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 .
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.
Priority
It is noted that this application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. SE 2251252-9, filed 28 October 2022, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Applicant must remain cognizant of this difference in disclosure because any claim including subject matter found only in the later-filed application that is not sufficiently described in the prior-filed application does not gain benefit of priority to the prior-filed application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate both user interaction device and individualized model. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the specification is improperly formatted including at least missing paragraph numbers.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must
be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite both American English and British English spellings of terms. This decreases clarity. Uniformity is recommended.
The claims recite “said” and “the”. This decreases clarity. Uniformity is recommended (i.e., use only “the” or only “said”).
Claims 1 and 17 each recite “baseline” as one word and as two words. Uniformity is recommended. Conventional practice is as one word.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 2-6, 10, 19, and 20 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 2 recites “wherein said addictive-stimulus use-discouraging action is selected as at least one of: requesting said individual to perform a direct addictive-stimulus test; alerting a pre-agreed health care provider for initiating therapy against addictive-stimulus use for said individual; and informing pre-agreed relatives of said individual about suspected addictive-stimulus use.” This is considered to be a Markush grouping. However, this Markush grouping provides an open list of alternatives. It is therefore indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. Dependent claims 3-6, 19, and 20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 2 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of “requesting said individual to perform a direct addictive-stimulus test; alerting a pre-agreed health care provider for initiating therapy against addictive-stimulus use for said individual; and informing pre-agreed relatives of said individual about suspected addictive-stimulus use” is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: “requesting said individual to perform a direct addictive-stimulus test” does not share a structural similarity with the other alternatives.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use. Dependent claims 3-6, 19, and 20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of “accelerometer measurements of hand motion; and stability of camera by analysing collected video filmed by said individual” is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the two alternatives do not share a structural similarity with each other.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 7, 10, 14-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 7, 19, and 20, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein said comparison comprises a determination of an absolute or relative difference between said measurements of bodily conditions and said individualized baseline measurements and a comparison of said absolute or relative difference with a difference threshold” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the disclosure recites similar language as the claim, but is silent regarding any meaningful description for determining whether a skill has been acquired or not and thus also fails to describe accounting for any acquired skill. See, for example, at least para. 58 of the published specification.
Regarding claim 10, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for measuring bodily conditions, wherein said bodily conditions comprise motion conditions, “wherein said motion conditions [being] stability of camera by analysing collected video filmed by said individual” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the disclosure recites similar language as the claim, but is silent regarding any description of analyzing collected video to determine stability of camera. See, for example, at least para. 85 of the published specification.
Regarding claims 14-16, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “said individualization model accounts for acquired skills” in claim 14, “said accounting for acquired skills comprises one of: disregarding the initial attempts that could be of underperforming nature if the skill was not yet acquired; and relying on a fraction of the strongest results indicating the acquired skill” in claim 15, and “said acquired skill is the ability to cross eyes” in claim 16 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the disclosure recites similar language as the claim, but is silent regarding any meaningful description for determining whether a skill has been acquired or not and thus also fails to describe accounting for any acquired skill. See, for example, at least para. 88-91 of the published specification. Dependent claims 15 and 16 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-20 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 than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to a method and a product which fall under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method for self-administrated surveillance of use of addictive-stimulus for an individual, comprising the steps of:
providing a body-measurement schedule for said individual, said body-measurement schedule comprising multiple measurement time-slots;
requesting said individual to perform measurements of bodily conditions within each of said multiple measurement time-slots;
said bodily conditions comprise eye conditions analysable from camera recordings;
collecting data of each of said measurements of bodily conditions and a respective time when said measurements of bodily conditions were performed in a handheld user interaction device;
transmitting said collected data from said user interaction device to a central server;
storing said collected data in said central server;
generating individualized baseline data for an individualization model associated with an individual, said individualization model comprising data of eye conditions analysable from camera recordings when being unexposed to any addictive stimulus;
said generation of said individualization model being based on at least 5 measurements of eye conditions when being unexposed to any addictive stimulus;
estimating likelihood information of that said individual was exposed to an addictive stimulus, based on at least said collected data;
said estimating comprises comparison of said measurements of bodily conditions with said individualized baseline data associated with said individual, said individualized base line data comprising data of said bodily conditions when being unexposed to said addictive stimulus; and
initiating an addictive-stimulus use-discouraging action as a response to data of said likelihood information being larger than a predetermined threshold.
Independent claim 17 recites:
A system for self-administrated surveillance of use of addictive-stimulus for an individual, comprising a central server and a handheld user interaction device, communicationally connected to each other,
said central server being configured for providing, to said user interaction device, a body-measurement schedule for said individual, said body-measurement schedule comprising multiple measurement time-slots;
said central server being configured for, by means of said user interaction device, requesting said individual to perform measurements of bodily conditions within each of said multiple measurement time-slots;
wherein said bodily conditions comprise eye conditions;
said user interaction device having measurement means, comprising a camera, for collecting data analysable for obtaining each of said measurements of bodily conditions, and a timer for determining a respective time when said measurements of bodily conditions were performed;
said user interaction device being configured for transmitting said collected data from said user interaction device to said central server;
said central server being configured for receiving said collected data and storing said collected data in a memory;
said central server being configured for generating individualized baseline data for an individualization model associated with an individual, said individualization model comprising data of eye conditions analysable from camera recordings when being unexposed to any addictive stimulus;
said generation of said individualization model being based on at least 5 measurements of eye conditions when being unexposed to any addictive stimulus;
said central server comprising a processor being configured for estimating likelihood information of that said individual was exposed to an addictive stimulus, based on at least said collected data;
said estimating comprises comparison of said measurements of bodily conditions with individualized baseline data associated with said individual, said individualized base line data comprising data of said bodily conditions when being unexposed to said addictive stimulus;
said central server being configured for initiating an addictive-stimulus use-discouraging action as a response to data of said likelihood information being larger than a predetermined threshold.
All of the foregoing underlined elements above amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by merely collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis in processes similar to a professional assessing whether a person is under the influence of a substance (i.e., alcohol, drug, etc.). These elements are also interpreted as a series of steps that could reasonably be performed by mental processes with the aid of pen and paper because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Even if humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited steps, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations.
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: camera recordings (claims 1 and 17), a handheld user interaction device (claims 1 and 17), transmitting (claims 1 and 17), a central server (claims 1 and 17), accelerometer measurements (claim 10), camera (claims 10 and 17), and a system (claim 17). Although the claims recite the components, identified above, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and are not necessarily tied to performing any of the steps of the claimed method. See, for example, at least Fig. 4 which illustrates the components as non-descript black boxes. Further evidence is provided by the specification. See, for example, at least para. 4, 29, 67, 84, 85, 93, and 108 of the published specification. For instance, para. 67 of the published specification which identifies that the “user interaction device can preferably be a regular smartphone.” Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Additionally, the claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system because the claimed functions are merely performing the steps of processing data but are not tied to improving any functionality of the computer system. The components, identified above, are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. This is evidenced by the absence of specificity of the components and their organization in the disclosure. Again, see, for example, at least Fig. 4 and para. 4, 29, 67, 84, 85, 93, and 108 of the published specification as identified above. In particular, the sensors (i.e., camera and accelerometer) being recited and organized in a generic fashion to perform their generic functions of data gathering merely adds insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). Similarly, the courts have recognized that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network and mere storing and retrieving information in memory, respectively, are insignificant extra-solution activity. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this evidences that the components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed, which the courts have held does not amount to significantly more. In particular, the sensors (i.e., camera and accelerometer) being recited and organized in a generic fashion to perform their generic functions of data gathering is adding insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). Similarly, the courts have recognized that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network and mere storing and retrieving information in memory, respectively, are insignificant extra-solution activity. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, see, for example, at least Fig. 4 and para. 4, 29, 67, 84, 85, 93, and 108 of the published specification as identified above. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide any meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 2021/0259557, hereinafter referred to as Frank).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Frank teaches a method (claim 1) and a system for self-administrated surveillance of use of addictive-stimulus for an individual, comprising a central server and a handheld user interaction device, communicationally connected to each other (claim 17), comprising the steps of:
providing a body-measurement schedule for said individual, said body-measurement schedule comprising multiple measurement time-slots (Frank, para. 203, “’baseline measurements’ taken with the wearable device 840 on one or more earlier days. Optionally, the current measurements are taken over a duration of at least five minutes. Optionally, the baseline measurements include more than an hour of measurements, taken over a period of several days”);
requesting said individual to perform measurements of bodily conditions within each of said multiple measurement time-slots (Frank, para. 203, “’baseline measurements’ taken with the wearable device 840 on one or more earlier days. Optionally, the current measurements are taken over a duration of at least five minutes. Optionally, the baseline measurements include more than an hour of measurements, taken over a period of several days” Frank, para. 47, “baseline measurements of the user taken with the wearable device during one or more earlier days”);
said bodily conditions comprise eye conditions analysable from camera recordings (Frank, para. 1049, “the visible-light camera takes images of a region on an eye (IME)”);
collecting data of each of said measurements of bodily conditions and a respective time when said measurements of bodily conditions were performed in a handheld user interaction device Frank, para. 203, “’baseline measurements’ taken with the wearable device 840 on one or more earlier days… Optionally, the baseline measurements include more than an hour of measurements, taken over a period of several days”;
transmitting said collected data from said user interaction device to a central server (Frank, para. 380, “the computer 880 may be a server or a collection of servers (e.g., on a computing cloud). In some embodiments, at least some of the functionality attributed to the computer 880, such as calculating the health scores of the users 882 and/or authenticating the non-symptomatic users, may be performed by computers associated with those users, such as cloud-based servers hosting accounts of those users”);
storing said collected data in said central server (Frank, para. 380, “the computer 880 may be a server or a collection of servers (e.g., on a computing cloud). In some embodiments, at least some of the functionality attributed to the computer 880, such as calculating the health scores of the users 882 and/or authenticating the non-symptomatic users, may be performed by computers associated with those users, such as cloud-based servers hosting accounts of those users”; para. 639, “providing the model to the system involves forwarding the model to the system via a computer network and/or a shared computer storage medium ( e.g., writing the model to a memory that may be accessed by the system that detects the physiological response). In another embodiment, providing the model to the system involves storing the model in a location from which the system can retrieve the model, such as a database and/or cloud-based storage from which the system may retrieve the model.”);
generating individualized baseline data for an individualization model associated with an individual, said individualization model comprising data of eye conditions analysable from camera recordings when being unexposed to any addictive stimulus (Frank, para. 489, “the model 346 may be personalized for a user by training the model on samples that include: feature values generated based on measurements of the user, and corresponding labels indicative of the extent of fever and/or intoxication of the user while the measurements were taken.”);
said generation of said individualization model being based on multiple measurements of eye conditions when being unexposed to any addictive stimulus (Frank, para. 638, “Training a model that is personalized for a certain user may require collecting a sufficient number of training samples that are generated based on measurements of the certain user.”);
estimating likelihood information of that said individual was exposed to an addictive stimulus, based on at least said collected data (Frank, para. 459, “The computer 340 is configured, in some embodiments, to detect a certain condition (e.g.,… whether the user is intoxicated) based on a deviation of a current pattern from a baseline pattern.”);
said estimating comprises comparison of said measurements of bodily conditions with said individualized baseline data associated with said individual, said individualized base line data comprising data of said bodily conditions when being unexposed to said addictive stimulus (Frank, para. 459, “The computer 340 is configured, in some embodiments, to detect a certain condition (e.g.,… whether the user is intoxicated) based on a deviation of a current pattern from a baseline pattern.”); and
initiating an addictive-stimulus use-discouraging action as a response to data of said likelihood information being larger than a predetermined threshold (Frank, para. 1465, “the computer is further configured to alert a predetermined recipient (e.g., a caregiver or emergency services) responsive to detecting the medical condition.”).
Frank does not explicitly teach the sufficient number of training samples being at least 5 measurements of eye conditions.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for sufficient number of training samples being at least 5 measurements of eye conditions since it has been held that that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,.205.USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Frank teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein said addictive-stimulus use-discouraging action is selected as at least one of: requesting said individual to perform a direct addictive-stimulus test; alerting a pre-agreed health care provider for initiating therapy against addictive-stimulus use for said individual; and informing pre-agreed relatives of said individual about suspected addictive-stimulus use (Frank, para. 1465, “the computer is further configured to alert a predetermined recipient (e.g., a caregiver or emergency services) responsive to detecting the medical condition.”).
Regarding claim 3, Frank teaches the method according to claim 2.
While Frank teaches “the computer may prompt the user to take a test to validate and/or increase the confidence in the detection” (Frank, para. 1388) with respect to detecting the user has suffered from a stroke, Frank does not explicitly teach wherein said addictive-stimulus use-discouraging action comprises requesting said individual to perform a direct addictive-stimulus test.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the test prompt (i.e., requesting said individual to perform a direct addictive-stimulus test) as an addictive-stimulus use-discouraging action because it would “validate and/or increase the confidence in the detection”. Frank at para. 1388.
Regarding claim 4, Frank teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein said likelihood information being a set of likelihoods, one for each of a set of stimulus categories, and where each likelihood is associated with a respective threshold, wherein said direct addictive-stimulus test being a test of the stimulus category of which the likelihood exceeds the associated threshold (Frank, para. 640, “A model for detecting a physiological response may include different types of parameters. Following are some examples of various possibilities for the model and the type of calculations that may be accordingly performed by a computer in order to detect the physiological response: (a) the model comprises parameters of a decision tree. Optionally, the computer simulates a traversal along a path in the decision tree, determining which branches to take based on the feature values. A value indicative of the physiological response may be obtained at the leaf node and/or based on calculations involving values on nodes and/or edges along the path; (b) the model comprises parameters of a regression model (e.g., regression coefficients in a linear regression model or a logistic regression model). Optionally, the computer multiplies the feature values (which may be considered a regressor) with the parameters of the regression model in order to obtain the value indicative of the physiological response; and/or (c) the model comprises parameters of a neural network. For example, the parameters may include values defining at least the following: (i) an interconnection pattern between different layers of neurons, (ii) weights of the interconnections, and (iii) activation functions that convert each neuron's weighted input to its output activation. Optionally, the computer provides the feature values as inputs to the neural network, computes the values of the various activation functions and propagates values between layers, and obtains an output from the network, which is the value indicative of the physiological response.”).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Frank teaches the method according to claim 4 and claim 3, wherein said requesting said individual to perform a direct addictive-stimulus test comprises a time when said individual is to perform said direct addictive-stimulus test (The test prompt in Frank is to immediately take the test, which thus teaches the time when to perform the test.).
Regarding claim 6, Frank teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein said time is set within a detection window, from the time of measurement, of said stimulus category (The test prompt in Frank is to immediately take the test which is inherently within a detection window from the time of measurement. At least para. 1389 and 1390 further illustrate this.).
Regarding claims 7, 19, and 20, Frank teaches the method according to claim 1, claim 2, and claim 3, respectively, wherein said comparison comprises a determination of an absolute or relative difference between said measurements of bodily conditions and said individualized baseline measurements and a comparison of said absolute or relative difference with a difference threshold (Frank, para. 485, “a first difference between the current pattern and the intoxication-baseline pattern is below a first threshold, while a second difference between the current pattern and the baseline pattern is above a second threshold, the computer 340 detects the user is intoxicated.”).
Regarding claim 8, Frank teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein said eye conditions are selected from: pupil size (Frank, para. 1344, “values of eye-related parameters (such as eye movements and/or pupil diameter)”); pupillary light reflex (Frank, para. 1344, “values of eye-related parameters (such as eye movements and/or pupil diameter)”); behaviour of crossing eyes (Frank, para. 1344, “values of eye-related parameters (such as eye movements and/or pupil diameter)”); nystagmus (Frank, para. 1344, “values of eye-related parameters (such as eye movements and/or pupil diameter)”); saccadic eye movements (Frank, para. 1344, “values of eye-related parameters (such as eye movements and/or pupil diameter)”); and colour of eye whites (Frank, para. 1050, “the computer detects the physiological response based on color changes to certain parts of the eye, such as the sclera and/or the iris. Due to the many blood vessels that are close to the surface of the eye, physiological responses that are manifested through changes to the blood flow ( e.g., a cardiac pulse and certain emotional responses), may cause recognizable changes to the color of the certain parts of the eye. The various techniques described in this disclosure for detecting a physiological response based on FSCC that is recognizable in images can be applied by one skilled in the art to detect a physiological response based on color changes to the sclera and/or iris; while the sclera and iris are not the same color as a person's skin, they too exhibit blood flow-related color changes that are qualitatively similar to FSCC, and thus may be analyzed using similar techniques to the techniques used to analyze FSCC involving the forehead, nose, and/or cheeks.” The sclera is the medical term for “eye whites”.).
Regarding claim 9, Frank teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein said bodily conditions also comprise motion conditions (Frank, para. 1459, “IMU may be embedded in a cell phone, a smart watch, or another device on worn or held by the user (e.g., on the hand, wrist, or arm).” Para. 1465, “IMU comprises at least one of the following elements: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer.”).
Regarding claim 10, Frank teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein said motion conditions being selected from:
accelerometer measurements of hand motion (Frank, para. 1459, “IMU may be embedded in a cell phone, a smart watch, or another device on worn or held by the user (e.g., on the hand, wrist, or arm).” Para. 1465, “IMU comprises at least one of the following elements: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer.”); and
stability of camera by analysing collected video filmed by said individual.
Regarding claim 11, Frank teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein said bodily conditions are at least two different bodily conditions (Frank teaches using detection of multiple bodily conditions. See, for example, at least para. 1354 which lists several examples.).
Regarding claim 12, Frank teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein said estimating of likelihood information is further based on stored information about historical behaviour of said individual (Frank, para. 637, “the personalized model may be trained based on measurements of the certain user, which were taken over a duration long enough to span different situations; examples of such long enough durations may include: a week, a month, six months, a year, and three years.”).
Regarding claim 13, Frank teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein said at least 5 measurements of eye conditions comprise at least one measurement made in low light ambient conditions, and wherein said at least 5 measurements of eye conditions comprise at least one measurement made in bright indoor light ambient conditions (Frank, para. 1056, “an outward-facing head-mounted visible-light camera takes images of the environment (IMENV)… utilizes IMENV to account for variations in ambient light, as discussed elsewhere herein.” Para. 1072, “the computer detects the physiological response based on both IMROI and IMENV. Given that IMENV is indicative of illumination towards the face and IMROI is indicative of reflections from the face, utilizing IMENV in the detection of the physiological response can account, at least in part, for variations in ambient light that, when left unaccounted, may possibly lead to errors in detection of the physiological response.”).
Frank does not explicitly teach low light ambient conditions of less than 100 lux and bright indoor light ambient conditions of at least 300 lux.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for low light ambient conditions of less than 100 lux and bright indoor light ambient conditions of at least 300 lux since it has been held that that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,.205.USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Frank teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein said individualization model accounts for acquired skills (Frank, para. 22, “Similarities between current measurements and baseline measurements may be used to establish, with a certain degree of certainty, that the baseline measurements and the current measurements are of the same person. This form of biometric identification/verification can help reduce the likelihood of mistakes and/or deceptive behavior when the wearable device is used for various applications related to granting access or privilege based on a wearable-based health state.”).
Regarding claim 15, Frank teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein said accounting for acquired skills comprises one of:
disregarding the initial attempts that could be of underperforming nature if the skill was not yet acquired (Frank, para. 22, “Similarities between current measurements and baseline measurements may be used to establish, with a certain degree of certainty, that the baseline measurements and the current measurements are of the same person. This form of biometric identification/verification can help reduce the likelihood of mistakes and/or deceptive behavior when the wearable device is used for various applications related to granting access or privilege based on a wearable-based health state.”); and
relying on a fraction of the strongest results indicating the acquired skill (Frank, para. 22, “Similarities between current measurements and baseline measurements may be used to establish, with a certain degree of certainty, that the baseline measurements and the current measurements are of the same person. This form of biometric identification/verification can help reduce the likelihood of mistakes and/or deceptive behavior when the wearable device is used for various applications related to granting access or privilege based on a wearable-based health state.”).
Regarding claim 16, Frank teaches the method according to claim 15.
Frank does not explicitly teach wherein said acquired skill is the ability to cross eyes.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the acquired skill as the deceptive behavior in Frank to be the ability to cross eyes since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (in this case, the “material” is the biometric measurement) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frank et al. (US 2020/0397306) discloses detecting intoxication from images and temperatures and is incorporated by reference in the primary reference used in the rejections under 35 USC 103.
Macknik et al. (US 10,376,183 B2, US 11,344,226 B2, and US 2023/0009372) discloses using camera images to detect drug impairment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights