DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 11/08/2023. This application is a continuation (CON) of application 18/205442 and has a foreign priority of the application JP2022-095808 filed on 06/14/2022.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
Applicants are suggested to include information from figures 7 and 8 with related text into the claims to provide a better condition for an allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (claims 11 and 12 include similar limitations) recites:
“… to be required for the subject to become familiar with a test undergone by the subject …”; however, it is not clear how to define whether it is familiar or not – or it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations;
“… estimate … a required trial quantity of a test … is a test of a cognitive function relating to … categories of intelligence including … working memory, and processing speed, an attention function … memory … directed attention …”, however, it is not clear (1) how to test the mental process, such as intelligence (e.g., an ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills) including working memory and processing speed (e.g., the human brain processes, mental processes, etc.) – or it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations;
“… intelligence including at least one of language understanding … working memory, and processing speed, an attention function … and directed attention”, however, it is not clear whether the usage of “and” in the middle of the list is defining two categories or not.
Claims 2-10 depend from the claim 1, and are analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-11 of co-pending Application 18/205442 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-12 of co-pending Application 18/504569 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-13 of co-pending Application 18/504577 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Current application No. 18/504566
Reference application No. 18/205442
Claim 1: A test familiarity determination device in communication with client device, the test familiarity determination device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire attribute data indicating an attribute of a subject from an input device;
estimate, based on the attribute data, a required trial quantity of a test, wherein the required trial quantity is a quantity to be required for the subject to become familiar with the test undergone by the subject, and wherein the test is collectively conducted for multiple times as necessary until an accurate test is obtained, and is a test of a cognitive function relating to at least one of categories of intelligence including at least one of language understanding, perceptual integration, working memory, and processing speed, an attention function, a frontal leaf function, language, memory, visual space cognition, and directed attention,
determine whether the subject is familiar with the test, based on the required trial quantity; and
output, to the client device, a test result and validity of the test result in case the test result is determined to be valid.
Claim 1: A determination device (equivalent to the test familiarity determination device – see below, too) comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire attribute data indicating an attribute of a subject;
estimate a required trial quantity, which is a trial quantity to be required for the subject to become familiar with a test undergone by the subject, based on the attribute data; and
Claim 4: The determination device according to claim 3, wherein the test result is time-series results of the test that the subject underwent in the past (note: it is equivalent to the test of the subject for an attention function with working memory to define intelligence of familiarity with the previous test).
determine whether or not the subject is familiar with the test, based on the required trial quantity.
Claim 8: The determination device … output, by audio, a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether or not the subject is familiar with the test.
Claim 2: The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: estimate the required trial quantity based on the attribute data and an inference model, and
wherein the inference model is a model which learned a relation between data based on the attribute data and the required trial quantity.
Claim 2: The determination device according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to estimate the required trial quantity based on the attribute data and an inference model, and
wherein the inference model is a model which learned a relation between data based on the attribute data and the required trial quantity.
Claim 3: The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: estimate the required trial quantity based on the attribute data, an inference model, and the test result, and wherein the inference model is a model which learned, by machine learning, a relation between data based on the attribute data and the test result and the required trial quantity.
Claim 3: The determination device according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to
estimate the required trial quantity based on the attribute data, an inference model, and a test result of the test, and wherein the inference model is a model which learned, by machine learning, a relation between data based on the attribute data and the test result and the required trial quantity.
Claim 4: The test familiarity determination device according to claim 3, wherein the test result is time-series results of the test that the subject underwent in the past.
Claim 4: The determination device according to claim 3, wherein the test result is time-series results of the test that the subject underwent in the past.
Claim 5: The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
estimate the required trial quantity from the attribute data, based on a table in which each of candidates for the attribute is associated with the required trial quantity corresponding to the each of the candidates.
Claim 5: The determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to
estimate the required trial quantity from the attribute data, based on a table in which each of candidates for the attribute is associated with the required trial quantity corresponding to the each of the candidates.
Claim 6: The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine that the test result of the test is invalid if the determination result indicates that the subject is not familiar with the test.
Claim 7: The determination device according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to
determine that the test result of the test is invalid if the determination result indicates that the subject is not familiar with the test.
Claim 7: The test familiar determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
output, to the client device, advice information for a manager of the subject to perform a decision-making regarding whether to continue to conduct the test.
Claim 11: The determination device according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to
output advice information for a manager of the subject to perform a decision-making regarding whether or not to continue to conduct the test.
Claim 8: The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1, wherein the least one processor is further configured to:
display, to the client device, a determination result of the validity of the test based on the determination result of whether the subject is familiar with the test.
Claim 8: The determination device according to claim 6, wherein the least one processor is configured to
display or output, by audio, a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether or not the subject is familiar with the test.
Claim 9: The test familiarity determination device according to claim 1, wherein the least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
output to the client device, by audio, a determination result of the validity of the test based on the determination result of whether the subject is familiar with the test.
Claim 8: The determination device according to claim 6, wherein the least one processor is configured to
display or output, by audio, a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether or not the subject is familiar with the test.
Claim 10: The test familiar determination device according to claim 1,
wherein the required trial quantity is a number of trials the subject has undergone the test in the one examination; and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
estimate, based on the attribute data, the number of required trial for the subject to become familiar with the test; and
determine the subject is familiar with the test if a number of actual trail by the subject is more than the number of required trial.
Claim 1: A determination device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire attribute data indicating an attribute of a subject;
estimate a required trial quantity, which is a trial quantity to be required for the subject to become familiar with a test undergone by the subject, based on the attribute data; and
determine whether or not the subject is familiar with the test, based on the required trial quantity (equivalent to more than the required trial).
Claims 11 and 12 have similar limitations with the claims 9 and 10 of the reference application 18/205442, and they are analyzed and rejected accordingly (see the above table for the matching claim limitations).
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims “1, 5 and 9”, 3-10, 1, 11, 12, respectively of co-pending Application 18/504569 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims “1, 6 and 11”, 4-11, 1, 12, 13, respectively of co-pending Application 18/504577 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite the limitation of a test familiarity determination device … is a test of cognitive function relating to … working memory … attention function … memory … directed attention, etc., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g., a mental process) but for the recitation of a device implemented, processor and a memory of a device or medium. That is, other than reciting “by the processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or mentally (note: cognitive functions are the mental processes and brain-based skills—such as attention, memory, language, perception, and executive functions of planning, reasoning, etc.) For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “estimating a required trial quantity of a mental test or cognitive functions, etc.” in the context of these claims encompasses the user manually performing the claimed functions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a processor (e.g., generic computer components or the information processing system), then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites additional element – using the processor for the functions, such as monitoring, accepting, etc., can also be performed in mind and made a decision.
According, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processing system to perform determining a trial quantity (e.g., counting number of test running) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US 2022/0148729 A1).
As per claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a test familiarity determination device [see figs. 1, 10] in communication with client device [see fig. 10, paras. 0087, 0090], the test familiarity determination device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire attribute data indicating an attribute of a subject from an input device; estimate, based on the attribute data, a required trial quantity of a test, wherein the required trial quantity is a quantity to be required for the subject to become familiar with a test undergone by the subject [figs. 1, 3, 6, 8; par. 0030, lines 1-6; par. 0038, lines 1-7; par. 0039, lines 1-7; par. 0040, lines 1-7; par. 0056, lines 1-8; par. 0068, lines 1-8 of Yamamoto teaches to acquire attribute data (e.g., the feature quantity) indicating an attribute of a subject (e.g., the operation information, such as measuring the attention of a communication terminal) from an input device (e.g., the device providing log information); estimate, based on the attribute data, a required trial quantity (e.g., the estimation models have to be run) of a test, wherein the required trial quantity is a quantity to be required for the subject to become familiar with a test undergone by the subject (e.g., the quantity, such as two/three, of the estimation models have to be connected in series to construct an estimation model for the estimation process based on feature quantities)], and
wherein the test is collectively conducted for multiple times as necessary until an accurate test result is obtained, and is a test of a cognitive function relating to at least one of categories of intelligence including at least one of language understanding, perceptual integration, working memory, and processing speed, an attention function, a frontal leaf function, language, memory, visual space cognition, and directed attention [figs. 1, 3, 8; par. 0026, lines 1-4; par. 0030, lines 1-6; par. 0056, lines 1-8; par. 0057, lines 1-7; par. 0069, lines 1-22; par. 0075, lines 1-12 of Yamamoto teaches wherein the test is collectively conducted for multiple times (e.g., providing log information to correspond in time) as necessary until an accurate test result (e.g., how detailed state estimation, or estimation granularity) is obtained, and is a test of a cognitive function relating to at least one of categories of intelligence including at least one of language understanding, perceptual integration, working memory, and processing speed, an attention function (e.g., indicating the attention of the user), a frontal leaf function, language, memory, visual space cognition, and directed attention (e.g., the attention)];
determine whether or not the subject is familiar with the test, based on the required trial quantity [figs. 1, 3; par. 0039, lines 1-7; par. 0040, lines 1-7; par. 0075, lines 1-12; par. 0076, lines 1-4 of Yamamoto teaches to determine whether or not the subject is familiar (e.g., having the granularity of state estimation) with the test, based on the required trial quantity (e.g., the estimation models have to be run)]; and
output, to the client device, a test result and validity of the test result in case the test result is determined to be valid [fig. 10; par. 0075, lines 1-12par. 0097, lines 4-8; par. 0104, lines 1-7 of Yamamoto teaches to output, to the client device, a test result and validity of the test result in case the test result is determined to be valid (e.g., determining that the granularity of the state estimation is fine)].
As per claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1.
Yamamoto further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to estimate the required trial quantity based on the attribute data and an inference model, and wherein the inference model is a model which learned a relation between data based on the attribute data and the required trial quantity [figs. 6, 8, 9; par. 0057, lines 1-7; par. 0072, lines 1-11; par. 0075, lines 1-12 of Yamamoto teaches to estimate the required trial quantity (e.g., the estimation models have to be run) based on the attribute data (e.g., the feature quantity) and an inference model (e.g., the description estimation model), and wherein the inference model is a model which learned a relation between data based on the attribute data (e.g., the feature quantity) and the required trial quantity (e.g., the estimation models have to be run)].
As per claim 3, Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1.
Yamamoto further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to estimate the required trial quantity based on the attribute data, an inference model, and a test result of the test, and wherein the inference model is a model which learned, by machine learning, a relation between data based on the attribute data and the test result and the required trial quantity [figs. 1, 3, 8; par. 0026, lines 1-4; par. 0057, lines 1-7; par. 0072, lines 1-11; par. 0075, lines 1-12 of Yamamoto teaches to estimate the required trial quantity (e.g., the estimation models have to be run) based on the attribute data (e.g., the feature quantity), an inference model (e.g., the description estimation model), and a test result (e.g., how detailed state estimation, or estimation granularity) of the test, and wherein the inference model is a model which learned, by machine learning, a relation between data based on the attribute data and the test result and the required trial quantity].
As per claim 4, Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 3.
Yamamoto further teaches wherein the test result is time-series results of the test that the subject underwent in the past [par. 0071, lines 1-8; par. 0081, lines 1-6 of Yamamoto teaches wherein the test result is time-series results of the test that the subject underwent in the past (e.g., in the previous stage)].
As per claim 5, Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1.
Yamamoto further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to estimate the required trial quantity from the attribute data, based on a table in which each of candidates for the attribute is associated with the required trial quantity corresponding to the each of the candidates [par. 0104, lines 1-7 of Yamamoto teaches to estimate the required trial quantity from the attribute data, based on a table in which each of candidates for the attribute (e.g., the input information) is associated with the required trial quantity (e.g., the output information) corresponding to the each of the candidates (e.g., the input information) – see also rejections to the claim 1].
As per claim 6, Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1.
Yamamoto further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine that the test result of the test is invalid if the determination result indicates that the subject is not familiar with the test [par. 0075, lines 1-12; par. 0076, lines 1-4; par. 0078, lines 1-11 of Yamamoto teaches to determine that the test result of the test is invalid (e.g., it is necessary to perform more detailed state estimation) if the determination result indicates that the subject is not familiar with the test (e.g., determining that the granularity of the state estimation is not fine)].
As per claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1.
Yamamoto further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to output, to the client device, advice information for a manager of the subject to perform a decision-making regarding whether to continue to conduct the test [par. 0097, lines 4-8; par. 0104, lines 1-7 of Yamamoto teaches to output, to the client device, advice information for a manager (e.g., output for the management) of the subject to perform a decision-making regarding whether to continue to conduct the test (e.g., to overwritten, update, additionally written, etc.) – see also rejections to the claim 1].
As per claim 8, Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1.
Yamamoto further teaches wherein the least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to display, to the client device, a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether the subject is familiar with the test [fig. 10; par. 0097, lines 4-8 of Yamamoto teaches to display, to the client device (e.g., output by a display, a speaker or an LED lamp), a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether the subject is familiar with the test – see also rejections to the claim 1].
As per claim 9, Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1.
Yamamoto further teaches wherein the least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to output to the client device, by audio, a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether the subject is familiar with the test [fig. 10; par. 0097, lines 4-8 of Yamamoto teaches to output to the client device, by audio (e.g., output by a display, a speaker or an LED lamp), a determination result of validity of the test based on the determination result of whether the subject is familiar with the test – see also rejections to the claim 1].
As per claim 10, Yamamoto teaches the test familiarity determination device according to claim 1.
Yamamoto further teaches wherein the required trial quantity is a number of trials the subject has undergone the test in the one examination; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: estimate, based on the attribute data, the number of required trial for the subject to become familiar with the test; and determine the subject is familiar with the test if a number of actual trail by the subject is more than the number of required trial [figs. 1, 6, 9; par. 0068, lines 1-11; par. 0069, lines 1-22; par. 0070, lines 1-11; par. 0071, lines 1-8 of Yamamoto teaches wherein the required trial quantity is a number of trials the subject has undergone the test in the one examination; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: estimate, based on the attribute data, the number of required trial for the subject to become familiar with the test; and determine the subject is familiar with the test if a number of actual trail by the subject is more than the number of required trial (e.g., it is possible to estimate the state of the user in greater detail or more detailed state) – see also rejections to the claim 1].
Claims 11 and 12 are method and medium claims that correspond to the device claim 1, and are analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAUNG T LWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7845. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) 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.
/MAUNG T LWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495