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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 28, and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 39 recite “select the at least one motor gaming test” in “b),” but instead should be --select the at least one or more motor gaming tests--. Claims 1 and 39 recite “a set of user activities” in “b),” but instead should be --the set of user activities--. Claims 1 and 39 recite “the at least one motor gaming test” in “c)” and “e),” but instead should be --the at least one or more motor gaming tests--. Claim 1 recites “a medical condition” in “g),” but instead should be --the medical condition--. Claims 1 and 39 recite recites “the symptom . . . the sensed symptom” in the last line on page 2 and lines 28-29, but instead should be --the one or more symptom . . . the sensed one or more symptoms--. Claims 1 and 39 recite “the operating parameters” in line 2 on page 3 and line 31, but instead should be --the one or more operating parameters--. Claims 1 and 39 recite “a stimulating element” in line 6 on page 3 and line 35, but instead should be --the stimulating element--. Claim 28 recites “sone or more user inputs . . . the at least one user input” in lines 3 and 6, but instead should be --one or more user inputs-- and --the user input--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25, 28 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 recites “assign a severity score, corresponding to a probability of the one or more symptoms associated with a medical condition, to the one or more symptoms” in line “g),” but lacks detail in the specification. It is unclear how the probability is computed, how it is assigned, how it corresponds to the symptoms, and how the symptoms are associated with a medical condition based on the probability. Therefore, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 recites the use of “machine learning”, but the specification is devoid of details regarding machine learning. The specification merely recites the use of a machine learning algorithm, but fails to provide details and the composition of the algorithm, e.g., specific formula. The same issue is seen in claim 45.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “repeating steps (c) to (e) until the performance score based on the user input is at or below a lowest threshold from a plurality of performance scores from past user input to identify one or more symptoms associated with a medical condition.”
Allowable subject matter cannot be noted due to the objections and rejections noted above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/12/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant contends that claims 28 was amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection regarding the machine learning limitation, on page 8 of the Remarks. The amendments however, are not sufficient because they merely recite the language in the specification. The specification lacks details on how the inputs are used with an algorithm that receives the input and calculates the output. The specification must have specific details on the machine learning process that include more than just the inputs and the output.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horne teaches an output is generated indicating that motion symptoms are at an initial stage if the selection score is less than a threshold, and generating an output indicating that motion symptoms are at an advanced stage if the selection score is greater than the threshold. US 20200305789 A1
McIntyre teaches comparing the score to a threshold value, wherein the threshold value predicts an amount of improvement of at least one symptom in the candidate. US 20170185730
Albert teaches the bottom of the super-threshold range is a value that exceeds a patient's threshold cadence value and results in an improvement in the patient's disease symptoms. US 20130310716
Albert teaches recommending different tests to a user with based on the difficulty of the test for the user. US 10741287
DiLorenzo teaches threshold levels include but are not limited to disease and symptom levels, including tremor threshold levels. Neural modulation amplitude may be increased when at least one of disease state and symptom level exceed the corresponding threshold. US 7974696
John teaches a specified spatial pattern of neural activation (e.g., the area of tremor activity spreads beyond a threshold value) has occurred then this may be defined as a signature of a type of symptom for which treatment has been defined. US 20070142874
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:10 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791