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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending. Claim 15 is added in the Claims filed on July 28, 2025.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-15 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-10 and 15 are drawn to a system for managing eye examinations, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine), and Claims 11-14 are drawn to a server for providing eye examinations, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A system for providing eye health examinations, comprising:
a plurality of diagnostic centres, wherein the diagnostic centres are configured to:
transmit, to a network of eye-care practitioners, requests to administer eye examinations for customers;
receive, over the network, instructions to remotely control operation of ophthalmic equipment according to administration of one or more tests pertaining to the eye examinations; and
generate customer examination data pertaining to the one or more tests administered using the ophthalmic equipment;
a plurality of practitioner devices associated with respective eye-care practitioners of the network of eye-care practitioners, wherein the practitioner devices are configured to:
receive the customer examination data in response to accepting one or more of the requests associated with administering the eye examinations;
display the received customer examination data; and
generate customer evaluation data associated with the one or more accepted requests;
at least one server configured to:
in response to receiving the requests from the diagnostic centres, select eye-care practitioners from the network of eye-care practitioners for handling the requests based on the practitioner data, wherein the practitioner data includes one or more of the following:
availability data indicating whether the selected eye-care practitioners are currently connected to the system and available to administer eye examinations;
scheduling data indicating days and hours that the selected eye-care practitioners are available to handle the requests; and
prior customer data that identifies customers who utilized the selected eye-care practitioners for prior eye examinations;
receive the customer examination data from the diagnostic centres;
transmit the customer examination data to the practitioner devices associated with the selected eye-care practitioners; and
receive customer evaluation data from the practitioner devices associated with the selected eye-care practitioners;
wherein eye health reports based, at least in part, on the selected eye-care practitioners' review and evaluation of the customer examination data are provided to the customers, and which system for providing eye health examinations is characterized in that the at least one server is configured to process the customer examination data using an artificial neural network to provide a probability of anomaly, and wherein based on this probability, the customer examination data is definable as normal or referable to a remote eye-care practitioner to inspect it manually.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of transmitting requests for eye examinations, generating customer examination data, receiving and displaying the customer examination data, generating customer evaluation data, selecting eye-care practitioners based on various types of data, transmitting the customer examination data, receiving the customer evaluation data, and providing eye health reports that categorize customer examination data based on the probability of anomaly are properly interpreted as following rules or instructions to execute an eye examination and provide the results of the examination), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claim 11 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1 and 11 is that Claim 1 recites a system including a plurality of diagnostic centres, a plurality of practitioner devices, and at least one server, whereas Claim 11 only recites a server that performs the same functions of the at least one server recited in Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-15 include other limitations, for example Claims 2 and 12 recite locations for the server, Claims 3 and 13 recite limitations pertaining to remote testing of patients, Claims 4 and 14 recite performing an asynchronous eye health examination, Claim 5 recites a type of equipment and a type of facility, Claim 6 recites generating aggregate results data using stored customer data, Claim 7 recites identifying risk factors for eye disorders, Claim 8 recites steps to identify available practitioners, Claim 9 recites selecting a practitioner based on prior customer data, and Claim 10 recites selecting a practitioner based on scheduling data, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-15 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 11.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1 and 11 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the diagnostic centres, the network of eye-care practitioners, receiving the instructions to remotely control ophthalmic equipment, the ophthalmic equipment itself, the plurality of practitioner devices, and the at least one server using an artificial neural network) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the practitioner devices, and the server, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see pgs. 12-13 of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language of the tests pertaining to an eye examination, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare (specifically optical health), e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the high level recitation of controlling the equipment to administer the tests, which amounts to an insignificant application, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-15 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the server being integrated with a CuPDC as recited in dependent Claims 2 and 12, and the types of devices recited in dependent Claim 15), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the type of exam recited in dependent Claims 4-5 and 14), and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (i.e. the administering of the asynchronous tests recited in dependent Claims 3 and 13), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1 and 11, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 1-15 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the diagnostic centres, the network of eye-care practitioners, receiving the instructions to remotely control ophthalmic equipment, the ophthalmic equipment itself, the plurality of practitioner devices, and the at least one server using an artificial neural network), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
Pgs. 12-13 of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the practitioner devices and the server) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receiving data, processing the data, and displaying results of the processing) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives requests to administer eye examinations, and transmits the request to a network of eye-care practitioners over a network, for example the Internet, e.g. see pg. 13 of the as-filed Specification;
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of various practitioner data (i.e. availability data, scheduling data, prior customer data), such that the data is used to select a practitioner and ultimately generate and provide the customer eye health report;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing various types of practitioner data (i.e. availability data, scheduling data, prior customer data), and retrieving the practitioner data from storage in order to select an appropriate eye-care practitioner and ultimate to generate and provide the customer eye health report;
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-15 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the server being integrated with a CuPDC as recited in dependent Claims 2 and 12, and the types of devices recited in dependent Claim 15), generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the type of exam recited in dependent Claims 4-5 and 14), represent no more than generic structural elements performing generic functions (e.g. the enabling the real-time communication of data between devices, and the administering of the asynchronous tests recited in dependent Claims 3 and 13), receiving or transmitting data over a network (e.g. the transmission/receiving of various data recited in dependent Claims 3-4 and 13-14), electronic recordkeeping (e.g. the storing of the customer examination data recited in dependent Claims 4 and 14), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1 and 11, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-15 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception(s).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-15 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seriani (US 2021/0251482) in view of Stein (US 2020/0196940).
Regarding Claim 1, Seriani teaches the following: A system for providing eye health examinations, comprising:
a plurality of diagnostic centres (The system includes a plurality of diagnostic centers, e.g. see Seriani [0017].), wherein the diagnostic centres are configured to:
transmit, to a network of eye-care practitioners, requests to administer eye examinations for customers (The diagnostic centers are configured to transmit requests over a network for selecting eye-care practitioners to administer eye examinations for customers, e.g. see Seriani [0017].);
receive, over the network, instructions to remotely control operation of ophthalmic equipment according to administration of one or more tests pertaining to the eye examinations (The diagnostic centers are configured to receive instructions to remotely control operation of ophthalmic equipment to administer tests pertaining to eye examinations, e.g. see Seriani [0017].); and
generate customer examination data pertaining to the one or more tests administered using the ophthalmic equipment (The diagnostic centers are configured to generate customer examination data pertaining to the one or more tests administered using the ophthalmic equipment, e.g. see Seriani [0017].);
a plurality of practitioner devices associated with respective eye-care practitioners of the network of eye-care practitioners (The system includes a plurality of practitioner devices associated with eye-care practitioners, e.g. see Seriani [0017].), wherein the practitioner devices are configured to:
receive the customer examination data in response to accepting one or more of the requests associated with administering the eye examinations (The practitioner devices receive at least a portion of customer examination data in response to accepting one or more of the requests, e.g. see Seriani [0017].);
display the received customer examination data (The practitioner devices display at least a portion of customer examination data, e.g. see Seriani [0017].); and
generate customer evaluation data associated with the one or more accepted requests (The practitioner devices receive and display at least a portion of customer examination data in response to accepting one or more of the requests, e.g. see Seriani [0017].);
at least one server (The system includes at least one server, e.g. see Seriani [0017].) configured to:
in response to receiving the requests from the diagnostic centres, select eye-care practitioners from the network of eye-care practitioners for handling the requests based on the practitioner data (In response to receiving the diagnostic center requests, the server analyzes practitioner data to select eye-care practitioners, e.g. see Seriani [0017].), wherein the practitioner data includes one or more of the following:
availability data indicating whether the selected eye-care practitioners are currently connected to the system and available to administer eye examinations (The practitioner data includes availability data, e.g. see Seriani [0017].);
scheduling data indicating days and hours that the selected eye-care practitioners are available to handle the requests (The practitioner data includes schedule data indicating hours and days the practitioners are available, e.g. see Seriani [0017].); and
prior customer data that identifies customers who utilized the selected eye-care practitioners for prior eye examinations (The practitioner data includes prior customer data who previously utilized the eye-care practitioners, e.g. see Seriani [0017].);
receive the customer examination data from the diagnostic centres (The server receives customer examination data from the diagnostic centers, e.g. see Seriani [0017].);
transmit the customer examination data to the practitioner devices associated with the selected eye-care practitioners (The server transmits the customer examination data to the practitioner devices, e.g. see Seriani [0017].); and
receive customer evaluation data from the practitioner devices associated with the selected eye-care practitioners (The server receives customer evaluation data from the practitioner devices, e.g. see Seriani [0017].);
wherein eye health reports based, at least in part, on the selected eye-care practitioners' review and evaluation of the customer examination data are provided to the customers (The system provides eye health reports to customers, wherein the eye health reports are based at least in part on the eye-care practitioners’ review and evaluation of the customer examination data, e.g. see Seriani [0017].).
But Seriani does not teach and Stein teaches the following:
wherein which system for providing eye health examinations is characterized in that the at least one server is configured to process the customer examination data using an artificial neural network to provide a probability of anomaly (The system obtains various patient data in order to perform patient health condition identification (PHCI), e.g. see Stein [0003], wherein the collected patient data includes eye images, wherein patient eye image data may be associated or indicative of health conditions of the patient, e.g. see Stein [0055] and [0074]. Furthermore, the system includes backend servers that comprise multilayer neural networks configured to analyze patient health data and obtain analytics, health risk assessment, and PHCI, e.g. see Stein [0033], [0091], and [0122]. Furthermore, the system includes a PHCI matrix that is analyzed for health conditions, including a PHC vector that is indicative of the probability for a patient to have a condition, e.g. see Stein [0083]-[0087].), and wherein based on this probability, the customer examination data is definable as normal or referable to a remote eye-care practitioner to inspect it manually (The PHC vector may be binary in that it may be a “yes” that the patient has the condition or a “no” that the patient does not have the condition (i.e. the customer examination data is definable as normal), e.g. see Stein [0087].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Seriani to incorporate the server executing the neural network to determine a probability of the patient health condition as taught by Stein in order to provide a more accurate health condition indication, e.g. see Stein [0036], [0074], and [0091].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Seriani and Stein teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Seriani further teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one server is integrated with a Checkup Point diagnostic centre (CuPDC) (The server may be integrated with a customer diagnostic center, e.g. see Seriani [0044].).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Seriani and Stein teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Seriani further teaches the following: The system of claim 1, wherein the requests include requests pertaining to synchronous eye health examinations (The system may be configured to provide synchronous assistance from practitioners, e.g. see Seriani [0125].), and the at least one server is further configured to:
establish real-time connections between the practitioner devices associated with the selected eye-care practitioners and the diagnostic centres, thereby permitting to permit communications between the customers and the selected eye-care practitioners during the synchronous eye health examinations (The system is configured to establish a real-time connection to a remote practitioner, e.g. see Seriani [0125].);
permit the practitioner devices associated with the selected eye-care practitioners to remotely administer one or more tests associated with the synchronous eye health examinations over the network via the real-time connections (The real-time connection to the remote practitioner enables the practitioner to perform a health and/or an eye examination of the patient, e.g. see Seriani [0125].), wherein the instructions received by the diagnostic centres over the network are utilized to control the ophthalmic equipment during the synchronous eye health examinations (The remote practitioner is able to control the ophthalmic equipment and instruments to administer the tests and procedures, e.g. see Seriani [0125].); and
receive the customer evaluation data associated with the one or more tests from the practitioner devices associated with the selected eye-care practitioners while the synchronous eye health examinations are being administered (The real-time connection enables the practitioners to review and evaluate the customer examination data, e.g. see Seriani [0125].);
wherein the eye health reports provided to the customers includes at least a portion of the customer evaluation data associated with the one or more tests (The practitioner may generate a report based on the evaluation of the customer, e.g. see Seriani [0125], wherein the report may include data obtained through the vision examination, e.g. see Seriani [0136].).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Seriani and Stein teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Seriani further teaches the following: The system of claim 1, wherein the requests include requests pertaining to asynchronous eye health examinations (The process may be performed asynchronously, e.g. see Seriani [0124] and [0160].), and the at least one server is further configured to:
receive customer examination data generated by the ophthalmic equipment at the diagnostic centres which pertains to the asynchronous eye health examinations (The system transmits customer data from vision or eye health examinations to a remote practitioner after the vision or eye health examinations have been performed, e.g. see Seriani [0124].); and
store the customer examination data on the at least one server, wherein the selected eye- care practitioners are provided access to the customer examination data after the asynchronous eye health examinations are administered (Customer data from a vision examination is transmitted to and stored at a server, wherein the practitioner may subsequently access the data at the server, e.g. see Seriani [0160].);
wherein each eye health report received at the diagnostic centre includes the associated selected eye-care practitioner's assessment of the customer examination data pertaining to the asynchronous eye health examination (The practitioners generate an eye health report based on the customer examination data, e.g. see Seriani [0124] and [0160].).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Seriani and Stein teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Seriani further teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the ophthalmic equipment comprises eye health equipment that enables customers to receive comprehensive eye health examinations at a Checkup Point diagnostic centre (CuPDC), the eye health equipment including at least one tonometer and digital imager (The system includes a customer diagnostic center that administers eye health and/or vision examinations to customers, e.g. see Seriani [0037], wherein the system further includes various equipment including tonometers and digital imagers, e.g. see Seriani [0071].).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Seriani and Stein teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Seriani further teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one server is further configured to generate aggregate result data based on an analysis of stored customer examination data for the customers (The system may evaluate data for a group of individuals (i.e. generate aggregate result data) in order to determine risk factors, risk profiles, correlations, and similar information associated with vision and eye related disorders and conditions more likely to occur in certain groups of individuals, e.g. see Seriani [0144].).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Seriani and Stein teaches the limitations of Claim 6, and Seriani further teaches the following:
The system of claim 6, wherein the aggregate result data identifies one or more risk factors pertaining to groups of individuals with a higher risk of having a particular eye health disorder (The system may evaluate data for a group of individuals (i.e. generate aggregate result data) in order to determine risk factors, risk profiles, correlations, and similar information associated with vision and eye related disorders and conditions more likely to occur (i.e. higher risk) in certain groups of individuals, e.g. see Seriani [0144].).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Seriani and Stein teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Seriani further teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one server selects the eye- care practitioners, at least in part, by analysing the availability data identifying available eye-care practitioner devices that are currently connected to the system and which are available to handle the requests based on the availability data (The system may selects practitioners based on practitioner data, wherein the practitioner data includes availability data indicating whether the practitioner is currently connected to the system and available to administer eye examinations, e.g. see Seriani [0017].).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Seriani and Stein teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Seriani further teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one server selects the eye- care practitioners, at least in part, by identifying the eye-care practitioners who were previously utilized by the customers for one or more prior eye examinations based on the prior customer data (The system may selects practitioners based on practitioner data, wherein the practitioner data includes prior customer data indicating customers that previously utilized the practitioners for eye examinations, e.g. see Seriani [0017].).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Seriani and Stein teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Seriani further teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one server selects the eye-care practitioners, at least in part, by determining whether the eye-care practitioners are currently available based on the scheduling data (The system may selects practitioners based on practitioner data, wherein the practitioner data includes availability and scheduling data, wherein the data indicates whether the practitioner is currently connected to the system and available to administer eye examinations, e.g. see Seriani [0017]-[0018].).
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations of Claim 11 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 1, with the sole difference being that Claim 1 recites a system including a plurality of diagnostic centres, a plurality of practitioner devices, and at least one server, whereas Claim 11 only recites a server that performs the same functions of the at least one server recited in Claim 1. Specifically pertaining to Claim 11, as shown above, Seriani teaches the server and the functions of the server claimed in Claim 1, e.g. see Seriani [0017], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 1 are similarly applied to Claim 11.
Regarding Claims 12-14, the limitations of Claim 12-14 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claims 2-4, with the sole difference being that Claim 2-4 incorporate the features of independent Claim 1 including the plurality of diagnostic centres, the plurality of practitioner devices, and at least one server, whereas Claims 12-14 incorporate the features of independent Claim 11, which only recites the at least one server. Specifically pertaining to Claims 12-14, as shown above, Seriani teaches the limitations of Claims 2-4, and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claims 2-4 are similarly applied to Claims 12-14.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Seriani and Stein teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Seriani further teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the ophthalmic equipment consists of one or more of the following: refractors, tonometers, biomicroscopes, and fundus cameras (The ophthalmic equipment includes refractors, tonometers, biomicroscopes, and fundus cameras, e.g. see Seriani [0037], [0107], and [0113].).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed July 28, 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and, in combination with the claim amendments, are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed July 28, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants allege that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it recites a specific and concrete technological solution to the lack of regular and accessible eye exams and holistic eye exams, and further because it is similar to Example 42 of the USPTO-issued subject matter eligibility examples and the invention of McRO, e.g. see pg. 8 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Examiner notes that the Claims being narrowly claimed is not dispositive in determining the eligibility of the Claims. The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. That is, a claim reciting a narrow abstract idea nonetheless recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, Examiner further notes that the absence of complete preemption does not guarantee that a claim will be eligible, and further notes that preemption is not a stand-alone test for patentability, but rather is inherent in the two-part Alice/Mayo framework, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. That is, the fact that the claimed invention may be narrowly claimed and hence does not preempt all possible embodiments of the abstract idea does not mean that the claimed invention must be deemed patent eligible. As shown above, Examiner has provided evidence demonstrating that the present invention is directed towards at least one court-identified abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and further that the additional elements of the present invention (i.e. any elements not identified as part of the abstract idea) do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea, and hence has addressed any concerns arising from preemption.
Regarding Example 42, the invention of Example 42 recited limitations that enabled a plurality of users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by a user, wherein the Background of the invention disclosed that the sharing of current and uniform information between medical providers was difficult. In contrast, the present claimed invention does not claim any limitations pertaining to the sharing of information between users in real-time and/or any limitations pertaining to the conversion of data into a standardized format. Additionally, the as-filed Specification discloses that the challenges presented to users in scheduling regular eye exams are, for example, that “people are frequently forced to schedule appointments at inconvenient times and/or drive to other, less convenient locations to see an ophthalmologist,” and the “expense associated with seeing an ophthalmologist.” That is, the problems addressed by the current invention are not technological problems (e.g. controlling Internet traffic of visitors to a website), but rather represent commercial/financial and/or logistic problems, and the claimed invention recites an improvement to the abstract idea of organizing human activities.
Regarding McRO, the invention of McRO was directed towards automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules that enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated, wherein the invention further solved the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters. That is, the invention of McRO was not deemed patent eligible merely because it claimed specific or narrow rules, but rather because it claimed specific rules that achieved technological improvements and enabled the automation of tasks that previously required manual animators. In contrast, as stated above, the present claimed invention addresses commercial/financial challenges, and recites an improvement to the abstract idea of organizing human activities.
Examiner further note that the independent Claims 1 and 11 recite “[receiving], over the network, instructions to remotely control operation of ophthalmic equipment according to administration of one or more tests pertaining to the eye examinations,” and further recite that customer examination data is generated, wherein the customer examination data is “pertaining to the one or more tests administered using the ophthalmic equipment,” but Claims 1 and 11 do not recite any specific limitations disclosing what the control of said equipment comprises.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed July 28, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-145 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and, in combination with the claim amendments, are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn. However, for the reasons shown above, Claims 1-15 are presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Fateh (US 2017/0128016) – teaches an eye examination system that utilizes a server executing a neural network to calculate a likelihood that a user’s eyes suffer from a disease.
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 JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681