DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 21-40 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble reads “using combination” and should read “using a combination”, the hyphenation of “camera based tracker”/”camera-based tracker” is inconsistent.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: “on graphical background” should read “on a graphical background”.
Claims 30 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities: “present” should read “preset”.
Claims 30 and 31 are objected to because they are duplicates of one another.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-40 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.
Regarding Claims 21 and 35, the claims set forth “objective oculomotor, vestibular and reaction time analytic variables”, but the camera-based eye tracked is defined only as capturing four things: eye-movement velocity, latency, smoothness, and precision data. The claims never establish how the vestibular and reaction-time variables are derived from those four eye-movement data types. The boundary of “vestibular and reaction time analytic variables” is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 21 and 35, the preamble introduces “of a subject” and then immediately “a subject’s objective oculomotor…”. Step A recites “of a subject” and “a subject’s objective oculomotor…”. Step C recites “the subject’s pupils”. Steps D and E recites “a subject’s objective quantified camera…”. Similar issues exist in Claim 35. All the preambles of claims 22-34 recite “a subject”. There is great inconsistency in the term “subject” rendering it unclear how many subjects there are. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim a single subject.
Regarding Claims 21 and 35, the claim “a camera based eye tracker” is introduced twice.
Regarding Claims 21 and 35, the thing obtained is called different things: “objective oculomotor, vestibular and reaction time analytic variables”, “a subject’s objective quantified camera based eye tracked obtained data”, “a subject’s objective oculomotor, vestibular and reaction time data” and “analyzing a combination of a subject’s objective oculomotor, vestibular, and reaction time data”. It is unclear what is being obtained and how these variables are related, one consistent term should be chosen.
Regarding Claim 21, the “quantified” limitations in the claim are called different things: “a subject's objective quantified camera based eye tracker obtained data”, just “quantified” and “the quantified camera-based eye tracker obtained data”. It is unclear what is being quantified and how these variables are related, one consistent term should be chosen
Regarding Claim 21, the “neuro-otologic condition of a subject” in the claim are called different things: “a noninvasive rapid screening of neuro-otologic condition”, “a specific neuro-otologic condition of a subject” and “a neuro-otologic condition of the subject”. It is unclear what the condition and how these variables are related, one consistent term should be chosen
Regarding Claim 21, the limitation “from camera-based eye tracker after to calculate a composite test protocol score” renders the claim indefinite, the word “after” renders the phrase grammatically/logically unclear. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim “to calculate a composite test protocol score.
Regarding Claim 21, the limitation “from camera-based eye tracker” renders the claim indefinite, the phrase is grammatically/logically unclear. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim “from the camera-based eye tracker”.
Regarding Claim 35, the claimed term “automatic” and “automated” are both used, one consistent term should be chosen
Regarding Claim 40, the claim is missing the “(New) status identifier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 21-40 are allowable over the prior art of record. The most relevant prior art of record includes US 2014/0327880 to Kinderman. Kinderman does not expressly disclose automatically establishing a self-positioning region of interest centered on the subject’s pupils, nor an automated eye image evaluation that automatically identifies and removes poor quality eye data signals.
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 SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights