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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 9, 2026 has been entered. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 2, and 4-9. Claims 1, 2 and 4-9 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed February 9, 2026, with respect to the previous rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-9 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-9 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the acts of displaying, on a display unit, a video containing a target area serving as a target that the subject is caused to gaze at and containing, in a position different from that of the target area, an induction area for inducing a visual hallucination in the subject, wherein the induction area is displayed to have a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than the target area and to be out of focus relative to the target area, detecting, based on analysis of image data of an eyeball of a subject, a position of a point of gaze of the subject on the display unit, based on position data indicating the position of the point of gaze, determining whether the point of gaze is present in the induction area, calculating evaluation data for the subject based on the determination as to whether the point of gaze is present in the induction area, and displaying, based on the evaluation data, an indication of a degree to which the subject is likely to be suffering from dementia due to Lewy bodies do not represent mere mental activities implemented by a processor that could otherwise be performed by the human mind or by a human using pencil or paper. Applicant further argues these are computer-centric functions that cannot be untethered from the imaging and display hardware, including the display controller that displays an induction area of an image to have a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than a target area of the image and to be out of focus relative to the target area. Further, applicant argues the acts of calculating evaluation data for the subject based on the determination as to whether the point of gaze is present in the induction area, and displaying, based on the evaluation data, an indication of a degree to which the subject is likely to be suffering from dementia due to Lewy bodies add a meaningful limit on the use of the alleged abstract idea by integrating the claim limitations into a practical application by providing actionable information regarding the degree to which a subject is likely to be suffering from dementia due to Lewy bodies, and yields an improvement to medical evaluation systems. Additionally, Applicant argues the approach uses the claimed technological elements and cannot be implemented as a mere mental process, the claim recitations place meaningful limits on use of the alleged judicial exception within the context of a technology-based system for evaluating a subject's likelihood of cognitive dysfunction, and the display and gaze-tracking steps are the solution to which the claim is directed, and as such those steps cannot be characterized as "pre-solution" or "insignificant".
The steps of detecting a position of a point of gaze of a subject on a display unit, making a determination as to whether the point of gaze is present in an induction area, and calculating evaluation data of the subject, as found in the claims of the instant application, set forth judicial exceptions. These steps describe concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
The claims recites additional steps of displaying, on a display unit, a video containing a target area serving as a target that a subject is caused to gaze at, and containing an induction area for inducing a visual hallucination in the subject, wherein the displaying comprises displaying the induction area with a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than the target area, and to be out of focus relative to the target area, and displaying, on the display unit based on the evaluation data, an indication of a degree to which the subject is likely to be suffering from dementia due to Lewy bodies. The displaying and setting steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Additionally, the display of an indication of a degree to which the subject is likely to be suffering from dementia due to Lewy bodies does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the displayed indication, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea. Therefore, the claims still recite judicial exceptions without significantly more, and therefore are rejected under 35 USC 101. Please see 35 USC 101 rejections below.
Applicant's arguments filed February 9, 2026 regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 over Takeda in view of Vigneras have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Takeda's system does not render its diagnostic video or image such that the image contains a target area serving as a target that the subject is caused to gaze at, and also contains, in a position different from that of the target area, an induction area for inducing a visual hallucination in the subject, where the system displays the induction area to have a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than the target area and to be out of focus relative to the target area. Applicant further argues that Takeda does not indicate that an induction area is set to have different display parameters, values of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma, than those of a separate target area of the video. Moreover, Applicant argues Vigneras does not suggest that a display controller displays an induction area of a video such that the induction area has a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than a target area of the video, and instead Vigneras indicates that inherent visual properties of a visual content item, such as a degree of blur, are recognized and used to determine a theme for animating the content item.
Takeda teaches an evaluation device comprising a display unit that displays a diagnostic video for cognitive impairment on a display surface (see Takeda, par 0021-0022, 0031, see fig. 2), an imaging unit 21 (see Takeda, par 0033, fig. 1), and a detection unit that time-sequentially detects the viewpoint of the subject on the display surface by using an eye imaging unit (see Takeda, par 0021-0022, 0035, 0043), wherein the display unit is configured to display the diagnostic video in which a distribution map of the subject’s gaze is superimposed on a monitor for a subject, wherein the video contains an inducing image among non-inducing images that induces a hallucination of a person’s face in subject (see Takeda, par 0041, 0062, 0116, 0119-0121, 0126). Furthermore, Takeda teaches a creation unit that creates a distribution map indicating the distribution of the viewpoints detected by the detection unit, wherein the distribution map is superimposed on the diagnostic video to indicate where the user is gazing (see Takeda, par 0021-0022, 0035, 0044), and a diagnosis unit that diagnoses the cognitive function of the subject by determining whether the created distribution map has specific features of case feature data that is indicative of a specific cognitive impairment, such as dementia with Lewy bodies (see Takeda, par 0044-0045, 0062), wherein the display unit displays the created distribution map that is superimposed on the diagnostic video, wherein the created distribution map indicates the degree to which the subject has Lewy body dementia based on how the viewpoints are concentrated on the evoked image that induces hallucinations of a face) (see Takeda, par 0044-0045, 0062, 0118-0125, figs. 16A-16C). Therefore, Takeda does teach a diagnostic video or image wherein the image contains a target area serving as a target that the subject is caused to gaze at (i.e., non-inducing vs. inducing image regions of the image displayed). It is noted that Takeda fails to teach that the display controller is configured to display the induction area to have a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than the target area and to be out of focus relative to the target area, and as such the Vigneras reference is used to remedy those deficiencies of Takeda.
Vigneras teaches computer-implemented methods and systems for creating multimedia animation presentations wherein a specific region of interest in an image can be defined based on factors such as localization, subjects, position of the foreground, degree of blur, or environment (see Vigneras, par 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takeda such that the display controller is configured to display the induction area to have a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than the target area and to be out of focus relative to the target area (i.e., more blur) because that is a technique used to define regions of interest in an image for a user (see Vigneras, par 0030).
Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 over Takeda in view of Vigneras still stands. See 35 USC 103 rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: point-of-gaze detector, display controller, determination unit, and evaluation unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. As described in the specification, the point-of-gaze detector is a function of a computer system, the display controller is a function of a computer system, the determination unit is a function of a computer system, and the evaluation unit is a function of a computer system.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 8 follows.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including detecting, based on analysis of image data, a position of a point of gaze of a subject on a display unit, making a determination as to whether the point of gaze is present in an induction area, and based on the aforementioned determination, calculating evaluation data of the subject. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of detecting a position of a point of gaze of a subject on a display unit, making a determination as to whether the point of gaze is present in an induction area, and calculating evaluation data of the subject set forth judicial exceptions. These steps describe concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 8 recites displaying, on the display unit based on the evaluation data, an indication of a degree to which the subject is likely to be suffering from dementia due to Lewy bodies. The display of an indication of a degree to which the subject is likely to be suffering from dementia due to Lewy bodies does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the displayed indication, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of capturing, by a camera device, image data of an eyeball of a subject, and displaying, on a display unit, a video containing a target area serving as a target that a subject is caused to gaze at, and containing an induction area for inducing a visual hallucination in the subject, wherein the displaying comprises displaying the induction area with a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than the target area and to be out of focus relative to the target area. The capturing and displaying steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention.
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited camera device configured to capture image data of an eyeball of a subject is merely used in a data gathering step that is necessary to perform the Abstract Idea, the recited display unit is a generic device configured to perform WURC displaying (i.e., displaying of video), and the computer system comprising the point-of-gaze detector, display controller, determination unit, and evaluation unit is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The same rationale applies to claim 9.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data gathering, data processing, and the display of data. The capturing and displaying steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Publication WO2019098173 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Takeda", in view of US Patent Application Publication 20150130816 –as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as “Vigneras”.
With respect to claim 1, Takeda teaches an evaluation device comprising:
a display unit 10 (i.e., a display unit that displays a diagnostic video for cognitive impairment on a display surface) (see Takeda, par 0021-0022, 0031, see fig. 2);
a camera device 21 configured to capture image data of an eyeball of a subject (i.e., an imaging unit) (see Takeda, par 0033, fig. 1);
a point-of-gaze detector 37 configured to detect, based on analysis of the image data of the eyeball, a position of a point of gaze of the subject on the display unit (i.e., a detection unit that time-sequentially detects the viewpoint of the subject on the display surface by using an eye imaging unit) (see Takeda, par 0021-0022, 0035, 0043);
a display controller 35 configured to display, on the display unit, a video containing a target area serving as a target that the subject is caused to gaze at and containing, in a position different from that of the target area, an induction area for inducing a visual hallucination in the subject (i.e., a display unit is configured to display a diagnostic video in which a distribution map of the subject’s gaze is superimposed on a monitor for a subject, wherein the video contains an inducing image among non-inducing images that induces a hallucination of a person’s face in subject) (see Takeda, par 0041, 0062, 0116, 0119-0121, 0126);
a determination unit 38 configured to, based on position data indicating the position of the point of gaze, make a determination as to whether the point of gaze is present in the induction area (i.e., a creation unit that creates a distribution map indicating the distribution of the viewpoints detected by the detection unit, wherein the distribution map is superimposed on the diagnostic video to indicate where the user is gazing) (see Takeda, par 0021-0022, 0035, 0044);
and an evaluation unit 39 configured to calculate evaluation data for the subject based on the determination as to whether the point of gaze is present in the induction area (i.e., a diagnosis unit diagnoses the cognitive function of the subject by determining whether the created distribution map has specific features of case feature data that is indicative of a specific cognitive impairment, such as dementia with Lewy bodies) (see Takeda, par 0044-0045, 0062),
wherein the display controller is configured to display, based on the evaluation data, an indication of a degree to which the subject is likely to be suffering from dementia due to Lewy bodies (i.e., the display unit displays the created distribution map that is superimposed on the diagnostic video, wherein the created distribution map indicates the degree to which the subject has Lewy body dementia based on how the viewpoints are concentrated on the evoked image that induces hallucinations of a face) (see Takeda, par 0044-0045, 0062, 0118-0125, figs. 16A-16C).
Takeda fails to teach that the display controller is configured to display the induction area to have a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than the target area and to be out of focus relative to the target area.
Vigneras teaches computer-implemented methods and systems for creating multimedia animation presentations wherein a region of interest in an image can be defined based on factors such as localization, subjects, position of the foreground, degree of blur, or environment (see Vigneras, par 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takeda such that the display controller is configured to display the induction area to have a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than the target area and to be out of focus relative to the target area (i.e., more blur) because that is a technique used to define regions of interest in an image for a user (see Vigneras, par 0030).
With respect to claim 2, Takeda as modified by Vigneras further teaches the determination unit is configured to determine whether the point of gaze is present in the induction area and the target area (i.e., the display unit is configured to display a diagnostic image/video in which a distribution map of the subject’s gaze is superimposed on a monitor for a subject, wherein the image contains an inducing image among non-inducing images that induces a hallucination of a person’s face in subject) (see Takeda, par 0041, 0062).
With respect to claim 6, Takeda as modified by Vigneras further teaches the evaluation unit is configured to calculate the evaluation data further based on at least one of reach time data representing a time to a time at which the point of gaze first reaches the induction area, presence time data representing a presence time during which the point of gaze is present in the induction area and the target area, or last area data representing an area in which the point of gaze is present lastly during the time of display among the induction area and the target area, and the evaluation unit is configured to calculate the evaluation data based on weights applied to at least one of the reach time data, the presence time data, or the last area data (i.e., the created distribution map indicating the distribution of the viewpoint of the subject detected by the detection unit demonstrates the coordinate data with respect to time of the user’s viewpoint as they gaze the display in real-time, therefore distribution map data represents the time presence of a user’s gaze in a given area of the image) (see Takeda, par 0044, see figs. 16A-16C).
With respect to claim 7, Takeda as modified by Vigneras further teaches the target area comprises visual information that subjects without Lewy body dementia tend to fixate on, and the induction area comprises visual information that subjects with Lewy body dementia tend to fixate on (i.e., the same video/images is/are shown to healthy individuals versus individuals that have dementia with Lewy bodies, and the video/images contain an inducing image among non-inducing images that induces a hallucination of a person’s face in subjects with Lewy body dementia) (see Takeda, par 0094-0097, 0116-0118, 0123, 0126).
With respect to claim 8, Takeda teaches an evaluation method comprising:
capturing, by a camera device, image data of an eyeball of a subject (i.e., an imaging unit) (see Takeda, par 0033, fig. 1);
detecting, based on analysis of the image data, a position of a point of gaze of a subject on a display unit (i.e., time-sequentially detecting the viewpoint of a subject on a display surface by using an eye imaging unit) (see Takeda, par 0021-0022, 0035, 0043);
displaying, on the display unit, a video containing a target area serving as a target that the subject is caused to gaze at and containing, in a position different from that of the target area, an induction area for inducing a visual hallucination in the subject (i.e., displaying a diagnostic image/video for cognitive impairment on a display surface, in which a distribution map of the subject’s gaze is superimposed on the display, wherein the image contains an inducing image among non-inducing images that induces a hallucination of a person’s face in subject) (see Takeda, par 0021-0022, 0031, 0041, 0062, 0116, 0119-0121, 0126, see fig. 2);
based on position data indicating the position of the point of gaze, making a determination as to whether the point of gaze is present in the induction area (i.e., a creation unit creates a distribution map indicating the distribution of the viewpoints detected by the detection unit, wherein the distribution map is superimposed on the diagnostic video to indicate where the user is gazing) (see Takeda, par 0021-0022, 0035, 0044);
based on a result of the determination, calculating evaluation data for the subject (i.e., a diagnosis unit diagnoses the cognitive function of the subject by determining whether the created distribution map has specific features of case feature data that is indicative of a specific cognitive impairment, such as dementia with Lewy bodies) (see Takeda, par 0044-0045, 0062),
and displaying, on the display unit based on the evaluation data, an indication of a degree to which the subject is likely to be suffering from dementia due to Lewy bodies (i.e., the display unit displays the created distribution map that is superimposed on the diagnostic video, wherein the created distribution map indicates the degree to which the subject has Lewy body dementia based on how the viewpoints are concentrated on the evoked image that induces hallucinations of a face) (see Takeda, par 0044-0045, 0062, 0118-0125, figs. 16A-16C).
Takeda fails to teach that the display comprises displaying the induction area to have a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than the target area and to be out of focus relative to the target area.
Vigneras teaches computer-implemented methods and systems for creating multimedia animation presentations wherein a region of interest in an image can be defined based on factors such as localization, subjects, position of the foreground, degree of blur, or environment (see Vigneras, par 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takeda such that the displaying comprises displaying the induction area to have a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than the target area and to be out of focus relative to the target area (i.e., more blur) because that is a technique used to define regions of interest in an image for a user (see Vigneras, par 0030).
With respect to claim 9, Takeda teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing therein an evaluation program for causing a computer to execute processes of (see Takeda, par 0022, 0037-0038):
capturing, via a camera device 21, image data of an eyeball of a subject (see Takeda, par 0033, fig. 1);
detecting, based on analysis of the image data, a position of a point of gaze of the subject on a display unit (i.e., time-sequentially detecting the viewpoint of a subject on a display surface by using an eye imaging unit) (see Takeda, par 0021-0022, 0035, 0043);
displaying, on the display unit, a video containing a target area serving as a target that the subject is caused to gaze at and containing, in a position different from that of the target area, an induction area for inducing a visual hallucination in the subject (i.e., displaying a diagnostic image/video for cognitive impairment on a display surface, in which a distribution map of the subject’s gaze is superimposed on the display, wherein the image contains an inducing image among non-inducing images that induces a hallucination of a person’s face in subject) (see Takeda, par 0021-0022, 0031, 0041, 0062, 0116, 0119-0121, 0126, see fig. 2);
based on position data specifying the position of the point of gaze, making a determination as to whether the point of gaze is present in the induction area (i.e., a creation unit creates a distribution map indicating the distribution of the viewpoints detected by the detection unit, wherein the distribution map is superimposed on the diagnostic video to indicate where the user is gazing) (see Takeda, par 0021-0022, 0035, 0044);
based on a result of the determination, calculating evaluation data on the subject (i.e., a diagnosis unit diagnoses the cognitive function of the subject by determining whether the created distribution map has specific features of case feature data that is indicative of a specific cognitive impairment, such as dementia with Lewy bodies) (see Takeda, par 0044-0045, 0062);
and displaying, on the display unit based on the evaluation data, an indication of a degree to which the subject is likely to be suffering from dementia due to Lewy bodies (i.e., the display unit displays the created distribution map that is superimposed on the diagnostic video, wherein the created distribution map indicates the degree to which the subject has Lewy body dementia based on how the viewpoints are concentrated on the evoked image that induces hallucinations of a face) (see Takeda, par 0044-0045, 0062, 0118-0125, figs. 16A-16C).
Takeda fails to teach that the display comprises displaying the induction area to have a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than the target area and to be out of focus relative to the target area.
Vigneras teaches computer-implemented methods and systems for creating multimedia animation presentations wherein a region of interest in an image can be defined based on factors such as localization, subjects, position of the foreground, degree of blur, or environment (see Vigneras, par 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takeda such that the displaying comprises displaying the induction area to have a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast, or chroma lower than the target area and to be out of focus relative to the target area (i.e., more blur) because that is a technique used to define regions of interest in an image for a user (see Vigneras, par 0030).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Vigneras as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US Patent Application Publication 20180308252 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Alonso".
With respect to claim 4, Takeda teaches the evaluation device according to claim 1, but fails to teach a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast or chroma of the target area is higher than that of surrounding areas of the video.
Alonso teaches methods and systems to increase accuracy of eye tracking wherein an eye tracking system alters a portion of a screen of a display by changing a color of one or more pixels of the display to contrast adjacent pixels, such that the user’s gaze is attracted to that portion (see Alonso, par 0060-0061). The contrast can be facilitated by making the first gaze location of the user a dark color and the second gaze location of the user a light color (see Alonso, par 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the evaluation device of Takeda as modified by Vigneras and Alonso such that a value of at least one of sharpness, luminance, contrast or chroma of the target area is higher than that of surroundings because that would improve the diagnostic capabilities of the evaluation device of Takeda as modified by attracting a subject’s gaze to certain portions of the display which can improve the accuracy of determining the user’s gaze location by accurately calibrating the device when a user’s tracked gaze goes directly to the altered portion of the display (see Alonso, par 0060-0061).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda as modified by Vigneras as applied to claim 1, in further view of US Patent Application Publication 20190029511 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "van Dijk".
With respect to claim 5, Takeda as modified teaches that the video comprises a photo or an image that is drawn (see Takeda, figs. 16A-16C), but fails to teach the image in the video is an image in which a subject in the target area is present on a front side in a depth direction and a subject in the induction area is present on a back side in the depth direction and that is captured with the subject in the target area serving as a position of a focal point.
Van Dijk teaches a method and system for determining a strabismus angle between the eyes of an individual, wherein the individual is presented with a display that comprises a small image element at a target position that is within a larger background image, for measuring the position and line of sight of the eyes of the individual as the individual scans the background to find the small image element (see van Dijk, par 0125-0127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the evaluation device of Takeda as modified such that the video comprises an image in which a subject in the target area is present on a front side in a depth direction and a subject in the induction area is present on a back side in the depth direction and that is captured with the subject in the target area serving as a position of a focal point because that would improve the evaluation device of Takeda as modified because a small image at a target position on the screen in a larger background image effectively draws the attention of an individual and ensures eye gazing of the individual is performed instead of head movements which would affect eye gaze data (see van Dijk, par 0125-0127).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Destiny J Cruickshank whose telephone number is (571)270-0187. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/D.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights