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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment, filed 04/16/2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 9, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the claim objections to claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant has amended the claims to resolve the claim objections. The claim objections to claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 9-12, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 12 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees with the applicant that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the “intelligent algorithm” could perform the tasks as claimed. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 12 and 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 12, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 3-5 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim amendment has resolved the 35 USC 112 issues. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 3-5 and 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 12-15, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that argued process of requiring continuous acquisition of physiological signals is insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the examiner contends the human mind is in fact able to determine fixation patterns, saccadic behavior, and pupil dynamics by recognizing how a nervous person may look at the ground while speaking to another individual, observing a person’s saccades as they read text, and notice how an individual’s pupils expand/contract in response to turning off/on a light, respectively. The steps of analyzing and detecting neurological disorders or quantifying cognitive performance are further capable of being performed in the human mind, such as recognizing that an elderly person that has memory issues, confusion, and personality changes has dementia, and based on the severity of symptoms, classifying them into either early, middle, or late dementia.
In response to the applicant’s argument that claims are integrated into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintains the contention that the claimed “eye tracker” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as the data gathering steps are not part of the judicial exception, and are necessary data gathering steps (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even, arguendo, the measurement steps are the alleged core of the invention, the examiner cannot disregard the elements of the claim that recite a judicial exception. The examiner notes the judicial exception does not appear to be carried out by the “eye tracker”, but instead is implemented by the claimed “processor”.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the claims recite significantly more than any abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, the judicial exception does not appear to be carried out by the “eye tracker”, which is disclosed as gathering data from a patient. Even, arguendo, the claimed “eye tracker” were to be involved with the judicial exception, the examiner has referenced Ettenhoffer (US 20160022136 A1) which discloses the use of eye trackers to monitor the movements of the eyes, pupils, or gazes and assessing fixation are conventional technologies [0077]. Further, by applicant’s own admission (see Remarks page 11), one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the “intelligent algorithm” to perform the processing steps. Thus, the “intelligent algorithm” cannot be considered significantly more as it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
In response to the applicant’s argument that the claimed invention provides a technological improvement to the field of endeavor, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). As mentioned above, the additional elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05).
Therefore, for the reasons provided above, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-14 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 16-19, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the examiner’s reference, Abel Fernandez (WO 2019106678 A1) is not proper prior art, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the applicant’s application has a priority date of 12/23/2020. The examiner’s reference has a publish date of 06/06/2019, which is over the 1-year grace period required for exception under 35 USC 102(b)(1)(A) or (B). Therefore, the examiner maintains Abel Fernandez (WO 2019106678 A1) is properly applied as prior art.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the examiner’s reference does not disclose a task-integrated, process-oriented framework, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes, as one example, that Abel Fernandez page 2 line 5 requires the subject to “read a text”, which is a task with a process being outlined on page 2 lines 1-13. Even, arguendo, if the disclosed tasks allegedly differ in purpose from the applicant’s claimed invention, this would be an intended use of the claimed invention, in which the system of Abel Fernandez would be capable of performing as the steps are identical (see Double Patenting Rejection below).
Therefore, for the reasons provided above, the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-14 is maintained.
The examiner finds amended claims 4 and 5 present elements that are not explicitly taught in Abel Fernandez (WO 2019106678 A1), and the rejection 35 USC 102 rejection will be withdrawn from claims 4 and 5. However, new grounds of rejection will be made in view of Munoz (US 6231187 B1).
The applicant has requested that the nonstatutory double patenting rejection be held in abeyance. The examiner maintains the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, and 12-14.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The examiner notes that the applicant’s specification para. 0051 further specifies claim 8 lines 1-2 “means for measuring a pupil diameter”. Paragraph 51 recites “Means 15 for measuring pupil diameter may comprise, for example, a camera configured to acquire an image of the eye and a processing unit for measuring the pupil diameter from the image”.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A system for detecting one or more neurological disorders and/or measuring cognitive performance in a subject by measuring eye movements, oculomotor features or pupil behaviour, said measuring of eye movements performed while said subject is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets, said system comprising:
a. an eye tracker [10], configured to monitor eye movements of a subject [5] while the subject [5] is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [15];
b. a processor [20], configured to receive data from said eye tracker [10] while said subject [5] is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing said targets [15]; and
c. a display means [40] configured to display a test report [50] received from said processor [20]; wherein said processor [20] is further configured to analyze the eye-tracking data for evidence of one or more neurological disorders or general cognitive performance and to report, in said test report [50], a detection of said one or more neurological disorders or a measure of cognitive performance of said subject [5].
Independent Claim 12 recites:
A system for detecting one or more neurological disorders and to check cognitive performance in a subject by measuring eye movements and pupil behavior and applying an intelligent algorithm; said measuring of eye movements performed while said subject is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets; said system comprising:
a. an eye tracker [10], said eye tracker configured to monitor eye movements and pupil behavior of a subject [5] while the subject [5] is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [15];
b. a processor [20], said processor configured to receive data from said eye tracker
[10] while said subject [5] is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [15];
c. the intelligent algorithm for learning, identifying, typifying and classifying eye movements features in pathologies and within pathologies; and
d. a display means [40], said display configured to display the output of said intelligent algorithm on a test report [50] received from said processor [20];
wherein said processor [20] is further configured to analyze and modeling the eye- tracking data for evidence of one or more neurological disorders and from cognitive performance and to report, in said test report [50], a detection and classification of said one or more neurological disorders of said subject [5] both, between and within pathologies.
Step 1:
The examiner concludes that claims 1 and 12 are drawn to machines.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The above claim limitations constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claimed steps of analyzing, learning, identifying, typifying, and classifying recite mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind.
The examiner notes the steps of detecting, measuring, monitoring, displaying and receiving are being interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity that amount to mere data gathering and/or output.
The step of “analyzing” the eye-tracking data is an example of a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of analyzing a data set and drawing conclusions from said data (ie., calculating an average height of a family based on a plurality of individual heights). The step of “learning” is a mental process capable of being performed by the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of receiving new information and storing the information as a memory. The step of “identifying” eye movements is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of identifying whether an object is in motion of at rest. The step of “typifying” is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of typifying the description of an animal with mammary glands as a mammal. The step of “classifying” is an example of a mental process capable of being performed by the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of classifying various organisms into categories (ie., mammals, reptiles, plants, bacteria, etc.).
The claimed steps of analyzing, learning, identifying, typifying, and classifying can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
“[T]he ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The pending claims merely recite steps for estimation that include observations, evaluations, and judgments.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind,
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind,
University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information, which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Regarding the dependent claims 2-11 and 13-14, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in Claims 1-14 is not integrated into a practical application because:
• The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computing device. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for analyzing, learning, identifying, typifying, and classifying merely invoke a computer as a tool.
• The data-gathering step (detecting, measuring, monitoring, receiving) and the data-output step (displaying) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
• There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computing device that is used as a tool for analyzing, learning, identifying, typifying, and classifying.
• The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to estimate bio-information.
• The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computing device for analyzing, learning, identifying, typifying, and classifying. The claims do not apply the obtained prediction to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
Step 2B:
The additional elements are identified as follows: eye tracker, processor, and intelligent algorithm.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
• Applicant’s specification (e.g. paragraph [0053]) which discloses that the processor(s) comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g. analyzing, learning, identifying, typifying, and classifying) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
• Ettenhofer (US 20160022136 A1) which discloses the use of eye trackers to monitor the movements of the eyes, pupils, or gazes and assessing fixation are conventional technologies [0077];
• De Sapio (US 10130311 B1) which discloses the use of intelligent algorithms (machine learning) as a conventional means to analyze patient signals [col. 13 lns. 2-4, see also col. 14 lns. 61-64];
• Applicant’s Remarks, filed 04/13/2026, see Remarks page 11, which state one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the “intelligent algorithm” to perform the processing steps. Thus, the “intelligent algorithm” cannot be considered significantly more as it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d));
• Applicant’s Background in the specification; and
• The non-patent literature of record in the application.
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional generic computer components as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the units associated with the steps do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. A computer, processor, memory, or equivalent hardware is merely used as a tool for executing the abstract idea(s). The process claimed does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 1-3 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abel Fernandez (WO 2019106678 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abel Fernandez teaches a system for detecting one or more neurological disorders and/or measuring cognitive performance in a subject by measuring eye movements, oculomotor features or pupil behaviour, said measuring of eye movements performed while said subject is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7], said system comprising:
a. an eye tracker [10], configured to monitor eye movements of a subject [5] [Fig. 1 Item 10, see also page 2 lines 4-5] while the subject [5] is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [15] [page 9 lines 4-7];
b. a processor [20], configured to receive data from said eye tracker [10] [Fig 1 Item 20, see also page 2 lns. 6-7] while said subject [5] is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing said targets [15] [page 9 lines 4-7]; and
c. a display means [40] [Fig. 1 Item 40] configured to display a test report [50] received from said processor [20] [page 2 lns. 8-9]; wherein said processor [20] is further configured to analyze the eye-tracking data for evidence of one or more neurological disorders or general cognitive performance and to report, in said test report [50], a detection of said one or more neurological disorders or a measure of cognitive performance of said subject [5] [page 2 lns. 10-13].
Regarding claim 2, Abel Fernandez teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to:
a. count a total number of ocular fixations of a subject [page 2 ln. 16] while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7]; and
b. if said total number of ocular fixations of a subject when visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7] is higher than for a control group, then report in said test report that a compromise in attentional processes is detected [page 2 lns. 17-19].
Regarding claim 3, Abel Fernandez teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to:
a. count a number of correct gaze landing positions of said subject [page 3 lns. 8-9] while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, following and analyzing said targets [page 9 lines 4-7]; and
b. if said number of correct gaze landing positions of the subject is lower than for the control group, then report in said test report [50] that a compromise in executive processes is detected [page 3 lns. 10-12].
Regarding claim 6, Abel Fernandez teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to:
a. compute an average saccade amplitude from one ocular fixation to a next ocular fixation [page 9 ln. 29] while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7]; and
b. if said average saccade amplitude is lower than for said control group, then report in said test report that a compromise in executive processes is detected [page 9 lns. 30-31].
Regarding claim 7, Abel Fernandez teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to:
a. count saccade latency length of the subject [page 19 lns. 4-6] while directing sending eyes for visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7]; and
b. if said saccade latency length (time) is higher than for the control group, then report in the said test report that a compromise in speed processing is detected [page 19 lns. 4-6].
Regarding claim 8, Abel Fernandez teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a means [15] for measuring a pupil diameter of said subject [page 10 lns. 7-9], wherein said processor is further configured to:
a. track said pupil diameter of said subject [page 10 ln. 10] when visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7]; and
b. if said pupil diameter of the subject does not show a modulation as advancing in visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7], then report in said test report that that a compromise in noradrenergic system is detected [page 10 lns. 11—13, see also page 33 lns. 3-6].
Regarding claim 9, Abel Fernandez teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to:
a. consider length of fixation duration of the subject [page 10 lns. 14-19] while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7]; and
b. if said the length of fixation duration is longer than for the control group, then report in said test report that a compromise in on-line processing is detected [page 10 lns. 14-19].
Regarding claim 10, Abel Fernandez teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to:
a. consider gaze duration of the subject while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 3 lines 3-4]; and
b. if said the length of gaze duration is longer than for the control group, then report in said test report that a compromise in on-line processing is detected [page 3 lns. 6-8].
Regarding claim 11, Abel Fernandez teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to:
a. count number of correct targets recognized [page 9 ln. 22] while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7]; and
b. if the number of correct targets recognized is lower than for the control group, then report in said test report that compromises in executive and working memory processes are detected [page 9 lns. 23-25].
Regarding claim 12, Abel Fernandez teaches a system for detecting one or more neurological disorders and to check cognitive performance in a subject by measuring eye movements and pupil behavior and applying an intelligent algorithm [page 3 lns. 27-30]; said measuring of eye movements performed while said subject is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7]; said system comprising:
a. an eye tracker [10], said eye tracker configured to monitor eye movements and pupil behavior of a subject [5] [Fig. 1 Item 10, see also page 4 lines 1-2] while the subject [5] is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [15] [page 9 lines 4-7];
b. a processor [20], said processor configured to receive data from said eye tracker [10] [Fig 1 Item 20, see also page 4 lns. 3-4] while said subject [5] is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [15] [page 9 lines 4-7];
c. the intelligent algorithm for learning, identifying, typifying and classifying eye movements features in pathologies and within pathologies [page 4 lns. 5-6]; and
d. a display means [40] [Fig. 1 Item 40], said display configured to display the output of said intelligent algorithm on a test report [50] received from said processor [20] [page 4 lns. 7-8];
wherein said processor [20] is further configured to analyze and modeling the eye- tracking data for evidence of one or more neurological disorders and from cognitive performance and to report, in said test report [50], a detection and classification of said one or more neurological disorders of said subject [5] both, between and within pathologies [page 4 lns. 9-12].
Regarding claim 13, Abel Fernandez teaches the system of claim 8, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to identify and classify eye movement features and pupil behavior during visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7]; providing an output of the classifier for reporting in the test report a subject's cognitive performance and/or pathological classification (i.e, the pathology that correspond to the subject because his/her eye movement features; and a value within the pathology (i.e., the level of cognitive, behavioral and biological compromise that the subject shows within a particular pathology) [page 4 lns. 13-20].
Regarding claim 14, Abel Fernandez teaches the system of claim 8, wherein said intelligent algorithm is configured to read at least one input, said input selected from a group consisting of:
a. Index of total number of ocular fixations of a subject [page 4 ln. 24] while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7];
b. Index of correct landing positions of the subject [page 4 ln. 25] while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7];
c. Index of right cue directed outgoing saccades that the subject do while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets;
d. Index of opposite cue directions of outgoing saccades of the subject while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets;
e. Index of saccade latency length of the subject while directing sending eyes for visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7];
f. Average saccade amplitude from one ocular fixation to a next ocular fixation [page 4 ln. 28] while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7];
g. Pupil diameter of the subject [page 4 ln. 29] while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7];
h. Fixation duration of the subject [page 5 ln. 28] while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7];
i. Gaze duration of the subjects while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7];
j. Index of blinks coming from the left eye, the right eye or from both eyes [page 4 ln. 30] when visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7];
k. Microsaccades' Factors of Form (FF) [page 5 ln. 1];
ki. HEWI: shows the micro-saccade's height/width relationship [page 5 ln. 2];
kii. AREA: shows the area of the rectangle in which the micro-saccade is inscribed [page 5 lns. 3-4];
kiii. LONG: is the longitude of the horizontal-vertical plane trajectory of the micro- saccade [page 5 lns. 5-6];
kiv. ANG: is the sum of all the angles in the plane horizontal - vertical plane of the micro-saccade [page 5 lns. 7-8];
kv. AANG: is the sum of all the absolute values of angles in radians in the plane horizontal - vertical plane of the micro-saccade [page 5 lns. 9-10];
kvi. FF gives an estimation of the micro-saccadic trajectory regularity [page 5 lns. 10-11];
kvii. MOD and THETA: are the modulus and the angle of the polar coordinates of the sum of the cartesian coordinates. They give a spatial orientation of the micro-saccade relative to the median of the fixation [page 5 lns. 12-14];
kviii. TIME: is the time duration in milliseconds of the micro-saccade [page 5 ln. 15];
kix. VMIN and VMAX: are the minimum and maximum velocities of the nicrosaccades in degrees per second [page 5 lns. 16-17];
kx. Micro-saccade rate: is the instantaneous rate in each time bin [page 5 ln. 18];
kxi. Directional congruency: is the congruency between the micro-saccade direction ant the location of the stimulus [page 5 lns. 19-20];
l. Eye position coming from the left eye, the right eye or from both eyes (i.e., abscissa and ordinate coordinate) [page 5 lns. 21-22] during visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7];
m. Fixation sequence (i.e., ocular behavior) during visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7]. The sequence will be available from images, from matrices, etc. [page 5 lns. 23-24];
n. Distance of separation between ocular fixations [page 5 ln. 25] during visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7];
o. Filia information of the subject (i.e., age; years of education; sex; ethnic group; occupation; hours per week of physical activity) [page 5 lns. 26-27];
p. Total visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets time [page 9 lines 4-7] (i.e., the time that the subject spent when visualizing targets through a trial) [page 5 ln. 28]; and
q. Number of correct target recognized while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7].
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel Fernandez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Munoz (US 6231187 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Abel Fernandez teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to
a. count a number of outgoing saccades [page 9 lns. 15-16] while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7]; and
b. if said percentage number of the outgoing saccades that the subject is lower than for the control group, then report in said test report that a compromise in executive processes is detected [page 9 lns. 17-19].
Although Abel Fernandez teaches counting a number of outgoing saccades, the reference fails to explicitly teach counting saccades while directed toward a cue presented on a right-side region of the visual field.
Munoz teaches observing patient saccades while being presented with right-side visual cues [col. 6 lns. 53-59 “The number and arrangement of visual cues can vary according to factors such as the type of disorder being diagnosed, the test being used (e.g., countermanding task, anti-saccade task, etc., see below). Thus, visual cues can be provided in any combination of the center, left, right, top, bottom, or anywhere between these, of a subject's field of view”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Abel Fernandez and incorporate the teachings of Munoz to include observing patient saccades while being presented with right-side visual cues. Doing so configures the system to provide cues on a particular side of interest dependent upon the test being used, as recognized by Munoz col. 6 lns. 53-59.
Regarding claim 5, Abel Fernandez teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to
a. count a number of outgoing saccades of the subject [page 9 lns. 15-16, “…shifting from one target to the other”] while trying of visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [page 9 lines 4-7]; and
b. if said percentage number of the outgoing saccades is higher than for the control group, then report in said test report that a compromise in inhibitory processes is detected [page 32 lns. 3-6].
Although Abel Fernandez teaches counting a number of outgoing saccades, the reference fails to explicitly teach counting saccades while directed toward a cue presented on an opposite location to a presented cue location.
Munoz teaches observing patient saccades while being presented with a cue presented on an opposite location to a presented cue location [col. 6 lns. 53-59 “The number and arrangement of visual cues can vary according to factors such as the type of disorder being diagnosed, the test being used (e.g., countermanding task, anti-saccade task, etc., see below). Thus, visual cues can be provided in any combination of the center, left, right, top, bottom, or anywhere between these, of a subject's field of view”, the examiner notes left and right are opposites while top and bottom are opposites].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Abel Fernandez and incorporate the teachings of Munoz to include observing patient saccades while being presented with a cue presented on an opposite location to a presented cue location. Doing so configures the system to provide cues on a particular side of interest dependent upon the test being used, as recognized by Munoz col. 6 lns. 53-59.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner notes that although recitation to Abel Fernandez page 9 lines 4-7 disclose the eye tracking system is used to teach measuring eye movements during visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets, performing the action of “reading” (also described in Abel Fernandez) reasonably encompasses all aforementioned actions (visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, and 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11694803 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, US Pat No 11694803 B2 teaches a system for detecting one or more neurological disorders and/or measuring cognitive performance in a subject by measuring eye movements, oculomotor features or pupil behaviour [claim 1, col. 21 lns. 61-64], said measuring of eye movements performed while said subject is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 1, col. 21 lns. 64-65], said system comprising
a. an eye tracker [10], configured to monitor eye movements of a subject [5] while the subject [5] is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [15] [claim 1, col. 21 lns. 66-67];
b. a processor [20], configured to receive data from said eye tracker [10] while said subject [5] is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing said targets [15] [claim 1, col. 22 lns. 1-2]; and
c. a display means [40] configured to display a test report [50] received from said processor [20] [claim 1, col. 22 lns. 3-4];
wherein said processor [20] is further configured to analyze the eye-tracking data for evidence of one or more neurological disorders or general cognitive performance and to report, in said test report [50], a detection of said one or more neurological disorders or a measure of cognitive performance of said subject [5] [claim 1, col. 22 lns. 5-11].
Regarding claim 2, US Pat No 11694803 B2 teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to:
a. count a total number of ocular fixations of a subject while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 2, col. 22 lns. 15-16]; and
b. if said total number of ocular fixations of a subject when visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets is higher than for a control group, then report in said test report that a compromise in attentional processes is detected [claim 2, col. 22 lns. 17-20].
Regarding claim 3, US Pat No 11694803 B2 teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to:
a. count a number of correct gaze landing positions of said subject while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, following and analyzing said targets [claim 3, col. 22 lns. 24-25]; and
b. if said number of correct gaze landing positions of the subject is lower than for the control group, then report in said test report [50] that a compromise in executive processes is detected [claim 3, col. 22 lns. 26-31].
Regarding claim 6, US Pat No 11694803 B2 teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to:
a. compute an average saccade amplitude from one ocular fixation to a next ocular fixation while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 6, col. 22 lns. 53-54]; and
b. if said average saccade amplitude is lower than for said control group, then report in said test report that a compromise in executive processes is detected [claim 6, col. 22 lns. 55-58].
Regarding claim 7, US Pat No 11694803 B2 teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to:
a. count saccade latency length of the subject while directing sending eyes for visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 11, col. 24 lns. 52-54]; and
b. if said saccade latency length (time) is higher than for the control group, then report in the said test report that a compromise in speed processing is detected [claim 11, col. 24 lns. 58-59].
Regarding claim 8, US Pat No 11694803 B2 teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a means [15] for measuring a pupil diameter of said subject [claim 7, col. 22 lns. 59-61], wherein said processor is further configured to:
a. track said pupil diameter of said subject when visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 7, col. 22 lns. 62-63]; and
b. if said pupil diameter of the subject does not show a modulation as advancing in visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets, then report in said test report that that a compromise in noradrenergic system is detected [claim 7, col. 22 lns. 64-67, the examiner is interpreting the “noradrenergic system” as a neuromodulatory system that influences and regulates executive functions].
Regarding claim 10, US Pat No 11694803 B2 teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to:
a. consider gaze duration of the subject while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 11, col. 25 lns. 11-12]; and
b. if said the length of gaze duration is longer than for the control group, then report in said test report that a compromise in on-line processing is detected [claim 11, col. 25 lns. 11-12].
Regarding claim 12, US Pat No 11694803 B2 teaches a system for detecting one or more neurological disorders and to check cognitive performance in a subject by measuring eye movements and pupil behavior and applying an intelligent algorithm [claim 8, col. 23 lns. 1-4]; said measuring of eye movements performed while said subject is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 8, col. 23 lns. 4-6]; said system comprising:
a. an eye tracker [10], said eye tracker configured to monitor eye movements and pupil behavior of a subject [5] while the subject [5] is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [15] [claim 8, col. 23 lns. 7-9];
b. a processor [20], said processor configured to receive data from said eye tracker [10] while said subject [5] is visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [15] [claim 8, col. 23 lns. 10-12];
c. the intelligent algorithm for learning, identifying, typifying and classifying eye movements features in pathologies and within pathologies [claim 8, col. 23 lns. 13-15]; and
d. a display means [40], said display configured to display the output of said intelligent algorithm on a test report [50] received from said processor [20] [claim 8, col. 23 lns. 16-17];
wherein said processor [20] is further configured to analyze and modeling the eye- tracking data for evidence of one or more neurological disorders and from cognitive performance and to report, in said test report [50], a detection and classification of said one or more neurological disorders of said subject [5] both, between and within pathologies [claim 8, col. 23 lns. 18-24].
Regarding claim 13, US Pat No 11694803 B2 teaches the system of claim 8, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to identify and classify eye movement features and pupil behavior during visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets; providing an output of the classifier for reporting in the test report a subject's cognitive performance and/or pathological classification (i.e, the pathology that correspond to the subject because his/her eye movement features; and a value within the pathology (i.e., the level of cognitive, behavioral and biological compromise that the subject shows within a particular pathology) [claim 9, col. 23 lns. 25-35].
Regarding claim 14, US Pat No 11694803 B2 teaches the system of claim 8, wherein said intelligent algorithm is configured to read at least one input [claim 10, col. 23 lns. 36-38], said input selected from a group consisting of:
a. Index of total number of ocular fixations of a subject while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 10, col. 23 lns. 39-40];
b. Index of correct landing positions of the subject while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 10, col. 23 lns. 41-42];
c. Index of right cue directed outgoing saccades that the subject do while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets;
d. Index of opposite cue directions of outgoing saccades of the subject while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets;
e. Index of saccade latency length of the subject while directing sending eyes for visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets;
f. Average saccade amplitude from one ocular fixation to a next ocular fixation while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 10, col. 23 lns. 47-48];
g. Pupil diameter of the subject while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 10, col. 23 ln. 49];
h. Fixation duration of the subject while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets;
i. Gaze duration of the subjects while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets;
j. Index of blinks coming from the left eye, the right eye or from both eyes when visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 10, col. 23 lns. 45-46];
k. Microsaccades' Factors of Form (FF) [claim 10, col. 23 ln. 52];
ki.HEWI shows the micro-saccade's height/width relationship [claim 10, col. 23 lns. 53-54];
kii. AREA: shows the area of the rectangle in which the micro-saccade is inscribed [claim 10, col. 23 lns. 55-56];
kiii. LONG: is the longitude of the horizontal-vertical plane trajectory of the micro- saccade [claim 10, col. 23 lns. 57-58];
kiv. ANG: is the sum of all the angles in the plane horizontal - vertical plane of the micro-saccade [claim 10, col. 23 lns. 59-60];
kv. AANG: is the sum of all the absolute values of angles in radians in the plane horizontal - vertical plane of the micro-saccade [claim 10, col. 23 lns. 61-63];
kvi. FF gives an estimation of the micro-saccadic trajectory regularity [claim 10, col. 23 ln. 64];
kvii. MOD and THETA: are the modulus and the angle of the polar coordinates of the sum of the cartesian coordinates. They give a spatial orientation of the micro-saccade relative to the median of the fixation [claim 10, col. 23 lns. 66-67—col. 24 lns. 1-2];
kviii. TIME: is the time duration in milliseconds of the micro-saccade [claim 10, col. 24 lns. 3-4];
kix. VMIN and VMAX: are the minimum and maximum velocities of the microsaccades in degrees per second [claim 10, col. 24 lns. 5-6];
kx. Micro-saccade rate: is the instantaneous rate in each time bin [claim 10, col. 24 lns. 7-8];
kxi. Directional congruency: is the congruency between the micro-saccade direction ant the location of the stimulus [claim 10, col. 24 lns. 9-11];
l. Eye position coming from the left eye, the right eye or from both eyes (i.e., abscissa and ordinate coordinate) during visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing and analyzing targets [claim 10, col. 24 lns. 12-14];
m. Fixation sequence (i.e., ocular behavior) during visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing and analyzing targets. The sequence will be available from images, from matrices, etc [claim 10, col. 24 lns. 15-17];
n. Distance of separation between ocular fixations during visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing and analyzing targets [claim 10, col. 24 lns. 18-19];
o. Filia information of the subject (i.e., age; years of education; sex; ethnic group; occupation; hours per week of physical activity) [claim 10, col. 24 lns. 20-22];
p. Total visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets time (i.e., the time that the subject spent when visualizing targets through a trial) [claim 10, col. 24 lns. 23-24];
q. Number of correct target recognized while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-5 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11694803 B2 in view of Abel Fernandez (WO 2019106678 A1).
Regarding claim 9, US Pat No 11694803 B2 teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to
a. consider gaze duration of the subject while trying of visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 11, col. 25 lns. 11-12]; and
b. if said the length of gaze duration is longer than for the control group, then report in said test report that a compromise in on-line processing is detected [claim 11, col. 25 lns. 11-12].
However, the claims of US Pat No 11694803 B2 fails to explicitly teach considering a fixation duration.
Abel Fernandez teaches considering a fixation duration [page 10 lns. 16-19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of US Pat No 11694803 B2 and incorporate the teachings of Abel Fernandez to include considering a fixation duration. Doing so configures the system to analyze a parameter that may indicate a compromise in attentional and executive processes, as recognized by Abel Fernandez page 10 lns. 16-19.
Regarding claim 11, US Pat No 11694803 B2 teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said processor is further configured, upon receiving said eye-tracking data from said eye tracker, to 17
a. count a number of words the target fixated on while visualizing, recognizing, maintaining, controlling, inhibiting, sequencing, following and analyzing targets [claim 4, col. 22 lns. 35-36]; and
b. if the number of of words the target fixated is lower than for the control group, then report said in the test report that compromises in executive and working memory processes are detected [claim 4, col. 22 lns. 37-40].
However, the claims of US Pat No 11694803 B2 fail to explicitly teach counting a number of correct targets and if the number of correct target recognized is lower than for the control group, then report said in the test report that compromises in executive and working memory processes are detected.
Abel Fernandez teaches counting a number of correct targets [page 9 ln. 22] and if the number of correct target recognized is lower than for the control group, then report said in the test report that compromises in executive and working memory processes are detected [page 9 lns. 23-25].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of US Pat No 11694803 B2 and incorporate the teachings of Abel Fernandez to include counting a number of correct targets and if the number of correct target recognized is lower than for the control group, then report said in the test report that compromises in executive and working memory processes are detected. Doing so configures the system to detect a parameter that may be indicative of a compromise in executive and working memory processes, thus providing for a diagnosis of the patients condition, as recognized by Abel Fernandes page 9 lns. 22-25].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN M HANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 0730-1630 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)272-4233. 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.
/JONATHAN M HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights