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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 27-46 are pending and under consideration for patentability; claims 1-26 were cancelled and clams 27-46 were added as new claims via a Preliminary Amendment dated 25 January 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 25 January 2024 has been acknowledged and considered by the Examiner.
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.
(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 27-29, 33, 41-43, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schuijers et al. (EP 3,719,806 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Schuijers describes a method of evaluating a subject’s visuospatial ability ([0010]), comprising
displaying an original drawing on a screen ([0036])
receiving input on the screen from a stylus ([0043]), corresponding to a reproduction of the drawing by the subject ([0037])
during the receiving step, collecting metadata regarding the process of the reproduction ([0021], [0051])
comparing a resemblance of the reproduction to the original drawing ([0055], [0065])
evaluating the reproduction and the metadata to infer therefrom the subject's understanding of the drawing ([0056] - [0057])
issuing a combined evaluation of the subject's gestalt understanding of the drawing based on a combination of the resemblance comparison and the metadata evaluation ([0065])
Regarding claim 28, Schuijers describes wherein the metadata include a reaction time from displaying of the original drawing until commencement of reproduction of the drawing, and a performance time from commencement of reproduction until completion of reproduction ([0051] - [0052]).
Regarding claim 29, Schuijers describes wherein the metadata include a number of stylus strokes used to reproduce the drawing ([0051]).
Regarding claim 33, Schuijers describes wherein the comparison of resemblance is based on number of elements in the reproduction ([0051] - [0052]).
Regarding claim 41, Schuijers describes a system for evaluating a subject’s visuospatial ability ([0010]), comprising
a mobile computing device including a touch screen configured to display images and to receive input from a stylus ([0043]), a processor ([0020]), and a non-transitory computer readable medium ([0040])
a computer program product embodied on the non-transitory computer readable medium ([0020]), that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the following steps
displaying an original drawing on the screen ([0036])
during receipt of input on the screen from the stylus ([0043]), corresponding to a reproduction of the drawing by the subject ([0037]), collecting metadata regarding the process of the reproduction ([0021], 00051])
comparing a resemblance of the reproduction to the original drawing ([0055], [0065])
evaluating the reproduction and the metadata to infer therefrom the subject's understanding of the drawing ([0056] - [0057])
issuing a combined evaluation of the subject's gestalt understanding of the drawing based on a combination of the resemblance comparison and the metadata evaluation ([0065])
Regarding claim 42, Schuijers describes wherein the metadata include a reaction time from displaying of the original drawing until commencement of reproduction of the drawing, and a performance time from commencement of reproduction until completion of reproduction ([0051] - [0052]).
Regarding claim 43, Schuijers describes wherein the metadata include a number of stylus strokes used to reproduce the drawing ([0051]).
Regarding claim 46, Schuijers describes wherein the computer program product is configured to compare the resemblance based on the number of elements in the reproduction ([0007], [0022]).
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.
Claims 30, 34, 35, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuijers in view of Rath et al. (US 2017/0025033 A1).
Regarding claims 30 and 44, Schuijers describes the method of claim 27 and the system of claim 41 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the metadata include pressure exerted by the subject with the stylus onto the screen during reproduction. However, Rath also describes a method of evaluating a subject’s visuospatial ability ([0002]), including collecting metadata in the form of pressure exerted by the subject with a stylus onto a screen ([0026]). As Rath is also directed towards evaluating a subject’s visuospatial ability and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to evaluate the pressure being exerted by the patient via a stylus onto a screen, as described by Rath, when using the method described by Schuijers, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting method to obtain a better understanding of the user’s cognitive functions, as described by Rath ([0026]).
Regarding claim 34, Schuijers describes evaluating the results of 100 separate trials (figures 6a and 6b), thereby suggesting that the method may be repeated, and Rath describes repeating each step with a series of predefined original drawings ([0061]).
Regarding claim 35, Rath describes wherein the metadata include cumulative time of completion of all the predefined original drawings in the series ([0052], [0061]).
Claims 31 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuijers in view of Davis et al. (US 2019/0076078 A1).
Regarding claims 31 and 45, Schuijers describes the method of claim 27 and the system of claim 45 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the metadata include azimuth angle of the stylus on the screen during reproduction. However, Davis also describes a method of evaluating a subject’s visuospatial ability ([0006]), including collecting metadata in the form of azimuth angle of a stylus on a screen ([0050]). As Davis is also directed towards evaluating a subject’s visuospatial ability and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to evaluate the angle at which a stylus is pressed onto a screen, as described by Davis, when using the method described by Schuijers, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting method to obtain a better understanding of the user’s cognitive functions, as described by Davis ([0050]).
Claims 32 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuijers in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2020/0405216 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Schuijers describes the method of claim 27 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the metadata include age of the subject. However, Matsumura also describes a method of evaluating a subject’s visuospatial ability ([0036]), including collecting metadata in the form of age of the subject ([0236]). As Matsumura is also directed towards evaluating a subject’s visuospatial ability and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed account for the age of the subject, as described by Matsumura, when using the method described by Schuijers, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting method to compare the expected results for a subject more accurately based on that subject’s demographics, as described by Matsumura ([0236]).
Regarding claim 40, Schuijers describes the method of claim 27 but dos not explicitly disclose wherein the combined evaluation is a ranking of the subject’s gestalt understanding of the overall drawing. However, Matsumura also describes a method of evaluating a subject’s visuospatial ability ([0036]), including deriving a combined evaluation by raking the results of a subject’s cognitive evaluation ([0286]). As Matsumura is also directed towards evaluating a subject’s visuospatial ability and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to rank the results of the subject’s results, as described by Matsumura, after deriving the subject’s gestalt understanding in the method described by Schuijers, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting method to better assess the subject’s overall cognitive function.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuijers in view of Grunsten et al. (US 2021/0113143 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Schuijers describes the method of claim 27, including the use of machine learning ([0056]), but Schuijers does not explicitly disclose comparing the resemblance with a convolutional neural network, evaluating the metadata with a feed-forward neural network, and combining the convolutional neural network and the feed forward neural network at a dense layer phase. However, Grunsten also describes a method of evaluating a subject’s visuospatial ability ([0005]), including using feed-forward neural networks and convolutional neural networks at different stages of the evaluation and combining their respective results ([0036] - [0037], [0039]). As Grunsten is also directed towards evaluating a subject’s visuospatial ability and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use neural network components similar to those described by Grunsten when using the method described by Schuijers, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting method to quickly derive an accurate assessment of the user’s cognitive function, as described by Grunsten ([0005]).
Regarding claim 38, Grunsten describes training the convolutional neural network, the training step comprising collecting a data set comprising a plurality of sample reproductions of the original drawings and manually assigning a similarity score to each reproduction ([0038], [0040]).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuijers in view of Grunsten, further in view of Lyman et al. (US 2020/0373003 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Schuijers in view of Grunsten suggests the method of claim 38, but Schuijers and Grunsten do not explicitly disclose augmenting the data set with modified sample reproductions, said augmenting comprising at least one of changing scaling, shifting pixels, and horizontal flipping, in a manner that is sufficiently subtle not to affect a scoring of a given reproduction. However, Lyman also describes the use of learning algorithms for neural networks ([0045]), including augmenting a data set by, for example, changing scaling or shifting pixels ([0125]). As Lyman is also directed towards generating training data sets and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to augment a data set in a manner similar to that described by Lyman when using the method described by Schuijers and Grunsten, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting method to generate a better training data set.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 36, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “performing the method with a plurality of unique subjects, aggregating the metadata collected from each subject, and, based on the aggregated metadata, determining a kernel density function for performance in one or more measured metadata categories, and deriving a norm for standard performance from the kernel density function.” Marinoiu et al. (US 2015/0154270 A1) describes analysis of large data sets, including aggregation and kernel density estimation ([0021]), but Marinoiu does not suggest applying the analysis steps to metadata collected from a plurality of unique subjects, determining the kernel density estimation based on user performance, and deriving a norm for standard performance based on the kernel density estimation.
Statement on Communication via Internet
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet e-mail, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Ankit D. Tejani, whose telephone number is 571-272-5140. The Examiner may normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30AM through 5:00PM EST. 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, Carl Layno, can be reached by telephone at 571-272-4949. 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 at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Ankit D Tejani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796