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 .
Notice of Reply
This communication is responsive to the amendment(s) and/or argument(s) filed 5/21/26. The previous ground(s) of objection and/or rejection is/are withdrawn. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth hereinbelow.
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 21, 22, 24-29, 31-36, and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, wherein the abstract idea may be considered the mental process of generating baseline eye function data from eye tracking data, assessing physiological condition based on baseline data, and generating a recommendation based on the assessment.
For independent claims 21, 28, 35, the claim(s) recite(s) a computer-implemented method for assessing user physiology, a system for assessing user physiology, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method of assessing user physiology, respectively. The abstract idea of each of the various statutory classes of invention merely requires the steps of generating baseline eye function data from eye tracking data, assessing physiological condition based on baseline data, and generating a recommendation based on the assessment. As broadly as claimed, and disclosed, these steps may be reasonably considered as the judicial exception of a mental process performable within the human mind, including by observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion forming, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection III). For example, at least, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional capturing data , printing it out, and using the data to mentally extract, classify or learn from data features to determine a physiological condition. Further, as examples, these limitations are nothing more than (i) a trained, or in-training, law enforcement professional performing routine field sobriety tests with mental determinations during visual assessment of eye tracking to evaluate physiological condition, i.e. sobriety or impairment, and/or (ii) an individual observing, assessing, and recommending another go to sleep or rest while observing them nodding off based on observed eye functionality compared to typical.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps as broadly as claimed and disclosed, although reciting steps tied to generic computer processing, storage, and/or computer-readable medium instructions, may reasonably be considered to be performable within the human mind, i.e. a well-known computational and storage device, and/or by pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, while merely being directed to generic computing functionality, the steps and functionality as broadly as claimed are not tied to nor required to be performed, executed, or programmed on a special purpose computer.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because (i) the preliminary steps of accessing/receiving visual assessment data may be either completely mentally and/or are well-known, routine and conventional amounting to insignificant data gathering as pre-solution activity and (ii) the post solution step(s) of displaying on a generic user device may be either completed with pen and paper and/or are well-known, routine and conventional amounting to insignificant post solution activity.
Depending claims 22, 24-27, 29, 31-34, 36, and 38-43, inherit and do not remedy the non-statutory deficiency noted above, despite further specifying steps relating to physiological condition, eye tracking data, quantitative categorizing, storing results, generating recommendations, and displaying results. These limitations may also be performed mentally and/or by pen and paper for storage/display, such that they do not integrate into a practical application nor recite additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea performable mentally and/or via pen and paper.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24-29, 31-36, and 38-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore-Ede et al. (US 6,070,098, hereinafter Moore).
For claim 21, Moore discloses a computer-implemented method for assessing user physiology (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13), the method comprising inter alia:
accessing, via at least one processor (8), a plurality of visual assessments (3), each visual assessment comprising an eye tracking exercise (3) applicable to evaluate at least one physiological eye function of at least one user (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13);
receiving, via the at least one processor, user eye tracking data associated with a performance of the at least one user for the at least one physiological eye function corresponding to at least one selected visual assessment of the plurality of visual assessments (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13);
generating, by the at least one processor, baseline data for the one or more physiological eye functions using the user eye tracking data (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13);
performing, by the at least one processor, an assessment of one or more physiological conditions using the baseline data from the one or more physiological eye functions (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13);
generating, by the at least one processor, an electronic interface including a recommendation based on the assessment of the one or more physiological conditions (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13); and
displaying, by the at least one processor, the electronic interface on a user device (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 22, Moore discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more physiological conditions are not physiological eye conditions (e.g. fatigue, microsleep types, etc) (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 24, Moore discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising: determining and accessing, via the at least one processor, a stored data schema (8a) corresponding to the at least one selected visual assessment (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13); categorizing (8c), by the at least one processor, the user eye tracking data based on the determined and accessed stored data schema (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13); and storing (10), by the at least one processor, the categorized user eye tracking data to the stored data schema (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 25, Moore discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 24, further comprising: computing, by the at least one processor, quantitative data based on the categorized user eye tracking data (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A); and generating and displaying, by the at least one processor, an electronic interface comprising the computed quantitative data (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A).
For claim 26, Moore discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 25, further comprising: storing, by the at least one processor, the quantitative data to the stored data schema (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 27, Moore discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising: generating and displaying, by the at least one processor, the electronic interface (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A) comprising graphical visualizations of the evaluation of the at least one physiological eye function of the at least one user, corresponding to the at least one selected visual assessment (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A).
For claim 41, Moore discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the generated recommendation includes one or more real-time reports including a data visualization of results of the assessment compared to prior results from one or more individuals (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 28, Moore discloses a system for assessing user physiology (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13), the system comprising inter alia:
a data storage device (1) storing instructions for hosting a plurality of visual assessments (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13); and
at least one processor (8) configured to execute the instructions to perform a method (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) comprising:
accessing, via the at least one processor, a plurality of visual assessments (3), each visual assessment comprising an eye tracking exercise (3) applicable to evaluate at least one physiological eye function of at least one user (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13);
receiving, via the at least one processor, user eye tracking data associated with a performance of the at least one user for the at least one physiological eye function corresponding to at least one selected visual assessment of the plurality of visual assessments (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13);
generating, by the at least one processor, baseline data for the one or more physiological eye functions using the user eye tracking data (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13);
performing, by the at least one processor, an assessment of one or more physiological conditions using the baseline data from the one or more physiological eye functions (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13);
generating, by the at least one processor, an electronic interface including a recommendation based on the assessment of the one or more physiological conditions (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13); and
displaying, by the at least one processor, the electronic interface on a user device (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 29, Moore discloses the system of claim 28, wherein the one or more physiological conditions are not physiological eye conditions (e.g. fatigue, microsleep types, etc) (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 31, Moore discloses the system of claim 28, the method further comprising: determining and accessing, via the at least one processor, a stored data schema (8a) corresponding to the at least one selected visual assessment (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13); categorizing (8c), by the at least one processor, the user eye tracking data based on the determined and accessed stored data schema (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13); and storing (10), by the at least one processor, the categorized user eye tracking data to the stored data schema (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 32, Moore discloses the system of claim 31, the method further comprising: computing, by the at least one processor, quantitative data based on the categorized user eye tracking data (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A); and generating and displaying, by the at least one processor, an electronic interface comprising the computed quantitative data (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A).
For claim 33, Moore discloses the system of claim 32, the method further comprising: storing, by the at least one processor, the quantitative data to the stored data schema (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 34, Moore discloses the system of claim 28, the method further comprising: generating and displaying, by the at least one processor, the electronic interface (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A) comprising graphical visualizations of the evaluation of the at least one physiological eye function of the at least one user, corresponding to the at least one selected visual assessment (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A).
For claim 42, , Moore discloses the system of claim 28, wherein the generated recommendation includes one or more real-time reports including a data visualization of results of the assessment compared to prior results from one or more individuals (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 35, Moore discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method for assessing user physiology (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13), the method comprising inter alia:
accessing, via at least one processor (8), a plurality of visual assessments (3), each visual assessment comprising an eye tracking exercise (3) applicable to evaluate at least one physiological eye function of at least one user (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A);
receiving, via the at least one processor, user eye tracking data associated with a performance of the at least one user for the at least one physiological eye function corresponding to at least one selected visual assessment of the plurality of visual assessments (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A); and
generating, by the at least one processor, baseline data for the one or more physiological eye functions using the user eye tracking data (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13);
performing, by the at least one processor, an assessment of one or more physiological conditions using the baseline data from the one or more physiological eye functions (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13);
generating, by the at least one processor, an electronic interface including a recommendation based on the assessment of the one or more physiological conditions (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13); and
displaying, by the at least one processor, the electronic interface on a user device (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 36, Moore discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 35, wherein the one or more physiological conditions are not physiological eye conditions (e.g. fatigue, microsleep types, etc) (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 38, Moore discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 35, the method further comprising: determining and accessing, via the at least one processor, a stored data schema (8a) corresponding to the at least one selected visual assessment (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13); categorizing (8c), by the at least one processor, the user eye tracking data based on the determined and accessed stored data schema (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13); and storing (10), by the at least one processor, the categorized user eye tracking data to the stored data schema (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
For claim 39, Moore discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 38, the method further comprising: computing, by the at least one processor, quantitative data based on the categorized user eye tracking data (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A); and generating and displaying, by the at least one processor, an electronic interface comprising the computed quantitative data (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A).
For claim 40, Moore discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 39, the method further comprising: storing, by the at least one processor, the quantitative data to the stored data schema (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13) (especially Fig 3A).
For claim 43, Moore discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 35, wherein the generated recommendation includes one or more real-time reports including a data visualization of results of the assessment compared to prior results from one or more individuals (Figs 1,2,3A-6,8) (Cols 4-13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 5/21/26, with respect to the amended claims obviating the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of the amended claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, wherein Applicant argues the following:
Regarding the 101 rejection, the (i) generating and displaying steps obviate the 101 rejection because the features may not be considered mental processes or methods of organizing human behavior, (ii) the accessing step requires additional elements amounting to significantly more and integrating into a practical application, and/or (iii) the claimed invention improves computing device (e.g. user device) functioning.
Regarding the 102 rejection, Moore does not disclose the amended generating, performing, generating and displaying steps.
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the following:
Regarding the 101 rejection argument, indeed, the Examiner respectfully agrees displaying is not a mental process, but as set forth hereinabove, reiterates that displaying may more than fairly and reasonably be considered to be additional elements that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the post solution step(s) of displaying may be either completed with pen and paper and/or are well-known, routine and conventional amounting to insignificant post solution activity.
Regarding the 101 rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the generating step may more than fairly and reasonably be considered to be a step mentally performable by the well known computing and storage of the human brain.
Regarding the 101 rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that accessing step requires additional elements amounting to significantly more because, as set forth hereinabove, the accessing step may more than fairly and reasonably be considered as an additional elements that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because (i) the preliminary steps of accessing/receiving visual assessment data may be either completely mentally and/or are well-known, routine and conventional amounting to insignificant data gathering as pre-solution activity.
Regarding the 101 rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claimed invention improves computing device (e.g. user device) functioning because neither “an improvement” nor “improved computing device being and/or executing on a user device” is claimed. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate is scope with the claimed invention.
Regarding the 102 rejection, the Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the 102 of amended claims hereinabove and in response to argument respectfully notes: (i) Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references and (ii) Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-3pm EST.
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 A. 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.
Jeffrey G. Hoekstra
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights