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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments based on newly added claim limitations/amendments, filed 4/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration and based on applicant’s amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Patent 5507291 A to Stirbl et al. (hereinafter Stirbl) and “Which Color Channel Is Better for Diagnosing Retinal Diseases Automatically in Color Fundus Photographs?” by Biswas et al. (hereinafter Biswas).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
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 Patent 5507291 A to Stirbl et al., in view of US Publication No. 2021/0369162 A1 to Kircher et al. (hereinafter Kircher), further in view of US Publication No. 2021/0338124 A1 to Palti-Wasserman et al. (hereinafter Palti-Wasserman), further in view of US Publication No. 2017/0119295 A1 to Twyman et al. (hereinafter Twyman), and further in view of “Which Color Channel Is Better for Diagnosing Retinal Diseases Automatically in Color Fundus Photographs?” by Biswas et al.
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;
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 camera that is configured to obtain oculomotor activity of the subject including vascular activity;
a light source;
an audio input device connected to the at least first processor positioned to receive a verbal response from the subject;
the oculomotor data includes vascular activity data that is obtained by applying a color filter to the oculomotor activity.
Stirbl teaches a camera that is configured to obtain oculomotor activity of the subject including vascular activity (Col 1; ln 11-25, Col 9; ln 58-65, Col 10; ln 6-47).
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 vascular data collection from Stirbl with the oculomotor-based deception detection device described in Kirche as both are lie detection devices. Incorporating the vascular data of Stirbl into the oculomotor-based deception detection device described in Kirche would allow for more multifaceted data collection and analysis, increasing accuracy of lie detection.
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
Biswas teaches the oculomotor data includes vascular activity data that is obtained by applying a color filter to the oculomotor activity (Section 2: Fundus Photography, Figure 2-3).
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 colored filters from Biswas with the vascular data collection from Biswas with the oculomotor-based deception detection device described in Kirche as both are lie detection devices. Incorporating the vascular data would allow for more multifaceted data collection and analysis, increasing accuracy of lie detection.
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 colored filters from Biswas with the vascular data collection from Stirbl as collect vascular data from the eye. Incorporating the colored filters from Biswas would improve the vascular data collection of Stirbl by making the relevant vascular features in the eye more prominent, allowing for more accurate lie detection.
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 or eye movement 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 10% to 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 Patent 5507291 A to Stirbl et al., in view of US Publication No. 2021/0369162 A1 to Kircher et al., further 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 “Which Color Channel Is Better for Diagnosing Retinal Diseases Automatically in Color Fundus Photographs?” by Biswas 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 Patent 5507291 A to Stirbl et al., in view of US Publication No. 2021/0369162 A1 to Kircher et al., further 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 “Which Color Channel Is Better for Diagnosing Retinal Diseases Automatically in Color Fundus Photographs?” by Biswas 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 Patent 5507291 A to Stirbl et al., in view of US Publication No. 2021/0369162 A1 to Kircher et al., further 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 “Which Color Channel Is Better for Diagnosing Retinal Diseases Automatically in Color Fundus Photographs?” by Biswas 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
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 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
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights