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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 July 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/336,639, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. In particular, the instant child application recites the follow claim limitations: “wherein the processor analyzes the response received from the subject and compares the response to an expected response.” While the parent application discloses “the ocular-motor measures and test question responses may be analyzed by means of a decision model based on a logistic regression equation to compute the probability of credibility or deception” (see ¶ [0008] of the corresponding PGPUB), the parent application does not disclose a comparison of the response to an expected response. More specifically, the parent and instant specification discloses that “response accuracy” is inputted into the logistic regression decision model; however, the instant specification fails to that an expected response is compared to an analyzed response, only that response accuracy is contemplated as one of the independent variables for the logistic regression algorithm. Moreover, the how said accuracy is determined is not disclosed, whether explicit or inherent.
Claim 1 also recites “assesses the response comparison”; however neither the instant specification nor the parent specification discloses, either explicitly or inherently, of an assessment of the response comparison.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the neutral image is replaced with a response time image when the response time has nearly elapsed to indicate to the subject that the response time has nearly elapsed”: however, the parent specification fails to explicit or inherently disclose of such a limitation.
Claim 12 recites “, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a probability of deception score based on the credibility score;” however, the parent specification fails to explicit or inherently disclose of such a limitation.
Accordingly, the effective filing date of the instant claims is 16 January 2025.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the limitations of Claim 11 & Claim 12 are not disclosed within the written description.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of lack of antecedent basis for the recited limitation "the neutral image" in line 1. 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 2-3 & 11 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.
With regards to Claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the one or more statements or questions comprise two or more relevant issues, and wherein the two or more relevant issues comprise at least one primary issue and at least one comparison issue.”; however, such a limitation does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of “primary issue” because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, ¶ [0024] of the PGPUB discloses that the “[A] typical AMCT protocol will perform testing on up to four relevant issues referred to in FIG. 6 . Of these two or three relevant issues are of primary concern and the other relevant issue is used for comparison” (emphasis added). However, the instant specification fails to define what constitutes a primary concern. For example, what distinguishes a primary concern from a comparison concern, what elevates a concern from a primary status from a non-primary status, are concerns that are not comparison concerns a primary concern, or the like? Therefore, Claim 2 does not satisfy the notice function under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), thus, rendering Claim 2 indefinite.
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency to abovementioned claims.
With regards to Claim 11, the claims recites “wherein the neutral image is replaced with a response time image when the response time has nearly elapsed to indicate to the subject that the response time has nearly elapsed”; however, it is unclear whether the neutral image of Claim 11 is the same neutral image as Claims 6-7 or a different neutral image.
Moreover, “the response time” lacks antecedent basis in Claims 6-7; therefore, the neutral image of Claim 11 is further indefinite because “neutral image” does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of “neutral image” because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, the instant specification fails to define what entails a “neutral image”. For example, ¶ [0056] mentions a “neutral image” and points to FIG. 1 as an example of a “neutral image”; however, FIG. 1 merely shows a dot pattern within framing 105. There is explanation as to why said pattern is a neutral image. Furthermore, “neutral” is a relative term, therefore, what is the dot pattern neutral relative to. Finally, is the entirety of FIG. 1 a neutral image, e.g. is the entirety of the background, framing 105, icon 110, and dots 115 the neutral image? Or, is merely the dots 115 the neutral image? Therefore, Claim 2 does not satisfy the notice function under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), thus, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Claim 11 cannot be examined on the merits because the dependency chain is unclear.
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 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 1-5, 8-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (CONC2019/0005899A; the corresponding US PGPUB 20200383621 will act as a proxy hereinafter) in view of EyeDetect (<https://youtu.be/XwCrhDpDKJg?si=8tZ0CsAhk3lNK6WB>, (2 March 2016), retrieved on 29 May 2024) and in further view of Converus (<https://web.archive.org/web/20190327234930/https://converus.com/lie-detection-methods-faqs/> , (27 March 2019), retrieved on 29 May 2024), all references cited in the IDS of 29 June 2025.
With regards to Claim 1-3, Rodriguez
discloses a system for credibility analysis including:
a processor, the processor presenting to a subject one or more statements or questions, as part of a credibility assessment test, prompting a response from the subject, (interaction and presentation of information module 160 {i.e. computer processor} configured to provide a stimulus to the user and record a conscious response from the user; Rodriguez ¶ [0018]);
an eye tracking device (eye measurement module 110 comprises infrared LEDs that emit radiation to track the relative position of the user's gaze on the screen) connected to the processor comprising:
an infrared camera configured to track one or more oculomotor activities of the subject during the credibility assessment test (eye measurement module 110 comprises infrared LEDs that emit radiation to track the relative position of the user's gaze on the screen; see Rodriquez ¶ [0021]);
an audio output device in electronic communication with the processor configured to transmit the one or more statements or questions as sound to the subject (provide auditory stimuli via the interaction and presentation of information module; see Rodriguez ¶ [0032]);
a display screen connected to the processor presenting to the subject one or more images during the presentation of the one or more statements or questions (interaction and information presentation module 160 comprises a display; see Rodriguez ¶ [0032]);
wherein the infrared camera measures the one or more oculomotor activities during the credibility assessment test (eye measurement module 110 comprises infrared LEDs that emit radiation to track the relative position of the user's gaze on the screen; see Rodriquez ¶ [0021]);
wherein the processor calculates a credibility score based on the measured one or more oculomotor activities (calculate[ing] a probability of deception in conscious responses to the stimuli; see Rodriguez ¶ [0019]).
While Rodriguez teaches of comparative stimuli, it appears that Rodriguez may be silent to the struck-through limitations above. However, commonly held Converus teaches of “nonintrusive lie detection technology that accurately detects deception in 30 minutes by analyzing eye behavior” (see Converus pg. 2, ¶ 5). In particular, Converus teaches of:
wherein the processor analyzes the response received from the subject and compares the response to an expected response (EyeDetect uses a statistical method to analyze independent ocular data…. Resulting from the analysis of the examinee's responses and the ocular data, a "binary" outcome is derived called the Converus Credibility Score; see Converus pg. 3, ¶ 9; and Responses to the relevant issue are compared by the algorithm to responses about a secondary issue; see Converus pg. 5, ¶ 10);
wherein the processor calculates a credibility score based on the measured one or more oculomotor activities and assesses the response comparison to determine whether the subject is credible or not credible (EyeDetect uses a statistical method to analyze independent ocular data…. Resulting from the analysis of the examinee's responses and the ocular data, a "binary" outcome is derived called the Converus Credibility Score; see Converus pg. 3, ¶ 9; and Responses to the relevant issue are compared by the algorithm to responses about a secondary issue; see Converus pg. 5, ¶ 10; logistic regression analysis based on “pupil dilation, response accuracy, response time, gaze fixation, blink rates, reading behavior and other variables” to determine a probability of credibility based on a credibility score; see Converus pg. 3, ¶ 10).
Converus also teaches that “The closer the Credibility score is to 1, the likelihood of deception is maximized. Conversely, the closer the score is to 99, the likelihood of credibility is maximized. Thus, if a person obtains a Converus Credibility Score of 51, 52, 53, etc., the probability of credibility is minimal” (see Converus pg. 2, ¶ 13); and “The examinee must first go through a simple calibration process to ensure the eye tracker can effectively track the examinee’s eyes. Poor calibration due to these conditions would disqualify a person from taking the test, i.e. disqualification amounts to a visual alert image when eye tracking device cannot detect oculomotor activity of the subject” (see Converus pg. 4, ¶ 6).
Rodriguez and Converus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of eye tracking based deception analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rodriguez to incorporate the above teachings of Converus to provide at least the struck-through limitations directly above. Doing so would aid in an accurate, cost-effective, efficient, secure and nonintrusive method that detects deception in 30 minutes by analyzing eye behavior (see Converus pg. 2, ¶ 5).
While Rodriguez discloses that the subject of the stimuli may be relevant topics and of comparative stimuli (see Rodriguez ¶ [0046] & Claim 15), it appears that Rodriguez may be silent to wherein the one or more statements or questions presented by the processor includes a topic phrase and a declaration phrase. However, commonly held EyeDetect teaches of “an accurate, nonintrusive lie detection test that detects deception in 30 minutes by analyzing eye behavior” (see EyeDetect Abstract). In particular, EyeDetect teaches of:
wherein the one or more statements or questions presented by the processor includes a topic phrase (presentation of test topics; see EyeDetect 4:01 & 4:33-5:22; introductory phrase “as an adult” introduce a topic of questions during adulthood; see EyeDecect 5:55) and a declaration phrase (declaratory phrases which require a true/false answer such as “I am guilty”; see EyeDetect 6:05).
EyeDetect also teaches of calibration & validation routine (see EyeDetect 4:00 – 4:46), more specifically the “Accuracy” results (see EyeDetect at 4:30-4:40).
Rodriguez and EyeDetect are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of eye tracking based deception analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Rodriguez to incorporate the above teachings of EyeDetect to provide at least the abovementioned limitations. Doing so would aid in an accurate, cost-effective, efficient, secure and nonintrusive method that detects deception in 30 minutes by analyzing eye behavior (see EyeDetect Abstract).
With regards to Claim 21, wherein the one or more statements or questions comprise two or more relevant issues, and wherein the two or more relevant issues comprise at least one primary issue and at least one comparison issue (EyeDetect is 86% accurate for screening because of the use of comparison questions {i.e. at least one comparison issue} related to two similar, but likely unrelated issues {i.e. two or more relevant issues}; see Converus pg. 5, ¶ 13).
With regards to Claim 32, wherein the topic phrase identifies a topic of one or more of the primary issue (presentation of test topics; see EyeDetect 4:01 & 4:33-5:22) (claimed in the alternative).
With regards to Claim 41, while modified Rodriguez teaches of a question with an introductory phrase “As an adult” which introduces topic of adulthood (see EyeDetect 5:55), it appears that modified Rodriguez may be silent to further comprising an introductory phrase, wherein the introductory phrase is a lead-in phrase to the topic phrase, wherein the introductory phrase comprises one of:
“as to”,
“with regard to”,
“concerning”,
“about the”,
“speaking of”,
“with respect to”,
“regarding”, or
“in reference to”.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Rodriguez to replace “as to” with “as an” because doing so would amount to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results because the two phrase are functionally and grammatically equivalent.
With regards to Claim 51, wherein the declaration phrase is a first-person, binary statement comprising one of:
“I am guilty” (declaration phrase involving “I am guilty”; see EyeDetect 6:05),
(claimed in the alternative).
With regards to Claim 81, wherein in the one or more oculomotor activities tracked by the eye-tracking device comprises one or more of:
a pupil dilation of the subject,
a gaze position of the subject,
a gaze fixation of the subject,
a fixation time of the gaze fixation of the subject, or
a blink rate of the subject (logistic regression analysis based on “pupil dilation, response accuracy, response time, gaze fixation, blink rates, reading behavior and other variables” to determine a probability of credibility based on a credibility score; see Converus pg. 3, ¶ 10).
With regards to Claim 91, wherein the response comparison comprises one or more of a response time of the subject, a response accuracy of the subject, or a response precision of the subject (logistic regression analysis based on “pupil dilation, response accuracy, response time, gaze fixation, blink rates, reading behavior and other variables” to determine a probability of credibility based on a credibility score; see Converus pg. 3, ¶ 10).
With regards to Claim 109, wherein the response time comprises a time period for the subject to provide the response, and wherein failure by the subject to respond within the response time causes the system to determine the subject is not credible (The interaction and information presentation module 160 can show another stimulus when the user actively responds to a stimulus, only when a certain time passes or when a certain time goes by if there is no response; see Rodriguez ¶ [0047]; it should be appreciated that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a no response would negatively impact the Converus logistic regression analysis because the independent variable “response time” would affect the corresponding credibility score).
With regards to Claim 121, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a probability of deception score based on the credibility score (see Converus pg. 2, ¶ 13; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the converse of the credibility score is the deception score).
With regards to Claim 131, wherein the processor is further configured to produce an alert when the eye tracking device cannot detect oculomotor activity of the subject, and wherein the alert comprises one or both of an audio alert generated by the audio output device or a visual alert image displayed on the display (“The examinee must first go through a simple calibration process to ensure the eye tracker can effectively track the examinee’s eyes. Poor calibration due to these conditions would disqualify a person from taking the test, i.e. disqualification amounts to a visual alert image when eye tracking device cannot detect oculomotor activity of the subject”; see Converus pg. 4, ¶ 6 & see also EyeDetect calibration & validation routine 4:00 – 4:46, more specifically the “Accuracy” results at 4:30-4:40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: as stated in the parent application, the cited prior art and the considered prior art fail to disclose and/or teach of newly recited limitation of “wherein the audio output device transmits the one or more statements or questions while the subject observes the neutral image.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kircher et al. (US PGPUB 20100324454);
Kircher et al. (“Laboratory and Field Research on the Ocular-motor Deception Test,” (December 2016), European Polygraph 10(4)); and
EyeDetect MCT (“EyeDetect Now Accurately Scores Up to4 Issues During a Lie Detector Test,” (30 May 2019), <https://converus.com/eyedetect-now-accurately-scores-up-to-4-issues-during-a-lie-detector-test/>).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571) 272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (CST).
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, Keith Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights