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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to 14 June 2021 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-15 were previously pending in this application. The amendment filed 13 October 2025 has been entered and the following has occurred: Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, & 10-15 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled. No claims have been added.
Claims 1-2 & 4-15 remain pending in the application
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 1-2 & 4-15 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.
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-2, 4-13) and machine (claims 14-15) which recite steps of:
providing the patient with a control device and a display screen connected to the computer,
executing a sequence of cognitive tests comprising the steps of:
displaying a page comprising several images on the display screen,
issuing a voice command in relation to the images on the displayed page,
acquiring a response from the patient in relation to the page displayed, using the control device, and
updating a comprehension score as a function of the response of the patient, wherein the response of the patient is a selection signal for an area of the display screen or eye movements detected using an eye-tracking device,
selecting a communication interface as a function of the comprehension score, from a plurality of communication interfaces implemented by the computer and having distinct respective complexities, each communication interface including at least one home page displayable on the display screen and including selectable areas of interest using the control device, the areas of interest corresponding to messages that the patient is able to communicate to the caregiver,
activating the selected communication interface and displaying the home page of the selected communication interface,
detecting a designation by the control device of an area of interest among the areas of interest in a page displayed on the display screen, and
controlling the emission of a voice message intended for a caregiver corresponding to the designated area of interest.
These steps of performing cognitive tests during which a patient interacts with a display screen to determine a comprehension score, such as by displaying a page comprising several images on the display screen, issuing a voice command in relation to the images on the displayed page, acquiring a response from the patient in relation to the page displayed, using the control device, and updating a comprehension score as a function of the response of the patient, wherein the response of the patient is a selection signal for an area of the display screen or eye movements detected using an eye-tracking device, selecting a communication interface as a function of the comprehension score with varying respective complexities, activating the selected communication interface, detecting a designation of an area of interest among the areas of interest in a page of the display screen, and controlling emission of a voice message following detection of the designation of area of interest, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) describes various methods or organizing human activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further examples of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” are given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), such as filtering content, considering historical usage information while inputting data, and/or a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions. Each of these examples relate heavily to the steps recited above. For instance, performing cognitive tests during which a patient interacts with a display screen to determine a comprehension score effectively relates to a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions. Selecting a communication interface as a function of the comprehension score with varying respective complexities and activating the selected communication interface effectively relates to filtering content such as content outputted on an interface according to various aspects of the user. Detecting a designation of an area of interest among the areas of interest in a page of the display screen and/or eye-tracking data of a patient, and controlling emission of a voice message following detection of the designation of area of interest effectively relates to considering historical usage information, because the system effectively determines an area of interest or high user interaction/distraction area and subsequently controls emission of a voice message based on said designation being determined/detected. As such, the communication, i.e. interpersonal behavior, relationships, and/or interaction, between the doctor and patient are effectively being managed by the performance of the system. Therefore, the steps recited effectively constitute methods of organizing human activity, as demonstrated by the examples set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2, 4-13, & 15, reciting particular aspects of how performing cognitive tests, filtering certain content, and determining/scoring patient comprehension may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of a providing a patient with various technology including a computer, a control device, a display screen, one or more communication interfaces, an eye tracking device, amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see Applicant’s Specification p. 5, ll. 4-5 & ll. 17-18 for a computer; p. 5, ll. 28-31 for a control device; p. 4, ll. 33-36 for a display screen; p. 6, ll. 1-2 for one or more communication interfaces; p. 5, ll. 6-11 for an eye-tracking device; see MPEP 2106.05(f));
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receiving patient interaction/response and/or eye-tracking data when the patient interacts with the computer for comprehension score determination, detecting a designation of an area of interest amounts to mere data gathering; recitation of determining a comprehension score for the patient by performing/executing one or more cognitive tests and based on patient interaction, selecting a communication interface as a function of the comprehension score determined from the patient interaction, activating a selected communication interface amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; recitation of the response of the patient specifically being eye movements detected using an eye-tracking device, e.g. receiving patient data via eye-tracking means, issuing a voice command, controlling the emission of a voice message amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g); recitation of displaying a page comprising several images on a display screen, displaying the home page of the selected communication interface, i.e. gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) which describes this as an example that courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as recitation of one or more communication interfaces to be implemented in a computer setting, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2, 4-13, & 15, one or more communication interfaces, a control device, a display screen, an eye-tracking device, a computer, a control module, and external devices, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea see Applicant’s Specification p. 6, ll. 1-2 for one or more communication interfaces; p. 5, ll. 28-31 for a control device; p. 4, ll. 33-36 for a display screen; p. 5, ll. 6-13 for an eye-tracking device; p. 5, ll. 4-5 & ll. 17-18 for a computer; p. 4, ll. 5-6 & p. 8, ll. 12-14 for a control module; p. 5, ll. 17-23 for external devices; see MPEP 2106.05(f); claims 4, 6, 10-11, & 15, which recites limitations relating to acquiring a response from the patient in relation to the page displayed, using the control device, receiving a patient’s gaze information for one or more display images corresponding to vocal instructions, counting a number of correct responses in relation to word comprehension tests, number of correct responses in relation to simple sentence comprehension tests, and a total number of correct responses for the cognitive test sequence, detecting patient gaze information, additional limitations which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering; claims 2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, & 15, which recites limitations relating to selecting one or more communication interfaces, updating the comprehension score (SCR) as a function of the patient’s response, incrementation of the score, performing cognitive tests, such as word comprehension tests, simple sentence comprehension tests, and complex sentence comprehension tests, selecting one or more cognitive tests or communication interfaces based on comprehension score/difficulty level, setting a time threshold value according to one or more parameters, additional limitations which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea by selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; claims 7, 11, 13, & 15 which recites limitations relating to displaying a page comprising several images, issuing a voice command in relation to the images, providing one or more interfaces based on patient comprehension score, controlling emission of a vocal message, activating a command corresponding to the detected static position when the elapsed time since the position is detected as static exceeds a time threshold value, enabling direct control of external devices, which under BRI includes other interface or display devices, constituting data outputting efforts and therefore amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g); claims 2, 4-13, & 15, which generally recite limitations relating to computer interfaces and/or the use of word comprehension tests/cognitive tests, additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receiving patient interaction/response and/or eye-tracking data when the patient interacts with the computer for comprehension score determination, detecting a designation of an area of interest, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); determining a comprehension score for the patient by performing/executing one or more cognitive tests and based on patient interaction, selecting a communication interface as a function of the comprehension score determined from the patient interaction, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); maintaining one or more communication interfaces with distinct respective complexities, maintaining one or more patient interaction records/comprehension scores and updating said score over time, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); storing computerized instructions for performance of the steps recited, storing one or more patient data/comprehension scores over time, storing one or more communication interfaces and program instructions for displaying pages thereon, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); receiving patient interaction and/or response of the patient via a selection signal for an area of the display screen using a control device, activating a selected communication interface and/or displaying a home page of the selected communication interface comprising several images that is interactable by the user, e.g., a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); displaying a page comprising several images and/or providing one or more interfaces based on patient comprehension score, see Gordon Par [0023]; see Malaviya Par [0018] & [1047] which generally describe selecting and/or customizing one or more interfaces to be outputted to a user based on user criteria; the response of the patient is eye movements detected using an eye-tracking device, e.g. receiving patient data via eye-tracking means, see Hallowell Par [0128]-[0129], see Cleveland Par [0031]-[0032], see Parshionikar Par [0029] which describe the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of using eye-tracking means and gaze-based communications; issuing a voice command and/or controlling the emission of a voice message, see Hallowell Par [0178] & [0232]-[0233], see Cleveland Par [0046] which describes the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of issuing a voice command/stimulus regarding an image or outputted interface element and/or controlling the emission of a voice message, such as via voice synthesizer)
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2, 4-13, & 15, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields; claims 4, 6, 10-11, & 15, which recites limitations relating to acquiring a response from the patient in relation to the page displayed, using the control device, receiving a patient’s gaze information for one or more display images corresponding to vocal instructions, counting a number of correct responses in relation to word comprehension tests, number of correct responses in relation to simple sentence comprehension tests, and a total number of correct responses for the cognitive test sequence, detecting patient gaze information, enabling direct control of external devices, which under BRI includes other interface or display devices, constituting data outputting efforts, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, & 15, which recites limitations relating to selecting one or more communication interfaces, updating the comprehension score (SCR) as a function of the patient’s response, incrementation of the score, performing cognitive tests, such as word comprehension tests, simple sentence comprehension tests, and complex sentence comprehension tests, selecting one or more cognitive tests or communication interfaces based on comprehension score/difficulty level, setting a time threshold value according to one or more parameters,, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, & 15, maintain one or more communication interface records, comprehension score records, cognitive test parameters, etc. e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); claims 2, 4-13, & 15, storing computerized instructions for performance of the steps recited, storing one or more patient results/scores, storing one or more communication interfaces, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); claim 15, acquiring a patient response using the control device, e.g., a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 7 & 13, which recite limitations relating to displaying a page comprising several images and/or providing one or more interfaces based on patient comprehension score, see Gordon Par [0023]; see Malaviya Par [0018] & [1047] which generally describe selecting and/or customizing one or more interfaces to be outputted to a user based on user criteria). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination 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 § 103
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 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 1-2 & 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0344209), hereinafter “Gordon”, in view of Hallowell et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0092929), hereinafter “Hallowell”, further in view of Cleveland et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0265231), hereinafter “Cleveland”.
Claim 1 –
Regarding Claim 1, Gordon discloses a communication method to establish communication between a speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity and a caregiver, comprising the following steps carried out by a computer (See Gordon Par [0004] which discloses the use of computer systems and computer storage media configured for tailoring a user interface to a user, and communications between two or more entities, Gordon is not explicit on said entities being between a patient and a caregiver, which is instead met by Hallowell and Cleveland as reasoned in the rejection further below):
providing the patient with a control device and a display screen connected to the computer (See Gordon Par [0004] which discloses the use of computer systems and computer storage media configured for tailoring a user interface to a user; See Gordan Par [0006] which discloses an application configured to send format modification commands to the articular application to control the format display presentation of the application used interface according to user state values and corresponding interface contexts, i.e. providing a patient with a control device and a display screen connected to a computer; See Gordon Par [0021]-[0022] which discloses one or more input/output devices for controlling the computer device, including one or more keyboards, mouse controls, touch screens, microphones, speakers, display screens, track balls, scroll wheels, biometric sensors, and the like and further discloses an application user generator (UI generator) capable of operation on the computer system o control he display of the user interface);
executing a sequence of cognitive tests (while not “cognitive test” per se, see Gordon Par [0031] which discloses one or more state drivers detecting user state data based on various data, including event tracking (e.g. mouse pointer activity, navigation history, menu selection tracking, etc.), gesture detection (e.g. movement of a user body part and/or peripheral device), therefore constituting a test of sorts for determining cognitive state of a user; See Gordon Par [0005] which discloses a determined user state relating to one or more of user comprehension levels, user confusion, user frustration, user distraction, user eye strain, user boredom, and the like and determining an interface context relating to an area or other aspect of an interface where a user’s focus is directed at the time; See Gordon Par [0031] & [0034] which discloses a detector configured to determine the state in the form of a relative numeric score/value along with one or more user state scales (e.g. comprehension, frustration, distraction, etc.) comprising the steps of:
displaying a page comprising several images on the display screen (See Gordon Par [0023] which discloses the UI generator indicating a particular content image style and/or format, each of the formats associated with one or more aspects and/or one or more interface containers (e.g. separate regions or windows), and a particular format may be associated with a text display aspect (e.g., font style), a menu arrangement, color scheme, background/foreground effect, window/tile organization, content imaging style (e.g., video or animation vs. still image), language type, vocabulary level, content degree of completeness (full version vs. summarized version), display setting (e.g., brightness, contrast), scrolling speed, play speed, refresh rate, audio effect, etc.; See Gordon Par [0052] which discloses different formats may present different interface elements, including menu elements, data indicators, progress bars, color schemes, background/foreground elements, i.e. pictorial or image elements, other text or image content, i.e. images as seen in Figs. 5A-7 (while Applicant may intend for a more specific interpretation of “image”, any pictorial item that can be visualized on the interface is understood to constitute an “image” without further specifying said “image”);
issuing a voice command in relation to the images on the displayed page (While Gordon generally discloses the use of speakers to enable communicating information to a user and this can occur before or after designation of the area of interest as in Gordon Par [0036], this is not explicitly recited for “a voice command in relation to the images on the displayed page” per se, which is instead met by Hallowell as reasoned in the rejection further below);
acquiring a response from the patient in relation to the page displayed, using the control device (While Gordon Par [0031] generally discloses one or more state drivers detecting user state data based on received various data, including event tracking (e.g. mouse pointer activity, navigation history, menu selection tracking, etc.), gesture detection (e.g. movement of a user body part and/or peripheral device), which may relate to acquiring a response, Gordon is not explicit on the response being in relation to the page displayed necessarily, which is instead met by Hallowell as reasoned in the rejection further below); and
updating a comprehension score as a function of the response of the patient (See Gordon Par [0031] & [0034]-[0036] which discloses one or more state drivers detecting user state data based on received various data, including event tracking (e.g. mouse pointer activity, navigation history, menu selection tracking, etc.), gesture detection (e.g. movement of a user body part and/or peripheral device), therefore constituting acquiring a response from the patient and a detector configured to determine the state in the form of a relative numeric score/value along with one or more user state scales (e.g. comprehension, frustration, distraction, etc.) according to said received various data), wherein
the response of the patient is a selection signal for an area of the display screen or eye movements detected using an eye-tracking device (See Gordon Par [0031] & [0034]-[0036] which discloses one or more state drivers detecting user state data based on received various data, including event tracking (e.g. mouse pointer activity, navigation history, menu selection tracking, etc.), gesture detection (e.g. movement of a user body part and/or peripheral device), therefore constituting acquiring a response from the patient and a detector configured to determine the state in the form of a relative numeric score/value along with one or more user state scales (e.g. comprehension, frustration, distraction, etc.) according to said received various data; See Gordon Par [0036], in particular, which discloses the user interface context being determined using eye tracking, such that the UI context detector may be operable to determine the user interface context based on a particular gaze area, rate of eye movement between different areas of the user interface, duration of gaze upon a particular area (e.g., potentially indicating lack of comprehension of that area), number and/or duration of times the user looks away from the interface (e.g., potentially indicating distraction and/or boredom; While Gordon generally discloses acquiring a response of the user/patient, Gordon is not explicit on the response being in relation to the page displayed necessarily, which is instead my by Hallowell as reasoned in the rejection further below);
selecting a communication interface as a function of the comprehension score (See Gordon Par [0035] which discloses an ensemble learning module including a user interface context detector configured to determine the user interface context associated with the detected user state), from a plurality of communication interfaces implemented by the computer and having distinct respective complexities, each communication interface including at least one home page displayable on the display screen and including selectable areas of interest using the control device (See Gordon Par [0023] which discloses one or more interface containers (e.g. separate regions or windows) of the user interface generated by the UI generator, including particular format(s) associated with a text display aspect (e.g. font style), a menu arrangement, color scheme, background, foreground effect, window/tile organization, content imaging style (e.g., video or animation vs. still image), language type, vocabulary level, content degree of completeness (full version vs. summarized version), display setting (e.g., brightness, contrast), scrolling speed, play speed, refresh rate, audio effect, etc.; See Gordon Par [0057] which disclose one or more interface formats/contexts that progressively trend from relatively more complex to relatively more simplified depending on user state values/user state comprehension values),
the areas of interest corresponding to messages that the patient is able to communicate to the caregiver (See Gordon Par [0036] which disclose the user interface context is determined using eye tracking, such that the UI context detector may be operable to determine the user interface context based on a particular gaze area, rate of eye movement between different areas of the user interface, duration of gaze upon a particular area (e.g., potentially indicating lack of comprehension of that area), number and/or duration of times the user looks away from the interface (e.g., potentially indicating distraction and/or boredom; See Gordon Par [0064]-[0065] which discloses one or more selectable containers and/or presentable objects in an interface, such that a pop-up indicator may be presented to one or more users in response to the user state, etc., albeit not between a patient and caregiver and/or corresponding to “messages” per se which is instead met by Hallowell and Cleveland as reasoned in the rejection further below);
activating the selected communication interface and displaying the home page of the selected communication interface (See Gordon Par [0035] which discloses an ensemble learning module including a user interface context detector configured to determine the user interface context associated with the detected user state; See Gordon Par [0023] which discloses one or more interface containers (e.g. separate regions or windows) of the user interface generated by the UI generator, including particular format(s) associated with a text display aspect (e.g. font style), a menu arrangement, color scheme, background, foreground effect, window/tile organization, content imaging style (e.g., video or animation vs. still image), language type, vocabulary level, content degree of completeness (full version vs. summarized version), display setting (e.g., brightness, contrast), scrolling speed, play speed, refresh rate, audio effect, etc.);
detecting a designation by the control device of an area of interest among the areas of interest in a page displayed on the display screen (See Gordon Par [0023] which discloses one or more interface containers (e.g. separate regions or windows) of the user interface generated by the UI generator, including particular format(s) associated with a text display aspect (e.g. font style), a menu arrangement, color scheme, background, foreground effect, window/tile organization, content imaging style (e.g., video or animation vs. still image), language type, vocabulary level, content degree of completeness (full version vs. summarized version), display setting (e.g., brightness, contrast), scrolling speed, play speed, refresh rate, audio effect, etc.; See Gordon Par [0036] which discloses determining the user’s state based on measured eye movement and/or eye movement patterns of the user, such that the user interface context is based on said eye movement/patterns including a particular gaze area, rate of eye movement between different areas of the user interface, duration of gaze upon a particular area (e.g., potentially indicating lack of comprehension of that area), i.e. areas of interest, number and/or duration of times the user looks away from the interface (e.g., potentially indicating distraction and/or boredom), albeit not between a patient and caregiver and/or corresponding to “messages” per se which is instead met by Hallowell and Cleveland as reasoned in the rejection further below), and
controlling the emission of a voice message intended for the caregiver corresponding to the designated area of interest (See Gordon Par [0021] which discloses the use of speakers to enable communicating information to a user and this can occur before or after designation of the area of interest as in Gordon Par [0036], albeit not explicitly recited for “emission of a voice message” per se, which is instead my bet Hallowell and Cleveland, as reasoned in the rejection further below).
While generally Gordon discloses determining of areas of interest on a user interface via eye-tracking means, and the use of speakers to enable communicating information to a user, such as after detection of the designation of an area of interest, Gordon does not explicitly disclose the areas of interest corresponding to messages/communications to be provided to a caregiver by a speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity, and/or communicating via “emission of a voice message” per se as given by the following limitations:
a communication method to establish communication between a speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity and a caregiver comprising:
issuing a voice command in relation to the images on the displayed page;
acquiring a response from the patient in relation to the page displayed, using the control device;
the response of the patient is a selection signal for an area of the display screen or eye movements detected using an eye-tracking device;
the areas of interest corresponding to messages that the patient is able to communicate to the caregiver;
detecting a designation by the control device of an area of interest among the areas of interest in a page displayed on the display screen;
controlling the emission of a voice message intended for the caregiver corresponding to the designated area of interest.
However, Hallowell discloses a communication method to establish communication between a speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity and a caregiver (See Hallowell Par [0180] which discloses a clinician display screen providing a user interface for allowing the test administrator to respond to eye tracking and scoring information and control test progress, such that communication between the patient and the caregiver are granted, albeit not explicitly recited for a speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity, which is instead met by Cleveland as reasoned in the rejection further below) comprising: acquiring a response from the patient in relation to the page displayed, using the control device (See Hallowell Par [0232]-[0233] which discloses issuing a verbal stimulus while tracking the patient’s eye movements, and the patient is presented with the visual search task and a verbal stimulus simultaneously, such that the patient is presented with the visual search task, i.e. image, and a verbal stimulus simultaneously; See Hallowell Par [0233]-[0237] which discloses receiving patient inputs, i.e. selections, to said cognitive test and can use a multiple-choice display for receiving user selection, i.e. a via a control device or other input); issuing a voice command in relation to the images on the displayed page (See Hallowell Par [0232]-[0233] which discloses issuing a verbal stimulus while tracking the patient’s eye movements, and the patient is presented with the visual search task, i.e. in relation to images on a screen, and a verbal stimulus simultaneously); the response of the patient is a selection signal for an area of the display screen or eye movements detected using an eye-tracking device (See Hallowell Par [0232]-[0233] which discloses issuing a verbal stimulus while tracking the patient’s eye movements, and the patient is presented with the visual search task and a verbal stimulus simultaneously, such that the patient is presented with the visual search task, i.e. image, and a verbal stimulus simultaneously; See Hallowell Par [0233]-[0237] which discloses receiving patient inputs, i.e. selections, to said cognitive test and can use a multiple-choice display for receiving user selection, i.e. a via a control device or other input); the areas of interest corresponding to messages that the patient is able to communicate to the caregiver (See Hallowell Par [0232]-[0233] which discloses issuing a verbal stimulus while tracking the patient’s eye movements, and the patient is presented with the visual search task and a verbal stimulus simultaneously; See Hallowell Par [0180] which discloses a clinician display screen providing a user interface for allowing the test administrator to respond to eye tracking and scoring information and control test progress, such that communication between the patient and the caregiver are granted, albeit not explicitly recited as individual “messages” to communicate to the caregiver, which is instead met by Cleveland as reasoned in the rejection further below); detecting a designation by the control device of an area of interest among the areas of interest in a page displayed on the display screen (See Hallowell Par [0232]-[0233] which discloses issuing a verbal stimulus while tracking the patient’s eye movements, and the patient is presented with the visual search task and a verbal stimulus simultaneously, such that the patient is presented with the visual search task, i.e. image, and a verbal stimulus simultaneously; See Hallowell Par [0233]-[0237] which discloses receiving patient inputs, i.e. selections, to said cognitive test and can use a multiple-choice display for receiving user selection, i.e. a via a control device or other input); controlling the emission of a voice message intended for the caregiver corresponding to the designated area of interest (See Hallowell Par [0180] which discloses a clinician display screen providing a user interface for allowing the test administrator to respond to eye tracking and scoring information and control test progress, such that communication between the patient and the caregiver are granted; See Hallowell Par [0232]-[0233] which discloses issuing a verbal stimulus while tracking the patient’s eye movements, and the patient is presented with the visual search task and a verbal stimulus simultaneously, albeit not explicitly recited as individual “messages” corresponding to the area of interest to communicate to the caregiver, which is instead met by Cleveland as reasoned in the rejection further below). The disclosure of Hallowell is directly applicable to the disclosure of Gordon because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards the modification or optimization of user interfaces based on various user data/conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Gordon which discloses the use of speakers to enable communicating information to a user to further specifically include the emission of a voice message, as disclosed by Hallowell, because this allows for dual-task testing, such as tracking the patient’s eye movements when a patient is given instructions to perform a certain task on the patient’s user interface and reflecting this at the clinician’s user interface to determine patient comprehension levels and to use said responses as an indicator of the patient’s ability to effectively allocate attention resource (See Hallowell Par [0233]). It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Gordon which discloses determining of areas of interest on a user interface via eye-tracking means, to further include the areas of interest corresponding to communications to be provided to a caregiver by a patient, as disclosed by Hallowell, because this also allows for a clinician to perform dual-task testing, such as tracking the patient’s eye movements when a patient is given instructions to perform a certain task on the patient’s user interface and automatically reflecting/communicating the results at the clinician’s user interface (See Hallowell Par [0180] & [0233]).
While Gordon and Hallowell generally disclose the use of eye-tracking means to perform certain tasks by individuals, such as for cognitive testing, Gordon and Hallowell are generally silent on the individuals being speech-impaired and lacking manual dexterity, the images/areas of interest on the user interface corresponding to messages that the patient can communicate to the caregiver and actualizing a corresponding voice message according to the area of interest/respective message as given by the limitations below:
a communication method to establish communication between a speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity and a caregiver comprising:
the areas of interest corresponding to messages that the patient is able to communicate to the caregiver;
controlling the emission of a voice message intended for the caregiver corresponding to the designated area of interest.
However, Cleveland discloses a communication method to establish communication between a speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity and a caregiver (See Cleveland Par [0033] which discloses an unobtrusive eye-operated communication system for locked-in hospital patients who cannot speak or gesture, i.e. speech-impaired and lacking manual dexterity, allowing patients to communicate using their eyes in place of voices and/or hands) comprising: the areas of interest corresponding to messages that the patient is able to communicate to the caregiver (See Cleveland Par [0033] which discloses an unobtrusive eye-operated communication system for locked-in hospital patients who cannot speak or gesture to communicate with a caregiver; See Cleveland Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses simply by looking at images and cells displayed on a computer screen, patients are able to answers questions posed by caregivers and ask or answer care-related questions, i.e. communicate to the caregiver via messages; See Cleveland Par [0049], [0056]-[0057], & Figs. 7 & 10 which discloses the screen displaying cells with pictures of multiple possible answers for the user to visually select from using eye-tracking/gaze-based selection) and controlling the emission of a voice message intended for the caregiver corresponding to the designated area of interest (See Cleveland Par [0035]-[0036] & [0045]-[0046] which discloses EyeVoice providing visual and/or auditory feedback when the patient “visually” answers a question, for example, the selected cell or image may flash and/or a speech synthesizer may verbalize the patient’s answer, such that the message is intended to be in response to the caregiver giving the questions, allowing the caregiver to hear the patient and allowing the patient to verify his communications). The disclosure of Cleveland is directly applicable to the already-combined disclosure of Gordon and Hallowell, because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards the modification or optimization of user interfaces based on various user data/conditions, especially using eye-tracking means.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Gordon and Hallowell to apply the eye-tracking/user interface methods already set forth in Gordon and Hallowell to establish communication between a speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity and a caregiver, as disclosed by Cleveland, because this allows patient to communicate with their eyes in place of their voices and in some cases in place of their hands (See Cleveland Par [0033]). It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Gordon and Hallowell, which already disclose the use of eye-tracking to perform selections on a user interface, to further include the images/areas of interest on the user interface corresponding to messages that the patient can communicate to the caregiver and actualizing a corresponding voice message according to the area of interest/respective message, as disclosed by Cleveland, because this allows the speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity to select, compose, and verbalize text by visually activating displayed cells at a user interface for communicating with a caregiver regarding answer questions posed by caregivers; specify locations, types and degrees of pain and discomfort; request specific forms of assistance; and ask or answer care-related questions, etc. (See Cleveland Par [0035]-[0036]).
Claim 2 –
Regarding Claim 2, Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Gordon further discloses a method, wherein:
the communication interfaces comprise:
a first communication interface comprising only a home page providing access to at most ten commands (“providing access to at most ten commands” is understood to be an optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, and differences in the prior art regarding the amount of commands in an interface/page does not support patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the criticality of said amount, see MPEP 2144.05(II); therefore, see Gordon Par [0023] which discloses a UI generator generating one or more user interfaces or interface containers, including separate regions or windows, to be a particular format associated with text display aspect, menu arrangement, i.e. commands/number of commands on the menu, color scheme, background/foreground effect, window/tile organization, content imaging style, language type, vocabulary level, content degree of completeness, display setting, scrolling speed, play speed, refresh rate, audio effect, etc., and some formats may be associated with one or more aspects of a user interface within a relatively smaller subset of different user interface aspects; See Gordon Par [0025] which discloses the UI generator may be a slideshow presentation application, and/or a web browser which are both understood to include a home or initial page/screen provided to the user; See further Gordon Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses upon detection of a level of comprehension dropping below a predetermined threshold, i.e. when looking at the area of interest, such as when a user is attempting to navigate a particular menu with difficulty, particular sets of menu elements are determined corresponding to the user state/comprehension score), and/or
a second communication interface providing access to commands from areas of interest distributed over the home page and several other pages (See Gordon Par [0023] which discloses a UI generator generating one or more user interfaces or interface containers, including separate regions or windows, to be a particular format associated with text display aspect, menu arrangement, i.e. access to commands from areas of interest, color scheme, background/foreground effect, window/tile organization, content imaging style, language type, vocabulary level, content degree of completeness, display setting, scrolling speed, play speed, refresh rate, audio effect, etc., and some formats may be associated with one or more aspects of a user interface within a relatively smaller subset of different user interface aspects; See further Gordon Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses upon detection of a level of comprehension dropping below a predetermined threshold, i.e. when looking at the area(s) of interest, such as when a user is attempting to navigate a particular menu with difficulty, particular sets of menu elements are determined corresponding to the user state/comprehension score),
the commands of the second communication interface being available in at most six selections using the control device (“at most six selections” is understood to be an optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, and differences in the prior art regarding the amount of selections in an interface/page does not support patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the criticality of said amount, see MPEP 2144.05(II); therefore see Gordon Par [0023] which discloses a UI generator generating one or more user interfaces or interface containers (i.e. first, second, third interface/containers), including separate regions or windows, to be a particular format associated with text display aspect, menu arrangement, i.e. access to commands of the one or more (i.e. first, second, third) interfaces from areas of interest, color scheme, background/foreground effect, window/tile organization, content imaging style, language type, vocabulary level, content degree of completeness, display setting, scrolling speed, play speed, refresh rate, audio effect, etc., and some formats may be associated with one or more aspects of a user interface within a relatively smaller subset of different user interface aspects), and/or
a third communication interface providing access to commands distributed over an unlimited number of pages (see Gordon Par [0023] which discloses a UI generator generating one or more user interfaces or interface containers (first, second, third interface/containers) including separate regions or windows, to be a particular format associated with text display aspect, menu arrangement, i.e. access to commands of the one or more (i.e. first, second, third) interfaces from areas of interest, color scheme, background/foreground effect, window/tile organization, content imaging style, language type, vocabulary level, content degree of completeness, display setting, scrolling speed, play speed, refresh rate, audio effect, etc., and some formats may be associated with one or more aspects of a user interface within a relatively smaller subset of different user interface aspects).
Claim 4 –
Regarding Claim 4, Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Gordon and Hallowell further disclose a method, wherein:
the incrementation by the computer of the score when the patient has maintained his/her gaze on one of the images displayed, corresponding to the voice command (See Gordon Par [0036] which discloses determining the user’s state based on measured eye movement and/or eye movement patterns of the user, such that the user interface context is based on said eye movement/patterns including a particular gaze area, rate of eye movement between different areas of the user interface, duration of gaze upon a particular area (e.g., potentially indicating lack of comprehension of that area), number and/or duration of times the user looks away from the interface (e.g., potentially indicating distraction and/or boredom), and as already disclosed in Gordon Par [0031] & [0034] which the state in the form of a relative numeric score/value along with one or more user state scales (e.g. comprehension, frustration, distraction, etc.) is determined, such as based on eye movement/patterns or other aspects of the user; While Gordon generally discloses the use of speakers to enable communicating information to a user and this can occur before or after designation of the area of interest as in Gordon Par [0036], this is not explicitly recited for “a voice command in relation to the images on the displayed page” per se, see Hallowell Par [0232]-[0233] which discloses issuing a verbal stimulus while tracking the patient’s eye movements, and the patient is presented with the visual search task, i.e. in relation to images on a screen, and a verbal stimulus simultaneously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined disclosure of Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to further specifically include one of the images displayed specifically corresponding to the voice command, as disclosed by Hallowell, because this allows for dual-task testing, such as tracking the patient’s eye movements when a patient is given instructions to perform a certain task on the patient’s user interface and reflecting this at the clinician’s user interface to determine patient comprehension levels and to use said responses as an indicator of the patient’s ability to effectively allocate attention resource (See Hallowell Par [0233]).
Claim 5 –
Regarding Claim 5, Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Gordon and Hallowell further disclose a method, wherein:
the cognitive tests comprise word comprehension tests, simple sentence tests, and complex sentence comprehension tests (while not “cognitive test” per se, see Gordon Par [0031] which discloses one or more state drivers detecting user state data based on various data, including event tracking (e.g. mouse pointer activity, navigation history, menu selection tracking, etc.), gesture detection (e.g. movement of a user body part and/or peripheral device), therefore constituting a test of sorts for determining cognitive state of a user; See Gordon Par [0005] which discloses a determined user state relating to one or more of user comprehension levels, user confusion, user frustration, user distraction, user eye strain, user boredom, and the like and determining an interface context relating to an area or other aspect of an interface where a user’s focus is directed at the time; See Gordon Par [0031] & [0034] which discloses a detector configured to determine the state in the form of a relative numeric score/value along with one or more user state scales (e.g. comprehension, frustration, distraction, etc.), however Gordon does not seem to explicitly mention the cognitive test as word comprehension, simple sentence, and/or complex sentence comprehension tests; therefore, see Hallowell Par [0130]-[0131] which discloses assessment of linguistic, i.e. word, comprehension using eye tracking, including the use of visual fixation time allocated to a target image or verbal stimulus, providing a measure of the patient’s level of linguistic comprehension; See Hallowell Par [0169]-[0180] which disclose various modes of linguistic comprehension testing, such as on the basis of reading comprehension and/or verbal comprehension, such that verbal stimuli ranged from single words to complex sentences and combinations of sentences can be employed; See Hallowell Par [0208]-[0212] which discloses the use of assessing the effect of semantic associative priming on a patient, including the comprehension and/or association of certain words).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to further specifically include the cognitive tests comprising word comprehension tests, simple sentence tests, and complex sentence comprehension tests, as disclosed by Hallowell, because this allows for assessment of linguistic, i.e. word, comprehension using eye tracking, including the use of visual fixation time allocated to a target image or verbal stimulus, objectively providing a measure of the patient’s level of linguistic comprehension (See Hallowell Par [0130]-[0131]).
Claim 6 –
Regarding Claim 6, Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland disclose the method of Claim 5 in its entirety. Hallowell further discloses a method, wherein:
the comprehension score counts a number of correct responses in relation to word comprehension tests, a number of correct responses in relation to simple sentence comprehension tests, and a total number of correct responses for the cognitive test sequence (See Hallowell Par [0130]-[0131] which discloses assessment of linguistic, i.e. word, comprehension using eye tracking, including the use of visual fixation time allocated to a target image or verbal stimulus, providing a measure of the patient’s level of linguistic comprehension; See Hallowell Par [0169]-[0180] which disclose various modes of linguistic comprehension testing, such as on the basis of reading comprehension and/or verbal comprehension, such that verbal stimuli ranged from single words to complex sentences and combinations of sentences can be employed, and correct and incorrect responses being tracked for each of the linguistic comprehension testing portions, i.e. single words, complex sentences, etc.; See Hallowell Par [0208]-[0212] which discloses the use of assessing the effect of semantic associative priming on a patient, including the comprehension and/or association of certain words).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to further specifically include the comprehension score (SCR) counts a number of correct responses in relation to word comprehension tests, a number of correct responses in relation to simple sentence comprehension tests, and a total number of correct responses for the cognitive test sequence, as disclosed by Hallowell, because this allows for assessment of linguistic, i.e. word, comprehension, including the use of visual fixation time allocated to a target image or verbal stimulus and/or correct/incorrect responses as an objective measure of the patient’s level of linguistic comprehension (See Hallowell Par [0130]-[0131] & [0169]-[0180]).
Claim 7 –
Regarding Claim 7, Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland disclose the method of Claim 6 in its entirety. Gordon and Hallowell further disclose a method, wherein:
following the execution of the test sequence, steps executed by the computer, comprising:
if the comprehension score indicates that the total number of correct answers is greater than a first threshold value, selecting a first communication interface providing access to commands distributed over an unlimited number of pages (while not “cognitive test” per se, see Gordon Par [0031] which discloses one or more state drivers detecting user state data based on various data, including event tracking (e.g. mouse pointer activity, navigation history, menu selection tracking, etc.), gesture detection (e.g. movement of a user body part and/or peripheral device), therefore constituting one or more tests of sorts for determining cognitive state of a user; See Gordon Par [0004]-[0005] which discloses a determined user state relating to one or more of user comprehension levels, user confusion, user frustration, user distraction, user eye strain, user boredom, and the like and determining an interface context relating to an area or other aspect of an interface where a user’s focus is directed at the time; See Gordon Par [0031] & [0034] which discloses a detector configured to determine the state in the form of a relative numeric score/value along with one or more user state scales (e.g. comprehension, frustration, distraction, etc.); See Gordon Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses See Gordon Par [0023] which discloses one or more interface containers (e.g. separate regions or windows) of the user interface generated by the UI generator, including particular format(s) associated with a text display aspect (e.g. font style), a menu arrangement, color scheme, background, foreground effect, window/tile organization, content imaging style (e.g., video or animation vs. still image), language type, vocabulary level, content degree of completeness (full version vs. summarized version), display setting (e.g., brightness, contrast), scrolling speed, play speed, refresh rate, audio effect, etc.; See Gordon Par [0057] which disclose one or more interface formats/contexts that progressively trend from relatively more complex to relatively more simplified depending on user state values/user state comprehension values, albeit not explicitly mentioned by determinations of correct and/or incorrect answers; See Gordon Par [0039]-[0041] & [0045]which discloses the use of one or more thresholds for various user states (e.g. comprehension, frustration, distraction), and modifying formatting of a user interface based upon receiving a particular user state score and threshold conditions, including (in Gordon Par [0045]) not modifying the interface if scores are not surpassed or if the threshold values are nearing exceeded, but not exceeded, generating corresponding format modification information or commands therefore; as such, Hallowell is hereinafter depended on for teaching determinations of correct and/or incorrect answers for cognitive tests, see Hallowell Par [0130]-[0131] which discloses assessment of linguistic, i.e. word, comprehension using eye tracking, including the use of visual fixation time allocated to a target image or verbal stimulus, providing a measure of the patient’s level of linguistic comprehension; See Hallowell Par [0169]-[0181] which disclose various modes of linguistic comprehension testing, such as on the basis of reading comprehension and/or verbal comprehension, such that verbal stimuli ranged from single words to complex sentences and combinations of sentences can be employed, and correct and incorrect responses being tracked for each of the linguistic comprehension testing portions, i.e. single words, complex sentences, etc.; See Hallowell Par [0208]-[0212] which discloses the use of assessing the effect of semantic associative priming on a patient, including the comprehension and/or association of certain words),
otherwise, if the comprehension score indicates that the number of correct answers in relation to the simple sentence comprehension tests is greater than a second threshold value, selecting a second communication interface providing access to commands distributed over several pages and reachable in no more than six selections using the control device (it is understood by Examiner that this limitation does not have to be met because the initial “if” statement is satisfied by the combination of Gordon and Hallowell), and
otherwise, if the comprehension score indicates that the number of correct answers in relation to the simple word comprehension tests is greater than a third threshold value, selecting a third communication interface providing access to up to ten commands (it is understood by Examiner that this limitation does not have to be met because the initial “if” statement is satisfied by the combination of Gordon and Hallowell),
otherwise waiting for a new test sequence to be executed (it is understood by Examiner that this limitation does not have to be met because the initial “if” statement is satisfied by the combination of Gordon and Hallowell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to further specifically include the comprehension score (SCR) counts a number of correct responses in relation to word comprehension tests, a number of correct and incorrect responses in relation to comprehension tests, as disclosed by Hallowell, because this allows for assessment of linguistic, i.e. word, comprehension, including the use of visual fixation time allocated to a target image or verbal stimulus and/or correct/incorrect responses as an objective measure of the patient’s level of linguistic comprehension (See Hallowell Par [0130]-[0131] & [0169]-[0180]).
Claim 8 –
Regarding Claim 8, Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Gordon and Hallowell further disclose a method, wherein:
selecting a sequence of cognitive tests to determine a patient's comprehension score, from a plurality of sequences of cognitive tests, or selecting a number of slides from groups of slides of a same difficulty level to form a sequence of cognitive tests to determine a patient comprehension score (while not “cognitive test” per se, see Gordon Par [0031] which discloses one or more state drivers detecting user state data based on various data, including event tracking (e.g. mouse pointer activity, navigation history, menu selection tracking, etc.), gesture detection (e.g. movement of a user body part and/or peripheral device), therefore constituting one or more tests of sorts for determining cognitive state of a user; See Gordon Par [0005] which discloses a determined user state relating to one or more of user comprehension levels, user confusion, user frustration, user distraction, user eye strain, user boredom, and the like and determining an interface context relating to an area or other aspect of an interface where a user’s focus is directed at the time; See Gordon Par [0031] & [0034] which discloses a detector configured to determine the state in the form of a relative numeric score/value along with one or more user state scales (e.g. comprehension, frustration, distraction, etc.); see Hallowell Par [0130]-[0131] which discloses assessment of linguistic, i.e. word, comprehension using eye tracking, including the use of visual fixation time allocated to a target image or verbal stimulus, providing a measure of the patient’s level of linguistic comprehension; See Hallowell Par [0169]-[0180] which disclose various modes of linguistic comprehension testing and one or more tests being administered, such as on the basis of reading comprehension and/or verbal comprehension, such that verbal stimuli ranged from single words to complex sentences and combinations of sentences can be employed; See Hallowell Par [0180] which discloses allowing an administrator to control test progress including allow the administrator to easily and quickly start, pause, adjust, resume, and stop program operation, i.e. controlling a sequence of the test(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to further specifically include selecting a sequence of cognitive tests to determine a patient's comprehension score, from a plurality of sequences of cognitive tests, as disclosed by Hallowell, because this allows for assessments of linguistic, i.e. word, comprehension, including the use of visual fixation time allocated to a target image or verbal stimulus and control of how and when the assessments are administered, thereby objectively providing a measure of the patient’s level of linguistic comprehension (See Hallowell Par [0130]-[0131] & [0180]).
Claim 9 –
Regarding Claim 9, Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland discloses the method of Claim 8 in its entirety. Hallowell further discloses a method, wherein:
the selection of a sequence of cognitive tests is performed by excluding one or two most recent previously selected sequences of cognitive tests (“excluding one or two most recent previously selected sequences of cognitive tests” is understood to be an optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, and differences in the prior art regarding the amount of excluded cognitive tests does not support patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the criticality of said amount, see MPEP 2144.05(II); therefore, see Hallowell Par [0197] which discloses contemplating ideal representations of a prototypical image of the semantic content it is intended to convey and further in Hallowell Par [0201] which discloses the use of response frequency for various stimuli, and subsequent exclusion of certain stimuli or tests if those stimuli/tests have highly-variable responses; See Hallowell Par [0234] which discloses the use of practice trials, and if the patient is unable to complete at least eight of the practice trials, he or she is preferably excluded from further testing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to further specifically include the selection of a sequence of cognitive tests is performed by excluding one or two most recent previously selected sequences of cognitive tests, as disclosed by Hallowell, because excluding highly-variable stimuli or tests allows for more ideal representations of a prototypical image of the semantic content it is intended to convey when performing linguistic comprehension testing (See Hallowell Par [0197] & [0201]).
Claim 10 –
Regarding Claim 10, Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland further disclose a method, wherein:
detecting, by an eye-tracking device (3) that the patient has maintained their gaze on a first area of interest in a page displayed on the screen for a duration greater than a temporal threshold value (See Gordon Par [0021] which discloses the use of one or more eye tracking devices; See Gordon Par [0031] which discloses one or more state drivers detecting user state data based on various data, including event tracking (e.g. mouse pointer activity, navigation history, menu selection tracking, etc.), gesture detection (e.g. movement of a user body part and/or peripheral device), therefore constituting one or more tests of sorts for determining cognitive state of a user; See Gordon Par [0005] which discloses a determined user state relating to one or more of user comprehension levels, user confusion, user frustration, user distraction, user eye strain, user boredom, and the like and determining an interface context relating to an area or other aspect of an interface where a user’s focus is directed at the time; See further Gordon Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses upon detection of a level of comprehension dropping below a predetermined threshold, i.e. when looking at the area of interest, such as when a user is attempting to navigate a particular menu with difficulty, particular sets of menu elements are determined corresponding to the user state/comprehension, albeit not explicitly recited as messages to communicate to a caregiver by the patient, as required by the “areas of interest” definition provided by Applicant in independent claim 1; See Cleveland Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses simply by looking at images and cells displayed on a computer screen, patients are able to answers questions posed by caregivers and ask or answer care-related questions, i.e. communicate to the caregiver via messages; See Cleveland Par [0049] & Figs. 7 & 10 which discloses the screen displaying cells with pictures of multiple possible answers for the user to visually select from using eye-tracking/gaze-based selection), and
controlling the emission of a vocal message corresponding to the first area of interest, or displaying a new page related to the first area of interest (See Gordon Par [0021] which discloses the use of speakers to enable communicating information to a user and this can occur before or after designation of the area of interest as in Gordon Par [0036], albeit not explicitly recited for “emission of a voice message” per se; See Hallowell Par [0232]-[0233] which discloses issuing a verbal stimulus while tracking the patient’s eye movements, and the patient is presented with the visual search task and a verbal stimulus simultaneously, albeit not explicitly recited as messages to communicate to a caregiver by the patient, as required by the “areas of interest” definition provided by Applicant in independent claim 1; See Cleveland Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses simply by looking at images and cells displayed on a computer screen, patients are able to answers questions posed by caregivers and ask or answer care-related questions, i.e. communicate to the caregiver via messages; See Cleveland Par [0049] & Figs. 7 & 10 which discloses the screen displaying cells with pictures of multiple possible answers for the user to visually select from using eye-tracking/gaze-based selection; See Cleveland Par [0035]-[0036] & [0045]-[0046] which discloses EyeVoice providing visual and/or auditory feedback when the patient “visually” answers a question, for example, the selected cell or image may flash and/or a speech synthesizer may verbalize the patient’s answer, such that the message is intended to be in response to the caregiver giving the questions, allowing the caregiver to hear the patient and allowing the patient to verify his communications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to further specifically include controlling the emission of a vocal message corresponding to the first area of interest, as disclosed by Hallowell, because this allows for dual-task testing, such as tracking the patient’s eye movements with regard to a certain image or area of interest when a patient is given instructions to perform a certain task to determine patient comprehension levels (See Hallowell Par [0232]-[0233]).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland, which already disclose the use of eye-tracking to perform selections on a user interface, to further include the images/areas of interest on the user interface corresponding to messages that the patient can communicate to the caregiver and actualizing a corresponding voice message according to the area of interest/respective message, as disclosed by Cleveland, because this allows the speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity to select, compose, and verbalize text by visually activating displayed cells at a user interface for communicating with a caregiver regarding answer questions posed by caregivers; specify locations, types and degrees of pain and discomfort; request specific forms of assistance; and ask or answer care-related questions, etc. (See Cleveland Par [0035]-[0036]).
Claim 11 –
Regarding Claim 11, Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Gordon and Hallowell further disclose a method, wherein:
detecting by an eye-tracking device a position in the display screen gazed at by the patient (See Gordon Par [0021] which discloses the use of one or more eye tracking devices; See further Gordon Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses upon detection of a level of comprehension dropping below a predetermined threshold, i.e. when looking at the area of interest, such as when a user is attempting to navigate a particular menu with difficulty, i.e. a difficulty aspect (i.e. function) of the interface, particular sets of menu elements are determined corresponding to the user state/comprehension),
displaying an icon at the detected position (See Gordon Par [0021] which discloses the use of one or more eye tracking devices; See further Gordon Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses upon detection of a level of comprehension dropping below a predetermined threshold, i.e. when looking at the area of interest, such as when a user is attempting to navigate a particular menu, i.e. icons on an interface, with difficulty, i.e. a difficulty aspect (i.e. function) of the interface, particular sets of menu elements are determined corresponding to the user state/comprehension),
determining that the detected position is static (See Gordon Par [0021] which discloses the use of one or more eye tracking devices; See further Gordon Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses upon detection of a level of comprehension dropping below a predetermined threshold, i.e. when looking at the area of interest, such as when a user is attempting to navigate a particular menu, i.e. icons on an interface which are static, with difficulty particular sets of menu elements are determined corresponding to the user state/comprehension),
when the detected position is static, animating the icon to indicate a time remaining to gaze at the static position (See Gordon Par [0021] which discloses the use of one or more eye tracking devices; See further Gordon Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses upon detection of a level of comprehension dropping below a predetermined threshold, i.e. when looking at the area of interest, such as when a user is attempting to navigate a particular menu, i.e. icons on an interface which are static, with difficulty particular sets of menu elements are determined corresponding to the user state/comprehension; See Hallowell Par [0131] which discloses measuring and recording fixation location data (i.e. data representing where the patient looks) and fixation duration data (i.e. data representing how long the patient fixates on particular areas of the display) as an indicator of whether or not he or she understood a verbal stimulus as an accurate measure of the patient’s level of linguistic comprehension; See Hallowell Par [0170]-[0171] which discloses a visual stimulus being animated or presented for a specified duration, such that durational relationships between the visual and verbal stimuli can be incorporated and determining the duration of each fixation and corresponding area of interest, such as a quadrant containing a stimulus image; See Hallowell Figs. 2 & 3), and
activating a command corresponding to the detected static position when the elapsed time since the position is detected as static exceeds a time threshold value (See Gordon Par [0021] which discloses the use of one or more eye tracking devices; See further Gordon Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses upon detection of a level of comprehension dropping below a predetermined threshold, i.e. when looking at the area of interest, such as when a user is attempting to navigate a particular menu, i.e. icons on an interface which are static, with difficulty particular sets of menu elements are determined corresponding to the user state/comprehension; See Hallowell Par [0131] which discloses measuring and recording fixation location data (i.e. data representing where the patient looks) and fixation duration data (i.e. data representing how long the patient fixates on particular areas of the display) as an indicator of whether or not he or she understood a verbal stimulus as an accurate measure of the patient’s level of linguistic comprehension; See Hallowell Par [0170]-[0171] & [0189] which discloses a visual stimulus being animated or presented for a specified duration, such that durational relationships between the visual and verbal stimuli can be incorporated and determining the duration of each fixation and corresponding area of interest, such as a quadrant containing a stimulus image; See Hallowell Par [0179] which discloses using a moving dot with a short “tail” to represent the patient’s gaze trace activity, both on and off the screen, including various alerts and actions, i.e. commands, according to the patient’s gaze activity/times, such as the patient looking off the screen, closing eyes, etc.; See Hallowell Figs. 2 & 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland further specifically include, animating the icon to indicate a time remaining to gaze at the static position and activating a command corresponding to the detected static position when the elapsed time since the position is detected as static exceeds a time threshold value, as disclosed by Hallowell, because this allows for establishing a durational relationships between the visual and verbal stimuli for determining the duration of each fixation and corresponding area of interest, as an indicator of whether or not a user understood a verbal stimulus as an accurate measure of the patient’s level of linguistic comprehension (see Hallowell Par [0131], [0170]-[0171], & [0189]).
Claim 12 –
Regarding Claim 12, Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland disclose the method of Claim 11 in its entirety. Gordon further discloses a method, wherein:
the time threshold value is set as a function of the selected communication interface, and/or as a function of the comprehension score obtained during the last performed cognitive test sequence (See Gordon Par [0021] which discloses the use of one or more eye tracking devices; See Gordon Par [0031] which discloses one or more state drivers detecting user state data based on various data, including event tracking (e.g. mouse pointer activity, navigation history, menu selection tracking, etc.), gesture detection (e.g. movement of a user body part and/or peripheral device), therefore constituting one or more tests of sorts for determining cognitive state of a user; See Gordon Par [0005] which discloses a determined user state relating to one or more of user comprehension levels, user confusion, user frustration, user distraction, user eye strain, user boredom, and the like and determining an interface context, relating to an area or other aspect of an interface where a user’s focus is directed at the time; See further Gordon Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses upon detection of a level of comprehension dropping below a predetermined threshold, i.e. when looking at the area of interest, such as when a user is attempting to navigate a particular menu with difficulty, i.e. a difficulty aspect (i.e. function) of the interface, particular sets of menu elements are determined corresponding to the user state/comprehension).
Claim 13 –
Regarding Claim 13, Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Gordon further discloses a method, wherein:
the third communication interface provides access to a control module enabling direct control of external devices located in the patient's immediate environment (See Gordon Par [0023] which discloses a UI generator generating one or more user interfaces or interface containers (first, second, third interface/containers) including separate regions or windows, to be a particular format associated with text display aspect, menu arrangement, i.e. access to commands of the one or more (i.e. first, second, third) interfaces from areas of interest, color scheme, background/foreground effect, window/tile organization, content imaging style, language type, vocabulary level, content degree of completeness, display setting, scrolling speed, play speed, refresh rate, audio effect, etc., and some formats may be associated with one or more aspects of a user interface within a relatively smaller subset of different user interface aspects; See Gordon Par [0021] which discloses the use/control of one or more output hardware e.g. external devices, such as speakers to enable communicating information to a user in the immediate patient environment; furthermore, while not relied upon because Gordon effectively discloses the entirety of this limitation, for purposes of advancing prosecution, it should also be noted by Applicant that Hallowell Par [0180] reads on this limitation as well because it discloses an external clinician display screen in the immediate testing environment being controlled to respond to eye tracking and scoring information and control test progress).
Claim 14 –
Regarding Claim 14, Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland disclose a communication device comprising a computer, a display screen, and a control device (See Gordon Par [0020]-[0022] for one or more computers/computer devices, memories, and at least one processor in combination with input/output hardware including one or more keyboards, mouse controls, touch screens, microphones, speakers, display screens, track balls, scroll wheels, biometric sensors, and the like, and an application user interface generator (UI generator) capable of operation on the computer system to control the display of the user interface of a particular application), wherein:
the computer is configured to implement the method according to claim 1 (See analysis of Claim 1 above which relies entirely on the combination of Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland disclosures).
Claim 15 –
Regarding Claim 15, Gordon and Hallowell disclose discloses the device of claim 14 in its entirety. Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland further disclose a device, wherein:
the control device comprises an eye-tracking device supplying the computer with successive positions of the patient's gaze on the screen (See Gordon Par [0005] which discloses a determined user state relating to one or more of user comprehension levels, user confusion, user frustration, user distraction, user eye strain, user boredom, and the like and determining an interface context relating to an area or other aspect of an interface where a user’s focus is directed at the time; See Gordon Par [0021] which discloses the use of one or more eye tracking devices; See further Gordon Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses upon detection of a level of comprehension dropping below a predetermined threshold, i.e. when looking at the area of interest, such as when a user is attempting to navigate a particular menu with difficulty, particular sets of menu elements are determined corresponding to the user state/comprehension),
the computer being configured to activate a command associated with an area of interest displayed on the screen, when the position of the patient's gaze supplied by the eye-tracking device is maintained in the area of interest for a duration greater than a time threshold value (See Gordon Par [0031] which discloses one or more state drivers detecting user state data based on various data, including event tracking (e.g. mouse pointer activity, navigation history, menu selection tracking, etc.), gesture detection (e.g. movement of a user body part and/or peripheral device), therefore constituting one or more tests of sorts for determining cognitive state of a user; See Gordon Par [0005] which discloses a determined user state relating to one or more of user comprehension levels, user confusion, user frustration, user distraction, user eye strain, user boredom, and the like and determining an interface context relating to an area or other aspect of an interface where a user’s focus is directed at the time; See further Gordon Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses upon detection of a level of comprehension dropping below a predetermined threshold, i.e. when looking at the area of interest, such as when a user is attempting to navigate a particular menu with difficulty, particular sets of menu elements are determined corresponding to the user state/comprehension, albeit not explicitly recited as messages to communicate to a caregiver by the patient, as required by the “areas of interest” definition provided by Applicant in independent claim 1; See Hallowell Par [0232]-[0233] which discloses issuing a verbal stimulus while tracking the patient’s eye movements, and the patient is presented with the visual search task and a verbal stimulus simultaneously; See Hallowell Par [0180] which discloses a clinician display screen providing a user interface for allowing the test administrator to respond to eye tracking and scoring information and control test progress, such that communication between the patient and the caregiver are granted; See Cleveland Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses simply by looking at images and cells displayed on a computer screen, patients are able to answers questions posed by caregivers and ask or answer care-related questions, i.e. communicate to the caregiver via messages; See Cleveland Par [0049] & Figs. 7 & 10 which discloses the screen displaying cells with pictures of multiple possible answers for the user to visually select from using eye-tracking/gaze-based selection; See Cleveland Par [0035]-[0036] & [0045]-[0046] which discloses EyeVoice providing visual and/or auditory feedback when the patient “visually” answers a question, for example, the selected cell or image may flash and/or a speech synthesizer may verbalize the patient’s answer, such that the message is intended to be in response to the caregiver giving the questions, allowing the caregiver to hear the patient and allowing the patient to verify his communications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Gordon which discloses the use of speakers to enable communicating information to a user to further specifically include the emission of a voice message, as disclosed by Hallowell, because this allows for dual-task testing, such as tracking the patient’s eye movements when a patient is given instructions to perform a certain task on the patient’s user interface and reflecting this at the clinician’s user interface to determine patient comprehension levels and to use said responses as an indicator of the patient’s ability to effectively allocate attention resource (See Hallowell Par [0233]). It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Gordon which discloses determining of areas of interest on a user interface via eye-tracking means, to further include the areas of interest corresponding to communications to be provided to a caregiver by a patient, as disclosed by Hallowell, because this also allows for a clinician to perform dual-task testing, such as tracking the patient’s eye movements when a patient is given instructions to perform a certain task on the patient’s user interface and automatically reflecting/communicating the results at the clinician’s user interface (See Hallowell Par [0180] & [0233]).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland, which already disclose the use of eye-tracking to perform selections on a user interface, to further include the images/areas of interest on the user interface corresponding to messages that the patient can communicate to the caregiver and actualizing a corresponding voice message according to the area of interest/respective message, as disclosed by Cleveland, because this allows the speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity to select, compose, and verbalize text by visually activating displayed cells at a user interface for communicating with a caregiver regarding answer questions posed by caregivers; specify locations, types and degrees of pain and discomfort; request specific forms of assistance; and ask or answer care-related questions, etc. (See Cleveland Par [0035]-[0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 6 of Arguments/Remarks that the claims have been amended to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for claims 1-2 & 4-15 have been withdrawn.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 6-8 of Arguments/Remarks that the claimed invention of claims 1-2 & 4-15 is directed to a specific technological solution for a concrete problem in medical technology, not to an abstract idea, such that the method employs specific hardware including eye-tracking devices and display screens, along with software processes including cognitive testing algorithms and adaptive interface selection, to convert minimal physical capabilities into meaningful communication. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Applicant’s Specification generally demonstrates the generic and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional aspects of the eye tracking devices, display screens, and/or interface switching that is being performed in the instant claims, as established above in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 101” section of this Office Action. Furthermore, while Applicant claims that the system effectively converts minimal physical capabilities into meaningful communication, Examiner contends that said communication is never actually realized by the language of the claims, under broadest reasonable interpretation. That is, the claim language recites “controlling the emission of a voice message intended for the caregiver corresponding to the designated area of interest”, not that the emission of said voice message actually ever takes place, but just that the system has the controlling functionality to be able to perform such an action. Therefore, depending on specific claim language, if the eye-tracking efforts were further specified in the claims and the actualization of the voice message being outputted to a caregiver via a device or component was positively recited instead of merely having the functionality to “control” said voice message, then this may constitute a practical application at least by the inventive concept of the disclosure being directed towards improved communication interfaces for patients that are both speech-impaired and mobility-impaired, and this possibly actualizing the conversion of minimal physical capabilities into meaningful communication. As such, claims 1-2 & 4-15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 8 of Arguments/Remarks that the cognitive tests recited in the claimed invention represent concrete technological implementations rather than abstract mental processes, because the tests are conducted via visual stimuli on a computer screen, through coordinated voice commands using speakers, capturing eye-tracking data, and computing comprehension scores in a computerized environment versus how a human might perform said tasks. As such, Applicant argues that humans cannot track eye movements with millisecond precision, calculate gaze duration, etc., as a computer can and therefore is outside of the realm of a mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. It should be noted that the claims were determined to recite methods of organizing human activity, via managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and not merely a mental process. That is, while the example provided in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and previous and current Office Actions do cite “a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” as an example of said methods of organizing human activity, the claims were ultimately categorized as methods of organizing human activity, not mental processes. In either case, while Applicant generally argues that a human cannot perform said aspects, Examiner contends that a generic computer or tool performing an otherwise mental process with further granularity does not necessary preclude the claims from being reasonably performed in a human analogue. That is, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process if a generic computer, computer environment, etc., is being merely used as a tool to perform a mental process. For example, the instant set of claims recite aspects of issuing voice commands through a speaker, i.e. using a speaker as a tool to issue a voice command, capturing eye tracking data, i.e. monitoring a patient’s eye movement, such as a doctor, neurologist, optometrist, etc. does using a medical tool, and/or computing comprehension scores based on said metrics, which a doctor, neurologist, optometrist, etc. would also perform, but recited for a higher granularity via computerized means. Therefore, Examiner asserts that it is reasonable for a doctor, neurologist, optometrist to merely use a generic computer as a tool for performing higher granularity data gathering/manipulation, and this still constitutes the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). At an even higher level, without consideration of whether the steps can be practically performed in the human mind, the claims are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people at least by managing the communication, and resulting relationship/interaction, between a caregiver/doctor and the patient that is speech-impaired/mobility-impaired. As such, claims 1-2 & 4-15 are determined to indeed recite certain methods of organizing human activity, and therefore remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 8-10 of Arguments/Remarks that assuming arguendo that claims 1-2 & 4-15 do recite an abstract idea, under step 2A, Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework, the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. More specifically, Applicant argues that claims 1-2 & 4-15 recite a method/process with steps which practice to establish communication between a speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity and a caregiver, so as to establish that the invention is being “utilized”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. As addressed above, while Applicant claims that the system effectively converts minimal physical capabilities into meaningful communication and/or represents a practical application through establish communication between a speech-impaired patient lacking manual dexterity and a caregiver, Examiner contends that said communication is never actually realized by the language of the claims, under broadest reasonable interpretation. That is, the claim language recites “controlling the emission of a voice message intended for the caregiver corresponding to the designated area of interest”, not that the emission of said voice message actually ever takes place, but just that the system has the controlling functionality to be able to perform such an action. Therefore, depending on specific claim language, if the eye-tracking efforts were further specified and the actualization of the voice message being outputted to a caregiver via a device or component was positively recited, then this may constitute a practical application at least by the inventive concept of the disclosure being directed towards improved communication interfaces for patients that are both speech-impaired and mobility-impaired, and this possibly actualizing the conversion of minimal physical capabilities into meaningful communication. Furthermore, a practical application, as defined by the Alice/Mayo framework, is not merely an invention being “utilized” or having an “application”. Rather, examples of practical applications are specifically delineated in MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), and merely utilizing, i.e. instances of “apply it”, the invention is not a practical application. As such, claims 1-2 & 4-15 do not amount to a practical application, and therefore remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 10 of Arguments/Remarks that claims 1-2 & 4-15 recite a method which integrates the recited steps into a practical application via technological improvement. That is, the claimed invention solves the technological problem of enabling communication for patients who cannot speak or write, using specific technical means, including eye-tracking devices, adaptive interfaces, and voice synthesis to achieve the concrete result of converting limited physical input into voice messages for caregivers. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. The problem of “enabling communication for patients who cannot speak or write” and/or improving upon said lack of communication does not constitute a technical/technological problem/improvement as set forth in the Alice/Mayo framework. That is, the problem of “enabling communication for patients who cannot speak or write” is an abstract problem and/or already characterized under the abstraction portion of the analysis performed on the instant claims. That is, while the communication may be rooted in technology, at a higher level, the concept of communicating between two entities or managing communications thereof is indeed abstract and falls under the subgrouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, an improvement to an abstraction (i.e. the already-characterized abstract idea of "communicating between two entities or managing communications thereof”) still amounts to the abstraction itself, and according to MPEP 2106.05(a), “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”. Therefore, improvements to communicating between two entities or managing communications thereof amounts to an improvement to an abstraction rather than an improvement to the technical field or technology that the abstract idea is being implemented. As such, claims 1-2 & 4-15 do not amount to a technological improvement and/or practical application, and therefore remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 10 that claims 1-2 & 4-15 amount to significantly more than any recited judicial exception, of the various technical features (displaying images, issuing voice commands, measuring responses through eye-tracking, automatically selecting multiple interface complexity levels based comprehension scores, etc.) performed by the computerized system representing not routine computer functionality, but instead a specific technical innovation for accessibility. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Each of the aspects argued above by Applicant were found to represent insignificant, extra-solution activity and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional activity found in prior art systems. That is, displaying images on an interface merely relates to data gathering/outputting efforts. Issuing voice commands amounts to a human effectuating speech through a microphone or other means and subsequently outputted using one or more computerized tools to effectuate sound. Issuing voice commands through a speaker, i.e. using a speaker as a tool to issue a voice command, capturing eye tracking data, i.e. monitoring a patient’s eye movement, such as a doctor, neurologist, optometrist, etc. does using a medical tool, and/or computing comprehension scores/determining complexity of items to be presented to a user based on said metrics, are all steps which a doctor, neurologist, optometrist, etc. could also perform, but recited for a higher granularity via computerized means. As such, claims 1-2 & 4-15 do not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception and therefore remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 10-11 that claims 1-2 & 4-15 amount to significantly more than any recited judicial exception, because the claims recite converting the limited input of a patient into synthesized voice messages for caregivers, amounting to a technological transformation. Applicant further argues on p. 11 of Arguments/Remarks that the integration of eye-tracking devices to detect gaze duration and position, as recited in claims 1-2 & 4-15 required specialized hardware and software. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. More specifically, the “conversion” of an input (i.e. data) into an output parameter (i.e. other data) to be synthesized by a generic device for possibly effectuating sounds does not satisfy the transformation prong of the machine-or-transformation test, because the mere manipulation or reorganization of data (i.e. transforming input data into output data/parameters) does not satisfy the transformation prong, as per CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011). While Applicant further argues in view of “specialized” aspects of the invention such as eye tracking, gaze duration and position, etc., the prior art (Hallowell et al., Cleveland et al., Parshionikar et al.) points to said aspects of eye-tracking being well-understood, routine, and/or conventional before the filing date of the instant application. Furthermore, all steps recited in the claims were determined to represent insignificant, extra-solution activity and/or well-understood, routine, and/or conventional aspects found in prior art systems. As such, claims 1-2 & 4-15 do not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception and therefore remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 11-12 of Arguments/Remarks that the amendments to independent claim 1 overcome previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, because Gordon and Hallowell fail to teach or suggest all elements, steps, and features of the claimed invention recited in amended independent claim 1. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1-2 & 4-15 over Gordon in view of Hallowell have been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to read on all elements, steps, and features of the claimed invention recited in amended independent claim 1. This new ground of rejection relies on more teachings from Hallowell regarding designation of areas of interest and issuing of vocal messages in tandem with newly cited Cleveland which is relied upon for addressing the disclosure being directed towards patients who cannot speak or use their hands, the areas of interest/images corresponding to messages to communicate to a provider/clinician, and issuing vocalized outputs regarding the selected, respective message represented by the area of interest/image. Therefore, claims 1-2 & 4-15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 12-13 of Arguments/Remarks that Gordon does not specifically address patients who cannot speak or use their hands and is instead specifically directed towards maintaining user engagement with a user interface. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments. However, as shown above, a new ground of rejection has been made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to read on all elements, steps, and features of the claimed invention recited in amended independent claim 1. This new ground of rejection relies on newly cited Cleveland for addressing the disclosure being directed towards patients who cannot speak or use their hands for communication/vocalization of messages to a provider/clinician. Therefore, while Gordon and Hallowell may not be directed towards such embodiments, the relation between manipulation of user interface engagement via eye-tracking means of Gordon, utilization of user interfaces to perform cognitive evaluations and tests via eye-tracking means of Hallowell, and providing of user interfaces for patients that cannot speak or use their hands via eye-tracking means of Cleveland, are all substantially connected and related, as reasoned in the obviousness/motivation statements of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections provided in this Office Action. Therefore, while Gordon and Hallowell may not explicitly be directed towards patients who cannot speak or use their hands, this is remedied by the disclosure of Cleveland. Therefore, claims 1-2 & 4-15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 13 of Arguments/Remarks that Gordon never describes displaying test images with corresponding voice commands to evaluate comprehension and/or present test stimuli and measure responses to determine comprehension capabilities, as required by amended independent claim 1. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments. However, as shown above, a new ground of rejection has been made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to read on all elements, steps, and features of the claimed invention recited in amended independent claim 1. This new ground of rejection relies on newly cited Cleveland for addressing the areas of interest/images corresponding to messages to communicate to a provider/clinician, and issuing vocalized outputs regarding the selected, respective message represented by the area of interest/image. Additionally, Cleveland Par [0056]-[0057] & Fig. 10 specifically relate to presenting images that show pictures regarding testing a user’s comprehension capabilities. Therefore, while Gordon and Hallowell may not explicitly recite displaying test images with corresponding voice commands and/or present test stimuli and measure responses to determine comprehension capabilities, this is remedied by the disclosure of Cleveland. Therefore, claims 1-2 & 4-15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 13-14 of Arguments/Remarks that Hallowell does not remedy the purported deficiencies of Gordon, and instead, Hallowell merely presents verbal stimuli and images for diagnostic assessment purposes, not for a communication interface that a patient that cannot speak or use their hands can utilize to communicate with a medical provider. Applicant further argues that Hallowell provides a verbal stimuli, but does not meet the level of a “voice message intended for the caregiver that corresponds to the designated area of interest”. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments. However, as shown above, a new ground of rejection has been made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to read on all elements, steps, and features of the claimed invention recited in amended independent claim 1. This new ground of rejection relies on newly cited Cleveland for addressing the disclosure being directed towards patients who cannot speak or use their hands for communication/vocalization of messages to a provider/clinician and for addressing the areas of interest/images corresponding to messages to communicate to a provider/clinician, and issuing vocalized outputs regarding the selected, respective message represented by the area of interest/image. Therefore, while Gordon and Hallowell may not explicitly be directed towards patients who cannot speak or use their hands, this is remedied by the disclosure of Cleveland. Therefore, claims 1-2 & 4-15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant further argues on p. 14 of Arguments/Remarks that Hallowell does not remedy the purported deficiencies of Gordon, and instead, Hallowell teaches away from the claimed invention of amended independent claim 1 by focusing on diagnosis rather than enabling communication as in the claimed invention. That is, Applicant purports that there is no motivation, hint, or indication in Gordon or Hallowell to combine Gordon and Hallowell to arrive at the claimed invention of amended independent claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Applying technology, i.e. eye tracking and user interfaces, in a related field does not imply “teaching away” as purported by Applicant. That is, while Examiner agrees with Applicant’s assertions that Hallowell may be more focused on diagnosis/cognitive evaluation (which is substantially recited and relied upon in the steps of the claims), this does not “teach away” from said applications being relevant in the field of patients who cannot speak or use their hands for communication/vocalization of messages to a provider/clinician. That is, without express “teaching away” language stating that an invention should NOT be practiced in a certain field, the field of diagnosis/cognitive evaluation and communications between a provider and clinician are substantially linked/connected. Hallowell does not contain any of said “teaching away” language, and therefore does not teach away from the claimed invention of amended independent claim 1 by focusing on diagnosis rather than enabling communication as in the claimed invention, as purported by Applicant. Furthermore, the relation between manipulation of user interface engagement via eye-tracking means of Gordon, utilization of user interfaces to perform cognitive evaluations and tests via eye-tracking means of Hallowell, and providing of user interfaces for patients that cannot speak or use their hands via eye-tracking means of Cleveland, are all substantially connected and related, as reasoned in the obviousness/motivation statements of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections provided in this Office Action. Therefore, claims 1-2 & 4-15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 15 of Arguments/Remarks that the amendments to independent claim 1 overcome previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, because Gordon and Hallowell fail to teach or suggest the claimed integrating testing and interface selection process as in amended independent claim 1. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments. However, as shown above, a new ground of rejection has been made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to read on all elements, steps, and features of the claimed invention recited in amended independent claim 1. This new ground of rejection relies on newly cited Cleveland for addressing the disclosure being directed towards patients who cannot speak or use their hands for communication/vocalization of messages to a provider/clinician and for addressing the areas of interest/images corresponding to messages to communicate to a provider/clinician, and issuing vocalized outputs regarding the selected, respective message represented by the area of interest/image. Therefore, while Gordon and Hallowell may not explicitly be directed towards patients who cannot speak or use their hands, this is remedied by the disclosure of Cleveland. Therefore, claims 1-2 & 4-15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-15, Applicant argues on p. 16 of Arguments/Remarks that claims 2 & 4-15 depend from amended independent claim 1 or directly incorporate independent claim 1 (i.e. claim 14), and therefore for the reasons set forth for amended independent claim 1, claims 2 & 4-15 are also purportedly allowable over the prior art by virtue of dependency. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. As shown above, a new ground of rejection has been made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gordon, Hallowell, and Cleveland to read on all elements, steps, and features of the claimed invention recited in amended independent claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 1 being purportedly allowable over the prior art and therefore claims 2 & 4-15 also being allowable over the prior art by virtue of dependency are rendered moot. Therefore, claims 1-2 & 4-15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Linse et al. (“Communication Matters—Pitfalls and Promise of Hightech Communication Devices in Palliative Care of Severely Physically Disabled Patients With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis” – NPL – Frontiers in Neurology – Volume 9 – Article 603 – July 2018) discloses high-tech augmentative and alternative communication (HT-AAC) systems such as eyetracking based computer device and brain-computer-interfaces provide the possibility to maintain caregiver-independent communication and environmental control in the advanced disease state of ALS or other neurodegenerative diseases;
Fried-Oken et al. (“Support communication for patients with neurodegenerative disease” – NPL – HHS Public Access – NeuroRehabilitation – 2015) discloses augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems/interventions for patients with neurodegenerative diseases affecting speech, motor, language and cognitive domains, such that various aspects of intervention/adoption of said AAC systems are established in healthcare settings;
Kupas et al. (“Decision support for the diagnosis of neurological disorders based on gaze tracking” – NPL – IEEE - 10th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis – Sept. 2017) discloses the use of a digital eye scanner/tracker during neurological examination and creating a video to make possible the test of eye movement of the patient during the video to evaluate mental state of the patient using machine learning;
White et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0187787) discloses a system for engaging with a virtual assistant via ancillary input, including non-verbal, non-tactile input based on eye-gaze data and/or eye-gaze attributes, including but not limited to, facial recognition data, motion or gesture detection, eye-contact data, head-pose or head-position data, and the like;
Traughber et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0284202) discloses a patient communication system that comprises a selection input mechanism for generating a message on a display, such that the message can have a respective urgency, vocal command, delivery option, etc., associated with the message.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 HUNTER J RASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5:30pm.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/H.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights