 3, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a picture taking eye-based lie detector described in Wilde with the oculomotor-based deception detection device described in Kircher
With regard to claims 14-21, the limitations presented in these claims can also be found in claims 3-10 and are rejected in like manner.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2011/0257464 A1 to Kircher et al., in view of US Publication No. 2021/0338124 A1 to Palti-Wasserman et al., further in view of US Publication No. 2017/0119295 A1 to Twyman et al., further in view of US Publication No. 2018/0160959 A1 to Wilde et al., and further in view of US Publication No. 2008/0114603 A1 to Desrochers.
With regard to claims 13, the limitations presented in these claims can also be found in claims 2 and are rejected in like manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715