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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 16 April 2026 have been entered. Claims 1 – 13 and 15 – 16 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection to the claims previously applied in the office action dated 16 December 2025. Applicant’s amendments have not overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 previously-applied in the office action dated 16 December 2025.
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 1 – 13 and 15 – 16 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 1 (lines 16 – 17) and Claim 12 (lines 18 – 19) recites the term “if there is no said reason, obtaining…on a basis of said difference, information related to an evolution of a visual field of said individual”, which is indefinite. Further, overall, it is unclear how the “information” is “obtained” (sensors? calculations? Visual assessment by a human researcher?), what the “information” is (measurements from sensors? results of a calculation?). The scope of this claims is unclear. For the purpose of examination, the term “if there is no said reason, obtaining…on a basis of said difference, information related to an evolution of a visual field of said individual” is deemed to claim “if there is no said reason, obtaining, on the basis of said difference, measurement information related to an evolution of said visual field.” Claims 2 – 11 and 13 and 16 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claims 1 and 12, respectively. Similarly applies to claim 15.
Per the previously-applied rejection, In Claim 4, the terms
“determining whether there are differences considered as significant between said first and second pluralities of measurements” (lines 9 – 10),
“in case there is no difference considered as significant between said first and second pluralities of measurements” (lines 11 – 12)
“determining whether there are differences considered as significant between” (lines 19 – 20)
in claim 4 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “considered as significant” 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. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, as it is unknown how different, whether it is a given number of differences, a type of difference, or the like, that satisfies “considered as significant”. For the purposes of examination,
the term “determining whether there are differences considered as significant between said first and second pluralities of measurements” is deemed to claim “determining whether there are differences between said first and second pluralities of measurements”;
the term “in case there is no difference considered as significant between said first and second pluralities of measurements” is deemed to claim ““in case there is no difference between said first and second pluralities of measurements.”
the term “determining whether there are differences considered as significant between” is deemed to claim “determining whether there are differences between”
Claim 4 (lines 3 – 13) recites the terms “measuring, during a first time period equal to said predetermined measurement period…to obtain a first plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter”, “measuring, during a second time period equal to said predetermined measurement period…to obtain a second plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter”, and “determining said reference time period as said predetermined measurement period”. Given the recited limitations, if the predetermined time period is 5:00 pm – 6:00 pm on test day Monday, a first time period equal to said predetermined time period can be 5:00 pm – 6:00 pm on test day Monday, as well as the second time period (which is also equal to said predetermined time period). That would indicated that the data gathered and assigned as “first plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter” and “second plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter” are the same data. As such, it is unclear how i) and ii) are particularly different steps, and it is unclear how there could be “differences considered as significant between said first and second pluralities of measurements”, such that steps (v) with (a) – (c) would be applied. Then, when no difference is considered as significant for step (iv), the reference time period (as recited in Claims, 1 and 3) becomes the predetermined measurement period of 5:00 pm – 6:00 pm on test day Monday. Looking to Claim 3 (and Claim 1 for the “comparing”), the comparing step appears to be comparing the same data against itself with “said comparing comprises comparing said prevalence computed at the end of said predetermined measurement period (data from 5:00 pm – 6:00 pm Monday) with said prevalence computed at the end of said reference time period (data from 5:00 pm – 6:00 pm Monday), particularly since the prevalence is computed “at an end of said reference time period” (6:00 pm Monday), it appears to be a directed to a particular point in time. Claim 1 then compares “said individual’s head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period” with the prevalence of at least one parameter of related to said individual in daily life during the predetermined reference period, which again appears to be comparing the same data to itself. If the contents of the reference time period are the same as that of the predetermined time period, then they cannot simultaneously be different for “in case of detecting a difference…” It is unclear if these limitations are referring to a length of number of second, minutes, hours, etc., or for a particular moment in time that is being reassigned. Looking to the specification at [Page 12, Lines 10 – 22], it appears that a “predetermined time period” could be linked to “MP” as a “baseline arbitrary period…set at a predefined number of times MP”, where “MP may be one day, one week, or, preferably, one month”. It remains unclear from [Page 12, Lines 10 – 22], with the “determining said reference time period as said measurement period”, there were two measurement periods each a month long that were “measured”. From the specification, it is unclear if the exemplar result yields a time period of one month (1 MP) or two months (2 MP). The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained, and the specification does not appear to provide aid in making the determination.
Per the previously-applied rejection, Claim 5 recites the term “at least one parameter is taken in a group comprising a rotation amplitude of each one of said head movements, a rotation speed of each one of said head movements and a variance of rotation speed of said head movements.” It is unclear if “taken in a group” is intended to refer to the one parameter being a collective set of three simultaneous measurements, or if it is “taken from”, as indicating that the “at least one parameter” can be one of the three different categories of measurement. Looking to the specification at ]Page 11, lines 13 – 18] it appears that the “parameter(s)” of “rotation amplitude”, “rotation speed”, and “variance of that rotation speed” are intended to be interchangeable. For the purposes of examination, the term “at least one parameter is taken in a group comprising a rotation amplitude of each one of said head movements, a rotation speed of each one of said head movements and a variance of rotation speed of said head movements” is deemed to claim “the at least one parameter related to head movements includes one of a rotation amplitude, a rotation speed, or a variance of rotation speed.”
Per the previously-applied rejection, Claim 8 recites the term “assigning a different weight” in lines 4 - 5, which is a relative term which render the claim indefinite. The term “different weight” 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. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, as the term “different weight” implies that there is another weight that has not been recited, and it is unknown how different the weight needs to be to be different. For the purposes of examination, the term “assigning a different weight” is deemed to claim “assigning an associated weight.”
Claim 10 recites the term “dividing an area comprising all possible amplitudes of head movements into a plurality of subareas, each of said subareas”, which is indefinite. It is unclear if this is a physical “area” and “subarea”, an “area under of curve” such as an integral, or possibly a range of quantities for a head movement parameter. For the purposes of examination, the term “dividing an area comprising all possible head movements into a plurality of subareas” is deemed to claim “dividing an area of a graph comprising all measured head movements into a plurality of subareas of the graph, each of said subareas of the graph comprising a different predetermined percentage of all measured head movements.”
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 – 13 and 15 – 16 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites "an act or step, or series of acts or steps" and is therefore a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Regarding Claims 12 and 15, the claims recite an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Each of Claims 1 – 13 and 15 – 16 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1 – 13 and 15 – 16 recites at least one step or instruction for observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involves making observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are concepts performed in the human mind under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 13 and 15 – 16 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claims 1 – 13 and 15 – 16 recite (underlined are observations, judgments, evaluations, or opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) (additional elements bolded, see Step 2A, prong 2);
Claim 1.
A method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements, representing a reference head movement behavior;
measuring a same at least one parameter related to head movements of an individual in daily life, during a predetermined measurement period, so as to obtain a plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter, representing said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period;
comparing, by a processor, said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period with said reference head movement behavior; and
in case of detecting a difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior,
checking, by a processor, whether there is any reason in said individual's daily life explaining said difference; and
if there is no said reason, obtaining, by a processor, on a basis of said difference, information related to an evolution of a visual field of said individual.
Claim 12.
A device comprising:
at least one sensor configured to
obtain a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements, representing a reference head movement behavior;
measure a same at least one parameter related to head movements of an individual in daily life, during a predetermined measurement period, so as to obtain a plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter, representing said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period; and
at least one processor configured to:
compare said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period with said reference head movement behavior; and
in case of detecting a difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior:
check whether there is any specific reason in said individual's daily life explaining said difference, and
if there is no said reason, obtain, on a basis of said difference, information related to an evolution of a visual field of said individual.
Claim 15.
A non-transitory information storage medium, wherein it stores one or more sequences of instructions that are accessible to a processor and that, when executed by said processor, cause said processor to:
obtain a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements, representing a reference head movement behavior;
receive a plurality of measurements of a same at least one parameter related to head movements of an individual in daily life, during a predetermined measurement period, representing said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period;
compare said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period with said reference head movement behavior; and
in case of detecting a difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior:
check whether there is any reason in said individual's daily life explaining said difference; and
if there is no said reason, obtain, on a basis of said difference, information related to an evolution of a visual field of said individual.
(observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
These underlined limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps. For example, in Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15, these limitations include:
Observation and judgment to obtain a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements, representing a reference head movement behavior;
Observation and judgment to compare said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period with said reference head movement behavior; and
in case of Observation and judgment of a difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior:
Observation and judgment whether there is any reason in said individual's daily life explaining said difference;
if there is no said reason, Observation and judgment to obtain, on the basis of said difference, information related to an evolution of a visual field of said individual.
all of which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG.
Similarly, the Dependent Claims include the following abstract limitations, in addition the aforementioned limitations in Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15 (underlined observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG):
computing, at an end of said reference time period, a prevalence of said at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual in daily life during said reference time period, to be used as said statistical model for said individual;
evaluating, at an end of said reference time period, a prevalence of said at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual in daily life during said reference time period, to be used as said statistical model for said individual;
wherein said method further comprises computing, at an end of said predetermined measurement period, a prevalence of said at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual in daily life during said predetermined measurement period
wherein said method further comprises evaluating, at an end of said predetermined measurement period, a prevalence of said at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual in daily life during said predetermined measurement period
wherein said comparing comprises comparing said prevalence computed at the end of said predetermined measurement period with said prevalence computed at the end of said reference time period.
wherein said observation and judgment for evaluating comprises comparing said prevalence computed at the end of said predetermined measurement period with said prevalence computed at the end of said reference time period.
determining whether there are differences considered as significant between said first and second pluralities of measurements;
observation and judgment to evaluate whether there are differences considered as significant between said first and second pluralities of measurements
in case there is no difference considered as significant between said first and second pluralities of measurements, determining said reference time period as said predetermined measurement period;
in case there is no difference considered as significant between said first and second pluralities of measurements, observation and judgment to determine said reference time period as said predetermined measurement period;
in case there are differences considered as significant between said first and second pluralities of measurements: determining whether there are differences considered as significant between cumulated pluralities of measurements obtained at (i) and (ii) and said additional plurality of measurements
in case there are differences considered as significant between said first and second pluralities of measurements, observation and judgment to determine whether there are differences considered as significant between cumulated pluralities of measurements obtained at (i) and (ii) and said additional plurality of measurements
iterating (a) during further time periods, each equal to said predetermined measurement period, as long as there are differences considered as significant between pluralities of measurements used at (b), so as to eventually determine said reference time period as an accumulation of time periods of steps (i), (ii), (a) and (c).
observation and judgment to evaluate by iterating (a) during further time periods, each equal to said predetermined measurement period, as long as there are differences considered as significant between pluralities of measurements used at (b), so as to eventually evaluate said reference time period as an accumulation of time periods of steps (i), (ii), (a) and (c).
in case of detecting a difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior, assigning a different weight to said difference depending on a direction of head movements.
In case of observation and judgment of a difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior, assigning a different weight to said difference depending on a direction of head movements.
dividing an area comprising all possible amplitudes of head movements into a plurality of subareas, each of said subareas comprising a different predetermined percentage of all head movements for which said at least one parameter is measured during said measuring
observation and judgment to divide an area comprising all possible amplitudes of head movements into a plurality of subareas, each of said subareas comprising a different predetermined percentage of all head movements for which said at least one parameter is measured during said measuring
performing for each of said subareas said comparing said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period with said reference head movement behavior.
observation and judgment to perform for each of said subareas said observation and judgment compare said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period with said reference head movement behavior.
Certain methods of directing human activity
if there is no said reason, generating an alert advising said individual to have eyes checked by an eye care professional.
if there is no said reason, communicating an alert advising said individual to have eyes checked by an eye care professional.
generating said alert is performed only if said difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior exceeds a predetermined threshold.
communicating said alert is performed only if said difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior exceeds a predetermined threshold.
all of which are grouped as mental processes or certain methods of directing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract ideas in each of Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15 (and their respective Dependent Claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of:
“at least one sensor”
“at least one processor”, “processor”
“smart eyeglasses”
“gyroscope”
“accelerometer”
“computer program product”
“non-transitory information storage medium”
Additional elements recited include a “at least one processor”, “processor”, “at least one sensor”, “smart eyeglasses”, “gyroscope”, “accelerometer”, “computer program product”, and “non-transitory information storage medium” in the Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15, their dependent claims. These component are recited at a high level of generality, , i.e., as a generic unit processor performing a generic function of collecting data (the obtaining), a sensor performing a generic function of measuring data (the measuring), and a processor performing a generic function of processing data (the comparing, detecting, and checking). These generic hardware component limitations for “at least one processor”, “processor”, “at least one sensor”, “smart eyeglasses”, “gyroscope”, “accelerometer”, “computer program product”, and “non-transitory information storage medium” are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. As such, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further additional elements from Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15 include pre-solution activity limitations, such as:
measuring a same at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual in daily life, during a predetermined measurement period, so as to obtain a plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter, representing said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period
A non-transitory information storage medium, wherein it stores one or more sequences of instructions that are accessible to a processor
In addition the aforementioned extra-solution activity limitations in Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15, additional extra-solution activity limitations recited in Dependent Claims 2 – 11 and 13 include:
measuring said at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual in daily life, during a reference time period, so as to obtain a plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter, representing said individual's head movement behavior during said reference time period;
measuring, during a first time period equal to said predetermined measurement period, said at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual in daily life, so as to obtain a first plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter;
measuring, during a second time period equal to said predetermined measurement period, said at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual in daily life, so as to obtain a second plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter;
measuring, during an additional time period equal to said predetermined measurement period, said at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual in daily life, so as to obtain an additional plurality of measurements;
wherein said at least one parameter is taken in a group comprising a rotation amplitude of each one of said head movements, a rotation speed of each one of said head movements and a variance of rotation speed of said head movements.
wherein said measuring is continuous.
wherein said device is a pair of smart eyeglasses, and said at least one sensor comprises at least one gyroscope and at least one accelerometer
These pre-solution measurement elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, setting up the parameters of the system, and serve as data-gathering for the subsequent steps.
The “at least one processor”, “processor”, “at least one sensor”, “smart eyeglasses”, “gyroscope”, “accelerometer”, “computer program product”, and “non-transitory information storage medium” as recited in Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15 and their dependent claims are generically recited computer and hardware elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer processor as claimed. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B –
None of Claims 1 – 13 and 15 - 16 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “at least one processor”, “processor”, “at least one sensor”, “smart eyeglasses”, “gyroscope”, “accelerometer”, “computer program product”, and “non-transitory information storage medium” as recited in Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15 and their dependent claims.
The additional elements of the “at least one processor”, “processor”, “at least one sensor”, “smart eyeglasses”, “gyroscope”, “accelerometer”, “computer program product”, and “non-transitory information storage medium” Claims 1 - 15, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “at least one processor” and “processor” are described on [Page 17, Lines 23 – 27] “…a computer program product…instructions that are accessible to a processor…”) and [Page 2, Lines and [Page 17, Lines 22 – 23] “the method according to the disclosure is computer-implemented.” The “at least one processor”/”processor” is shown as “processor 66” generic rectangle element in Figure 6.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “at least one sensor”, “gyroscope” and “accelerometer” are is defined generically at [‘Page 18, Lines 22 – 23] as “the at least one sensor 64 may comprise at least one gyroscope and at least one accelerometer,” and [Page 18, Line 26] “the unit 62 may be the at least one sensor 64.” The “at least one sensor”, “gyroscope”, or “accelerometer” is shown as rectangle 64 in Figure 6.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “smart eyeglasses” is defined generically at [Page 18, Lines 20 – 21] and [Page 7, Line 25] “…the device is a pair or smart eyeglasses…”. The “smart eyeglasses” are shown as generic rectangle element 60 in Figure 6.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “computer program product” is defined generically on [Page 17, lines 23 – 30] with “…a computer program product comprises one or more sequences of instructions…the sequences(s) of instructions may be stored in one or several non-transitory computer-readable storage medium/media, including a predetermined location in a cloud”. It is not shown in a figure.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “non-transitory information storage medium” is generically described at [Page 8, lines 16 – 17] with “a non-transitory information storage medium, wherein it stores one or more sequences of instructions that are accessible to a processor,” and [Page 17, Lines 28 – 30] “one or several non-transitory computer-readable storage medium/media, including a predetermined
location in a cloud.” It is not shown in a figure.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “at least one processor”, “processor”, “at least one sensor”, “smart eyeglasses”, “gyroscope”, “accelerometer”, “computer program product”, and “non-transitory information storage medium” are reasonably construed as a generic computing and hardware devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the “at least one processor”, “processor”, “at least one sensor”, “smart eyeglasses”, “gyroscope”, “accelerometer”, “computer program product”, and “non-transitory information storage medium”. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 – 13 and 15 - 16 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses and method of Claims 1 – 13 and 15 - 16 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general-purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1 – 13 and 15 - 16 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements for Step 2A Prong 2 in Independent Claims 1, 12, and 15 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 – 13 and 15 - 16 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1 – 13 and 15 - 16 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1 – 13 and 15 - 16 are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1 and 12 – 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lore et. al., (United States Patent 10,163,014 B2), hereinafter Lore.
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 15, Lore discloses
For Claim 1: A method ([Abstract]; [Col 10, Lines 29 – 35]), the method comprising:
For Claim 12: A device ([Abstract]; [Col 10, Lines 29 – 35]), the device comprising:
at least one sensor ([Col 6, Lines 55 – 63] “...person head movement data providing step S41…accelerometer and/or gyroscope”) configured to
at least one processor ([Col 3, Lines 54 – 55] “…processor to carry out the steps of the method according to the invention.”) configured for:
For Claim 15: A non-transitory information storage medium, wherein it stores one or more sequences of instructions that are accessible to a processor and that, when executed by said processor, ([Col 10, Lines 1 – 4] “program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium…executed the step of the monitoring method of the invention”):
For the remainder of Claims 1, 12, and 15, Lore discloses obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements ([Col 6, Lines 55 – 67] “...reference head movement data providing step S42”; “Reference head movement data…head movement data…are provided…”; Fig 1), representing a reference head movement behavior (Fig 1; [Col 6, Lines 64 – 67] “Reference head movement data indicative of the head movement data…activity of the person…reference head movement data providing step S42”);
measuring a same at least one parameter related to head movements of an individual in daily life ([Col 9, Lines 9 – 11] “…eye tracking device can be used…everyday conditions the visual behavior of the wearer.”; ([Col 6, Lines 55 – 63] “...person head movement data providing step S41…accelerometer and/or gyroscope…sense the movement and/or orientation of the head mounted device”; Fig 1), during a predetermined measurement period ([Col 9, Lines 9 – 11] “…tracking device can be used for long periods of time…”), so as to obtain a plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter, representing said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period ([Col 6, Lines 55 – 63] “...person head movement data providing step S41…accelerometer and/or gyroscope…sense the movement and/or orientation of the head mounted device”; Fig 1; [Col 9, Lines 9 – 11]);
comparing, by a processor, said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period with said reference head movement behavior (Fig 1, S5; [Col 7, Lines 5 – 9] “…the comparing step S5, the person head movement data and the reference head movement data are compared”; [Col 3, Lines 37 – 51 and 51 – 55] “processor…execute a program…carry out the steps of the method”); and
in case of detecting a difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior ([Col 1, Lines 47 – 50] “a comparing step during which the person visual behavior data and the reference visual behavior data are compared so as to deduce whether the person visual behavior is adapted with respect to said activity of the person. ”; [Col 3, Lines 37 – 51 and 51 – 55] “processor…execute a program…carry out the steps of the method”; Fig 1):
checking, by the processor, whether there is any reason in said individual's daily life explaining said difference ([Col 1, Lines 47 – 50] “a comparing step during which the person visual behavior data and the reference visual behavior data are compared so as to deduce whether the person visual behavior is adapted with respect to said activity of the person. ”; [Col 3, Lines 37 – 51 and 51 – 55] “processor…execute a program…carry out the steps of the method”); and
if there is no said reason, obtaining, by the processor, on a basis of said difference, information related to an evolution of a visual field of said individual ([Col 1, Lines 47 – 50] “a comparing step during which the person visual behavior data and the reference visual behavior data are compared so as to deduce whether the person visual behavior is adapted with respect to said activity of the person.”; [Col 3, Lines 37 – 51 and 51 – 55] “processor…execute a program…carry out the steps of the method”); (Examiner notes that the broad recitation of information would include the measurements of head movement that signaled a difference in head movements if the “comparing step” “deduces” that the persons visual behavior is not “adapted with respect to said activity of the person”. The “difference” with a “specific reason” as indicated in Applicant’s specification at [Page 15, lines 14 – 26] as “any specific reason in the individual’s daily life…For instance, if the detected difference represents a change that is related to a new activity of the individual, involving specific and unusual head movement behavior, it will be categorized as “normal.” As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would hypothesize that a difference not due to intentional activity-related head movement (as found in the comparison disclosed in Lore), that difference would likely be due to a purported (hypothesized) change in the subject’s clear visual field.)
Regarding Claim 13, Lore discloses as described above, The method according to claim 12. For the remainder of Claim 13, Lore discloses wherein said device is a pair of smart eyeglasses (Fig 3, [Col 8, Lines 16 – 18] “…head mounted device 10…comprises a spectacle frame 12 with three cameras 20, 22, 24…”); [Col 6, lines 59 – 63] “…head mounted device equipment…sensors”) and said at least one sensor comprises at least one gyroscope ([Col 6, lines 59 – 63] “…sensor of a head mounted device…with…gyroscope”). and at least one accelerometer ([Col 6, lines 59 – 63] “…sensor of a head mounted device…with an accelerometer”).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 - 3, 5, and 11 – 13 and 15 -16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom, et. al., “The worse eye revisited: Evaluating the impact of asymmetric peripheral vision loss on everyday function”, hereinafter Chow-Wing-Bom.
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 15, Lore discloses as described above,
For Claim 1: A method comprising (See Citation under 35 USC 102 above):
For Claim 12: A device comprising: at least one sensor configured, at least one processor configured (See Citation above under 35 USC 102):
For Claim 15: A non-transitory information storage medium, wherein it stores one or more sequences of instructions that are accessible to a processor and that, when executed by said processor (See Citation under 35 USC 102 above):
For the remainder of Claims 1, 12, and 15, Lore discloses obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements representing a reference head movement behavior, measuring a same at least one parameter related to head movements of an individual in daily life during a predetermined measurement period so as to obtain a plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter, representing said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period; comparing, by a processor, said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period with said reference head movement behavior; and in case of detecting a difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior: checking, by the processor, whether there is any reason in said individual's daily life explaining said difference (See citation above); and
broadly, if there is no said reason, obtaining, by the processor, on a basis of said difference, information related to an evolution of a visual field of said individual (See citation and notes under 35 USC 102 above)
A combination of Lore with Chow-Wing-Bom more specifically discloses the “if there is no said reason….said visual field” limitation. Chow-Wing-Bom teaches a study of asymmetric peripheral visual field loss, in which subjects were asked to perform a “typical, everyday task” of locating a mobile phone in various domestic environments in order to see if there was a change in head-movements as peripheral visual field was lost. Specifically for Claim 1, Chow-Wing-Bom teaches, if there is no said reason, obtaining, by the processor, on a basis of said difference, information related to an evolution of a visual field of said individual ([Page 55, Top] Fig 5, “Median head-turn length (amount of head-movements) on each trial, in degrees. Same format as Fig. 3.”, “Worse Eye”; [Page 54, Right Column, Bottom] – [Page 545 Left Column, Top] “…the observed changes in head-movements were at least as great as the changes in eye-movements.”, “…suggests that head-movements may might provide a possible biomarker for the detection of eye-disease…”; Fig 2; [Page 53, Right Column, “3.2. Eye and Head Movements” Section] “participants made more searching movements as vision loss in the worse eye increased, and this effect was statistically significant for both eye-movements…and head-movements…”)(Examiner notes that the environment and activity was kept constant, thereby “no said specific reason” per the “difference” with a “specific reason” as indicated in Applicant’s specification at [Page 15, lines 14 – 26] as “any specific reason in the individual’s daily life…For instance, if the detected difference represents a change that is related to a new activity of the individual, involving specific and unusual head movement behavior, it will be categorized as “normal.”. As such, the difference in head movement was due to the imposed evolution of the visual field (for the worse).)
Lore and Chow-Wing-Bom both disclose and teach systems that measure head movement data in order to make comparisons and conclusions regarding visual performance. Chow-Wing-Bom provides a motivation to combine at [Page 53, Right Column, “3.2. Eye and Head Movements” Section] with “participants made more searching movements as vision loss in the worse eye increased, and this effect was statistically significant for both eye-movements…and head-movements…” and [Page 54, Right Column, Bottom] – [Page 545 Left Column, Top] “…the observed changes in head-movements were at least as great as the changes in eye-movements.”, “…suggests that head-movements may might provide a possible biomarker for the detection of eye-disease…” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that measuring the difference in head movements with sensors would be useful for analyzing how far a person moves their head during a visual trial to correlating results to a possible biomarker for the detection of eye disease.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the head movement measurement of visual behavior and comparative analysis system disclosed by Lore with the investigation of evolution of visual field relative to head movement measurement data taught by Chow-Wing-Bom, creating a single visual analysis system using head movement measurement data to draw conclusions regarding hypothesized visual field changes for subjects.
Regarding Claim 2, Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom discloses as described above, The method according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 2, Lore does not specifically disclose wherein said obtaining comprises generating a statistical model of head movements taking account of at least one datum related to said individual.
Chow-Wing-Bom teaches wherein said obtaining comprises generating a statistical model of head movements taking account of at least one datum related to said individual ([Page 53, Left Column, “2.8 Statistical Analysis” Section, Paragraph 1 and 2] “…whether performance varied as vision loss in the worse eye increased…Linear Mixed-Effects model…”, “(iii) log10Total Head-Turn Length”)(Examiner notes that datum is described in Applicant’s specification at [Page 11, Lines 9 – 16] as “The at least one data may be the above-mention at least one parameter…rotation amplitude…rotation speed…variance of that rotation speed…head movements”. Examiner notes that “Total Head-Turn Length” is rotation amplitude.).
Chow-Wing-Bom provides a motivation to combine at [Page 53, Left Column, “2.8. Statistical analysis” section; Paragraph 1] with “The primary question was whether performance varied as vision loss in the worse eye increased…To test this statistically, data were entered into a Linear Mixed-Effects (LME) model.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that creating a statistic model to represent data gathered about the head movements would be useful for summarizing the data and drawing actionable conclusions about the head movements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the head movement measurement of visual behavior and comparative analysis system disclosed by Lore with the statistic model for measured head movement data taught by Chow-Wing-Bom, creating a single visual analysis system through statistical analysis of head movement data for drawing clear conclusions from the measurement data.
Regarding Claim 3, Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom discloses as described above, The method according to claim 2. For the remainder of Claim 3, Lore discloses wherein:
said generating ([Page 53, Left Column, “2.8 Statistical Analysis” Section, Paragraph 1 and 2]; [Page 11, Lines 9 – 16] comprises:
measuring said at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual in daily life ([Page 50, Right Column, “1.2. Present study” section] “head movement”; [Page 49, Right Column, Top] “…normally-sighted observers to perform a typical, everyday task (finding a mobile phone in a cluttered domestic scene), while levels of simulated peripheral vision loss were manipulated independently in each eye…”; [Page 53, Left Column, “2.8 Statistical Analysis” Section, Paragraph 1 and 2] “…whether performance varied as vision loss in the worse eye increased…Linear Mixed-Effects model…”, “(iii) log10Total Head-Turn Length”).
during a reference time period ([Page 50, Right Column, 3rd Full Paragraph] “250 test trials…total testing time, including breaks, was approximately 90 min.”; [Page 52, Right Column, 2nd Full Paragraph] “The trial ended…after a maximum of 45 s had elapsed.”), so as to obtain a plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter, representing said individual's head movement behavior during said reference time period ([Page 53, Right Column, “3.2. Eye- and head-movements” Section] “participants made more searching movements as vision loss in the worse eye increased, and this effect was statistically significant for both eye-movements (t = 2.1, P = 0.016) and head-movements (t= 2.8, P = 0.005).”; Fig 5; [Page 50, Right Column, “1.2. Present study” section]); and
computing, by the processor [Col 3, Lines 37 – 51 and 51 – 55] “processor…execute a program…carry out the steps of the method”), at an end of said reference time period ([Page 50, Right Column, 3rd Full Paragraph] “250 test trials…total testing time, including breaks, was approximately 90 min.”), a prevalence of said at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual in daily life during said reference time period (Fig 5, “Median head-turn length (amount of head-movements) on each trial, in degrees”), to be used as said statistical model for said individual ([Page 53, Left Column, “2.8 Statistical Analysis” Section, Paragraph 1 and 2]; [Page 11, Lines 9 – 16]);
wherein said method further comprises computing, by the processor [Col 3, Lines 37 – 51 and 51 – 55] “processor…execute a program…carry out the steps of the method”), at an end of said predetermined measurement period, a prevalence of said at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual in daily life during said predetermined measurement period (Individual trial head movement associated with Fig. 5, “Median head-turn length (amount of head-movements) on each trial”; [Page 53, Right Column, “3.2. Eye and Head Movements” Section] with “participants made more searching movements as vision loss in the worse eye increased, and this effect was statistically significant for both eye-movements…and head-movements…” ); and
wherein said comparing comprises comparing said prevalence computed at the end of said predetermined measurement period with said prevalence computed at the end of said reference time period ([Page 53, Right Column, “3.2. Eye and Head Movements” Section] with “participants made more searching movements as vision loss in the worse eye increased, and this effect was statistically significant for both eye-movements…and head-movements…”);
Chow-Wing-Bom provides a motivation to combine at [Page 53, Right Column, “3.2. Eye and Head Movements” Section] with “participants made more searching movements as vision loss in the worse eye increased, and this effect was statistically significant for both eye-movements…and head-movements…” and [Page 54, Right Column, Bottom] – [Page 545 Left Column, Top] “…the observed changes in head-movements were at least as great as the changes in eye-movements.”, “…suggests that head-movements may might provide a possible biomarker for the detection of eye-disease…” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that measuring the difference in head movements with sensors would be useful for analyzing how far a person moves their head during a visual trial to correlating results to a possible biomarker for the detection of eye disease.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the head movement measurement of visual behavior and comparative analysis system disclosed by Lore with the investigation of evolution of visual field relative to head movement measurement data taught by Chow-Wing-Bom, creating a single visual analysis system using head movement measurement data to draw conclusions regarding hypothesized visual field changes for subjects.
Regarding Claim 5, Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom discloses as described above, The method according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 5, Lore discloses
Lore does not specifically disclose wherein said at least one parameter is taken in a group comprising a rotation amplitude of each one of said head movement, a rotation speed of each one of said head movements and a variance of rotation speed of said head movements. Lore does broadly disclose the use of [Col 6, Lines 55 – 63] “accelerometer and/or gyroscope…sense the movement and/or orientation of the head mounted device”), which would broadly include rotation amplitude of head movements, rotation speed of head movements, and variance of rotation speed of head movements.
Chow-Wing-Bom teaches wherein said at least one parameter is taken in a group comprising a rotation amplitude of each one of said head movements (Fig 5, “…head-turn length (amount of head-movements) in degrees”), a rotation speed of each one of said head movements and a variance of rotation speed of said head movements.
Chow-Wing-Bom provides a motivation to combine at [Page 54, Right Column, Bottom] – [Page 55, Left Column, Left] with “the observed changes in head-movements were at least as great as the changes in eye-movements. This suggests that head-movements might provide a possible biomarker for the detection of eye-disease…” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that measuring the amplitude of head movements with sensors would be useful for analyzing how far a person moves their head during a visual trial and correlating results to a possible biomarker for the detection of eye disease.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine motion sensors (accelerometer and gyroscope) measuring head movement data in the visual behavior analysis system disclosed by Lore with the specifically head movement amplitude data measurements from motion sensing taught by Chow-Wing-Bom, creating a single visual analysis system through quantifying of head movement amplitude data can be used as a possible biomarker for the detection of eye disease.
Regarding Claim 11, Lore discloses as described above, The method according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 11, Lore broadly discloses wherein said measuring is continuous ([Col 6, Lines 59 – 62] “person head movement data may be measured using sensor of a head mounted device such as a head mounted device equipment with an accelerometer and/or gyroscope configured to sense the movement…”)(Examiner notes that data from an accelerometer and/or gyroscope can be measured as continuous as opposed to discrete data.)
Chow-Wing-Bom specifically teaches wherein said measuring is continuous ([Page 52, Right Column, 1st Full Paragraph] “Throughout the trial, gaze and head-pose were tracked continuously, using the headset’s near-infrared and gyroscopic sensors”)
Lore and Chow-Wing-Bom both disclose and teach measuring head movement data using sensors, Lore with accelerometers and gyroscopes and Chow-Wing-Bom with near-infrared sensors and gyroscopes. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that continuous data can be obtained from amotion sensors (like accelerometers, gyroscopes, and infrared sensors), and that this type of data would be useful for capturing all of the movement that a person does during a trial.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the broad accelerometer and gyroscope sensing in a head movement tracking for visual behavior analysis system disclosed by Lore with the specifically-taught continuous measurement of data using motion sensors taught by Chow-Wing-Bom, creating a single creating a single visual analysis system that uses continuous data collection from motion sensors to classify head turn data.
Regarding Claim 13, Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom discloses as described above, The method according to claim 12. For the remainder of Claim 13, Lore discloses wherein said device is a pair of smart eyeglasses said at least one sensor comprises at least one gyroscope and at least one accelerometer (See citation under 35 USC 102 above)
Regarding Claim 16, Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom discloses as described above, The method according for claim 3. For the remainder of Claim 16, Lore discloses wherein said reference time period is equal to a predetermined number of times said measurement period ([Page 50, Right Column, 3rd Full Paragraph] “250 test trials…total testing time, including breaks, was approximately 90 min.”; [Page 52, Right Column, 2nd Full Paragraph] “The trial ended…after a maximum of 45 s had elapsed.”)(Examiner notes that the reference time is 250 times the length each predetermined measurement period (trial, maximum of 45 seconds).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom, further in view of NeuroVisual Medicine, “Why Head Tilt Could Indicate a Vision Problem”, hereinafter NeuroVisual Medicine.
Regarding Claim 6, Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom discloses as described above, The method according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 6, Lore broadly discloses if there is no said reason, generating an alert advising said individual to have eyes checked by an eye care professional ([Col 6, Line 40 - 41] “alert a third party, such as a medical center, provide a feed back to the person…”)
NeuroVisual Medicine more specifically recommends that observation of unusual head movement (a head tilt) is potentially evidence of the presence of visual issues associated with Binocular Vision Dysfunction. Specifically for Claim 6, NeuroVisual Medicine teaches if there is no said reason ([Page 2, “Binocular Vision Dysfunction & Head Tilt” Section, Bottom] “…head tilt, which is a mechanism the body uses to try and fix the vertical misalignment caused by BVD”), advising said individual to have eyes checked by an eye care professional ([Page 4, “Find Relief With a NeuroVisual Medicine Specialist” section] “If you have a head tilt, chronic neck pain or are experiencing other symptoms of BVD such as dizziness and nausea, a NeuroVisual specialist might be able to help. Start by taking the BVDQ Assessment to learn if BVD is causing your symptoms”)
Lore discloses measuring head movement such as head tilt with an accelerometer and gyroscope and also provides an alert, sending information to users and/or medical facilities of feedback related to comparing their measured movement data. NeuroVisual teaches a specific messaging that is provided given observation (or measurement) of head tilt for a person. NeuroVisual Medicine provides a motivation to combine at [Page 3, Top] with “When the eyes are out of alignment…Patients compensate by tilting their head to one side in order to vertically realign the images they’re seeing.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the knowledge that head tilt with no otherwise-explainable reason can be attributed to a reason to see an eye professional for treatment, and this would be useful for providing actionable information in an alert to users from a device that has measured their head movement as tilting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the head movement measurement and analysis device that issues an alert to users and medical facilities disclosed by Lore with the advice to seek eye professional treatment when head tilt head movement is observed taught by NeuroVisual Medical, creating a single visual analysis system that can issue an alert with a recommendation to seek eye care based on the head motion data that is measured.
Regarding Claim 7, Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom, further in view of NeuroVisual Medicine discloses as described above, The method according to claim 6. For the remainder of Claim 7, Lore discloses wherein said generating said alert is performed only if said difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior exceeds a predetermined threshold ([Col 6, Lines 31 – 41] “…comparing step S5…information providing step…information based on the comparison of the person visual behavior data and the reference visual behavior data is provided either to the person or to a third party…”, “a recommendation and/or access to a service...”, “alert a third party…”)
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom, further in view of Bowers, et. al., “Driving With Hemianopia: IV. Head Scanning and Detection at Intersections in a Simulator”, hereinafter Bowers.
Regarding Claim 8, Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom discloses as described above, The method according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 8, Lore discloses in case of detecting a difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior ([Col 1, Lines 47 – 50] “a comparing step during which the person visual behavior data and the reference visual behavior data are compared so as to deduce whether the person visual behavior is adapted with respect to said activity of the person.”);
Lore does not disclose assigning a different weight to said difference depending on a direction of head movements.
Bowers teaches a head movement tracking study regarding homonymous hemianopia in “real-world tasks such as driving”, determining if head scanning behaviors are adopted to compensate for hemifield loss. Specifically for Claim 8, Bowers teaches in case of detecting a difference between said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period and said reference head movement behavior, assigning a different weight to said difference depending on a direction of head movements ([Page 1542, Left Column, “Analyzing Head Scanning at Intersections” section] “head scan was defined as a lateral head rotation (yaw movement) that took the head away from the straight-ahead position for at least 0.2 seconds and that represented a net monotonic change in angle of more than a three-tier threshold (4°, 6°, and 10°)”; [Page 1542, Right Column, 1st Full Paragraph] “…only bins with two or more scans were considered”; Fig 3; Fig 7)(Examiner notes that the different weight is that head movement in the direction less than 4° change in angle is weighted as zero in terms of a “head scan”, as head movements smaller than the threshold are not “defined as a lateral head rotation”; Figure 6.)
Bowers provides a motivation to combine at ([Page 1542, Left Column, “Analyzing Head Scanning at Intersections” section] with “head scan was defined as a lateral head rotation… in angle of more than a three-tier threshold (4°, 6°, and 10°).” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that having a minimum threshold for classifying a gaze direction would be useful for obtaining clear, intentional head-turn data that is not an artifact of noise in the sensors in small degrees of movement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the head movement measurement with sensors for visual behavior and analysis system disclosed by Lore with the minimum weighting threshold for head turn motion data taught by Bowers, creating a single visual analysis system that uses a weighting threshold to classify head turn data for more meaningful analysis.
Regarding Claim 9, Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom discloses as described above, The method according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 9, Lore discloses change (Fig 1, S5; [Col 7, Lines 5 – 9] “…the comparing step S5, the person head movement data and the reference head movement data are compared”); between said individual’s head movement behavior ([Col 9, Lines 9 – 11] “…eye tracking device can be used…everyday conditions the visual behavior of the wearer.”; ([Col 6, Lines 55 – 63] “...person head movement data providing step S41…accelerometer and/or gyroscope…sense the movement and/or orientation of the head mounted device”; Fig 1) during said predetermined measurement period (([Col 9, Lines 9 – 11] “…tracking device can be used for long periods of time…”), and said reference head movement behavior (Fig 1, S5; [Col 7, Lines 5 – 9] “…the comparing step S5, the person head movement data and the reference head movement data are compared”);.
Lore does not disclose wherein said detecting comprises determining whether head movements have changed in one hemi-field and not in another hemi-field.
Bowers teaches wherein said detecting comprises determining whether head movements have changed in one hemi-field and not in another hemi-field ([Abstract, Results:] “For HH drivers, the first scan was more likely to be toward the blind than the seeing hemifield…also made a greater proportion of head scans overall to the blind side than did the NV drivers to the corresponding side”; [Page 1547, Left Column, 2nd Full Paragraph] “Drivers with LHH appeared to focus on scanning to the left at the expense of scanning to the right, while drivers with RHH…high rates of failing to scan to the blind right side.”; Figure 6)(Examiner notes that examining results relative to LHH (left homonymous hemianopia) and RGG (right homonymous hemianopia) determines whether head movements change in one affected hemi-field for LHH vs the affected hemi-field for RHH.)
Bowers provides a motivation to combine at [Page 1543, Left Column, “Statistical Analysis” Section; Bottom] “Mixed-effects binary logistic regressions were conducted to evaluate the effect of vision status (NV, left HH (LHH), and right HH (RFF))…” and [Page 1543, Right Column, “Scan Patterns” section, 1st Paragraph] with “…the LHH group had a significantly higher proportion of leftward scans (76%) than the NV and RHH groups…By comparison, there was a trend for the RHH group to have a lower proportion of leftward scans (i.e., a higher proportion of rightward scans) than the NV group.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that differences in head movement left and right hemi-fields would be useful to help diagnose conditions like left homonymous hemianopia or right homonymous hemianopia.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the head movement measurement of visual behavior and comparative analysis system disclosed by Lore with the focus on examining differences of head movement in a particular hemi-field taught by Bowers, creating a single visual analysis system head movement data in particular hemi-fields to assist with diagnosis of conditions like left homonymous hemianopia or right homonymous hemianopia.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom, further in view of AnyChart “Percent Stacked Area Radar Chart”, hereinafter AnyChart.
Regarding Claim 10, Lore in view of Chow-Wing-Bom discloses as described above, The method according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 10, Lore discloses further comprising: measured amplitudes of head movements ([Col 9, Lines 9 – 11] “…eye tracking device can be used…everyday conditions the visual behavior of the wearer.”; ([Col 6, Lines 55 – 63] “...person head movement data providing step S41…accelerometer and/or gyroscope…sense the movement and/or orientation of the head mounted device”; Fig 1),
dividing an area comprising all possible amplitudes of measured head movements into a plurality of subareas, each of said subareas comprising a different predetermined percentage of all measured head movements for which said at least one parameter is measured during said measuring; and performing for each of said subareas said comparing said individual's head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period with said reference head movement behavior ([Col 1, Lines 47 – 50] “a comparing step during which the person visual behavior data and the reference visual behavior data are compared so as to deduce whether the person visual behavior is adapted with respect to said activity of the person.”)(Examiner notes that broadest reasonable interpretation is such that a person with ordinary skill could subdivide all of the measurement data into any number of desired subdivisions (such as each measurement, each measurement over a given time), and that subdivision would be a percentage of time. Since Lore discloses that all of the obtained data is broadly “compared” in the “comparing step”, then any data chosen in subcategories would also have been broadly compared.)
Looking to the 112(b) interpretation above that area and subarea are likely referring to portions of a graph, as described in Applicant’s specification at [Page 14, Lines 14 – 23] describing “areas” and “subareas” of graphs in Figures 2 and 3, AnyChart teaches a stacked area radar chart method of visualizing data. Specifically for Claim 10, AnyChart teaches dividing an area of a graph comprising all possible measurands into a plurality of subareas of the graph ([Page 2, Graph figure with subareas shown in 4 different colors, nested inside each other (since the individual portions sum to 100%, where 100% is all possible percent-worth of options.); each of said subareas of the graph comprising a different predetermined percentage of all measured head movements for which said at least one parameter is measured during said measuring ([Page 2, Paragraph 1] “Radar Charts…compare several items by a number of parameters and features”)(Examiner notes that the radar chart (or spider chart) is a common chart in scientific fields, and it is used to represent categories of data (in the example from AnyChart, the categories are Argentina, Brasil, Chile, and Columbia, but a person with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the categories could easily be quartile % data, such as the lowest 25%, middle 50%, highest 75%, and 100% of the data. Then the contact point at each of the axis represents a two variable representation of data, for the example, it is (What % of the Region Sales, Year), but a person with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the variable representation of data could easily be communicated as (# of Degrees, Head Direction (Up, Left, Down, Right)). A radar chart (or spider plot) is a well-known type of graphical representation for comparing data, and it is well-known that the variables of interest to be represented can be selected by the experimenter per their desire to communicate particular information as shaded areas.)
AnyChart provides a motivation to combine at [Page 2, Paragraph 1] with “Radar Charts are very useful when you need to compare several items by a number of parameters and features, which can be measured quantitatively or in percent,” and “These charts are quite popular in many difference areas…” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that using a stacked radar chart would be useful to present summary data about the head movement for subjects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the head movement data from sensors and comparative analysis system disclosed by Lore with AnyChart’s taught common graphical method of presenting data to compare (a radar chart, or “spider chart”), creating a single visual analysis system providing data in an easy-to-interpret graphical comparative format of a stacked radar chart.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejections:
Applicant argues at [Page 10, Paragraph 3] – [Page 10, Paragraph 4] that regarding Claims 1 and 12, it is clear that the information characterizes the changes in the visual field of the individual, and the description states that subtle visuomotor changes of the individual can be detected to allow detection of monocular and early binocular visual field defects. With “information” being extremely broad, it remains unclear in light of the argument whether the “information” is then the “subtle visuomotor changes”, or if “monocular visual field defects” or “binocular visual field defects” themselves are intended to be the recited “information”. It is unclear if “information” is qualitative or quantitative. The non-specific term of “information” is not a recognized term in the art. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 10, Paragraph 5] – [Page 11, Top] for Claim 4 that the term “considered as significant” means that the first plurality of measurements and the second plurality of measurements diverge to an extent that they cannot be considered similar in the context of “generating the statistical model of head movements”, potentially indicating that the term “significant” is intended to mean “statistically significant”. As recited, there is nothing that particularly links the use of “significant” to “statistical significance”. Colloquially “significant” could be used in the art to qualitatively describe an important new research study. “Statistically significant” indicates that a statistical evaluation between measurands is given a numeric value of confidence in the statistical result. This distinction is not clearly recited by the claim. The interpretation associated with the term has been amended in this action in light of the arguments to include “statistically-significant”. However, the argument is not persuasive to overcome the 122(b) rejection.
Applicant argues at [Page 11, 2nd Full Paragraph] that claim 5 recites that the method can use one, two, or three of the different parameters recited, so the claim is reasonably clear for one of ordinary skill in the art. The clarity issue with the claim is not that three parameters are recited. It is to understand what “taken” is intended to mean for the “use”. Does that mean that they are measured? Are they collected? Are they evaluated? It is unclear how to interpret “taken”, and in the context of recitation of one, two, or three quantitative values: it remains unclear what is being done with these values by “taking” them, or to where they are being taken. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 11, 3rd Full Paragraph] that “assigning a different weight” means that the difference between head movements are assigned different weights in relation to the respective direction of the head movements, with reference to the specification at Page 17, lines 10 – 21. The term “different” remains a relative term, and it cannot be discerned what degree makes a weight “different” enough. For example, is a weight of 1.01 different than 1.0? Or is a threshold for difference a weight of 2 vs a weight of 1? Further, if this is intended to refer to multiple weights, or weights that can have particular individualized values (as with an associated weight, or an individualized weight) such the exists a weight “different” than another, there is no original weight recited. There is no “first weight” for the “different weight” to be different relative to. The argument is not persuasive.
As previously applied, Claim 10 recites the term “dividing an area comprising all possible head movements into a plurality of subareas, each of said subareas”, which is indefinite. It is unclear if this is a physical “area” and “subarea”, an “area under of curve” such as an integral, or possibly a range of quantities for a head movement parameter. For the purposes of examination, the term “dividing an area comprising all possible head movements into a plurality of subareas” is deemed to claim “dividing an area of a graph comprising all measured head movements into a plurality of subareas of the graph, each of said subareas of the graph comprising a different predetermined percentage of all measured head movements.”
Applicant argues at [Page 11, 4th Full Paragraph] that “said measuring” in Claim 10 refers to “measuring a same at least one parameter…during a predetermined measurement period.” The head movements themselves remain unclear. As recited, it appears that the first-recited “all possible amplitudes of head movements” refers to any amplitude of head movement that could be obtained by any human head, not just the human head that has been measured “for at least one parameter during said measuring”. That could broadly include the amplitude of translational movement that a head travels on a person in a plane as their head translates from ground level to many thousands of feet, which is a massive range. Then the next “all head movement for which said at least one parameter is measured during said measuring” appears to encompass “individual head movement behavior”, which is not “head movements” per se. Rather, it appears that “all head movement” is intended to match the previously-recited “a plurality of measurements of said at least one parameter”. With the change in language, it is unclear that “head movements” are supposed to be “parameters” (head moves at 30 degrees/s) or broad “behavior” (head moves at all.) For the purposes of examination, the terms “all possible amplitudes of head movements” and “all head movements for which said at least one parameter is measured during said measuring” is deemed to claim “all measured at least one parameter related to head movements”. The argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues at [Page 12, Paragraph 1] – [Page 12, Paragraph 4] that the pending claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity because they are not directed to “fundamental economic principles”, “commercial or legal interactives”, or “managing personal behavior”.
As included in the 35 U.S.C. analysis above, Claim 6 recites the limitation “advising said individual to have eyes checked by an eye care professional”. This is managing personal behavior by giving an instruction to the individual to perform the human activity of going to a doctor and having their eyes checked. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 12, Paragraph 5] – [Page 12, Paragraph 7] that because a claim may involve an exception does not mean it should be automatically rejected under 101. Evaluating the instant claims as per the Step 2A – Prong 1 analysis above, they do not merely involve an exception (an example of “involving an exception is the mechanical advantage natural principle that governs the teeter-totter lever example in MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Rather, the instant claims explicitly recite a judicial exception, Abstract Idea, which can be found in more detail in the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis above. Looking to MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1) immediately following the teeter-totter example, “If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.” The Prong Two analysis is performed in detail in the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis above. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 12, Bottom] – [Page 14, Paragraph 1] that the claimed features of Claim 1 including “obtaining a plurality of values…”, “measuring a same at least one parameter…”, “comparing said individual’s head movement behavior…”, “checking whether there is any reason…”, “obtaining information related to an evolution of a visual field…” cannot be performed in the human mind, at all or practically. The elements of “obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter of head movements” could broadly be a human researcher tallying each time a person nods their head in response to a question of if they can see an object. “Measuring the same at least one parameter” could be doing the tallying process of the head nods again. “Comparing said individuals’ head movement during said predetermined measurement period” could broadly be evaluating if there is a difference in the number of tally marks, “Checking whether is any reason in said individual’s daily life explaining said difference” could broadly being the researcher asking if there is anything going on in the person’s life that they believed affected what they could see, such as asking if they closed their eyes during part of the trial. “Obtaining information related to an evolution of a visual field of said individual” could broadly be the human researcher documenting their opinion (either on paper or typing into a computer document with the processor) that the visual field broadly did or did not evolve based on their question to the subject. As recited in the claims, there is nothing particular that indicates sophisticated steps beyond the capability of a human that is using a paper and the extra-solution activity inputs of head movement data to yield an opinion on a broad evolution of a visual field. The argument is not persuasive. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 14, Paragraph 2] – [Page 15, Top] that the claims as a whole are directed to a practical application that provides a technical improvement because the disclosure “makes it possible to improve the early detection of ocular diseases cause loss of peripheral vision”. There is nothing particularly recited in the claim that indicates positive detection of ocular diseases. Further, the claim does not clearly improves the functionality of the processor itself. Rather, it appears to instead invoke the processor merely as a tool (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 15, Top] that the recited features are not well-understood, routine, or conventional without providing evidence as such. As described in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above, the additional elements recited in the claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections:
Applicant argues at [Page 15, Paragraph 3] – [Page 16, Bottom] that Lore does not teach every feature of the claimed invention within Claims 1, 12, and 15 because Lore does not investigate the cause of a difference in visual behavior in the daily life of a person. Looking to Applicant’s specification for “difference” at [Page 15, lines 14 – 26] as “any specific reason in the individual’s daily life…For instance, if the detected difference represents a change that is related to a new activity of the individual, involving specific and unusual head movement behavior, it will be categorized as “normal.” Such that “difference” means a change that is or is not related to a new activity of an individual, Lore at [Col 1, Lines 47 – 50] performs a comparing step between the person’s visual behavior data and reference behavior data to deduce, or investigate, whether their visual behavior correlates to their activity. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 15, Paragraph 3] – [Page 16, Bottom] that Lore does not teach every feature of the claimed invention within Claims 1, 12, and 15 because Lore does not provide information regarding an evolution of the visual field of the person on the basis of the difference identified. The term “information regarding an evolution of the visual field” broadly includes any information that could change the visual field. An example of ”information regarding an evolution of the visual field of the person” could broadly include the fact that a person has their eyes closed. The visual field has evolved (objects cannot be seen in any part of the field) because of the information that the eyes are closed. Another example pertaining to Lore is the broad recitation of information would include the measurements of head movement that signaled a difference in head movements if the “comparing step” “deduces” that the persons visual behavior is not “adapted with respect to said activity of the person”. The argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues at [Page 17, Paragraph 1] – [Page 17, Paragraph 6] that Chow-Wing-Bom does not cure the deficiencies of Lore because the study is performed in a controlled, virtual reality environment, so it does not perform such an assessment in the real environment of daily life. There is nothing particular recited in the claims that requires that the assessment be performed in the “real environment”. Chow-Wing-Bom teaches at [Page 50, “1.2. Present Study” section] “To quantitatively assess the ‘real world’ importance of a worse eye, the present study measured people’s ability to perform a common, everyday visually-guided action.” This is broadly gathering data to make an assessment regarding a subject’s “daily life”. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 17, Bottom] – [Pag 18, Top] that Chow-Wing-Bom cannot disclose or suggest investigating reasons in the daily life of an individual for differences in head movement behavior. Chow-Wing-Bom teaches at [Page 50, “1.2. Present Study” section] “To quantitatively assess the ‘real world’ importance of a worse eye, the present study measured people’s ability to perform a common, everyday visually-guided action.” Measuring a person’s ability to perform common, everyday actions (studying differences in head movement behavior related to the “worse eye”) would appear to fall within activity pertaining to broadly-recited “daily life”. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 18, 1st Full Paragraph] that Chow-Wing-Bom provides no teaching or suggestion on how a diagnosis of eye disease can be practically deduced from head movements. There is nothing particularly recited in the claims regarding a diagnosis of eye disease. Rather, the recited limitation of “information related to an evolution of a visual field” could broadly include a visual field very temporarily evolving because a person has closed their eyes. There is nothing particular recited that indicates that the “evolution of a visual field” is related to an eye disease. Chow-Wing-Bom teaches Measuring a person’s ability to perform common, everyday actions (studying differences in head movement behavior related to the “worse eye”), which would broadly study the evolution of the visual field of the “worse eye”. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 18, 2nd Full Paragraph] that a combination of Lore and Chow-Wing-Bom or any other reference would not teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed features. Looking to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection and the discussion above, Lore and Chow-Wing-Bom can be combined to disclose and teach the claimed features of Claims 1, 12, and 15. The argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
In light of the current 112(b) rejections, no prior art rejection is currently able to be applied to Claim 4.
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 MELISSA J MONTGOMERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:00 ET.
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.
/MELISSA JO MONTGOMERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights