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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 25 November 2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB1917146.1 or GB1917146.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this application.
Preliminary Amendments
In response to communications filed on 3 August 2022, claims 2, 11, 18, 22, and 30 are amended per Applicant's request. The Specification has also been amended per Applicant’s request. Claims 3-4, 6-7, 12-13, 15-16, 19-20, 23, 31, and 33-36 are cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-2, 5, 8-11, 14, 17-18, 21-22, 24-30, and 32 are presently pending in the application, of which claims 1 and 17 are presented in independent form.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 8-11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “A computer system as claimed in claim…”. However, this should be “The computer system as claimed in claim…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18, 21-22, 24-30, and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “A computer system as claimed in claim…”. However, this should be “The computer system as claimed in claim…”. 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.
Claim 5 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 5 recites the limitation “a” user. Claim 1, which claim 5 depends upon, also recites “a” user. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, i.e., it is unclear whether these are referring to the same or different users. For purposes of examination, “the” user has been taken (i.e., that Claim 5 is referring to the same user as in Claim 1, which it depends upon).
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, 5, 8-11, 14, 17-18, 21-22, 24-30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites collecting data values at a plurality of distinct points in time indicating the chirographic performance of the user at each distinct point in time, using a plurality of data values collected at each distinct point in time to determine a change in the chirographic performance of the user over time, and comparing the change in the chirographic performance of the user over time with a plurality of predetermined relationships to establish the change in the neurodegenerative disease in the user. Dependent claim 5 recites presenting visual content to a user. Similarly, independent claim 17 recites presenting visual content to a user, receiving data indicating the chirographic and intellectual performance of the user in response to the displayed visual content, and comparing the received data indicating the chirographic and intellectual performance of the user in response to the visual content with a plurality of (pre-established) relationships between a predicted response to the visual content and the change in a neurodegenerative disease to establish the change in the neurodegenerative disease in the user.
Such steps encompass an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, these steps encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 9 and 28 recite wherein establishing the change in the neurodegenerative disease comprises establishing a discrete absolute score of neurodegeneration. Similarly, dependent claims 10 and 29 recite wherein establishing the change in the neurodegenerative disease comprises establishing a patient-specific relative score of neurodegeneration. These encompass an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Because the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Similarly, because the claims cover managing personal behavior or relationships / interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the idea. The independent claims recite various computing hardware components, e.g., a computer system comprising a writing apparatus comprising a sensor (for recording data values indicating the chirographic performance of the user), a storage medium configured to store a plurality of predetermined relationships associating the change in chirographic performance of the user over time with an indication of the change in the neurodegenerative disease of a user, which are later retrieved for comparing to collected data, a processor connected to the sensor (and display), and that data values are collected from the sensor. Independent claim 17 and dependent claim 5 further recite a display for presenting visual content to a user. Dependent claim 14 recites that the writing apparatus is a digital pen. Dependent claim 32 recites that the processor and storage medium are comprised within a first device. However, these are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claims further recite insignificant extra-solution activities, including storing a plurality of predetermined relationships associating the change in chirographic performance of the user over time with an indication of the change in the neurodegenerative disease of the user (which is later implicitly retrieved for comparing to the received/collected data from the user) (independent claims 1 and 17); receiving data (which were collected by the sensors) (independent claims 1 and 17); and displaying/presenting data (independent claim 17 and dependent claim 5).
Lastly, the claims recite insignificant field-of-use limitations (in addition to the computing elements described above), describing the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the results, including that the neurodegenerative disease comprises at least one of Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, or Huntington’s disease (dependent claims 2 and 18); that the data values indicating the chirographic performance of the user comprise certain values for representing one or more claimed parameters (dependent claims 8 and 25); that the change in the neurodegenerative disease is a progression or a regression of the neurodegenerative disease (dependent claims 11 and 30); that the visual content comprises instructions for a user to perform one or more writing assessment tasks (dependent claim 21); the one or more writing assessment tasks comprise assessing at least one of the grammar or the vocabulary of the user (dependent claim 22); wherein the one or more writing assessment tasks includes assessing the speed with which the user is capable of forming sentences or words (dependent claim 24); wherein assessing the intellectual performance of the user comprises assessing one or more of speed of writing, accuracy of grammar, and range of vocabulary (dependent claim 26); and wherein assessing the intellectual performance of the user comprises assessing one or more of the amount of time taken by the user to respond to the visual content that is presented on the display and the amount of time that the user takes to complete a task as instructed by the visual content presented on the display (dependent claim 27).
As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of that idea.
With respect to the well-understood, routine, and conventional elements, as stated previously above, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements reciting the use of various computing hardware components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (or even components slightly narrower than generic computer components).
Additionally, with regards to the claims’ recitation of receiving and transmitting/sending data, storing (and retrieving) data, and displaying data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities within the computing realm. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (“Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” with respect to the receiving data step; “Storing and retrieving data in memory” with respect to the “storing” (and implicit retrieving) data step; “Electronic recordkeeping” with respect to the “storing” data steps; and “Presenting offers and gathering statistics” with respect to the “displaying” step).
Even as an ordered combination, the claims as a whole do not contain any additional elements that amount to significantly more. The focus of the claims is on collecting and analyzing information to arrive at a particular conclusion. However, similar to the claims found to be ineligible in CyberSource, the claims contain no hint as to how the information regarding the received information will be sorted, weighed, and ultimately converted into a useable conclusion the neurodegenerative disease is changing.1 Rather, the claims are directed to the resulting goal or effect, e.g., that somehow those determinations/analyses are effected, rather than a concrete embodiment of that idea, e.g., claiming by what particular technical process the claimed steps are accomplished necessarily through the use of a computer.
The presence of the claimed computing components do not alter this analysis.2 All of the steps of presenting visual content to a user, receiving chirographic data (as well as the intellectual performance of the user) in response to the visual content, and comparison of the received data indicating the chirographic (and intellectual performance ) of the user in response to the visual content to pre-established relationships to establish the change in the neurodegenerative disease in the user, e.g., comparing between a predicted response to the visual content and change in the neurodegenerative disease, could all be performed without the use of such claimed computing components. Thus, these computing components, when taken in combination with these abstract steps, do nothing more than attempt to limit the claims to a particular technological environment—namely, implementation via computers.
Thus, when removing the computing elements, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claims to a particular solution to an identified problem by a computer aside from invoking the computer as a tool to be used in executing the claimed steps, i.e., applying the abstract idea with a computer. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea (see Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at p. 7-8, citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), slip op. 12 (“[T]he essentially result-focused, functional character of claim language has been a frequent feature of claims held ineligible under § 101”)).
As a whole, the claims do not go beyond stating the relevant functions in general terms, without limiting them to a technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computing technologies. Neither stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” with a computer, nor limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment is enough for patent eligibility. Stating the abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result.
Therefore, for at least the aforementioned reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beck et al. (“Beck”) (US 2019/0239791 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Beck teaches A computer system for monitoring a change in a neurodegenerative disease in a user, the computer system comprising:
a writing apparatus comprising a sensor for recording data values indicating the chirographic performance of the user (Beck, [0087], where the system can include handwriting sensors 115, including pressure sensors included on a writing instrument); and
a storage medium configured to store a plurality of predetermined relationships associating the change in chirographic performance of the user over time with an indication of the change in the neurodegenerative disease of a user (Beck, [0012], [0058] and [0091-0095], where the system collects historical data, which may be data compiled from an individual person, e.g., measurements of the person that were previously detected and recorded, which is recorded and stored in a database that can be accessed for analysis and/or comparison. This can allow the system to identify patterns, variations, and/or aberrations in activity for that particular person. See also Beck, [0026] and [0094], where physiological data, such as from handwriting on an individual (see Beck, [0005] and [0087]) can be used to identify patterns, correlations, and relationships, and used to predict the mental condition of a patient, and recognize a decline in cognitive abilities, as well as e.g., identify patterns of conduct/activity of patients in historical data that have subsequently experienced mental health issues (i.e., “store a plurality of predetermined relationships associating the change in chirographic performance”));
a processor connected to the sensor (Beck, [0090], where data (i.e., raw data) from the sensors can be extracted to a module or central computer 150. See Beck, [0138], where data values are parsed and extracted at a destination computer located at the destination network address, the destination computer including a signal processing unit, such as a CPU/processor (Beck, [0065], [0136], [0138], and [0141])), wherein the processor is configured to:
collect data values from the sensor at a plurality of distinct points in time indicating the chirographic performance of the user at each distinct point in time (Beck, [0011-0014], [0058] and [0091-0095], where the system collects historical data, which may be data compiled from an individual person, e.g., measurements of the person that were previously detected and recorded, which is recorded and stored in a database that can be accessed for analysis and/or comparison, the data on the person having been collected from one or more phases (i.e., “distinct points in time”; see Beck, [0063] with respect to a “phase” being a distinct period of time at which a person was observed in a known environment and context), and including handwriting (Beck, [0087]));
use a plurality of data values collected from the sensor at each distinct point in time to determine a change in the chirographic performance of the user over time (Beck, [0011], where data on the person from one or more phases can be analyzed for aberrations, deviations, and/or patterns in reference to historical data (to the same person) to evaluate the person for one or more mental health ailments, using, e.g., sensor data such as the handwriting sensor. See also Beck, [0087], where handwriting can be analyzed over time to detect deterioration. See Beck, [0012] and [0107], where the baseline phase includes sensors identifying and recording baseline data on the person to establish a level from which irregularities, deviations, and/or patterns are detected. The aberrations, deviations, and/or patterns can be compared to one or more baseline values, e.g., baseline values being established using data from a first phase/session); and
compare the change in the chirographic performance of the user over time with the plurality of predetermined relationships that are stored in the storage medium to establish the change in the neurodegenerative disease in the user (Beck, [0011-0014], where data from each of the phases are analyzed individually and collectively to identify aberrations, deviations, and/or patterns to predict whether the person will experience a mental health ailment, as well as the presence or absence of one or more mental health ailments. See Beck, [0016], [0058], and [0094], where the system correlates the aberrations, deviations, and/or patterns with one or more mental health ailments in the historical data with aberrations, deviations, and/or patterns in the first phase data, and then detect aberrations, deviations and/or patterns in the second phase data by comparing second phase data with first phase data, and correlating the aberrations, deviations, and/or patterns in the second phase data with one or more health ailments in historical data).
Regarding claim 8: Beck teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data values indicating the chirographic performance of the user comprise values representing one or more of the following parameters:
(i) the roundness or sharpness of letters, (ii) the spacing between letters, (iii) the slope of letters, (iv) repetition or irregularity of elements, (v) the pressure applied during writing, (vi) the average size of letters, (vii) the thickness of letters, and (viii) the speed of formation of letters (Beck, [0087], where handwriting can be analyzed including, e.g., pattern and pressure exerted on the pen).
Regarding claim 9: Beck teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein establishing the change in the neurodegenerative disease comprises establishing a discrete absolute score of neurodegeneration (Beck, [0016], where the aberrations, deviations, and/or patterns can be indicative of the presence or absence (i.e., “discrete absolute score”) of one or more mental health ailments).
Regarding claim 10: Beck teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein establishing the change in the neurodegenerative disease comprises establishing a patient-specific relative score of neurodegeneration (Beck, [0107], where aberrations, deviations, and/or patterns of a patient can be compared to one or more baseline values derived from the subject, e.g., from a first phase (i.e., “patient-specific relative [value]”). If a change is detected in a second (or other) phase beyond a certain threshold (implying a “score” as claimed), it can raise an alarm and indicate the possibility of one or more mental health ailments).
Regarding claim 11: Beck teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the change in the neurodegenerative disease is a progression or a regression of the neurodegenerative disease (Beck, [0094], where the system can recognize a decline in cognitive abilities. See also Beck, [0087], where handwriting can be analyzed over time to detect deterioration, e.g., see Beck, [0005], where neurological disease is known to affect handwriting and is common and progressive among elderly people. See Beck, [0096], where the system records and measures symptoms/signs, which refer to subjective/objective evidence of (mental/neurological) disease (Beck, [0066])).
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.
Claims 2, 5, 17-18, 21-22, 24-30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (“Beck”) (US 2019/0239791 A1), in view of Alailima (“Alailima”) (US 2020/0114115 A1).
Regarding claim 2: Beck teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the neurodegenerative disease comprises at least one of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, or Huntington's disease.
Alailima teaches wherein the neurodegenerative disease comprises at least one of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, or Huntington's disease (Alailima, [0033], where the disclosed system can be applied to different neuropsychological conditions including Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Beck and Alailima with the motivation of expanding the application to other types of neuropsychological deficits or disorders to aid in the assessment of the presence of likelihood of onset in individuals (Alailima, [0031] and [0033]), e.g., for broader applicability and thus utility in medical diagnostics.
Regarding claim 5: Beck teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the system further comprises a display for presenting visual content to a user.
Alailima teaches wherein the system further comprises a display for presenting visual content to a user (Alailima, [0165], where a cognitive platform receives user-generated input in response to a computerized stimuli or interaction comprising one or more user tasks displayed via a graphical user interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Beck and Alailima with the motivation of utilizing a computer instead of a human technician to administer the test, thereby leading to improved accuracy in data collection, as the tests are not subject to subjective scoring and timing inaccuracies.3
Regarding claim 17: Beck teaches A computer system for monitoring a change in a neurodegenerative disease in a user, the computer system comprising:
a sensor for recording data indicating: (i) chirographic performance of the user … (Beck, [0087], where the system can include handwriting sensors 115, including pressure sensors included on a writing instrument);
a storage medium configured to store a plurality of predetermined relationships associating the chirographic … performance with an indication of the change in the neurodegenerative disease of a user (Beck, [0012], [0058] and [0091-0095], where the system collects historical data, which may be data compiled from an individual person, e.g., measurements of the person that were previously detected and recorded, which is recorded and stored in a database that can be accessed for analysis and/or comparison. This can allow the system to identify patterns, variations, and/or aberrations in activity for that particular person. See also Beck, [0026] and [0094], where physiological data, such as from handwriting on an individual (see Beck, [0005] and [0087]) can be used to identify patterns, correlations, and relationships, and used to predict the mental condition of a patient, and recognize a decline in cognitive abilities, as well as e.g., identify patterns of conduct/activity of patients in historical data that have subsequently experienced mental health issues (i.e., “store a plurality of predetermined relationships associating the change in chirographic performance”));
a processor connected to … the sensor (Beck, [0090], where data (i.e., raw data) from the sensors can be extracted to a module or central computer 150. See Beck, [0138], where data values are parsed and extracted at a destination computer located at the destination network address, the destination computer including a signal processing unit, such as a CPU/processor (Beck, [0065], [0136], [0138], and [0141])), wherein the processor is configured to:
receive data from the sensor indicating the chirographic and intellectual performance of the user … (Beck, [0011-0014], [0058] and [0091-0095], where the system collects historical data, which may be data compiled from an individual person, e.g., measurements of the person that were previously detected and recorded, which is recorded and stored in a database that can be accessed for analysis and/or comparison, the data on the person having been collected from one or more phases (i.e., “distinct points in time”; see Beck, [0063] with respect to a “phase” being a distinct period of time at which a person was observed in a known environment and context), and including handwriting (Beck, [0087]). See Beck, [0087], where the response time for answering individual questions can be observed and recorded, as well as the response time for completing the entire set of questions (i.e., “intellectual performance of the user”). See also Beck, [0101], where speech can be analyzed for meaning and syntax (i.e., “intellectual performance of the user”));
compare the received data indicating the chirographic and intellectual performance of the user … with a plurality of prestored relationships between a predicted response … and the change in a neurodegenerative disease that are stored in the storage medium to establish the change in the neurodegenerative disease in the user (Beck, [0011-0014] and [0044], where data from each of the phases are analyzed individually and collectively to identify aberrations (i.e., “predicted response”)4, deviations, and/or patterns to predict whether the person will experience a mental health ailment, as well as the presence or absence of one or more mental health ailments. See Beck, [0016], [0058], and [0094], where the system correlates the aberrations, deviations, and/or patterns with one or more mental health ailments in the historical data (i.e., “the change in a neurodegenerative disease that are stored in the storage medium”) with aberrations, deviations, and/or patterns in the first phase data, and then detect aberrations, deviations and/or patterns in the second phase data by comparing second phase data with first phase data, and correlating the aberrations, deviations, and/or patterns in the second phase data with one or more health ailments in historical data.
See also Beck, [0011], where data on the person from one or more phases can be analyzed for aberrations, deviations, and/or patterns in reference to historical data (to the same person) to evaluate the person for one or more mental health ailments (i.e., “the change in the neurodegenerative disease in the user”), using, e.g., sensor data such as the handwriting sensor. See also Beck, [0087], where handwriting can be analyzed over time to detect deterioration.
Recall from, e.g., Beck, [0087], where response time for answering individual questions (and the entire set of questions) can be observed and recorded; and Beck, [0101], where speech can be analyzed for meaning and syntax (i.e., “intellectual performance of the user”). See Beck, [0101], where the speech of the patient can be compared to previously recorded/analyzed speech of the patient, and also compared with data obtained from healthy and/or patients with a known mental illness).
Beck does not appear to explicitly teach a display for presenting visual content to a user; the processor also connected to the display, which control[s] the display to present visual content to a user of the device; [that the received data was] in response to the visual content; the prestored relationships including a predicted response to the visual content.
Alailima teaches a display for presenting visual content to a user (Alailima, [0165], where a cognitive platform receives user-generated input in response to a computerized stimuli or interaction comprising one or more user tasks displayed via a graphical user interface);
the processor also connected to the display, which control[s] the display to present visual content to a user of the device (Alailima, [0059], where the system may be a processor-implemented system that includes a display component and at least one processing unit, where the processing unit can be programmed to render at least one graphical user interface for display at the display component to present the computerized stimuli or interaction or other interactive elements to the user for interaction);
[that the received data was] in response to the visual content (Alailima, [0165], where the user provides one or more sensor inputs in response to computerized stimuli or interaction being displayed); and
the prestored relationships including a predicted response to the visual content (Alailima, [0155-0161], where the system may identify, quantify, or qualify one or more user characteristics including level of engagement, attention to tasks or user prompts, level of interaction/response time, level of skills, reaction time, etc., in response to a graphical element/output/stimuli. See Beck, [0011-0014], [0016], [0044], [0058], and [0094] above with respect to the “prestored relationships include a predicted response”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Beck and Alailima (hereinafter “Beck as modified”) with the motivation of utilizing a computer instead of a human technician to administer the test, thereby leading to improved accuracy in data collection, as the tests are not subject to subjective scoring and timing inaccuracies.5
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21: Beck as modified teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 17, wherein the visual content comprises instructions for a user to perform one or more writing assessment tasks (Alailima, [0165], where a cognitive platform receives user-generated input in response to a computerized stimuli or interaction comprising one or more user tasks displayed via a graphical user interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Beck and Alailima with the motivation of cognitively assessing individuals, which is a known marker for neurological diseases.
Although Beck as modified does not appear to explicitly state that the type of task is a writing assessment task as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Beck as modified to include writing assessment tasks with the motivation of incorporating previously known, additional types of collected data for assessing neurodegeneration to improve the reliability of a diagnosis of neurodegeneration.6,7
Regarding claim 22: Beck as modified teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 21, wherein the one or more writing assessment tasks comprise assessing at least one of the grammar or the vocabulary of the user (Beck, [0101], where speech can be analyzed for meaning and syntax. See Beck, [0087], where the system can include handwriting sensors, and analyzing handwriting over time to detect deterioration).
Although Beck as modified does not appear to explicitly state that the meaning and syntax (which is analyzed in speech) is also analyzed in handwriting, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Beck to include such analyses within the context of handwriting with the motivation of incorporating previously known, additional types of collected data for assessing neurodegeneration to improve the reliability of a diagnosis of neurodegeneration.
Regarding claim 24: Beck as modified teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 21, wherein the one or more writing assessment tasks includes assessing the speed with which the user is capable of forming sentences or words (Beck, [0087], where the system can include handwriting sensors, where the response time for answering individual questions can also be observed and recorded. Similarly, the response time for completing the entire set of questions can also be observed and recorded. See also Beck, [0121], where the patient’s answers to the written assessment can be analyzed for indications of mental health ailments).
Although Beck does not appear to explicitly state that the answers pertain to “sentences or words” as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Beck to explicitly include analyzing sentences and words that may appear in answers with the motivation of assessing cognitive activity, e.g., thinking, reasoning, or remembering (see, e.g., Beck, [0051]), thereby incorporating previously known, additional types of collected data for assessing neurodegeneration to improve the reliability of a diagnosis of neurodegeneration.
Regarding claim 25: Claim 25 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 8, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 26: Beck as modified teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 17, wherein assessing the intellectual performance of the user comprises assessing one or more of: (i) Speed of writing, (ii) Accuracy of grammar, (iii) Range of vocabulary (Beck, [0101], where speech can be analyzed for meaning and syntax. See Beck, [0087], where the system can include handwriting sensors, and analyzing handwriting over time to detect deterioration.
See also Beck, [0087], where the system can include handwriting sensors, where the response time for answering individual questions can also be observed and recorded. Similarly, the response time for completing the entire set of questions can also be observed and recorded. See also Beck, [0121], where the patient’s answers to the written assessment can be analyzed for indications of mental health ailments).
Although Beck does not appear to explicitly state that the answers pertain to “sentences or words” as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Beck to explicitly include analyzing sentences and words that may appear in answers with the motivation of assessing cognitive activity, e.g., thinking, reasoning, or remembering (see, e.g., Beck, [0051]), thereby incorporating previously known, additional types of collected data for assessing neurodegeneration to improve the reliability of a diagnosis of neurodegeneration.
Regarding claim 27: Beck as modified teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 17, wherein assessing the intellectual performance of the user comprises assessing one or more of the amount of time taken by the user to respond to the visual content that is presented on the display and the amount of time that the user takes to complete a task as instructed by the visual content presented on the display (Beck, [0087], where the system may observe and record the response time for answering individual questions, as well as for completing the entire set of questions (i.e., “amount of time that the user takes to complete a task”). See also Alailima, [0156] and [0161], where the system can compute the amount of time an individual takes to respond after the presentation of a task (i.e., “as instructed by the visual content presented on the display”), including reaction time (i.e., “amount of time taken to respond to the visual content that is presented on the display”), response time, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Beck and Alailima with the motivation of cognitively assessing individuals, which is a known marker for neurological diseases.
Regarding claim 28: Claim 28 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 9, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 29: Claim 29 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 10, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 30: Claim 30 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 11, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 32: Beck as modified teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 17, wherein the processor and the storage medium are comprised within a first device (Alailima, [0137-0140], where the apparatus 500 includes at least one memory 502 and at least one processing unit 504, where the memory502 can be used to store data, including nData 512 (including computation results from application of an example classifier model, measurement data from measurement(s) using one or more physiological or monitoring components and/or cognitive testing components), and/or data indicative of the response of an individual to one or more tasks (cData)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Beck and Alailima with the motivation of performing all required computations within an individual device, thereby enabling localized computations which provides greater flexibility/convenience (e.g., does not necessitate network connectivity).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (“Beck”) (US 2019/0239791 A1), in view of Zietsma et al. (“Zietsma”) (US 2013/0060124 A1).
Regarding claim 14: Beck teaches A computer system as claimed in claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the writing apparatus is a digital pen.
Zietsma teaches wherein the writing apparatus is a digital pen (Zietsma, [0050], where the sensor device 4 looks and feels like an ordinary pen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Beck and Zietsma with the motivation of having users utilize a familiar apparatus, e.g., many people are familiar with the feel of a pen, and thus are more likely to write in a normal manner, thereby resulting in possibly more accurate data collection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See the enclosed 892 form. Bowles et al. (US 6,485,417 B1) is cited to show why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have utilized a computer to display questions for cognitive assessment (e.g., Bowles et al. at [7:5-18])).
The prior art should be considered to define the claims over the art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE BAKER whose telephone number is (408)918-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5PM PT.
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, NEVEEN ABEL-JALIL can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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.
/IRENE BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
4 December 2025
1 CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) at p. 20, footnote 4 (“…the claims contain no hint as to how the information regarding the Internet transactions will be sorted, weighed, and ultimately converted into a useable conclusion that a particular transaction is fraudulent. The claims in this case are therefore even more abstract than the claims in Flook”).
2
3 Bowles et al. US 6,485,417 B1 at [7:5-18].
4 See Beck, [0044], where “aberration” refers to a departure from what is normally observed or expected, i.e., “predicted” as claimed.
5 Bowles et al. US 6,485,417 B1 at [7:5-18].
6 Beck et al. US 2019/0239791 A1 at [0005] (“…handwriting can be analyzed over time to detect deterioration in one’s mental health. Neurological disease can affect handwriting and is common and progressive among elderly people. Information/data collected from a patient’s handwriting over time can improve the reliability of a healthcare professional’s diagnosis”).
7 Zietsma et al. US 2013/0060124 A1 at [0042] (“Studies have reported about handwriting changes due to aging and Parkinson’s disease”).