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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-10,13-16,18,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),102(a)(2) as anticipated by LaPlaca et al (8,568,311) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guzik (2019/0008441).
1. (Original) A computer implemented method configured to enable assessment of a brain injury or other physiological condition, the method including: maintaining access to computer executable code representative of a plurality of neurological tests
that are renderable via hardware including a virtual reality system, wherein the plurality
of neurological tests includes neurological tests belonging to a plurality of distinct test classes; (LaPlaca teaches a cognitive assessment system, see abstract, which includes software, col. 10:1-25, and includes various tests, see Table 5, and where the experience for the patient is audio-visually immersive, see col. 8:20-25. Such experience is considered to be a virtual reality experience. Even if not, Guzik is used by the examiner to more explicitly teach virtual reality in a brain injury assessment system, see abstract. It would have been obvious to use a virtual reality system, as shown in Guzik, for the immersive experience of LaPlaca since virtual reality systems are well known and would provide a visual three dimensions that provides a more interesting and realistic experience for the patient)
configuring the virtual reality system to deliver, to a subject, using the virtual reality system, a neurological assessment including a sequence constructed from the plurality of neurological tests, wherein the sequence of the neurological tests is defined thereby to sequentially provide tests belonging to different ones of the plurality of distinct test classes, thereby to deliver an increasing cognitive load; (at least Table 5 of LaPlaca teaches various tests which are applied for 5 minutes each, and col. 12:18-25 teaches sequences of tests, and col. 12:40-50 teaches increasing cognitive load by making the tests more difficult)
obtaining subject performance data representative of performance of the subject in the neurological assessment; (see at least col. 8:35 to col. 9:20 of LaPlaca which teaches obtaining responses to tests and thus obtaining performance data)
processing the subject performance data thereby to derive one or more measures representative of subject neurological conditions. (see at least col. 8:35 to col. 9:20 of LaPlaca) which teaches obtaining test results)
2. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the processing the subject performance data includes identifying variations in performance attributable to increasing of cognitive loading. (such is considered to have been an obvious step in that as the cognitive load is increased, any variation in performance of the patient due to increased load will be noted by the physician so that he can evaluate the extent of the brain injury)
3. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, wherein identifying variations in performance attributable to increasing of cognitive loading includes comparing subject performance with a plurality of tests belonging to a particular one of the distinct test classes which, which are delivered non-adjacently with respect to the sequence. (such is considered to have been an obvious step in that as the cognitive load is increased, any variation in performance of the patient due to increased load will be noted by the physician so that he can evaluate the extent of the brain injury. Further, see at least col. 13:30-50 of LaPlaca which teaches comparison with other test data, given at an earlier, non-adjacent time)
4. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, wherein identifying variations in performance attributable to increasing of cognitive loading includes comparing subject performance with a first test belonging to a particular one of the distinct test classes with a second test belonging to the same particular one of the distinct test classes, wherein the second test is delivered subsequent to the first test non-adjacently with respect to the sequence. (such is considered to have been an obvious step in that as the cognitive load is increased, any variation in performance of the patient due to increased load will be noted by the physician so that he can evaluate the extent of the brain injury. Further, see at least col. 13:30-50 of LaPlaca which teaches comparison with other test data, given at an earlier, non-adjacent time)
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of distinct test classes includes one or more test classes defined by defined forms of memory test. (see at least Table 5 of LaPlaca)
6. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 5, wherein the defined forms of memory test includes: immediate memory, working memory, and delayed memory tests. (see at least Table 5 of LaPlaca. Further, testing each of the different memory types is considered to yield predictable results so that the physician can determine which type of recall the patient has problems with and thus render a more accurate diagnosis of the patient’s condition)
7. (Currently Amended) A method according to any preceding claim The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of distinct test classes include a class defined by a defined form of short-term memory test. (see at least col 8:35-40 of LaPlaca which teaches variation of various memory recall tasks. Short term memory would be seen as important to test to see if brain function impairment is present)
8. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 7, wherein the defined form of short-term memory test includes a list item recollection exercise delivered via the virtual reality system. (see at least col 8:35-40 of LaPlaca which teaches variation of various memory recall tasks. The system of LaPlaca, as mentioned supra, is a VR system by itself, or in combination with Guzik)
9. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of distinct test classes include a class defined by a defined form of long-term memory test. (see at least col. 12:24 of LaPlaca)
10. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 9, wherein the defined form of memory test includes a list item recollection exercise delivered via the virtual reality system, wherein the list is presented preceding one or more tests of other test classes, and recollection tested following the one or more tests of other test classes. (see at least Table 5 and col. 12:22-50 of LaPlaca. The tests can be in any order that the physician deems appropriate to reveal the most data about the patient’s condition.)
13. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of distinct test classes include a class defined by a defined form of reaction time test. (see at least Table 5 of LaPlaca)
14. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 13. wherein the defined form of reaction time test includes an auditory reaction time test. (at least col. 8:60-63 of LaPlaca teaches auditory output device. It would have been obvious to use a reaction time test since such test is considered to be well known and would yield predictable results such as giving the physician insight into any malfunction of the brain that causes slow processing of auditory stimulation)
15. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of distinct test classes include a class defined by a defined form of ocular reaction time test. (see at least ¶36 of Guzik. It would have been obvious to use such a test with the device of LaPlaca since it would yield important information re the patient’s brain)
16. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 15, wherein the defined form of ocular reaction time test includes a test in which the VR system displays to the subject a moving object, and the subject is instructed to track that object with a stationary head, and provide a defined input upon the object performing a specified change in behavior. (see at east ¶36,53-56 of Guzik. To instruct the patient to keep a stationary head would better test ocular side view health in a predictable manner)
18. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of distinct test classes include a class defined by a defined form of executive cognitive function test. (It would have been obvious to use such a test with the device of LaPlaca since it would yield predictable results such as revealing important information about how the patients thinks, plans and executes instructions re the patient’s brain injury)
19. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the sequence constructed from a subset of the plurality of neurological tests is a sequence that includes a sub-sequence including three or more of the following thereby to increase cognitive loading through the sub-sequence: a memory test; a vestibular system test; a reaction time test; and an executive cognitive function test. (as mentioned supra, LaPlaca and Guzik anticipate render obvious at least a memory test, a reaction time test and a executive cognitive test. It would have been obvious to increase cognitive loading as set forth in the claim since it would yield predictable results such as loading the patient in order to reveal injuries to the brain that are not apparent with an easier or less loaded test sequence)
Claim(s) 11,12,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPlaca et al (8,568,311) and Guzik (2019/0008441), and further in view of Wright (2019/0380638).
11. (Currently Amended) claim The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of distinct test classes include a class defined by a defined form of vestibular system test. (Wright teaches virtual reality assessment system to assess balance, see abstract and ¶2. It would have been obvious to use such a system with the VR of LaPlaca since it would reveal the predictable result of more complete information re the patient’s brain health so that the patient can be treated effectively)
12. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 11, wherein the defined form of vestibular system test includes a virtual reality game for which performance is related to gaze control and/or saccades, wherein the subject stands on a computerized balance board during the test. (In Wright the patient stands on a pad 111 which is considered to be an obvious variant of a balance board since it is used to test the patient’s balance; see also ¶38 and 43 which teaches a Wii balance board, which is considered a computerized board. At least ¶44 of Wright teaches a visual indicator that the uses as a reference point and which can act performance can be tracked in a manner related to gaze control as the reference point stays a stationary or moves)
17. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of distinct test classes include a class defined by a defined form of vestibular system test in which the subject is instructed to shift balance on an computerized balance board. (as mentioned supra, Wright teaches a pad which acts as a balance board, as well as a Wii type balanced board, ¶43. It would have been obvious to use such with the device of LaPlaca since it would help to determine the patient’s balance in a predictable manner)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M. Getzow whose telephone number is (571)272-4946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/Scott M. Getzow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792