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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7-9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 should be replaced with:
6. The evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the image is a photographic image or an image that is drawn or produced;
wherein, in the photographic image, a subject in a 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 the subject in the target area serves as a focal point.
Claim 7, line 3:“comprises a defined difference between” should be replaced with –is configured to cause different defined responses from–.
Claim 8, lines 12-13: “based on the at least one feature value that is acquired, calculating evaluation data on the subject and a time of staying at which point the point of gaze is staying” should be replaced with –based on the at least one feature value that is acquired and a time of staying at which point the point of gaze is staying, calculating evaluation data on the subject–.
Claim 9, lines 13-14: “based on the at least one feature value that is acquired, calculating evaluation data on the subject and a time of staying at which point the point of gaze is staying” should be replaced with –based on the at least one feature value that is acquired and a time of staying at which point the point of gaze is staying, calculating evaluation data on the subject–.
Claim 11, line 3: –at least one– should be inserted before “feature value”.
Claim 11, line 5: –at which point the point of gaze is staying– should be inserted after “time of staying”.
Claim 11, line 11: “one” should be replaced with –three–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the display controller stops reproduction of the image relating to an instruction display operation when the point-of-gaze detector determines that the time at which reproduction of the image completes is reached” in line 22-24, which is indefinite. First, the recitations of “relating” and “the time at which reproduction of the image completes is reached” are grammatically awkward. Additionally, it is unclear whether the reproduction or the image “relating to an instruction display operation”? Finally, how does “the time at which reproduction of the image completes is reached” relate to the “time when playback of the image is determined to be completed” in lines 17-18? The specification does not create a distinction, which suggests that they are the same. But the difference in terminology suggests that they are different. For the purposes of examination, the recitation in lines 22-24 will be interpreted to be “the display controller stops reproduction of the image at the time when the playback of the image is determined to be completed”.
Claims 8 and 9 recite similar limitations, so the claims are rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 4-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “the evaluation unit is configured to, when the plurality of areas of areas of staying are detected, calculate the evaluation data by weighting each of the plurality of areas of staying with the time of staying that satisfies a time criterion” in lines 7-9. Claim 1 recites “an evaluation unit configured to, based on the at least one feature value that is acquired by the acquisition unit and a time of staying at which point the point of gaze is staying, calculate evaluation data on the subject” in lines 16-18. It is unclear how these limitations in claims 11 and 1 are related to each other. Claim 1 recites a first calculation of the evaluation data. Claim 11 recites a second calculation of the evaluation data. ¶¶ [0053]-[0058] of the published application depict calculation of a final evaluation value ANS (i.e., a sum of evaluation data) in which the evaluation data (i.e., A1, A2, A3) are based on the time of staying (i.e., T1, T2, T3) and the feature values (i.e., K1-K15), which appears to be the only calculation of evaluation data. Therefore, it is unclear whether there are one or more calculations of evaluation data. The examiner suggests deleting the recitation of lines 7-9 of claim 11.
Claim 11 recites “the evaluation unit is configured to, when the plurality of areas of areas of staying are detected, calculate the evaluation data by weighting each of the plurality of areas of staying with the time of staying that satisfies a time criterion” in lines 7-9. It is unclear how the weighting of each of the plurality of areas of staying is performed. At most, ¶¶ [0053]-[0058] of the published application depict calculation of a final evaluation value ANS (i.e., a sum of evaluation data) in which the evaluation data (i.e., A1, A2, A3) are based on the time of staying (i.e., T1, T2, T3) and the feature values (i.e., K1-K15). However, the feature values are weighted, not the alleged areas of staying. Therefore, specification does not provide any clarification on how areas of staying are weighted. The examiner suggests deleting the recitation of lines 7-9 of claim 11.
No Prior Art Rejections
There are no prior art rejections of the claims.
With regards to claim 1, the prior art does not teach or suggests that the evaluation unit is configured to determine that the subject has a higher likelihood of dementia when the sum of the evaluation data is below a threshold value compared to when the sum is at or above the threshold value, along with the other features of claim 1. Claims 8 and 9 recite similar features which are not taught or suggested by the prior art.
There is no prior art rejection of claims 4-7 and 11 by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
US 2020/0383626 A1 (Takeda) (previously cited) teaches comparison of a viewpoint obtainment percentage with a predetermined value in the determination of a sixth characteristic, which is a typical characteristic of a patient with fronto-temporal dementia (¶ [0105]). However, the viewpoint obtainment percentage is a percentage of viewpoints present in display surface in a distribution map (¶ [0105]), and Takeda does not teach the evaluation unit is configured to determine that the subject has a higher likelihood of dementia when the sum of the evaluation data is below a threshold value compared to when it is at or above the threshold value.
US 9,579,054 B2 (Shudo) (previously cited) teaches calculating a sum of evaluation data, assigning greater weight to the evaluation data corresponding to longer the time of staying (Col. 24, line 1 to Col. 25, line 19 depict gaze counters CC, CE, CF, CT for different regions C, E, F, T, which correspond to dwell times, and multiplying the counters with weighting coefficients (i.e., value corresponding to an area of staying) for the regions; See Col. 24, lines 35-55 of Shudo regarding the evaluation computation) and comparison of the data with thresholds (Col. 21, lines 3-21). However, Shudo teaches that the evaluation is for determining risk of developmental disorder (Col. 25, line 6-11), and Shudo does not teach or suggest an evaluation unit is configured to determine that the subject has a higher likelihood of dementia when the sum of the evaluation data is below a threshold value compared to when it is at or above the threshold value.
KR 101711093 B1 (Kim) teaches measuring a fixation time in relation to diagnosing dementia of a subject (see last paragraph of Page 3 of the attached machine translation of Kim). However, Kim does not teach or suggest t an evaluation unit is configured to determine that the subject has a higher likelihood of dementia when the sum of the evaluation data is below a threshold value compared to when it is at or above the threshold value.
Response to Arguments
Objections
There are new grounds of claim objections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
In view of the claim amendments filed 02/27/2026, the previous grounds of rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) were withdrawn.
There are new grounds of claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) necessitated by the claim amendments filed 02/27/2026.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-14 of the response filed 02/27/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/S.C.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights