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 .
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-22, 24, 25, 27, and 28 are hereby under examination.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation “the external stimulus”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, 15 and 27-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carmona Duarte, C. et. al (2018). A common framework to evaluate Parkinson’s disease in voice and handwriting. In: "1st International Conference on Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence (ICPRAI 2018)", 13-17 May 2018, Montreal, Canada. ISBN 1-895193-06-0. pp. 795-799, hereto referred as Carmona.
As to claims 1 and 11, Carmona teaches method for obtaining kinematic data from a subject, the method comprising: presenting, on a mobile computing device, at least two tasks of different modalities and/or engaging different muscle groups, the at least two tasks selected from:
a handwriting task, a speech task, and a natural movement task, the at least two tasks executable by the subject with the mobile computing device (pg. 795, "In the current paper, we propose using a common methodology to analyse handwriting and voice");
acquiring kinematic data from the subject on the mobile computing device as the at least two tasks are being performed (pg. 796, "In order to get the kinematic signal from the voice"; pg. 795, "In handwriting changes of the kinematic aspects"); and
processing the kinematic data in same manner across the different modalities and/or engagement of different muscle groups by applying a same model to the kinematic data to obtain parameters that are comparable across the different modalities and/or engagement of different muscle groups and that characterize a neuromotor performance of the subject (pg. 795, "Once the velocity profile is derived, it is transformed to fit into the lognormal model"), wherein processing the kinematic data comprises
mapping the kinematic data to a velocity-based kinematic representation that is common across the different modalities and/or engagement of different muscle groups by converting the kinematic data acquired across the different modalities and/or engagement of different muscle groups to velocity profiles that model first movements performed by the subject when executing the at least two tasks, the first movements having a first complexity level (pg. 796, "This section is devoted to parametrize the velocity profile of both voice and handwriting signal using the Kinematic Theory of rapid movements framework.");
decomposing the first movements into second movements having a second complexity level lower than the first complexity level (pg. 796, "Based on the facts that Parkinson patients perform shorter movements and have some difficulties to plan next movements, among all of the expected effect of the disease on the lognormal decomposition is a lower stroke logresponse time");
analyzing the second movements statically (pg. 797, "To evaluate whether a statistical difference exists between the ∆ value of controls and PDs an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) was performed"); and
characterizing the neuromotor performance of the subject based on the analyzing (Figs. 1 and 2).
As to claims 3 and 13, Carmona teaches processing the kinematic data comprises processing the kinematic data on the mobile computing device (pg. 797, "using the statistical toolbox of Matlab")
As to claim 5 and 15, Carmona teaches wherein decomposing the first movements into the second movements comprises performing a lognormal decomposition (pg. 795, "the Kinematic Theory of rapid human movements [10] is applied to divide a complex movement in simple movements (strokes), each one is modelled by a sigma-lognormal function") across the different modalities and/or engagement of different muscle groups (pg. 795, "methodology to analyse handwriting... modelled by a sigma-lognormal function").
As to claims 27 and 28, processing the kinematic data (pg. 795, "The velocity profile obtained to characterize voice between the first and second formant is computed by a spatio-temporal approximation. In handwriting, the velocity profile is obtained from the sampled positions of the pen on a digital tablet.") comprises comparing and correlating data from different neuromotor groups acquired through the at least two tasks (pg. 796, "A database comprising phonations from five PD patients selected by neurologists and five control subjects was used in this study"; Fig. 2).
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 (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.
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 6-8, 10, 16-18, 20-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmona as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US20190214140A1 (Baker et. al), previously cited and hereto referred as Baker.
As to claims 6, 16, 21 and 24 Carmona teaches a method to be performed on a computer (Carmona, pg. 796, handwriting database, pg. 797, MATLAB). However, Carmona does not teach the details of a executing the function. Baker teaches providing the external stimulus comprises providing a same external stimulus for the at least two tasks for coordinating acquisition of the kinematic data from the subject among the at least two tasks, as a trigger to begin the at least two tasks (Baker, Figs. 3A and 4A both show start buttons). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carmona in view of Baker to include comprises providing a same external stimulus for the at least two tasks for coordinating acquisition of the kinematic data from the subject among the at least two tasks, as a trigger to begin the at least two tasks because doing so would allow the subject to initiate performing the two tasks on a computer.
As to claims 7 and 17, Carmona does not explicitly teach signaling an end to the at least two tasks, although Carmona does teach performing two tasks. Baker teaches providing the external stimulus comprises signaling an end to the at least two tasks (Baker, Fig. 4A, "you have 30 seconds to squeeze as many of the shapes on the screen as you can"). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carmona in view of Baker to include providing the external stimulus comprises signaling an end to the at least two tasks so the subject can end the task that was started.
As to claims 8 and 18, Carmona teaches a method to be performed on a computer (Carmona, pg. 796, handwriting database, pg. 797, MATLAB). However, Carmona does not teach transmitting the file with the kinematic data to a remote location. Baker teaches further comprising transmitting the file with the kinematic data to a remote location (Baker, [0144], "In a network environment in which the communications network 820 is the Internet, for example, the server computer 900A can be a dedicated server computer operable to process and communicate data to and from the client computing devices 900B-900G via any of a number of known protocols"). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Carmona in view of Baker to include transmitting the file with the kinematic data to a remote location because Baker already teaches generating a database, and transmitting it to a remote location is a well-known data transfer method.
As to claims 10 and 20, Carmona teaches a method to be performed on a computer at least one of a specific order and a complexity level (Carmona, pg. 796, handwriting database; pg. 797, MATLAB; Abstract). However, Carmona does not teach tasks are presented on the mobile device. Baker teaches the tasks are presented on the mobile device in accordance with at least one of a specific order and a complexity level (Baker, Figs. 3B-3C). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified to include that tasks are presented on the mobile device because Carmona already teaches a method performed on a computer and a mobile device is a type of computer.
As to claims 22 and 25, Carmona teaches a method to be performed on a computer (Carmona, pg. 796, handwriting database, pg. 797, MATLAB). However, Carmona does not teach generating a file with the kinematic data together with subject data. Baker teaches generating a file with the kinematic data together with subject data (Baker, [0023], “The said dataset may also be transmitted or stored from the acquiring mobile device on a permanent or temporary memory device”; [0263], “Moreover, from the activity of the subject data shall be recorded and compiled to a dataset which is to be evaluated by the method of this disclosure either on the mobile device itself or on a second device.”) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Carmona in view of Baker to include generating a file with the kinematic data together with subject data because doing so allows for practical analysis of the data.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmona as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US20040078219A1 (Kaylor et. al), previously cited and hereto referred as Kaylor.
Claims 1 and 11 are taught as above.
As to claims 9 and 19, Carmona does not teach the subject data comprises a hardware identifier for the mobile computing device. Kaylor teaches a solution to a relevant problem of managing health data of a subject (Kaylor, abstract). Kaylor teaches subject data comprises a hardware identifier for the mobile computing device (Kaylor, [0073], "The serial number of one or more devices associated with the personal data control means 24 or other hardware-related identifying information can also be sent, as well as identifying information pertaining to the biosensor 20 (e.g., a product code conveyed via an RFID or smart tag system) or other data signals (not shown) such as a personal identification code for the subject, signals from temperature sensors and other sensors, and the like.”) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carmona in view of Kaylor to include subject data comprises a hardware identifier for the mobile computing device because doing so would allow identifying the subject data with the hardware used by the subject.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Carmona, necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELINA S JANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ELINA SOHYUN JANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights