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 .
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 - 17 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.
In regard to claim 1, lines 9 - 10 recite, “apply the eye-movement data to a health experience identification engine to generate a health experience identifier associated with the user…” However, the term “apply” does not properly describe the relationship between the eye-movement data and the generation of health experience identifiers associated with a user using a health experience identification engine because as written, “apply” only claims inputting the data, but never specifies if the health experience identification is performing a step or action to generate “a health experience identifier associated with the user”. Additionally, the “health experience identification engine” is used to “generate a health experience identifier” but is not positively claimed. Further clarification is required. Claims 5 - 8 are rejected under the same premise. Claims 2 - 8 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 1.
In regard to claim 9, lines 6 - 8 recite, “applying… the eye-movement data to a health experience identification engine to generate a health experience identifier associated with the user”. However, the term “applying” does not properly describe the relationship between the eye-movement data and the generation of health experience identifiers associated with a user using a health experience identification engine because as written, “apply” only claims inputting the data, but never specifies if the health experience identification is performing a step or action to generate “a health experience identifier associated with the user”. Additionally, the “health experience identification engine” is used to “generate a health experience identifier” but is not positively claimed. Further clarification is required. Claims 13 - 16 are rejected under the same premise. Claims 10 - 16 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 9.
In regard to claim 17, lines 6 - 7 recite, “apply the eye-movement data to a health experience identification engine to generate a health experience identifier associated with the user…” However, the term “apply” does not properly describe the relationship between the eye-movement data and the generation of health experience identifiers associated with a user using a health experience identification engine because as written, “apply” only claims inputting the data, but never specifies if the health experience identification is performing a step or action to generate “a health experience identifier associated with the user”. Additionally, the “health experience identification engine” is used to “generate a health experience identifier” but is not positively claimed. Further clarification is required.
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 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite details of a health experience detection system, method, and device, which are all within a statutory category of invention, to “apply the eye-movement data to a health experience identification engine to generate a health experience identifier associated with the user,” which falls into the category of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because with regard to Revised step 2A, prong 1, an exception is present as noted above and with regard to Revised step 2A, prong 2, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, with regard to Revised step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In particular, the steps of “receiving, by the health experience detection device, eye-movement data from an eye tracking device” is directed towards a generalized data gathering step with no specific structure required to collect the data as there is no positively claimed step of measuring eye-movement data using an eye-tracking device. Additionally, “applying… the eye-movement data to a health experience identification engine,” without further details about the health experience identification engine, which is also not positively claimed, is directed towards a generic method of processing data and is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The step of “outputting… a notification,” would further be considered general data processing and does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. While claim 1 does include the limitation of “an eye-tracking device,” the structure referred to are merely nominal or high level and do not provide specific structural details beyond those well known in the art, and thus provide no meaningful limitations or sufficient structure to integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The “controller” comprising “a memory and a processor,” is similarly directed towards general structures that do not impose meaningful limitation onto the claim scope, as the limitations do not constitute use of the exception in the context of “a particular machine”. Claims 2 - 4 and 10 - 12 are directed towards details on “receiving eye-movement data,” but merely describe how the data is collected and do not positively claim the steps of collecting the data with a specific structure. Claims 5 - 8 and 13 - 16 are directed towards further details of “applying eye-movement data to the health experience identification engine,” but lack details to integrate the judicial exception into practical application as the “health experience identification engine,” would be considered a general machine learning algorithm and does not provide further details on what steps the health experience identification engine is taking to “generate the health experience identified associated with the user.”
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shojaeizadeh (US 20200029806 A1 - Cited as Worcester Polytechnic Institute by Applicant) in view of Zakariaie (US 20220211310 A1)
In regard to claims 1, 9 & 17, Shojaeizadeh discloses a health experience detection system, method, and device, comprising:
an eye-tracking device; Shojaeizadeh discloses an eye-tracking device (FIG. 1, component 12)
a health experience detection device disposed in electrical communication with the eye-tracking device, the health experience detection device comprising a controller having a memory and a processor. Shojaeizadeh discloses a detection device (FIG. 1, component 14), such as a computer, laptop, or tablet (paragraph [0021]), which is in electrical communication with the eye-tracking device (paragraph [0014]) and further comprises a controller (FIG. 1, component 28) with a processor and memory (paragraph [0021]).
Shojaeizadeh further discloses that the controller is configured to:
receive eye-movement data from the eye-tracking device, the eye-movement data associated with eye-movement of a user and comprising at least one of saccade event data and fixation event data. Shojaeizadeh discloses that the controller receives eye movement data (FIG. 1, component 26; paragraph [0021]) from the eye tracking device (FIG. 1, component 12) and that the eye movement data comprises at least one of a fixation event data and saccade event data (paragraph [0021; FIG. 1, components 27 & 29).
apply the eye-movement data to an identification engine to generate an identifier associated with the user. Shojaeizadeh further discloses that the eye-movement data is applied to a health experience identification engine or classification function (FIG. 1, component 70), which generates a classification of a low cognitive load or high cognitive load (paragraph [0027]; FIG. 2, component 104).
output a notification regarding the identifier of the user as associated with the eye-movement data. Shojaeizadeh discloses that the system outputs a notification regarding the cognitive load associated with the eye-movement data (FIG. 2, component 106).
While Shojaeizadeh discloses the use of a classification function (FIG. 1, component 70) that their system includes an identification engine that generates a classification of a mental state or cognitive load of the user (paragraph [0027]; FIG. 2, component 104), they do not specify that the identification engine is a health experience identification engine to generate a health experience identifier or that the system outputs a notification regarding the health experience identifier of the user.
However, Zakariaie teaches a health experience identification engine that generates a health experience identifier corresponding to a user’s state of mental health disorder including anxiety or PTSD by analyzing ocular data such as saccade rate, saccade velocity, saccade amplitude, and fixation duration collected from an eye tracking device (paragraph [0008]). The machine learning based classification model utilizes the ocular data the probability of a specific mental health state or health experience and outputs the mental health state to the user or a mental health professional (paragraph [0009]). Examiner notes that the specification indicates that the health experience can be associated with a mental state, such as anxiety (paragraph [0006]), and the health experience detection system can be configured to identify a variety of health experiences including anxiety and pain (paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Shojaeizadeh, which includes a classification function or identification engine (FIG. 1, component 70) that utilizes fixation event and saccade event data to predict a cognitive load of a patient, with the teaching of Zakariaie of a classification function or model that generates a health experience identifier corresponding to a user’s mental health disorder based on eye-movement data because it would be considered simple substitution of one known element for another, in this case the classifications function disclosed by Shojaeizadeh with the classification model taught by Zakariaie, to obtain the predictable result of generating and outputting a classification of a health experience or description of a mental state based on eye-tracking data.
In regard to claims 2 & 10, Shojaeizadeh as modified discloses the claimed invention of claims 1 & 9, wherein when receiving eye-movement data from the eye-tracking device, the controller is configured to:
present a visual stimuli sample related to a health experience topic to the user via a display; Shojaeizadeh discloses a display (FIG. 1, component 16) that is in communication with the controller (FIG. 1, component 28) of the detection device (FIG. 1, component 14) where a user focuses on a field of view, such as the display (FIG. 1, component 16). Zakariaie further teaches that stimuli can be presented on a display to a user while the eye is recorded by an eye-tracking device, wherein the stimuli comprises an oculomotor task or stimuli configured to elicit a change in at least one ocular signal (paragraph [0008]), wherein stimuli specific to a health experience topic can be displayed to a user, such as visual threat stimuli that is specific to assessing PTSD (paragraph [0004]) or stimulus that is specific to assessing a substance abuse disorder (paragraph [0146]).
receive eye-movement data from the eye-tracking device, the eye-movement data associated with viewing of the visual stimuli sample by the user. Shojaeizadeh discloses that eye-movement data (FIG. 1, component 26) from the eye-tracking device is received by the controller (FIG. 1, component 28).
In regard to claims 3 & 11, Shojaeizadeh as modified discloses the claimed invention of claims 2 & 10, wherein the controller is further configured to select the visual stimuli sample from a visual stimuli sample stimuli database, the visual stimuli sample related to health experience information associated with the user. Zakariaie teaches that the stimuli can be selected from a visual stimuli database made up of thousands of images during an affective image task where a selection of images from positive, negative, neutral, and facial expression categories are shown to a user and eye-tracking data is recorded in response to the chosen visual stimuli to assess a health experience (paragraph [0213]; FIGs. 4A - 4E).
In regard to claims 5 & 13, Shojaeizadeh as modified discloses the claimed invention of claims 1 & 9, wherein when applying the eye-movement data to the health experience identification engine to generate the health experience identifier associated with the user, the controller is configured to apply the eye-movement data to a user-specific health experience identification engine to generate the health experience identifier associated with the user. Zakariaie teaches that the eye-movement data is applied to a user-specific health experience identification engine or classification engine where users are monitored over time and the system stores information unique to the user in order to determine health experience identifiers and metrics such as how frequently a user experiences disordered mental states (paragraph [0088]).
In regard to claims 7 & 15, Shojaeizadeh as modified discloses the claimed invention of claims 1 & 9, wherein:
when applying the eye-movement data to the health experience identification engine to generate the health experience identifier associated with the user, the controller is configured to apply the eye-movement data to the health experience identification engine to generate a mental health identifier and objective mental health data associated with the user; Zakariaie teaches that the health experience identification engine or classification model generates a mental health identifier, such as a description of a mental health disorder, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, acute stress disorder, PTSD, or a substance abuse disorder (paragraph [0009]) based on eye-tracking data including saccadic eye movement data and fixation data (paragraph [0008]).
when outputting the notification regarding the health experience identifier of the user as associated with the eye-movement data, the controller is configured to display the mental health identifier and the objective mental health data associated with the user. Zakariaie further teaches that the mental state of the individual is displayed after the screening assessment (paragraph [0087]).
Claims 4, 8, 12, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shojaeizadeh (US 20200029806 A1 - Cited as Worcester Polytechnic Institute by Applicant) in view of Zakariaie (US 20220211310 A1) as applied to claim 1 - 2 and 9 - 10 above, and further in view of Rutowski (WO 2019246239 A1 - Cited as Ellipsis Health, Inc. by Applicant).
In regard to claims 4 & 12, Shojaeizadeh as modified discloses the claimed invention of claims 2 & 10. While Shojaeizadeh discloses a display (FIG. 1, component 16) that is in communication with the controller (FIG. 1, component 28) of the detection device (FIG. 1, component 14) and Zakariaie further teaches that stimuli can be presented on a display to a user while the eye is recorded by an eye-tracking device, wherein the stimuli comprises an oculomotor task or stimuli configured to elicit a change in at least one ocular signal (paragraph [0008]) and wherein stimuli specific to a health experience topic can be displayed to a user, neither disclose that the controller is further configured to generate the visual stimuli sample based upon a health experience information associated with the user.
However, Rutowski teaches a health experience detection system with a gaze tracker (FIG. 26, component 2613; paragraph [355]) where the system analyzes changes to gaze pattern in response to a visual stimulus, such as a question related to a user’s health experience information (paragraph [355]). Rutowski further teaches that the stimulus is determined using an interaction engine, which stores a variety of stimuli including questions and prompts and further includes a history and state machine which tracks what has already occurred in the assessment and the current state of the assessment. The history and current state of the assessment is used to determine next steps in the interaction, such as what visual stimulus will be displayed to the user (paragraphs [363] - [365]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system disclosed by Shojaeizadeh as modified by Zakariaie with the teaching of Rutowski that visual stimulus displayed to a user can be determined based upon a health experience information associated with the user because doing so allows for the mental health assessment to be tailored to a user and generate patient specific results and suggested treatment protocols (Rutowski, paragraph [481]).
In regard to claims 8 & 16, Shojaeizadeh as modified discloses the claimed invention of claims 1 & 9. While Shojaeizadeh and Zakariaie are both interested in monitoring a mental state of a user by tracking eye movement and Zakariaie is further interested in diagnosing a specific mental disorder and providing the information to users and treatment specialists so that effective treatment can be determined (paragraphs [0088] - [0089]), neither Shojaeizadeh and Zakariaie specify that the controller is further configured to:
apply the health experience identifier to a diagnosis engine to generate a treatment recommendation associated with the user; and
output the treatment recommendation as associated with the health experience identifier.
However, Rutowski teaches a health experience detection system with a gaze tracker (FIG. 26, component 2613; paragraph [355]) where the system analyzes changes to gaze pattern in response to a visual stimulus, such as a question related to a user’s health experience information (paragraph [355]) to assess or screen for a mental health condition, including anxiety, PTSD, substance abuse disorders, general stress levels, and bipolar disorder (paragraph [419]). Rutowski further teaches that the system generates and outputs a treatment recommendation based on the prior assessment of a mental health condition (paragraphs [481] - [482]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Shojaeizadeh as modified by Zakariaie with the teaching of Rutowski that a controller can apply the health experience identifier to a diagnosis engine to generate a treatment recommendation associated with the user and output the treatment recommendation as associated with the health experience identifier because Zakariaie is already interested in diagnosing a specific mental disorder and providing the information to users and treatment specialists so that effective treatment can be determined (Rutowski, paragraphs [0088] - [0089]), modifying Shojaeizadeh as modified by Zakariaie with the teaching of Rutowski would be considered combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of assessing and treating a mental disorder.
Claims 6 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shojaeizadeh (US 20200029806 A1 - Cited as Worcester Polytechnic Institute by Applicant) in view of Zakariaie (US 20220211310 A1) as applied to claims 1 & 9 above, and further in view of Baeuerle (US 20190307384 A1).
In regard to claims 6 & 14, Shojaeizadeh as modified discloses the claimed invention of claims 1 & 9, wherein:
when applying the eye-movement data to the health experience identification engine to generate the health experience identifier associated with the user, the controller is configured to apply the eye-movement data to the health experience identification engine; Zakariaie teaches that the health experience identification engine or classification model generates a health experience identifier, such as a description of a mental health disorder, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, acute stress disorder, PTSD, or a substance abuse disorder (paragraph [0009]) based on eye-tracking data including saccadic eye movement data and fixation data (paragraph [0008]).
when outputting the notification regarding the health experience identifier of the user as associated with the eye-movement data, the controller is configured to display the identifier. Zakariaie further teaches that the mental state of the individual is displayed after the screening assessment (paragraph [0087]).
While Shojaeizadeh and Zakariaie are both interested in monitoring a mental state of a user by tracking eye movement and Zakariaie is further interested in diagnosing a specific mental disorder, neither Shojaeizadeh and Zakariaie specify that the controller is configured to apply the eye-movement data to the health experience identification engine to generate a pain identifier and objective pain level data associated with the user or that the controller is configured to display the pain identifier and the objective pain level data associated with the user.
However, Baeuerle teaches a method and system where eye tracking data, including saccadic information (paragraph [0042]) is recorded (FIG. 3, component 202) and run through a learning engine (FIG. 3, component 206) to determine a level of pain while responding to a visual stimulus (paragraphs [0099] - [0101]). The generated pain measure is displayed on an output device (FIG. 3, see “Pain (anxiety) measure” and component 210).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method disclosed by Shojaeizadeh as modified by Zakariaie with the teaching of Baeuerle that eye movement data can be input to a health experience identification engine to generate and output a pain identifier and objective pain measure because both Zakariaie and Baeuerle teach that multiple health experiences, a variety of mental conditions, including anxiety, in the case of Zakariaie and a variety of conditions, including anxiety and pain in the case of Baeuerle, can be identified by inputting eye movement data into health experience identification engines. The modification of Shojaeizadeh as modified by Zakariaie with the teaching of Baeuerle would be considered use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by expanding the number of health experiences that can be identified by the system and method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Klin (WO 2015057321 A1) discloses a system and method for assessing mental abilities and disabilities in patients based on the visual fixation of the user over time through repeated eye tracking sessions where eye-tracking data is collected, processed by a normative model, and output as a diagnostic score to a user (FIG. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIENNA CHRISTINE PYLE whose telephone number is (703)756-5798. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5:30 pm M - T; Off first Fridays; 8 am - 4 pm second Fridays.
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, Charles Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/S.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791