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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
There are references listed in the specification at [Page 1, Lines 23 – 25], [Page 2, Line 30], and [Page 3, Lines 1 – 4]. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 15 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof, given the suggested modifications per the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection due to Claim 14’s statutory category. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 4 is objected for the colloquial terms “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” within the term “determining whether there are difference considered as significant between, on the one hand, cumulated pluralities… and, on the other hand, said additional…”. It is suggested that these terms are removed for ease of readability of the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“a unit” for “obtaining a plurality of values for at least one parameter related to head movements” in claim 12 (and its dependent claims)
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Applicant’s specification at [Page 18, Line 26] with “the unit 62 may be the at least one sensor 64” and [Page 18, Lines 29 – 31] with “the unit 62 may be one or more sensors located somewhere else than in/on the smart eyeglasses, e.g. clipped on "regular'' (i.e. not smart) eyeglasses, or embedded within a cap or headband or other device worn by the individual.” “Unit 62” is shown in generic block diagram of Figure 6, with a separate box as “sensor 64”. As no other clear structure for “unit” (“unit 62”) has been provided, it is interpreted that “unit” is a “sensor” for obtaining at least one parameter related to head movements.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 - 15 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.
Claims 1 (line 2 and line 17), Claim 12 (line 2 and line 19), Claim 14 (line 17), and Claim 15 (line 17) recite the term “related to a purported evolution of a visual field”. The term “purported” makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. It is unclear if an actual evolution of the visual field is required, whether a hypothesis of an evolution of the visual field (correct or not) is required, and where the purporting originates. For the purposes of examination, the term “related to a purported evolution of a visual field” is deemed to claim, “related to an evolution of a visual field”. Claims 2 – 11 and 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Claim 1 (line 16), Claim 12 (line 18), Claim 14 (line 16), and Claim 15 (line 16) recite the limitation "on the basis of said difference" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previously-recited basis in the claims. For the purposes of examination, the term “on the basis of said difference” is deemed to claim “on a basis of said difference. Claims 2 – 11 and 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claims 1 and 12, respectively.
The term “specific reason” in Claim 1 (lines 14 and 16), Claim 6 (lines 2 – 3), Claim 12 (line 16 and 18), Claim 14 (lines 14 and 16), and Claim 15 (lines 14 and 16) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specific” 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. It is unclear what makes a reason “specific” versus non-specific, and whether that is a quantitative or qualitative measure. For the purposes of examination, the term “there is any specific reason” is deemed to claim “there is a reason” in Claims 1, 12, 14, and 15, and the term “if there is no said specific reason” is deemed to claim “if there is no said reason” in Claims 1, 6, 12, 14, and 15. Claims 2 – 11 and 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claims 1, 6, and 12.
Claim 1 (lines 16 – 17) and Claim 12 (lines 18 – 19) recites the term “if there is no said specific reason, obtaining, on the basis of said difference, information related to a purported evolution of said visual field”, which is indefinite. The method overall recites in the preamble that is it intended to be “a method for obtaining information related to a purported evolution of a visual field of an individual”. However, this “if….visual field” limitation is recited conditionally, such that obtaining “information” only occurs “if there is no said specific reason.” 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 purposes of examination, and per the aforementioned 112(b) interpretations, the term “if there is no said specific reason, obtaining, on the basis of said difference, information related to a purported evolution of said visual field” is deemed to continue as a conditional limitation within the scope of the claim as “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 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Claim 1 (line 17) and Claim 12 (line 19) recites the term “information related to”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different “information” as the information related to a purported evolution of a visual field recited in the preambles of Claims 1 and 12. For the purposes of examination, the term “information related to” is deemed to claim “the information related to”. Claims 2 – 11 and 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Claim 1 (line 17) and Claim 12 (line 19) recites the term “a purported evolution”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different “evolution” as the evolution of a visual field recited in the preambles of Claims 1 and 12. For the purposes of examination, the term “a purported evolution” is deemed to claim “the purported evolution”. Claims 2 – 11 and 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said measurement period” in lines 3 and 6. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the “predetermined measurement period” recited in Claim 1, from which this claim depends. For the purposes of examination, the term “said measurement period” is deemed to claim “said predetermined measurement period”.
Claim 4 includes numbering of “(vi) measuring…”, “(vii) measuring…”, (viii) determining…”, “(ix) in case there…”, “(x) in case there…”, and there is no previous numbering of steps (i) – (v). This numbering causes the terms “cumulated pluralities of measurements obtained at steps (i) and (ii)” and “as an accumulation of time periods of steps (i), (ii), (a) and (c)” to be indefinite, as they refer to steps that do not exist. Looking to page 5 of the specification, it appears that this numbering was intended to be (i) – (v). For the purposes of examination, the terms “(vi) measuring…”, “(vii) measuring…”, (viii) determining…”, “(ix) in case there…”, “(x) in case there…” are deemed to claim “(i) measuring…”, “(ii) measuring…”, (iii) determining…”, “(iv) in case there…”, “(v) in case there…”.
Claim 4 includes numbering of “(d) measuring…”, “(e) determining…”, (f) iterating…”, and there is no previous numbering of steps (a) – (c). This numbering causes the terms, ”iterating step (a)” and “as an accumulation of time periods of steps (i), (ii), (a) and (c)” to be indefinite, as they refer to steps that do not exist. Looking to page 5 of the specification, it appears that this numbering was intended to be (a) – (c). For the purposes of examination, the terms “(d) measuring…”, “(e) determining…”, “(f) iterating…” are deemed to claim “(a) measuring…”, “(b) determining…”, “(c) iterating…”.
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 recites the term “iterating step (a) during further time periods, each equal to said measurement period, as long as there are differences considered as significant between pluralities of measurements used at step (b), so as to eventually determine said reference time period as an accumulation of time periods of steps (i), (ii), (a) and (c).” It appears that the “reference time period” is being concatenated with increasing length “as long as there are difference considered as significant”, which could potentially occur in perpetuity, if there are always “difference considered as significant”. Claim 3, from which this claim depends, recites “a reference time period equal to a predetermined number of time said measurement period”, which indicates a set length of the “reference period”, which would seem to not be “iterating step (a)….as long as there are differences”. There is an inconsistency in the scope of Claim 4 and Claim 3 such that it cannot be determined the actual scope of the claimed invention relative to the “reference period” and the steps of Claim 4. For the purposes of examination, art will not be applied at this time pending correction of the inconsistencies and errors within Claims 3 and 4, as the intended scope is unclear as recited.
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.”
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 9 recites the term “determining whether head movements have changed”. It is unclear which “head movements” are intended to be evaluated, whether it is Claim 1’s previously-recited “individual’s head movement behavior”, “reference head movement behavior”, “at least one parameter related to head movements of said individual”, a combination, or a different set of head movements. For the purposes of examination, the term “determining whether head movements have changed” is deemed to claim “determining whether said individual’s head movement behavior during said predetermined measurement period has changed”.
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.”
Claim 10 recites the terms “all possible head movements” and “all head movements”. It is unclear which head movements this term refers, and if “all possible head movements” are truly intended, with extreme examples including a person travelling in a plane such that their head translates from ground level to many thousands of feet, or head impact measurements, etc. For the purposes of examination, the terms “all possible head movements” and “all head movements” is deemed to claim “all measured at least one parameter related to head movements.”
Claim 10 recites the term “of all head movements for which said at least one parameter is measured during said measuring”. It is unclear what time period of measuring the “said measuring refers”, whether it is the predetermined measurement in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, the reference time period of other claims, or a different “measuring”. For the purposes of examination, the term “of 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”.
Per the 112(b) rejection regarding inconsistencies in Claims 3 and 4, art cannot be applied at this time pending correction of the inconsistencies and errors within Claims 3 and 4, as the intended scope is contradictory and unclear as recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites a “computer program product”, which can be considered either software per se or signals per se, which are not one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim should be amended to recite “non-transitory computer readable medium”, and the forthcoming 101 analysis regarding Claim 14 is provided assuming that this amendment is made.
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 – 15 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1 – 15 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 – 15 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claims 1 – 15 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 for obtaining information related to a purported evolution of a visual field of an individual, the method comprising:
providing 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 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;
comparing 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 whether there is any specific reason in said individual's daily life explaining said difference; and
if there is no said specific reason, obtaining, on the basis of said difference, information related to a purported evolution of said visual field.
Claim 12.
A device for obtaining information related to a purported evolution of a visual field of an individual, the device comprising:
a unit for obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements, representing a reference head movement behavior;
at least one sensor configured for 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; and
at least one processor configured for:
comparing 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 whether there is any specific reason in said individual's daily life explaining said difference; and
if there is no said specific reason, obtaining, on the basis of said difference, information related to a purported evolution of said visual field.
Claim 14.
A computer program product comprising 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 specific reason in said individual's daily life explaining said difference; and
if there is no said specific reason, obtain, on the basis of said difference, information related to a purported 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 specific reason in said individual's daily life explaining said difference; and
if there is no said specific reason, obtain, on the basis of said difference, information related to a purported 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, 14, and 15, these limitations include:
providing a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements, representing a reference head movement behavior;
comparing 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 whether there is any specific reason in said individual's daily life explaining said difference; and
if there is no said specific reason, obtaining, on the basis of said difference, information related to a purported evolution of said visual field.
all of which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG.
Similarly, Dependent Claims 2 – 11, and 13 include the following abstract limitations, in addition the aforementioned limitations in Independent Claims 1, 12, 14, 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 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 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, on the one hand, cumulated pluralities of measurements obtained at steps (i) and (ii) and, on the other hand, 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, on the one hand, cumulated pluralities of measurements obtained at steps (i) and (ii) and, on the other hand, said additional plurality of measurements
iterating step (a) during further time periods, each equal to said measurement period, as long as there are differences considered as significant between pluralities of measurements used at step (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 step (a) during further time periods, each equal to said measurement period, as long as there are differences considered as significant between pluralities of measurements used at step (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 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 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 specific reason, generating an alert advising said individual to have eyes checked by an eye care professional.
if there is no said specific 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, 14, 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, 14, 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:
“unit for obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements”
“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 “unit for obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements”, “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, 14, 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 “unit for obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements”, “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, 14, 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 computer program product comprising one or more sequences of instructions that are accessible to a processor and that, when executed by said processor,
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, 14, 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 equal to a predetermined number of times said 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 reference time period;
measuring, during a first time period equal to said 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 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 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 “unit for obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements”, “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, 14, 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, 14, 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, 14, and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, Independent Claims 1, 12, 14, and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B –
None of Claims 1 – 15 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: “unit for obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements”, “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, 14, and 15 and their dependent claims.
The additional elements of the “unit for obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements”, “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.
Per Applicant’s specification, as described above in the 112(f) interpretation, the “unit for obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements” is described generically at [Page 18, Line 26] with “the unit 62 may be the at least one sensor 64” and [Page 18, Lines 22 – 23] as “the at least one sensor 64 may comprise at least one gyroscope and at least one accelerometer, “ and at [Page 18, Lines 29 – 21] “the unit 62 may be one or more sensors located somewhere else than in/on the smart eyeglasses, e.g. clipped on "regular'' (i.e. not smart) eyeglasses, or
embedded within a cap or headband or other device worn by the individual.” “Unit 62” is shown as a separate generic box to the “sensor 64” box element in Figure 6. It is not described in the specification what other structural form “unit 62” could take if it is different (separate) from the “sensor 64” structure. As discussed in the 112f interpretation, “unit” is interpretated as “sensor”.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “unit for obtaining a plurality of values of at least one parameter related to head movements”, “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