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 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a system for training spatial cognition, spatial memory and spatiomotor performance comprising a device for presenting a tactile spatial image to be explored by hand and a second device that encodes the trajectory generated by drawing said image from memory. The limitation of a system for training spatial cognition, spatial memory and spatiomotor performance comprising a device for presenting a tactile spatial image to be explored by hand and a second device that encodes the trajectory generated by drawing said image from memory, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device” language, “training” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally training another user. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – device. The device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-18.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, and 18 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The claims are reciting a human operator performing functionality, which is encompassing a human organism.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2019/0015018 A1 to Likova et al. (hereinafter “Likova”).
Concerning claim 1, Likova discloses a system for training spatial cognition, spatial memory and spatiomotor performance comprising a device for presenting a tactile spatial image to be explored by hand and a second device that encodes the trajectory generated by drawing said image from memory (paragraphs [0026]-[0031]).
Concerning claims 2 and 11, Likova discloses wherein said tactile image is presented by either a raised line image in a physical medium or a by a tactile representation on the screen of a tablet computer conveyed by a means such as auditory or vibratory coding based on the position of a finger or stylus relative to said tactile image line on said screen (paragraphs [0033]-[0043]).
Concerning claims 3 and 12, Likova discloses wherein the degree of correspondence between said drawing and said spatial image is calculated computationally and reported to said participant by said system (paragraphs [0033]-[0043]).
Concerning claims 4 and 13, Likova discloses wherein the correspondence between said drawing and said spatial image is evaluated by a human operator and strategies for improvement are reported verbally to said participant by said system (paragraphs [0026]-[0031]).
Concerning claims 5 and 14, Likova discloses wherein said devices for presenting said image and encoding said drawn trajectory are tablet computers and a third device provides for two-way remote communication between said system and a remote computer through which an operator remotely controls said system to select each of several images for drawing and managing the provision of said reporting of said participant's performance for said purpose of training of spatial cognition, spatial memory and spatiomotor performance (paragraphs [0026]-[0031]).
Concerning claims 6 and 15, Likova discloses wherein said spatial image is presented visually (paragraphs [0026]-[0031]).
Concerning claims 7 and 16, Likova discloses wherein the degree of correspondence of said drawing with said spatial image is calculated computationally and reported to said participant by said system (paragraphs [0026]-[0031]).
Concerning claims 8 and 17, Likova discloses wherein the correspondence of said drawing with said spatial image is evaluated by a human operator and strategies for improvement are reported verbally to said participant (paragraphs [0026]-[0031]).
Concerning claims 9 and 18, Likova discloses wherein said devices for presenting said image and encoding said drawn trajectory are tablet computers and further including a third device providing for two-way remote communication between said system and a remote computer through which an operator remotely controls said system to select each of several images for drawing and managing the provision of said reporting of said participant's performance for said purpose of training of spatial cognition, spatial memory and spatiomotor performance (paragraphs [0033]-[0043]).
Concerning claim 10, see the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715