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 statements (IDS) submitted on 09/04/20 has been considered by the examiner.
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on August 4, 2025, amended claims 1, 15, 17 and 18 have been entered. Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections raised in the previous office action regarding Pakhomov were fully considered. Applicant argues Pakhomov does not teach the predetermined period being set to a latter half of a period from a timing at which the task is given until a timing at which the evaluatee has finished responding to the task in the speech data. Examiner notes that Pakhomov teaches segmenting recorded audio into speech segments and silent segments [par. 49]. Additionally, fig. 4 of Pakhomov depicts the full audio showing the speech and silent segments, to which one could only evaluate the latter half. The silent segments and speech segments corresponding to noise are not evaluated, allowing only the segments with speech to be analyzed. Therefore, this equates to the predetermined period being set to a latter half of a period from a timing at which the task is given until a timing at which the evaluatee has finished responding to the task in the speech data.
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections raised in the previous office action were fully considered, but are moot in view of the current combination of references that were necessitated by amendment. Please see prior art section below for more detail, updated citations (Jiang and Ashoori references), and updated obviousness rationale
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, 4-6, 8 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warkentin (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0298649 A1) and in further view of Kato (JP 2011255106 A), Pakhomov (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0298649 A1), Jiang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0263496 A1) and Cartwright (U.S. Patent Document 9979829 B2)
Warkentin and Kato were submitted in Applicant’s IDS and previous office action
Pakhomov and Cartwright were applied in the previous office action
Regarding claim 1, Warkentin teaches a cognitive function evaluation device [par. 34, 63], comprising: an acquirer that acquires speech data from a microphone that indicates speech uttered by an evaluatee in response to a task given to the evaluate [par. 63, 65, 72]; an evaluator that evaluates a cognitive function of the evaluatee by performing a first evaluation based on a proportion of speaking time of the evaluatee in a predetermined period in the speech data acquired by the acquirer [par. 67, 72, 74, 76]; and an outputter that outputs an evaluation result obtained from the evaluation performed by the evaluator [par. 69, 74, 78, 128]
However, Warkentin does not teach a second evaluation based on a fundamental frequency in the speech data acquired by the acquirer.
Kato teaches a second evaluation based on a fundamental frequency in the speech data acquired by the acquirer; [par. 17, 31, 32, 45]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate a second evaluation based on a fundamental frequency in the speech data acquired by the acquirer, to more accurately calculate the risk of cognitive function, as evidence by Kato [par. 6].
However, Warkentin does not teach an outputter that acquires image data corresponding to an evaluation result obtained from the evaluation performed by the evaluator and transmits the image data to a display device where the image data will be displayed, wherein the evaluator performs the first evaluation based on the proportion of the speaking time of the evaluatee in the predetermined period, the predetermined period being set to a latter half of a period from a timing at which the task is given until a timing at which the evaluatee has finished responding to the task in the speech data.
Pakhomov teaches an outputter that acquires image data corresponding to an evaluation result obtained from the evaluation performed by the evaluator and transmits the image data to a display device where the image data will be displayed [par. 27, 64; Examiner notes the patient’s verbal fluency score is displayed to the user], wherein the evaluator performs the first evaluation based on the proportion of the speaking time of the evaluatee in the predetermined period [par. 6, 46, 49]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate an outputter that acquires image data corresponding to an evaluation result obtained from the evaluation performed by the evaluator and transmits the image data to a display device where the image data will be displayed [par. 27, 64; Examiner notes the patient’s verbal fluency score is displayed to the user], wherein the evaluator performs the first evaluation based on the proportion of the speaking time of the evaluatee in the predetermined period, for calculating a user’s verbal fluency, as evidence by Pakhomov [par. 25].
Although Pakhomov does not explicitly teach the predetermined period being set to a latter half of a period from a timing at which the task is given until a timing at which the evaluatee has finished responding to the task in the speech data, this would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed, since Pakhomov also suggests segmenting recorded audio into speech segments and silent segments [par. 49]. Additionally, fig. 4 of Pakhomov depicts the full audio showing the speech and silent segments, to which one could only evaluate the latter half. Therefore, evaluating the speaking time of only the second half of the audio would involve only routine skill in the art.
However, Warkentin does not teach performs a third evaluation based on a length of the observation period
Jiang teaches performs a third evaluation based on a length of the observation period [par. 30, 31, Examiner notes speech is evaluated from the time a question is given to the time the patient stops speaking]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate performs a third evaluation based on a length of the observation period, for determining if there is a delay in the response time, as evidence by Jiang [par. 31].
However, Warkentin does not teach the microphone has directivity, and the microphone and the display device are disposed in a fixed positional relationship determined based on the directivity of the microphone. Cartwright teaches the microphone has directivity, and the microphone and the display device are disposed in a fixed positional relationship determined based on the directivity of the microphone [col. 8: lines 21-36, col. 19: lines 65-67-col. 20: lines 1-18]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate the microphone has directivity, and the microphone and the display device are disposed in a fixed positional relationship determined based on the directivity of the microphone, to form the soundfield representation, as evidence by Cartwright [col. 8: lines 21-36].
Regarding claim 4, Kato further teaches the evaluator performs the second evaluation based on a variation per unit time in the fundamental frequency [par. 33-36].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate the evaluator performs the second evaluation based on a variation per unit time in the fundamental frequency, in order to obtain types of speech prosodic features used, as evidence by Kato [par. 33].
Regarding claim 5, Kato further teaches the evaluator performs the second evaluation based on a variation range per unit time in the fundamental frequency [par. 33-36].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate the evaluator performs the second evaluation based on a variation range per unit time in the fundamental frequency, in order to obtain types of speech prosodic features used, as evidence by Kato [par. 33].
Regarding claim 6, Kato further teaches the evaluator evaluates the cognitive function of the evaluatee by further performing a third evaluation based on a time from when the task is given to the evaluatee to when the evaluatee starts uttering speech [par. 39; Examiner notes the reaction time is considered to be the time from when the task is given to when speech is uttered].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate the evaluator evaluates the cognitive function of the evaluatee by further performing a third evaluation based on a time from when the task is given to the evaluatee to when the evaluatee starts uttering speech, in order to reflect the time structure, as evidence by Kato [par. 39].
Regarding claim 8, Warkentin further teaches the speech data indicates the speech uttered by the evaluatee in response to the task that is a task to verbally repeat a sentence spoken by a tester [par. 36].
Regarding claim 12, Warkentin further teaches the speech data indicates the speech uttered by the evaluatee in response to the task that is a task to count numbers aloud based on a condition specified by a tester [par. 65].
Regarding claim 13, Warkentin further teaches the speech data indicates the speech uttered by the evaluatee in response to the task that is a task to verbally list words that satisfy a condition specified by a tester [par. 65].
Regarding claim 14, Warkentin further teaches a cognitive function evaluation system, comprising: the cognitive function evaluation device according to claim 1; a sound collecting device that detects speech uttered by the evaluate [par. 125]; and a display device that displays an evaluation result output by the outputter [par. 79, 128].
Regarding claim 15, Warkentin further teaches a cognitive function evaluation method executed by a computer [par. 34, 63, 72, 126, 127], the cognitive function evaluation method comprising: an acquirer that acquires speech data that indicates speech uttered by an evaluatee in response to a task given to the evaluate [par. 63, 65, 72]; an evaluator that evaluates a cognitive function of the evaluatee by performing a first evaluation based on a proportion of speaking time of the evaluatee in a predetermined period in the speech data acquired by the acquirer [par. 67, 72, 74, 76]; and an outputter that outputs an evaluation result obtained from the evaluation performed by the evaluator [par. 69, 74, 78]
However, Warkentin does not teach a second evaluation based on a fundamental frequency in the speech data acquired by the acquirer.
Kato teaches a second evaluation based on a fundamental frequency in the speech data acquired by the acquirer; [par. 17, 31, 32, 45]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate a second evaluation based on a fundamental frequency in the speech data acquired by the acquirer, to more accurately calculate the risk of cognitive function, as evidence by Kato [par. 6].
However, Warkentin does not teach performs a third evaluation based on a length of the observation period
Jiang teaches performs a third evaluation based on a length of the observation period [par. 31, 33]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate performs a third evaluation based on a length of the observation period, for determining the state of the patient, as evidence by Jiang [par. 31].
However, Warkentin does not teach an outputter that acquires image data corresponding to an evaluation result obtained from the evaluation performed by the evaluator and transmits the image data to a display device where the image data will be displayed, wherein the evaluator performs the first evaluation based on the proportion of the speaking time of the evaluatee in the predetermined period, the predetermined period being set to a latter half of a period from a timing at which the task is given until a timing at which the evaluatee has finished responding to the task in the speech data.
Pakhomov teaches an outputter that acquires image data corresponding to an evaluation result obtained from the evaluation performed by the evaluator and transmits the image data to a display device where the image data will be displayed [par. 27, 64; Examiner notes the patient’s verbal fluency score is displayed to the user], wherein the evaluator performs the first evaluation based on the proportion of the speaking time of the evaluatee in the predetermined period [par. 6, 46, 49]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate an outputter that acquires image data corresponding to an evaluation result obtained from the evaluation performed by the evaluator and transmits the image data to a display device where the image data will be displayed [par. 27, 64; Examiner notes the patient’s verbal fluency score is displayed to the user], wherein the evaluator performs the first evaluation based on the proportion of the speaking time of the evaluatee in the predetermined period, for calculating a user’s verbal fluency, as evidence by Pakhomov [par. 25].
Although Pakhomov does not explicitly teach the predetermined period being set to a latter half of a period from a timing at which the task is given until a timing at which the evaluatee has finished responding to the task in the speech data, this would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed, since Pakhomov also suggests segmenting recorded audio into speech segments and silent segments [par. 49]. Additionally, fig. 4 of Pakhomov depicts the full audio showing the speech and silent segments, to which one could only evaluate the latter half. Therefore, evaluating the speaking time of only the second half of the audio would involve only routine skill in the art.
However, Warkentin does not teach the microphone has directivity, and the microphone and the display device are disposed in a fixed positional relationship determined based on the directivity of the microphone. Cartwright teaches the microphone has directivity, and the microphone and the display device are disposed in a fixed positional relationship determined based on the directivity of the microphone [col. 8: lines 21-36, col. 19: lines 65-67-col. 20: lines 1-18]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate the microphone has directivity, and the microphone and the display device are disposed in a fixed positional relationship determined based on the directivity of the microphone, to form the soundfield representation, as evidence by Cartwright [col. 8: lines 21-36].
Regarding claim 16, Warkentin further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for use in a computer, the recording medium having a computer program recorded thereon that causes a computer to execute the cognitive function evaluation method according to claim 15 [par. 34, 63, 72, 126, 127].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright and in further view of Nikolova-Simons (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0282127 A1)
Nikolova-Simons was applied in the previous office action
Regarding claim 9, Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright teach a cognitive function evaluation device, as disclosed above.
However, Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright do not teach the speech data indicates the speech uttered by the evaluatee in response to the task that is a task to verbally repeat, after a predetermined time, a sentence spoken by the tester.
Nikolova-Simons teaches the speech data indicates the speech uttered by the evaluatee in response to the task that is a task to verbally repeat, after a predetermined time, a sentence spoken by the tester [par. 35].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright, to incorporate the speech data indicates the speech uttered by the evaluatee in response to the task that is a task to verbally repeat, after a predetermined time, a sentence spoken by the tester, for providing a better assessment for word slurring, as evidence by Nikolova-Simons [par. 35].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright and in further view of Giovanniello (U.S. Patent Number 9251713 B1)
Giovanniello was applied in the previous office action
Regarding claim 10, Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright teach a cognitive function evaluation device, as disclosed above.
However, Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright do not teach the speech data indicates the speech uttered by the evaluatee in response to the task that is a task to verbally repeat, after a predetermined time, a sentence spoken by the tester.
Giovanniello teaches the speech data indicates the speech uttered by the evaluatee in response to the task that is a task to verbally repeat, after a predetermined time, a sentence spoken by the tester [col. 15: lines 35-38].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright, to incorporate the speech data indicates the speech uttered by the evaluatee in response to the task that is a task to verbally repeat, after a predetermined time, a sentence spoken by the tester, for grading ability to repeat the sentences for determining severity of cognitive impairment, as evidence by Giovanniello [col. 15: lines 65-67, col. 16: lines 1-29].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright and in further view of Pakhomov 2010 (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0174533 A1)
Pakhomov 2010 was applied in the previous office action
Regarding claim 11, Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright teach a cognitive function evaluation device, as disclosed above.
However, Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright do not teach the speech data indicates the speech uttered by the evaluatee in response to the task that is a task to verbally describe a picture or a photograph presented by a tester.
Pakhomov 2010 teaches the speech data indicates the speech uttered by the evaluatee in response to the task that is a task to verbally describe a picture or a photograph presented by a tester [par. 30].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright, to incorporate the speech data indicates the speech uttered by the evaluatee in response to the task that is a task to verbally describe a picture or a photograph presented by a tester, for identifying cognitive disorders, as evidence by Pakhomov 2010 [par. 26].
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright and in further view of Ashoori (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0366144 A1)
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright teach a cognitive function evaluation device, as disclosed above.
Kato further teaches the evaluator decreases an evaluation value of the first evaluation with a decrease in the proportion of the speaking time of the evaluatee in the predetermined period in the speech data [par. 32, 39; Examiner notes there is a frame length, and if the response time is measured for the frame length and there is a longer response time, this inherently decreases the speaking time in the specified time frame], the evaluator decreases an evaluation value of the second evaluation with a decrease in a change in the fundamental frequency in the speech data, and the evaluator determines that the cognitive function of the evaluatee is lower as a sum of the evaluation value of the first evaluation and the evaluation value of the second evaluation is smaller [par. 32, 33, 39, 44, 45; Examiner notes the risk of cognitive disorder is based on evaluating several factors of speech including speaking time and fundamental frequency in the speech data]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate the evaluator decreases an evaluation value of the first evaluation with a decrease in the proportion of the speaking time of the evaluatee in the predetermined period in the speech data, the evaluator decreases an evaluation value of the second evaluation with a decrease in a change in the fundamental frequency in the speech data, and the evaluator determines that the cognitive function of the evaluatee is lower as a sum of the evaluation value of the first evaluation and the evaluation value of the second evaluation is smaller, to more accurately calculate the risk of cognitive function, as evidence by Kato [par. 6].
However, Warkentin, Kato, Pakhomov, Jiang and Cartwright do not teach the evaluator decreases an evaluation value of the third evaluation with a decrease in the length of the observation period.
Ashoori teaches the evaluator decreases an evaluation value of the third evaluation with a decrease in the length of the observation period [par. 33, Examiner notes the rate of speech is assigned a numerical value]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Warkentin, to incorporate the evaluator decreases an evaluation value of the third evaluation with a decrease in the length of the observation period, for assigning value to speech characteristics diagnosing the patient, as evidence by Ashoori [par. 33].
Although Ashoori does not explicitly teach the evaluator determines that the cognitive function of the evaluatee is lower as a sum of the evaluation value of the first evaluation, the evaluation value of the second evaluation, and the evaluation value of the third evaluation is smaller, this would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed, since Jiang also suggests assigning numerical values to specific characteristics of speech in order to perform a diagnosis [par. 33]. Therefore, determines that the cognitive function of the evaluatee is lower as a sum of the evaluation value of the first evaluation, the evaluation value of the second evaluation, and the evaluation value of the third evaluation is smaller, would involve only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 5712724233. 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
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights