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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (identifying cognitive impairment based on gaze may be considered an abstract idea) without significantly more.
For independent claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) a process of identifying cognitive impairment by acquiring digital biomarker data, performing a preliminary task, and acquiring task-associated gaze information to determine cognitive impairment. As broadly as claimed these steps may be reasonably considered as the judicial exception of a mental process performable within the human mind, including by observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion forming, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection III). For example, at least, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional observing a patient, and using the data to mentally extract, classify or learn from data features to determine a gaze related impairment. Similar may be considered a mental process when law enforcement professionals conduct sobriety testing.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the process steps as broadly as claimed are not tied to nor required to be performed, executed, or programmed on a special purpose computer.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the nominally recited processor and user terminal is/are recited at a high level of generality, not amounting to significantly more and instead amounting to insignificant data gathering as pre-solution activity.
Depending claims 2-10 inherit and do not remedy the non-statutory deficiency noted above, despite further specifying steps relating to tasks, display, faze analysis, and digital biomarker data, these further specificities do not integrate into practical application nor do they amount to significantly more via recitation of additional element(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hill et al. (WO 2018/006013, hereinafter Hill).
For claim 1, Hill discloses a method of identifying mild cognitive impairment by at least one processor of a device ([0055-0060]), the method comprising:
performing a task (106) of acquiring digital biomarker data for identifying mild cognitive impairment of a user of a user terminal (122) (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]);
performing a preliminary task (402) to allow the user to check the task before performing the task (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]); and
acquiring gaze information (404) of the user in conjunction with performing the task and the preliminary task (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]);
wherein the gaze information is used when determining displayed information in the preliminary task, and used when identifying mild cognitive impairment of the user in the task (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]).
For claim 2, Hill discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the preliminary task includes a test protocol database (108):
a first preliminary task causing a first object to be displayed on a first region of a screen displayed on the user terminal (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072] especially [0045, 0048, 0067, 0068, 0071, 0072]);
a second preliminary task causing a second object to be displayed on a second region different from the first region on the screen of the user terminal instead of the first object (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072] especially [0045, 0048, 0067, 0068, 0071, 0072]);
a third preliminary task of determining whether the user is gazing at a third region opposite to the second region based on the gaze information in conjunction with performing the second preliminary task (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072] especially [0045, 0048, 0067, 0068, 0071, 0072]); and
a fourth preliminary task causing different information to be displayed on the screen of the user terminal based on whether the user is gazing at the third region (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072] especially [0045, 0048, 0067, 0068, 0071, 0072]).
For claim 3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the fourth preliminary task includes:
a first information output task (110) causing first information that the user is gazing at the third region to be displayed on the screen of the user terminal if it is recognized that the user's gaze is gazing at the third region based on the gaze information (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]); or
a second information output task (110) causing second information prompting the user to gaze at the third region to be displayed on the screen of the user terminal when it is recognized that the gaze of the user does not gaze at the third region based on the gaze information (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]).
For claim 4, Hill discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the second information is displayed in a region different from a region in which the first information is displayed on the screen of the user terminal (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]).
For claim 5, Hill discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the second information is displayed on a peripheral region of the second region where the second object is displayed (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]).
For claim 6, Hill discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the task includes:
a first task causing the first object to be displayed on the first region of the screen displayed on the user terminal after the fourth preliminary task is performed (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072] especially [0045, 0048, 0067, 0068, 0071, 0072]);
a second task causing the second object to be displayed on the second region instead of the first object on the screen of the user terminal (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072] especially [0045, 0048, 0067, 0068, 0071, 0072]); and
a third task of acquiring the digital biomarker data for identifying mild cognitive impairment of the user based on first gaze information acquired while performing the first task and the second task a preset number of times (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072] especially [0045, 0048, 0067, 0068, 0071, 0072]).
For claim 7, Hill discloses the method according to claim 6, further comprising:
calculating a score value (406) by inputting the digital biomarker data into a pre-learned mild cognitive impairment identification model (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]); and
determining whether mild cognitive impairment exists based on the score value (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]).
For claim 8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the gaze information is generated by the device analyzing an image after the device receives the image including eyes of the user from the user terminal (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]).
For claim 9, Hill discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the gaze information is information received by the device from the user terminal, and is generated by the user terminal analyzing an image including eyes of the user (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]).
For claim 10, Hill discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the digital biomarker data comprises information on a number of times the user gazed at the third region, information on a number of times the user gazed at a region other than the third region, information on whether the user's gaze continues to stare at a specific point for the preset time, information on a time elapsed for the user's gaze to move while performing the second task, information on movement speed of the user's gaze and information on whether the user's gaze is accurately staring at the third region (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]).
For claim 11, Hill discloses a computer program stored on a computer-readable storage medium (software of 102), wherein the computer program, when executed on at least one processor (104) of a device (102), performs processes of identifying mild cognitive impairment (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]), the processes comprising:
performing a task (106) of acquiring digital biomarker data for identifying mild cognitive impairment of a user of a user terminal (122) (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]);
performing a preliminary task (402) to allow the user to check the task before performing the task (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]); and
acquiring gaze information (404) of the user in conjunction with performing the task and the preliminary task (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]);
wherein the gaze information is used when determining displayed information in the preliminary task, and used when identifying mild cognitive impairment of the user in the task (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]).
For claim 12, Hill discloses a device (100) for identifying mild cognitive impairment, the device comprising:
a storage (storage of 102) configured to store at least one program instruction (software of 102); and
at least one processor (104) configured to execute the at least one program instruction (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]),
wherein the at least one processor performs a task (106) of acquiring digital biomarker data for identifying mild cognitive impairment of a user of a user terminal (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]), performs a preliminary task (402) to allow the user to check the task before performing the task (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]), and acquires gaze information (404) of the user in conjunction with performing the task and the preliminary task (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]), and
wherein the gaze information is used when determining displayed information in the preliminary task, and used when identifying mild cognitive impairment of the user in the task (Figs 1, 4-6) ([0024-0045, 0062-0072]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-3pm 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, Charles A. Marmor II can be reached at (571)272-4730. 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.
Jeffrey G. Hoekstra
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791