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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 12-14 remain pending in the application, where claims 3 and 6-11 have been cancelled and claims 13-14 were newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 102 and 103 rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed December 23, 2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate new grounds of rejection, as described in the Response to Arguments and 102/103 Rejections below.
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.
(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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20210000340 A1 (Klin et al.).
Regarding claim 13, Klin teaches a cognitive impairment diagnostic device comprising:
a memory configured to store a program ([0256] “A processor receives instructions and data from memories. Storage devices suitable for tangibly embodying computer program instructions and data include forms of non-volatile memory, including by way of example, semiconductor memory devices, such as EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and Compact Disk”); and
a processor configured to execute the program and control the cognitive impairment diagnostic device ([0256] “Processors may include general and special purpose microprocessors. A processor receives instructions and data from memories”) and control the cognitive impairment diagnostic device ([0006] “executing on a processor”; [0257] “the systems, devices, and methods can be practiced by other than the described embodiments, which are presented for purposes of illustration and not of limitation. Although the embodiments and features herein are specifically described for use in connection with collecting and analyzing eye tracking data from subjects for the assessment, screening, monitoring, or diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders (ASD), it will be understood that the systems, devices, and methods may also apply to other developmental, cognitive social or mental abilities or disabilities, as well as other conditions, including but not limited to language disorders, intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities with or without the presence of known genetic disorders, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), attention deficit disorder (ADD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), head trauma, concussion, sports injuries, and dementia.”) to:
obtain a distribution map representing a distribution of gaze points of a subject on a movie for cognitive assessment ([0097] “collect eye tracking data (e.g., x,y coordinates of gaze) from the subject as related to the visual and audio stimulus.”),
wherein the movie for cognitive assessment includes ([0090] “During both the calibration as well as the data collection procedures, predetermined movies and/or other visual stimuli are presented to the subject via the display device”): a first region including a correct image for cognitive assessment or an image for encoding ([0101] “fixation targets, are presented to the subject, both the operator and the eye tracking unit (e.g., eye tracking unit 104 of FIG. 2) confirm that the subject is fixating. The targets reflexively capture the subject's attention and result in a saccade towards, and fixation upon, a known target location. The target reliably elicits fixations to a finite location; for example, a radially symmetric target spanning less than 0.5 degrees of visual angle. Other examples include concentric patterns, shapes, or shrinking stimuli that, even if initially larger in size, reliably elicit fixations to fixed target locations.”; [0177] “to begin the process of data collection, after the child was comfortably watching the children's video, calibration targets were presented onscreen by the experimenter (as described above in connection with step 310 in FIG. 4, and FIGS. 5C-5I). This was done via software that paused the playing video and presented a calibration target on an otherwise blank background.”); and a plurality of second regions including other images ([0177] “blank background.”), and
wherein the processor is configured to execute the program and further control the cognitive impairment diagnostic device ([0256-0257]) to:
calculate, in the distribution map on the movie for cognitive assessment, a percentage of fixation duration for which the second region is focused on ([0127] “Summary eye tracking information (e.g., fixation samples/movie, etc.) is read from the process summary ET file and tabulated in the database for subsequent query. Summary values (e.g., percentage fixation/movie, etc.) are then calculated within the database”; [0131] “a statistical analysis of the subject's eye tracking data may be used to determine if that subject is diagnosed with a development or cognitive condition”); and
compare the percentage of fixation duration to a threshold to make diagnosis of whether cognitive impairment is present ([0128] “The summary diagnostic data are read from the diagnostic summary processed files and subsequently visualized within the database for physician review.”; [0120] “such points may be weighted, in a probabilistic fashion, according to their proximity so as to calculate a weighted estimate of central tendency (e.g., median) without depending upon (or in addition to depending on) a fixed threshold. In some embodiments, points that are within the threshold (points 882) are used as acceptable points to transform the data to the result shown in display 890. It will be understood and appreciated that the accuracy of the detection of ASD as well as other developmental, cognitive, social, or mental conditions depends on the accuracy of the eye tracking data received from the eye tracking unit in the disclosed device.; [0167] “FIG. 26A is a graph showing percent fixation on eyes for typically-developing infants. FIG. 26C is a graph showing percent fixation on eyes for infants at high risk for ASD who showed no evidence of ASD at 36 months. FIG. 26E is a graph showing percent fixation on eyes for infants at high risk for ASD who showed some subthreshold signs of the Broader Autism Phenotype at 36 months but did not meet clinical best estimate diagnosis of ASD. FIG. 26G is a graph showing percent fixation on eyes for infants diagnose with ASD at 36 month”).
Regarding claim 14, Klin teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a cognitive impairment diagnostic program executed by a computer ([0256] “Apparatus of the disclosure can be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable or non-transitory computer-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor”) that is used to obtain a distribution map representing a distribution of gaze points of a subject on a movie for cognitive assessment ([0097] “collect eye tracking data (e.g., x,y coordinates of gaze) from the subject as related to the visual and audio stimulus.”), and make diagnosis of cognitive impairment, based on the distribution map ([0257] “Although the embodiments and features herein are specifically described for use in connection with collecting and analyzing eye tracking data from subjects for the assessment, screening, monitoring, or diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders (ASD), it will be understood that the systems, devices, and methods may also apply to other developmental, cognitive social or mental abilities or disabilities, as well as other conditions, including but not limited to language disorders, intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities with or without the presence of known genetic disorders, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), attention deficit disorder (ADD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), head trauma, concussion, sports injuries, and dementia”),
wherein the movie for cognitive assessment includes: a first region including a correct image for cognitive assessment or an image for encoding ([0101] “fixation targets, are presented to the subject, both the operator and the eye tracking unit (e.g., eye tracking unit 104 of FIG. 2) confirm that the subject is fixating. The targets reflexively capture the subject's attention and result in a saccade towards, and fixation upon, a known target location. The target reliably elicits fixations to a finite location; for example, a radially symmetric target spanning less than 0.5 degrees of visual angle. Other examples include concentric patterns, shapes, or shrinking stimuli that, even if initially larger in size, reliably elicit fixations to fixed target locations.”; [0177] “to begin the process of data collection, after the child was comfortably watching the children's video, calibration targets were presented onscreen by the experimenter (as described above in connection with step 310 in FIG. 4, and FIGS. 5C-5I). This was done via software that paused the playing video and presented a calibration target on an otherwise blank background.”); and a plurality of second regions including other images ([0177] “blank background.”), and
wherein the cognitive impairment diagnostic program causes the computer ([0256-0257]) to:
calculate, in the distribution map on the movie for cognitive assessment, a percentage of fixation duration for which the second region is focused on ([0127] “Summary eye tracking information (e.g., fixation samples/movie, etc.) is read from the process summary ET file and tabulated in the database for subsequent query. Summary values (e.g., percentage fixation/movie, etc.) are then calculated within the database”; [0131] “a statistical analysis of the subject's eye tracking data may be used to determine if that subject is diagnosed with a development or cognitive condition”).; and
compare the percentage of fixation duration to a threshold to make diagnosis of whether cognitive impairment is present ([0128] “The summary diagnostic data are read from the diagnostic summary processed files and subsequently visualized within the database for physician review.”; [0120] “such points may be weighted, in a probabilistic fashion, according to their proximity so as to calculate a weighted estimate of central tendency (e.g., median) without depending upon (or in addition to depending on) a fixed threshold. In some embodiments, points that are within the threshold (points 882) are used as acceptable points to transform the data to the result shown in display 890. It will be understood and appreciated that the accuracy of the detection of ASD as well as other developmental, cognitive, social, or mental conditions depends on the accuracy of the eye tracking data received from the eye tracking unit in the disclosed device.; [0167] “FIG. 26A is a graph showing percent fixation on eyes for typically-developing infants. FIG. 26C is a graph showing percent fixation on eyes for infants at high risk for ASD who showed no evidence of ASD at 36 months. FIG. 26E is a graph showing percent fixation on eyes for infants at high risk for ASD who showed some subthreshold signs of the Broader Autism Phenotype at 36 months but did not meet clinical best estimate diagnosis of ASD. FIG. 26G is a graph showing percent fixation on eyes for infants diagnose with ASD at 36 month”).
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 1-2, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210000340 A1 (Klin et al.) in view of US 20210259603 A1 (Kissine et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Klin teaches a cognitive impairment diagnostic device ([0083] “The device 100 is generally used for the assessment, screening, monitoring, or diagnosis of developmental, cognitive, social, or mental abilities or disabilities in a subject”) comprising:
a memory configured to store a program ([0256] “A processor receives instructions and data from memories. Storage devices suitable for tangibly embodying computer program instructions and data include forms of non-volatile memory, including by way of example, semiconductor memory devices, such as EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and Compact Disk”); and
a processor configured to execute the program ([0256] “Processors may include general and special purpose microprocessors. A processor receives instructions and data from memories”) and control the cognitive impairment diagnostic device ([0006] “executing on a processor”; [0257] “the systems, devices, and methods can be practiced by other than the described embodiments, which are presented for purposes of illustration and not of limitation. Although the embodiments and features herein are specifically described for use in connection with collecting and analyzing eye tracking data from subjects for the assessment, screening, monitoring, or diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders (ASD), it will be understood that the systems, devices, and methods may also apply to other developmental, cognitive social or mental abilities or disabilities, as well as other conditions, including but not limited to language disorders, intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities with or without the presence of known genetic disorders, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), attention deficit disorder (ADD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), head trauma, concussion, sports injuries, and dementia.”) to:
obtain a distribution map representing a distribution of gaze points of a subject on a movie for cognitive assessment ([0097] “collect eye tracking data (e.g., x,y coordinates of gaze) from the subject as related to the visual and audio stimulus.”);
wherein the movie for cognitive assessment includes ([0090] “During both the calibration as well as the data collection procedures, predetermined movies and/or other visual stimuli are presented to the subject via the display device”), in time order:
a first movie including (i) a first region that includes an image for encoding that is displayed in a visually enhanced manner ([0101] “fixation targets, are presented to the subject, both the operator and the eye tracking unit (e.g., eye tracking unit 104 of FIG. 2) confirm that the subject is fixating. The targets reflexively capture the subject's attention and result in a saccade towards, and fixation upon, a known target location. The target reliably elicits fixations to a finite location; for example, a radially symmetric target spanning less than 0.5 degrees of visual angle. Other examples include concentric patterns, shapes, or shrinking stimuli that, even if initially larger in size, reliably elicit fixations to fixed target locations.”; [0177] “to begin the process of data collection, after the child was comfortably watching the children's video, calibration targets were presented onscreen by the experimenter (as described above in connection with step 310 in FIG. 4, and FIGS. 5C-5I). This was done via software that paused the playing video and presented a calibration target on an otherwise blank background.”), and (ii) a plurality of second regions that include normal images that are displayed without being enhanced ([0177] “blank background.”);
an assessment movie including (iii) a third region that includes an assessment image that corresponds to the image for encoding and displayed at a same position as the image for encoding without being visually enhanced ([0089] “The movies that are displayed to a subject may be dependent on the subject's age. In some embodiments, the device measures the amount of fixation time a subject (positioned in the seat) spends looking at an actor's eyes, mouth, or body, or other predetermined region-of-interest, and the amount of time that subject spends looking at background areas in the video.”), and (iv) the plurality of second regions ([0179] “object (surrounding inanimate stimuli)”); and
an other movie that is displayed between the first movie and the assessment movie ([0113] “cause the display of another desensitization movie”), and
wherein the processor is configured to execute the program and further control the cognitive impairment diagnostic device ([0256-0257]) to:
calculate, in a distribution map on the assessment movie, a percentage of fixation duration for which the third region is focused on, the percentage of fixation duration being for making diagnosis of suspected memory impairment ([0127] “Summary eye tracking information (e.g., fixation samples/movie, etc.) is read from the process summary ET file and tabulated in the database for subsequent query. Summary values (e.g., percentage fixation/movie, etc.) are then calculated within the database”; [0131] “a statistical analysis of the subject's eye tracking data may be used to determine if that subject is diagnosed with a development or cognitive condition”).
Klin does not explicitly teach the other movie not including the first movie, the other movie not including the assessment movie, and the other movie being for providing an interval in encoding.
However,
Kissine teaches the other movie not including the first movie, the other movie not including the assessment movie, and the other movie being for providing an interval in encoding ([0044]; [0054] “These first and second videos constitute in this example what we previously called respectively “the first information” and “the second information”; [0057] “As part of a third information, a third video or a third image may for example be displayed at least partially in superposition with or close to the previously displayed second video.”; [0074]; [0019] “the score is calculated in function of a number of said fixations or on an evolution of a number of said fixations over time (i.e. over the successive executions of steps b) to f))”; The other movie is interpreted to be the second video, which is distinct from the first movie (first video) and assessment video (third video).).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Klin to include the other movie not including the first movie or the assessment movie. Klin discloses the display of another desensitization movie between the assessment movie [0113]. It would have been obvious for the other movie being displayed to be a different movie from the first movie or assessment movie over a time interval to measure gaze among three different types of information [0025]. One would have been motivated to make this modification because measuring a decline in visual fixations is a marker for cognitive disability or ability and measuring fixations to three videos can be measured to find a score to indicate risk of neurodevelopmental disorder, as suggested by Kissine [0003, 0063-0064, 0092].
Regarding claim 2, Klin teaches the cognitive impairment diagnostic device according to claim 1, wherein the first movie includes a first movie for encoding and a second movie for encoding in time order, the first movie for encoding including the first region and the plurality of second regions, the second movie for encoding including the first region and not including the plurality of second regions ([0177] “The calibration routine was followed by verification of calibration in which more animations were presented at five on-screen locations. Throughout the remainder of the testing session, animated targets (as used in the calibration process) were shown between experimental videos to measure drift in calibration accuracy.”; The second video comprises multiple animations (first regions), and therefore does not have the inanimate, blank background (second region)).
Regarding claim 4, Klin teaches the cognitive impairment diagnostic device according to claim 1, wherein the movie for cognitive assessment includes a movie in which the first movie and the other movie are repeated two or more times ([0009] “repeating steps a-d for a plurality of sessions within the first 24 months of life of the individual, wherein each session is separated by at least about one month”; [0110] “cause the display of another desensitization movie.”).
Regarding claim 12, Klin teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a cognitive impairment diagnostic program executed by a computer ([0256] “Apparatus of the disclosure can be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable or non-transitory computer-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor”) that is used to obtain a distribution map representing a distribution of gaze points of a subject on a movie for cognitive assessment ([0097] “collect eye tracking data (e.g., x,y coordinates of gaze) from the subject as related to the visual and audio stimulus.”), and make diagnosis of cognitive impairment, based on the distribution map ([0083] “The device 100 is generally used for the assessment, screening, monitoring, or diagnosis of developmental, cognitive, social, or mental abilities or disabilities in a subject”),
wherein the movie for cognitive assessment includes ([0090] “During both the calibration as well as the data collection procedures, predetermined movies and/or other visual stimuli are presented to the subject via the display device”), in time order:
a first movie including (i) a first region that includes an image for encoding that is displayed in a visually enhanced manner ([0101] “fixation targets, are presented to the subject, both the operator and the eye tracking unit (e.g., eye tracking unit 104 of FIG. 2) confirm that the subject is fixating. The targets reflexively capture the subject's attention and result in a saccade towards, and fixation upon, a known target location. The target reliably elicits fixations to a finite location; for example, a radially symmetric target spanning less than 0.5 degrees of visual angle. Other examples include concentric patterns, shapes, or shrinking stimuli that, even if initially larger in size, reliably elicit fixations to fixed target locations.”; [0177] “to begin the process of data collection, after the child was comfortably watching the children's video, calibration targets were presented onscreen by the experimenter (as described above in connection with step 310 in FIG. 4, and FIGS. 5C-5I). This was done via software that paused the playing video and presented a calibration target on an otherwise blank background.”), and (ii) a plurality of second regions that include normal images that are displayed without being enhanced (ii) a plurality of second regions that include normal images that are displayed without being enhanced ([0177] “blank background.”);
an assessment movie including (iii) a third region that includes an assessment image that corresponds to the image for encoding and displayed at a same position as the image for encoding without being visually enhanced ([0089] “The movies that are displayed to a subject may be dependent on the subject's age. In some embodiments, the device measures the amount of fixation time a subject (positioned in the seat) spends looking at an actor's eyes, mouth, or body, or other predetermined region-of-interest, and the amount of time that subject spends looking at background areas in the video.”), and (iv) the plurality of second regions ([0179] “object (surrounding inanimate stimuli)”); and
an other movie that is displayed between the first movie and the assessment movie ([0113] “cause the display of another desensitization movie”), and
wherein the cognitive impairment diagnostic program causes the computer to execute:
calculating, in a distribution map on the assessment movie, a percentage of fixation duration for which the third region is focused on, the percentage of fixation duration being for making diagnosis of suspected memory impairment ([0127] “Summary eye tracking information (e.g., fixation samples/movie, etc.) is read from the process summary ET file and tabulated in the database for subsequent query. Summary values (e.g., percentage fixation/movie, etc.) are then calculated within the database”; [0131] “a statistical analysis of the subject's eye tracking data may be used to determine if that subject is diagnosed with a development or cognitive condition”).
Klin does not explicitly teach the other movie not including the first movie, the other movie not including the assessment movie, and the other movie being for providing an interval in encoding.
However,
Kissine teaches the other movie not including the first movie, the other movie not including the assessment movie, and the other movie being for providing an interval in encoding ([0044]; [0054] “These first and second videos constitute in this example what we previously called respectively “the first information” and “the second information”; [0057] “As part of a third information, a third video or a third image may for example be displayed at least partially in superposition with or close to the previously displayed second video.”; [0074], The other movie is interpreted to be the second video, which is distinct from the first movie (first video) and assessment video (third video).).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium taught by Klin to include the other movie not including the first movie or the assessment movie [0113]. Klin discloses the display of another desensitization movie between the assessment movie. It would have been obvious for the other movie being displayed to be a different movie from the first movie and assessment movie over a time interval to measure gaze among three different types of information [0025]. One would have been motivated to make this modification because measuring a decline in visual fixations is a marker for cognitive disability or ability and measuring fixations to three videos can be measured to find a score to indicate risk of neurodevelopmental disorder, as suggested by Kissine [0003, 0063-0064, 0092].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210000340 A1 (Klin et al.) in view of US 20210259603 A1 (Kissine et al.), further in view of US 20210007653 A1 (Shudo et al.).
Regarding claim 5, Klin teaches a cognitive impairment diagnostic device ([0083] “The device 100 is generally used for the assessment, screening, monitoring, or diagnosis of developmental, cognitive, social, or mental abilities or disabilities in a subject”) comprising:
a memory configured to store a program ([0256] “A processor receives instructions and data from memories. Storage devices suitable for tangibly embodying computer program instructions and data include forms of non-volatile memory, including by way of example, semiconductor memory devices, such as EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and Compact Disk”); and
a processor configured to execute the program ([0256] “Processors may include general and special purpose microprocessors. A processor receives instructions and data from memories”) and control the cognitive impairment diagnostic device ([0006],[0257]) to:
obtain a distribution map representing a distribution of gaze points of a subject on a movie for cognitive assessment ([0097] “collect eye tracking data (e.g., x,y coordinates of gaze) from the subject as related to the visual and audio stimulus.”),
wherein the movie for cognitive assessment includes:
a first region including a correct character image ([0151] “the percentage of visual fixation time to eyes, mouth, body, and object regions was measured” … ““eye” regions-of-interest”);
a plurality of second regions including incorrect character images (Figs. 17A-17B – the second regions are the regions of the movie that are not the regions of interest (i.e. anywhere other than the eyes)); and
the processor is configured to execute the program and further control the cognitive impairment diagnostic device ([0256-0257]) to:
calculate, in the distribution map on the movie for cognitive assessment, a percentage of fixation duration for which the first region is focused on, the percentage of fixation duration being for making diagnosis of whether cognitive impairment is present ([0132] “Gaze position coordinates are compared to pre-specified regions of interest across each frame of the movie shown. At step 1068 relevant statistics are summarized. Summary statistics for each movie, including time of fixation on screen and each region-of-interest, as well as time spent saccading, blinking, or otherwise not engaging with the screen are recorded.”; Figs. 17A-17B; [0131] “a statistical analysis of the subject's eye tracking data may be used to determine if that subject is diagnosed with a development or cognitive condition”).
Klin does not explicitly teach an image region including an image representing an object that is known; and a question region including a question sentence asking a name of the object, wherein: the first region includes a character image indicating the name of the object; the plurality of second regions include character images other than the name of the object.
However,
Shudo teaches an image region including an image representing an object that is known ([0103] “the display control unit 202 may cause the display screen 101S to display a specific object M5”; Fig. 12); and
a question region including a question sentence asking a name of the object ([0103] “cause the display screen 101S to simultaneously display the instruction information 13 for instructing the subject to gaze at a figure identical to the specific object M5.”; Fig. 12),
wherein:
the first region includes a character image indicating the name of the object ([0103] “the display control unit 202 may cause the specific object M5 … to be displayed during the second display operation, as illustrated in FIG. 13. In this case, the display control unit 202 may cause figures formed by using the same shape (e.g., pentagon) such as the specific object M5.”); and
the plurality of second regions includes character images other than the name of the object ([0103] “the display control unit 202 may cause … comparison objects M6, M7 to be displayed during the second display operation, as illustrated in FIG. 13. In this case, the display control unit 202 may cause … the comparison objects M6, M7 to be displayed”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Klin to include the images and questions about the images taught by Shudo. One would have been motivated to make this modification because this evaluates the figure recognition function of the subject so that the device may determine if the subject has cognitive dysfunction using gaze assessment, as suggested by Shudo [0101-0103].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 102 and 103 Rejections in the Non-Final Office Action (See Pages 8-10 of Applicant’s Response “Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103”), Applicant argues that a combination of Klin and Shudo does not disclose the amended limitations of independent claim 1 and claim 12 reciting an other movie that is displayed between the first movie and the assessment movie, the other movie not including the first movie, the other movie not including the assessment movie, and the other movie being for providing an interval in encoding. Additionally, Applicant argues that Klin and Shudo do not teach the amended limitations of claim 5 reciting an image region including an image representing an object that is known; and a question region including a question sentence asking a name of the object, wherein: the first region includes a character image indicating the name of the object; the plurality of second regions include character images other than the name of the object.
There are new grounds of claim rejections that were necessitated by the claim amendments.
The amended limitations of claim 1 and claim 12 are taught by Klin in view of Kissine, as described above. Kissine teaches measuring eye fixation of a subject using three distinct videos to track the subject’s eye to determine a score to determine potential neurodevelopment disorders [0073-0074]. The invention disclosed by Kissine is analogous to the invention disclosed by Klin, and it would be obvious to include a distinct other video to diagnose cognitive disorders, as described in the 103 rejection above.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected because the rejection of claim 1 is proper and the prior art teaches or suggests all the features of these claims for the reasons described in the 103 Rejections.
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification during examination. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. The requirements for anticipation are discussed in MPEP § 2131. The limitations of claim 5 are taught by Klin in view of Kissine further in view of Shudo under BRI. Shudo describes the system asking a user to identify a known figure (Fig. 12), which reads on the claim limitations of claim 5 under BRI. Shudo depicts other characters other than the known object in Fig. 13, and the user identifies, or names, a representation of the known object among the other character images [0103], which reads on the claim language under BRI. The claim does not specify how the question is answered by the subject or what type of objects of images are displayed to the subject. Therefore, Shudo teaches the amended limitations of claim 5 under BRI in combination with Klin and Kissine as described above.
Additionally, newly added claims 13 and 14 are taught by Klin under BRI, as described in the 102 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVELYN GRACE PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-0651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5:00PM.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/EVELYN GRACE PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights