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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed 10/02/2025.
Claims 1-14 were canceled 5/14/2025.
Claims 15-23 were amended 10/02/2025.
Claims 24-26 were added 10/02/2025.
Claims 15-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 15- 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 15-26 are drawn to a method, system, non-transitory computer readable medium which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 15, 22, and 23 recite: storing candidate images and configured to extract a predetermined number of sample images form the candidate images, each of the predetermined number of sample images including an image of an object associated with a single noun; display, the predetermined number of sample images one by one, each of the images being displayed for a predetermined time; display, material capable of focusing a test subject’s attention to interfere with the test subject’s memory of the image; after completion of the image presentation, generate a memory test by randomly mixing a plurality of test images, including the displayed sample images as correct answers and other images as incorrect answers, and display, the plurality of test images one by one; perform the memory test by allowing the test subject to select a correct answer if the displayed test image matches one of the sample images previously displayed, or to select an incorrect answer otherwise; and determine whether dementia is present and/or a dementia status based on a degree of incorrect answer rate identified through the memory test after the memory test is completed; wherein the memory interference process comprises: displaying, a concentration test start notification indicating beginning of a concentration test to the test subject, the concentration test is separate and independent from the memory test, displaying, a test method notification indicating how the concentration test is to be performed, and performing the concentration test after displaying the test method notification is completed.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity between subjects, as reflected in the specification, which states that “FIGS. 1 to 19 are views illustrating a dementia diagnosis system according to the present disclosure. As illustrated, an image-based dementia diagnosis system according to the present disclosure includes a text input device 10 through which a test subject may input text, a data storage device 20 that stores data for a diagnosis test, a display 30 that may display various types of images and data on a screen, a selection manipulator 40 that is manipulated by the test subject to select an item, and a controller 50 that is connected to various devices including the text input device 10 to control the devices and determines dementia by testing a memory on the basis of an image….and store dementia information for each test subject.” (see: specification paragraphs 33-35). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “Accordingly, at the national level, screening of hundreds of thousands of dementia patients from among the entire population may be quickly and conveniently performed at a relatively low cost (see specification paragraph 21). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “integrated dementia diagnostic device”, “screen”, “storage device”, “controller”, “processor”, and “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the determining and displaying is performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations). Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, Figure 2, Figures 5-6 and
Paragraph 33, where “FIGS. 1 to 19 are views illustrating a dementia diagnosis system according to the present disclosure. As illustrated, an image-based dementia diagnosis system according to the present disclosure includes a text input device 10 through which a test subject may input text, a data storage device 20 that stores data for a diagnosis test, a display 30 that may display various types of images and data on a screen, a selection manipulator 40 that is manipulated by the test subject to select an item, and a controller 50 that is connected to various devices including the text input device 10 to control the devices and determines dementia by testing a memory on the basis of an image.”
Paragraph 35, where “The data storage device 20 is a storage device that may store digital data, such as a memory or a hard disk, may store image data including different images drawn to represent one noun-type word as an image, store data for memory interference, and store dementia information for each test subject.”
Paragraph 39, where “The controller 50 is a device such as a microprocessor, is connected to the text input device 10, the data storage device 20, the display 30, and the selection manipulator 40, controls the same to present an image, interferes with a memory, and determines dementia by performing a memory test on the presented image”
Paragraph 80, where “The result display unit 57 displays the results of diagnosis and test for the test subject on the screen of the display 30 after the dementia determination by the dementia determiner 56 is completed and, as shown in FIG. 19, serves to display the final result of the test on the screen to guide the test subject to a more precise dementia test while enabling the test subject to appropriately recognize a current state of the test subject.”
Paragraph 86, where “The present dementia diagnosis system may be configured as a mobile communication terminal such as a computer, an integrated dementia diagnostic device, or a smartphone in which the text input device 10, the data storage device 20, the display 30, the selection manipulator 40, and the controller 50 are modularized and integrated, and all functions may be produced as programs or applications, and loaded into the terminal and used.”
Paragraph 104, where “Embodiments according to the present disclosure may be implemented in the form of a computer program that may be executed through various components on a computer, and the computer program may be recorded on a computer-readable medium. Here, the medium may include magnetic media, such as a hard disk, a floppy disk, and a magnetic tape, optical recording media, such as CD-ROM and DVD, magneto-optical media, such as a floptical disk, and hardware devices, such as ROM, RAM, and flash memory devices specially configured to store and execute program instructions.”
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with route, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 17-21 and 24-26 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 17-21 recite adjusting and displaying image data on the generically recited computing device as shown in the parent claims above. Claims 25-26 recite adjusting display data using thresholds on a generic computing device as shown in the parent claims above.
Claim 24 further recite “a touch screen” which is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the associating and correlating are performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations) as shown in the specification paragraph 38. Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 112 rejection, these arguments are persuasive. The claim has been sufficiently amended and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 103 rejection, these arguments are persuasive. The amendments overcome the prior art of Ashford (US 2011/0236864 A1) in view of Vaughan (WO 2020/198065 A1). Specifically the amendment of “extract a predetermined number of sample images from the candidate images, each of the predetermined number of sample images including an image of an object associated with a single noun; display on the screen, the predetermined number of sample images one by one, each of the images being displayed for a predetermined amount of time; display ,on the screen, material capable of focusing a test subject’s attention to interfere with the test subject’s memory of the image…display, on the screen, the plurality of test images one by one…the concentration test is separate and independent from the memory test” in combination with the other limitations overcome the prior art. A new prior art search was conducted and found the prior art of Rao (WO 2019/246032 A1) that taught neurological assessments of patients using memory tests, however it was silent on causing interference images to be displayed and for displaying sample images for a predetermined amount of time.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 101 rejection, these arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not directed towards certain methods of organizing human activities as they are directed towards an integrated dementia diagnostic device. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed towards the interactions between subjects by screening dementia patients as shown in the specification paragraphs 21, 33-35. The functions argued are representative of the abstract idea. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality that amount to a practical application. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to a technical problem presented by combining the two. In the present case, the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the identified abstract idea(s) in the rejection into a patent-eligible application of that idea.
Further, not every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry. (See, e.g., Alice, 134). It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components that are generic is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. In order to amount to an inventive concept, the components must involve more than performance of “’well-understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry.” (Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)). The originally filed specification was investigated and found to support this conclusion.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is similar to CARDIONET and recites an improved diagnostic device. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the specification in paragraph 86 recites that the diagnostic device can be a computer or a smartphone and these devices are recited generically without significantly more to overcome the abstract idea and are therefore dissimilar from CARDIONET. CARDIONET recited a specific improvement of technology and not merely an improvement of diagnostic data. An improvement of diagnostic data by filtering and displaying data on a generic computing device, as recited here, is directed to the interactions of patients and does not provide significantly more to overcome the abstract idea. The diagnostic data of the “medical field” is not necessarily a “technical field”, nor is a treatment effected. Classen is an example of adding a meaningful limitation to the claims that create a practical application, however Classen integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible method that resulted in the method “moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application” (Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC). The current claimed limitations fail to provide this practical application and the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant further argues that a reference must be cited in accordance with Berkheimer, which establishes evidentiary standards for Step 2B only with regard as to what is well-understood, routine, and conventional as per MPEP 2106.05(d). The first criteria set forth in the Berkheimer memo is a “citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)…” As shown in the 101 rejection as written above, the specification is cited in Figures 1, 2, 5-6 and their associated citations in the body of the specification as having computer elements that are well-understood, routine, and conventional without significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims rely on the arguments of the independent claims and are rejected for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rao (WO 2019/246032 A1) teaches neurological assessments of patients using memory tests, however it was silent on causing interference images to be displayed and for displaying sample images for a predetermined amount of time.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY A SASS whose telephone number is (571)272-4774. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM (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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/K.A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686