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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/25 has been entered.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 11/18/25, amended claim(s) 1, 4-5, 9-10, 16, and 18-19, and cancelled claim(s) 6 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the cognitive task activities” (lines 1-2) appears that it should be “the cognitive problem solving and memory task activities.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a plurality of subject stimulus devices,” in claims 1 and 16, which corresponds to “lights” and/or “a speaker” (see para [0036] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a plurality of subject input devices,” in claims 1 and 16, which corresponds to “button or switch,” “touch screen,” and/or “a microphone” (see para [0036]-[0037] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); and “a depth image data collection device structured and operable to generate depth image data of the subject as the subject simultaneously performs the one or more tasks,” in claim(s) 1 and 16, which corresponds to “one or more depth camera and/or one or more LiDAR (light detection and ranging) device” (see para [0031] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 7, the claim depends from a cancelled claim. The claim is examined as depending from claim 1.
For claim 10, the claim depends from a cancelled claim. The claim is examined as depending from claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 8 fails to cure the ambiguity of claim(s) 7, thus claim(s) 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0232113 to Zets et al. (hereinafter “Zets”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0059801 to Vardy.
For claim 1, Zets discloses a point-of-care assessment system for the assessment of neurocognitive and neuromotor performance (Abstract) (also see para [0016]), said system comprising:
a force plate (11a/11b) (Fig. 1) (para [0051]) structured and operable to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) generate force plate data indicative of measurement of dynamic vertical ground reaction forces on a subject’s body and of a center of pressure of the subject on the force plate as the subject simultaneously performs two or more tasks (para [0071]) (also see para [0019], [0046], [0048]-[0049], and [0135]);
an interactive subject interface subject board (30 and/or 34) (Fig. 1) (para [0051]) comprising a plurality of stimulus devices (see Figs. 7A-D of Zets) (also see para [0051]-[0052], [0073], and/or [0090]) and a plurality of subject input devices (“keyboard interface 31,” para [0051]) (also see “touch-screen all-in-one-computer,” para [0052] and/or “touch screen interface,” para [0083]), wherein the subject interface board is structured and operable to:
provide stimuli to the subject via the subject stimulus devices (as can be seen in Figs. 7A-7D) (para [0125]-[0126]);
receive input from the subject in response to the stimuli (para [0125]-[0129]) (also see para [0052] and/or [0083]), wherein the input comprises one of the two or more simultaneously performed tasks (para [0125]-[0129]) (also see para [0052] and/or [0083]), and
generate interface board data indicative of the subject’s input (para [0125]-[0129]) (also see para [0052] and/or [0083]);
a depth image data collection device structured and operable to generate depth image data of the subject as the subject simultaneously performs the two or more tasks (Examiner’s Note: interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) invocation above) (44/45) (Figs. 1 and 4A) (para [0061]); and
a computer-based data collection and analysis system (20) (Fig. 1) (para 0050]) communicatively connected to the force plate, the depth image data collection device and the interface board (as can be seen in Fig. 1), and structured and operable to execute one or more point-of-care assessment system program to provide the stimuli and collect and analyze the force plate data, depth image data, and interface board data generated as the subject simultaneously performs the two or more tasks (para [0050]-[0052], [0062], [0064]-[0066], and [0077]).
Zets does not expressly disclose that the input is physical input from the subject via the subject input devices.
However, Vardy teaches an input that is a physical input from the subject via the subject input devices (para [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zets such that that the input is physical input from the subject via the subject input devices, in view of the teachings of Vardy, because such a modification would be the simple substitution of the way that a user inputs their feedback/response to the stimulus that would lead to the predictable result of being able to record a response from the user for a given stimulus/test.
For claim 2, Zets further discloses a 2D camera (one of 44 or 45 not relied upon for the claimed “depth image data collection device”) (also see “Microsoft Kinect,” para [0061])1 structured and operable to generate 2D image data of the subject as the subject simultaneously performs the two or more tasks (para [0061]).
For claim 3, Zets further discloses wherein the data collection and analysis system is further structured and operable to execute the one or more PASS programs comprising a skeletal tracking algorithm to measure body motion of the subject in the form of joint centers and segment orientations as the subject simultaneously performs the two or more tasks (para [0063]) (also see para [0067], [0069], [0072], [0091], and/or [0095]).
For claim 4, Zets further discloses wherein the data collection and analysis system is further structured and operable to execute the one or more PASS programs to induce cognitive task activities for the subject to perform as one of the two or more tasks simultaneously performed by the subject (para [0047]-[0049]).
Zets does not expressly disclose wherein the cognitive task is a problem solving and memory task.
However, Vardy teaches wherein a cognitive task is a problem solving and memory task (para [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zets wherein the cognitive task is a problem solving and memory task, in view of the teachings of Vardy, for the obvious advantage of of implementing a cognitive strategy into the assessment provided by Zets, which is what Zets wants to do anyway (see “cognitive strategies,” para [0047] of Zets).
For claim 5, Zets, as modified, further discloses wherein the data collection and analysis system is further structured and operable to execute the one or more PASS programs to induce the cognitive problem solving and memory task activities for the subject to perform via interaction with the interface board and the force plate (para [0047]-[0049] of Zets) (also see para [0059] of Vardy).
For claim 7, Zets further discloses wherein the plurality of subject stimulus devices comprise at least one of: a plurality of lights; and a speaker (see Figs. 7A-D of Zets) (also see para [0051]-[0052], [0073], and/or [0090]).
For claim 8, Zets further discloses wherein the plurality of subject input devices comprise at least one of: at least one push button; at least one touch screen display button; at least one switch; and a microphone .
For claim 10, Zets further discloses wherein execution of the one or more PASS programs comprises implementation of at least one of a Romberg balance test, a lateral step-down task, a drop vertical jump task, a gait task, a step-down task, a sit-to-stand task, and an upper extremity pointing task (para [0049]).
For claim 16, Zets discloses a point-of-care assessment system for the assessment of neurocognitive and neuromotor performance (Abstract) (also see para [0016]), said system comprising:
a force plate (11a/11b) (Fig. 1) (para [0051]) structured and operable to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) generate force plate data indicative of measurement of dynamic vertical ground reaction forces on a subject’s body and of a center of pressure of the subject on the force plate as the subject simultaneously performs two or more tasks (para [0071]) (also see para [0019], [0046], [0048]-[0049], and [0135]);
an interactive subject interface subject board (30 and/or 34) (Fig. 1) (para [0051]) comprising a plurality of subject interface devices (Examiner’s Note: made up of the elements they comprise) comprising a plurality of stimulus devices (see Figs. 7A-D of Zets) (also see para [0051]-[0052], [0073], and/or [0090]) and a plurality of subject input devices (“keyboard interface 31,” para [0051]) (also see “touch-screen all-in-one-computer,” para [0052] and/or “touch screen interface,” para [0083]), wherein the subject interface board is structured and operable to:
provide stimuli to the subject via the subject interface devices (as can be seen in Figs. 7A-7D) (para [0125]-[0126]);
receive input from the subject in response to the stimuli (para [0125]-[0129]) (also see para [0052] and/or [0083]), wherein the input comprises one of the two or more simultaneously performed tasks (para [0125]-[0129]) (also see para [0052] and/or [0083]), and
generate interface board data indicative of the subject’s input (para [0125]-[0129]) (also see para [0052] and/or [0083]);
a depth image data collection device structured and operable to generate depth image data of the subject as the subject simultaneously performs the two or more tasks (Examiner’s Note: interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) invocation above) (44/45) (Figs. 1 and 4A) (para [0061]);
a 2D camera (one of 44 or 45 not relied upon for the claimed “depth image data collection device”) (also see “Microsoft Kinect,” para [0061])2 structured and operable to generate 2D image data of the subject as the subject simultaneously performs the two or more tasks (para [0061]); and
a computer-based data collection and analysis system (20) (Fig. 1) (para 0050]) communicatively connected to the force plate, the depth image data collection device, the 2D camera and the interface board (as can be seen in Fig. 1), and structured and operable to execute one or more point-of-care assessment system program to provide the stimuli and collect and analyze the force plate data, depth image data, 2D data and interface board data generated as the subject simultaneously performs the two or more tasks (para [0050]-[0052], [0062], [0064]-[0066], and [0077]).
Zets does not expressly disclose that the input is physical input from the subject via the subject input devices.
However, Vardy teaches an input that is a physical input from the subject via the subject input devices (para [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zets such that that the input is physical input from the subject via the subject input devices, in view of the teachings of Vardy, because such a modification would be the simple substitution of the way that a user inputs their feedback/response to the stimulus that would lead to the predictable result of being able to record a response from the user for a given stimulus/test.
For claim 17, Zets further discloses wherein the data collection and analysis system is further structured and operable to execute the one or more PASS programs comprising a skeletal tracking algorithm to measure body motion of the subject in the form of joint centers and segment orientations as the subject simultaneously performs the two or more tasks (para [0063]) (also see para [0067], [0069], [0072], [0091], and/or [0095]).
For claim 18, Zets further discloses wherein the data collection and analysis system is further structured and operable to execute the one or more PASS programs to induce cognitive task activities for the subject to perform as one of the two or more tasks simultaneously performed by the subject (para [0047]-[0049]).
Zets does not expressly disclose wherein the cognitive task is a problem solving and memory task.
However, Vardy teaches wherein a cognitive task is a problem solving and memory task (para [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zets wherein the cognitive task is a problem solving and memory task, in view of the teachings of Vardy, for the obvious advantage of of implementing a cognitive strategy into the assessment provided by Zets, which is what Zets wants to do anyway (see “cognitive strategies,” para [0047] of Zets).
For claim 19, Zets further discloses wherein the data collection and analysis system is further structured and operable to execute the one or more PASS programs to induce the cognitive problem solving and memory task activities for the subject to perform via interaction with the interface board and the force plate (para [0047]-[0049] of Zets) (also see para [0059] of Vardy).
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zets in view of Vardy, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0272840 to Peterson et al. (hereinafter “Peterson”).
For claim 9, Zets and Vardy do not expressly disclose wherein the cognitive problem solving and memory task activities comprise at least one of memory games and mental tasks that include mathematical computations.
However, Peterson teaches wherein the cognitive problem solving and memory task activities comprise at least one of memory games and mental tasks that include mathematical computations (para [0054], [0056], and [0075]-[0077]) (also see para [0084]-[0085] and [0089]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zets wherein the cognitive problem solving and memory task activities comprise at least one of memory games and mental tasks that include mathematical computations, in view of the teachings of Peterson, for the obvious advantage of enhancing the user’s working memory (see Abstract of Peterson).
For claim 20, Zets and Vardy do not expressly disclose wherein the cognitive problem solving and memory task activities comprise at least one of memory games and mental tasks that include mathematical computations.
However, Peterson teaches wherein the cognitive problem solving and memory task activities comprise at least one of memory games and mental tasks that include mathematical computations (para [0054], [0056], and [0075]-[0077]) (also see para [0084]-[0085] and [0089]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zets wherein the cognitive problem solving and memory task activities comprise at least one of memory games and mental tasks that include mathematical computations, in view of the teachings of Peterson, for the obvious advantage of enhancing the user’s working memory (see Abstract of Peterson).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/18/25 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objections, the previous claim objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments. A new claim objection is necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
With respect to the 112 rejections, the previous rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
With respect to the 103 rejections, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Zets is relied upon for teaching plurality of stimulus devices and also teaches a plurality of input devices (see rejection above). Zets reads on this claim language when the claim language is construed under its 35 U.S.C. 112(f) invocation. The response argues that element 34 is used by a therapist, but element 34 is not exclusively used by the therapist, as it can also be used by the subject (see para [0051] and [0077] of Zets). Zets is not relied upon for the teaching of the input is physical input from the subject via the subject input devices. Vardy is relied upon for that claimed subject matter. So the rejection is based on these combination of references, that it would have been obvious to modify Zets to modify its input to be a physical input, and that such physical input is from the subject input devices (as opposed to being from different device(s)), in view of the rationale given above. The rejection of claim 4 has also been updated in view of Applicant’s amendments to that claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 See para [0027] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0035247 to Liu et al. for evidence that the Microsoft Kinect can operate as a 2D camera
2 See para [0027] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0035247 to Liu et al. for evidence that the Microsoft Kinect can operate as a 2D camera
Prosecution Insights