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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on10/04/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of invention (I) drawn to claims 1-7, and with drawing claims 8-20 as being directed to non-elected inventions in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 regarding the inventions are sufficiently closely related that examination of all the claims would pose no serious burden on the Examiner have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because each invention has different scope and different structural elements (as indicated in Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed on 4/09/2026) that pose serious burden on the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a pilot” in line 9 should be amended to read –of a pilot--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 6 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 5 recites the limitation "the blood oxygen saturation" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the blood oxygen saturation" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1: claims 1 recite an apparatus. Thus, the claims are directed to a product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Claim 1 recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: identify capillaries in an eye from an image stream from the eye tracking camera; continuously characterize a width of the identified capillaries; and determine a cranial blood flow level a pilot based on the width characterization. These limitations recite a mental process, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, a physician can determine blood flow from an image of capillary of the eye. Thus, the claims are drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human, or using simple pen/paper.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements beyond the judicial exception: a) eye tracking camera, b) memory and c) processor.
Accordingly, the combination of the additional element/step a) and b) does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of eye camera is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Element c) does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of a controller/processor amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, each of the additional elements or a combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: Claim 1 does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, a) eye tracking camera, b) memory and c) processor.
The combination of elements a) and b) of a eye tracking camera and memory does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of eye camera is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the elements a) and b) are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as is evidenced by Wang et al (US 2024/0184358) and Kim et al (US 2021/0374402), which all show conventional eye camera as claimed in claim 1 evidencing that these elements are well-understood, route, and conventional in the applanation arts.
Element c) does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because adding a controller/processor is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)II).
Accordingly, the additional elements individual or in co do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-4, 6 and 7 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
The Examiner respectfully notes, claim 5 recite “execute a remedial action” which integrate the exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 5 is patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rotenstreich et al (WO 2022/153320).
As to claim 1, Rotenstreich teaches a computer apparatus (device in fig.2A, abstract) comprising: an eye tracking camera (20 having eye imaging system 22, page 18, fig.2a); and
at least one processor (processing system 34, page 19, fig.2a) in data communication with the eye tracking camera and a memory (inherently memory in processing system 34, page 8, lines 30-33 and page 9, lines 15-20) storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to:
identify capillaries in an eye from an image stream from the eye tracking camera (determining blood vessels and capillaries in the eye from a stream of imaged, page 12 lines 1-12 and lines 18-31, page 16 line 28 to page 17 line 2, page 24 line 23 to page 25 line 7, page 35 lines 16-20);
continuously characterize a width of the identified capillaries (determining subtle changes in eye capillaries blood vessels morphology, page 12 lines 1-12 and lines 18-31, page 16 line 28 to page 17 line 2, page 24 line 23 to page 25 line 7, page 35 lines 16-20); and
determine a cranial blood flow level a pilot based on the width characterization (determining blood flow in the eye, see page 12 lines 12-14 and lines 27-29, page 17 lines 1-2, 14 and 32, page 24 lines 23-25, page 26 lines 15-23, page 29 lines 31-33, page 30 lines 4-8, page 32 lines 16-18, page 35 lines 16-18).
As to claim 2, Rotenstreich teaches the computer apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify hypoxia based on a threshold cranial blood flow level (determining oxygenated area and abnormal deoxygenated/hypoxia area in the eye inherently from blood flow, end of page 10 to page 11, line 5, page 17, lines 10-15end of page 18, page 19, and page 30, lines 28-35).
As to claim 3, Rotenstreich teaches the computer apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: continuously characterize a chromaticity of the identified capillaries (images comprises monochromatic images, page 4, lines 11-12, he invention the image data comprises a set of monochromatic images in page 5, lines 4-5, page 12, lines 1-3, page 13, lines 24-30, and page 32, lines 1-5); and determine a blood oxygen saturation of the pilot based on the chromaticity characterization (determining oxygen saturation from images comprising monochromatic images, page 4, lines 11-12, he invention the image data comprises a set of monochromatic images in page 5, lines 4-5, page 12, lines 1-3, page 13, lines 24-30, and page 32, lines 1-5).
As to claim 4, Rotenstreich teaches the computer apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to apply one or more filters to the image stream to characterize the chromaticity (filters for improved images, page 26, lines 1-10, page 27, lines 13-15).
As to claim 5, Rotenstreich teaches the computer apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine that at least one of the cranial blood flow level and the blood oxygen saturation has fallen below a threshold action (determining oxygenated area and abnormal deoxygenated/hypoxia area in the eye inherently from blood flow, end of page 10 to page 11, line 5, page 17, lines 10-15end of page 18, page 19, and page 30, lines 28-35); and execute a remedial (using the outputs for medical decisions, page 25, lines 1-15, page 34, lines 29-page 35-14)
As to claim 6, Rotenstreich teaches the computer apparatus, wherein: the at least one processor is further configured to retrieve a user specific ocular profile defining a range of capillary widths and chromaticity for the pilot; and determining the cranial blood flow level and determining the blood oxygen saturation comprises comparing the characterized width and characterized chromaticity to the user specific ocular profile (using previous identified images features for comparison with recently identified images, page 15, lines 12-15, and page 18, lines 18-33).
As to claim 7, Rotenstreich teaches the computer apparatus, wherein the processor embodies a trained neural network (the processor uses machine learning procedures, such as, neural network, page 15, lines 26-35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights