DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant's arguments, filed 06/09/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 06/09/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Applicants have amended claims 1-4, 7-8, 22-23, and 25-26.
Applicants have left claims 14, 16-21, and 24 as originally filed/previously presented.
Applicants have canceled/previously canceled claims 5-6, 9-13, 15, and 27-52.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 14, and 16-26 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Warnings - Newly Applied
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding claim 14, claim 1 already requires measuring all eight activity parameters.
Claim Objections - Withdrawn
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Remarks, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicants have amended the claims, rendering the objections moot. The objections of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 22 have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f) - Withdrawn
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Remarks, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to the 112(f) interpretation of “an input interface” of claim 3, 4, and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicants arguments regarding “an input interface” having a recognized structural meaning for performing the claimed function to a person of ordinary skill in the art is considered persuasive. The 112(f) interpretation of “an input interface” has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - Withdrawn
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Remarks, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to the 112(f) interpretation of “an input interface” of claim 3, 4, and 7, and resulting 112(a) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicants arguments regarding “an input interface” having a recognized structural meaning for performing the claimed function to a person of ordinary skill in the art is considered persuasive. The 112(f) interpretation of “an input interface” and resulting 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Withdrawn
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of Remarks, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to the 112(f) interpretation of “an input interface” of claim 3, 4, and 7, and resulting 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicants arguments regarding “an input interface” having a recognized structural meaning for performing the claimed function to a person of ordinary skill in the art is considered persuasive. The 112(f) interpretation of “an input interface” and resulting 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Further, Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of Remarks, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to claims 2-4, 7-10, 14, and 19-26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicants have amended the claims, rendering the 112(b) rejections moot. The 112(b) rejections of claims 2-4, 7-10, 14, and 19-26 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) - Withdrawn
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of Remarks, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to claims 9 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicants have canceled claims 9 and 10, rendering the rejections moot. The 112(d) rejections of claims 9 and 10 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 - Maintained
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 1-4, 7-8, 14, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis of independent claims 1 and 3:
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process. Claim 3 is directed to a system, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine. Therefore, further consideration is necessary.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One: Claims 1 and 3 recite an abstract idea. In particular, the claims recite the following:
Calculating a plurality of metrics belonging to the activity parameters; the metrics being mapped to a plurality of cognitive domains; and calculating a percentile rank score for each cognitive domain on the basis of baseline measurements obtained from a population of healthy individuals; and
Computing a functional impairment score for the individual on the basis of the individual’s percentile rank scores for the cognitive domains.
These elements recited in claims 1 and 3 are drawn to an abstract idea since (1) they involve mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations; and/or (2) they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Calculating a plurality of metrics, mapping the plurality of metrics to a plurality of cognitive domains, and calculating a percentile rank score on the basis of baseline measurements obtained from a population of healthy individuals is drawn to a mental process that can be practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person with ordinary skill in the art could reasonably view measurement results on a piece of paper, calculate metrics from the results, map the metrics, and calculate percentile rank scores on the basis of baseline measurements. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the calculating and mapping steps. Additionally, calculating metrics and calculating a percentile rank score are drawn to mathematical calculations using basic mathematical operations.
Computing a functional impairment score on the basis of the individuals percentile rank scores is drawn to a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person with ordinary skill in the art could reasonably add all of the percentile rank scores to obtained a total functional impairment score. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the calculating step. Additionally, calculating a functional impairment score is drawn to a mathematical calculation using basic mathematical operations.
Prong Two: Claims 1 and 3 not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the abstract idea. The additional elements merely:
Recite the words “apply it” or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g., “receiving the measures obtained into an algorithm …” (claim 1), “an algorithm …” (claim 3), “a processor …” (claim 3)), and
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: using generic data-gathering components (e.g. “an input interface …” (claim 3)).
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather information to be used by the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e., the result is not used for a treatment. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, “an algorithm”, “an input interface”, “a processor”, and “computer program code”, does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1 and 3 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above. E.g., all elements are directed to pre-solution steps of necessary data gathering, using generic computer structures to gather the data, which merely facilitate the abstract idea. For example, obtaining a measure of activity parameters 1-8 is directed to pre-solution steps of necessary data gathering to be implemented by the abstract idea.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Analysis of the dependent claims:
Claims 2, 4, 7-8, 14, and 16-26 depend from the independent claims. The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely
Further describe the abstract idea (“the processor configured to receive said first measurement or set of measurements and configured to execute computer program code to compute, using said first measurement or set of measurements, a first functional impairment score indicative of cognitive performance in the individual, and configured to receive said second measurement or set of measurements and configured to execute computer program code to compute, using said second measurement or set of measurements, a second functional impairment score; the processor configured to compare said second functional impairment score with said first functional impairment score and determine a magnitude and/or a speed of change in said functional impairment scores” (claim 4), “the processor or the system is configured to determine both the magnitude and the speed of change in the functional impairment scores for that individual to calculate a composite score” (claim 7), “wherein the cognitive domains include at least one of perceptual motor coordination, complex attention, cognitive processing speed, inhibition, flexibility, visual perception, planning, prospective memory, and spatial memory” (claim 18)),
Further describe the pre-solution activity (or the structure used for such activity) (“the measures are obtained using an app on an electronic portable device” (claim 2), “the input interface configured to receive a first measurement or set of measurements obtained at a first time and a second measurement or set of measurements obtained at a second different time in respect of the activity parameter or parameters” (claim 4), “wherein all eight of the activity parameters are measured” (claim 14), “wherein hand movements of the individual are assessed to obtain at least one of the measurements” (claim 19), “assessing the individual's hand movements includes testing speed and/or accuracy of the individual's hand movements” (claim 20), “wherein the individual's hand movements are assessed by displaying an image to the individual and assessing the individual's ability to trace or tap on the image” (claim 21), “wherein the image is displayed on a screen of a portable electronic device or other user device” (claim 22), “wherein the individual's ability to navigate is assessed to obtain at least one of the measures” (claim 23), “wherein assessing the individual's ability to navigate includes the individual placing and retrieving a plurality of objects (claim 24), “wherein the individual's ability to execute tasks is assessed to obtain at least one of the measures” (claim 25), “assessing the individual's ability to execute tasks includes assessing their ability to carry out subtasks in an exact order” (claim 26)),
Further describe the computer implementation (“a system configured to receive said measures and compute the functional impairment score and/or a composite score is remote from the electronic portable device or a user device” (claim 8), “wherein the metrics are calculated on the basis of an algorithm” (claim 16), “wherein the algorithm is or includes one or more of signal analysis, sensor-fusion, algebraic integration, Fourier analysis or wavelet analysis” (claim 17)), and
Further describe the post-solution activity (N/A) (recited at a high level of generality).
Further, “an algorithm”, “an input interface”, “a processor”, and “computer program code” does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The additional elements do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. The collective functions of the additional elements merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subjection matter. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 14, and 16-26 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants have argued on pages 8-9 of Remarks, filed 06/09/2026, that “the claims are not ‘mental processes’ because they require obtaining ‘upper extremity neuro-motor parameters derived from signal processing of 3D acceleration data provided on a portable electronic device’, which cannot practically be performed in the human mind …”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As reiterated above, obtaining upper extremity neuro-motor parameters it not identified as being a mental process as argued by the Applicants. Instead, obtaining upper extremity neuro-motor parameters is directed towards pre-solution steps of necessary data gathering, using generic computer structures to gather the data, which merely facilitate the abstract idea.
Applicants have argued on pages 8-9 of Remarks, filed 06/09/2026, that “any alleged calculations are integrated into a practical application that improves a technological field … by generating an objective, repeatable function-impairment score from multi-parameter measurements … technical improvements over conventional neuropsychological testing …”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claims currently do not recite specifics regarding the additional elements for collecting the measures (i.e., structure/sensors). Second, the addition of obtaining necessary data, as outlined above, does not amount to an inventive concept, or an improvement over technology. “Preforming clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation” is directed towards insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Maintained
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 14, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al. (US 20160100788 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Sano, in view of Charles Duffy (US 20110066082 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Duffy, in view of Jung et al. (US 20080243005 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Jung, in view of Alberts et al. (US 20160302710 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Alberts.
The claims are generally directed towards a method of obtaining a measurement of cognitive performance in an individual, the method including: obtaining a measure of the following activity parameters for the individual: 1) spatial memory accuracy; 2) ability to carry out dual-task interactions while navigating to a goal, wherein omission of the dual-task interactions is measured; 3) perseverations of incorrect dual-task interactions while navigating to a goal; 4) upper extremity neuro-motor parameters derived from signal processing of 3D acceleration data provided on a portable electronic device; 5) reaction time of dual-task interactions; and one or more of: 6) planning accuracy; 7) total time required by the individual to complete a navigation route; and 8) reaction time of an idle state of the individual; receiving the measures obtained into an algorithm; calculating a plurality of metrics belonging to the activity parameters; the metrics being mapped to a plurality of cognitive domains; and calculating a percentile rank score for each cognitive domain on the basis of baseline measurements obtained from a population of healthy individuals; and computing a functional impairment score for the individual on the basis of the individual's percentile rank scores for the cognitive domains.
Regarding claim 1, Sano discloses a method of obtaining a measurement of cognitive performance in an individual (Abstract, para. [0013]), the method including:
obtaining a measure of the following activity parameters for the individual (Fig. 1, element 20, para. [0053-0054]):
2) ability to carry out dual-task interactions while navigating to a goal, wherein omission of the dual-task interactions is measured (Fig. 8c, para. [0058], “positional accuracy …”, para. [0126], Fig. 11, para. [0148-0149], Fig. 18, Fig. 19, para. [0179], Fig. 23, para. [0207]);
4) upper extremity neuro-motor parameters derived from signal processing of 3D acceleration data provided on a portable electronic device (Fig. 1, element 3, para. [0054], “body movement executed by the subject … acceleration”, para. [0057], para. [0065], “body movement detection sensor … sensor for detecting a body movement of a portion other than hands and fingers may be used … acceleration sensor …”);
5) reaction time of dual-task interactions (Fig. 8c, para. [0059], “time-series accuracy of the body movement of the subject …”, para. [0126], Fig. 11, para. [0148-0149], Fig. 18, Fig. 19, para. [0179], Fig. 23, para. [0207]);
and one or more of:
6) planning accuracy (Fig. 4, para. [0058], para. [0074-0079], “initial position … touches the cross-shaped graphic …”);
7) total time required by the individual to complete a navigation route (para. [0059], “time-series accuracy …”, para. [0207]); and
8) reaction time of an idle state of the individual (para. [0059], “time-series accuracy … difference between an instruction timing of the instruction data and a detection timing of the detection data …”);
receiving the measures obtained into an algorithm (Fig. 1, element 30, para. [0047]);
calculating a plurality of metrics belonging to the activity parameters (Fig. 1, element 31, element 32, element 33, para. [0056-0059]); the metrics being mapped to a plurality of cognitive domains (Fig. 3, para. [0071], “body movement task selection …”).
However, Sano does not explicitly disclose obtaining a measure of 1) spatial memory accuracy.
Duffy teaches of an analogous method of obtaining a measurement of cognitive performance in an individual (Abstract, para. [0033]). Duffy further teaches obtaining a measurement of a following activity parameters for the individual including spatial memory accuracy (para. [0328]). 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 activity parameters disclosed by Sano to additionally include spatial memory accuracy, as taught by Duffy. This is because Duffy teaches spatial memory testing is suitable test for testing cognitive performance (para. [0003], para. [0263]).
However, modified Sano does not explicitly disclose obtaining a measure of 3) perseverations of incorrect dual-task interactions while navigating to a goal.
Jung teaches of an analogous method of obtaining a measurement of cognitive performance in an individual (Abstract, para. [0010]). Jung further teaches obtaining a measure of activity parameters including perseverations of incorrect dual-task interactions while navigating to a goal (para. [0121-0122]). 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 activity parameters taught by modified Sano to additionally include perseverations of incorrect dual-task interactions while navigating to a goal, as taught by Jung. This is because Jung teaches perseveration tests are suitable tests for monitoring cognitive performance (para. [0121-0123]).
However, modified Sano does not explicitly disclose calculating a percentile rank score for each cognitive domain on the basis of baseline measurements obtained from a population of healthy individuals; and computing a functional impairment score for the individual on the basis of the individual’s percentile rank scores for the cognitive domains.
Alberts teaches of an analogous method of obtaining a measurement of cognitive performance in an individual (Abstract, para. [0002]), including obtaining a measure of multiple activity parameters (Fig. 2, para. [0055]). Alberts further teaches calculating a percentile rank score for each cognitive domain on the basis of baseline measurements obtained from a population of healthy individuals (Fig. 2, element 60, para. [0059-0060]); and computing a functional impairment score for the individual on the basis of the individual’s percentile rank scores for the cognitive domains (para. [0059-0060]). 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 method taught by modified Sano to additionally include calculating a percentile rank score for each cognitive domain on the basis of baseline measurements obtained from a population of healthy individuals; and computing a functional impairment score for the individual on the basis of the individual’s percentile rank scores for the cognitive domains, as taught by Alberts. This is because Alberts teaches characterizing the cognitive performance based on percentile scores of normal function is a suitable evaluation method for cognitive abilities of the patient, and allows for a combined score to be calculated (para. [0059-0060]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sano discloses method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the measures are obtained using an app on an electronic portable device (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, para. [0066], “tablet computer or a table terminal that is equipped with a touch panel sensor … application program”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 2, wherein a system configured to receive said measures and compute the functional impairment score and/or a composite score is remote from the electronic portable device or user device (Fig. 25, element 102, para. [0223-0227], “server device … function of receiving … data of the body movement … evaluating the cognitive impairment degree of the subject …”).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 2, wherein all eight of the activity parameters are measured (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metrics are calculated on the basis of an algorithm (Fig. 1, element 30, para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the algorithm is or includes one or more of signal analysis, sensor-fusion, algebraic integration, Fourier analysis or wavelet analysis (para. [0057-0059], “compares the data of the body movement that is to be executed … calculates positional accuracy … calculates a time-series accuracy …” - signal analysis of the data is performed).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 17, wherein the cognitive domains include at least one of perceptual motor coordination, complex attention, cognitive processing speed, inhibition, flexibility, visual perception, planning, prospective memory, and spatial memory (Fig. 3, “reaching”, “rhythm touch”, “finger opening and closing tap”, para. [0071], “body movement task selection …”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 2, wherein hand movements of the individual are assessed to obtain at least one of the measurements (at least Fig. 4, para. [0073-0074], “releases the finger … touches the cross-shaped graphic …”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 19, wherein assessing the individual's hand movements includes testing speed and/or accuracy of the individual's hand movements (para. [0058-0059], “positional accuracy … time-series accuracy …”).
Regarding claim 21, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the individual's hand movements are assessed by displaying an image to the individual and assessing the individual's ability to trace or tap on the image (Fig. 23, para. [0206-0207], “subject tracks these two tracking target graphics …”).
Regarding claim 22, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the image is displayed on a screen of a portable electronic device or other user device (Fig. 23, para. [0064], “tablet computer equipped with a touch panel sensor …”).
Regarding claim 23, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the individual's ability to navigate is assessed to obtain at least one of the measures (Fig. 23, para. [0206-0207], “subject tracks these two tracking target graphics …”).
Regarding claim 24, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 23, wherein assessing the individual's ability to navigate includes the individual placing and retrieving a plurality of objects (Fig. 23, para. [0206-0207], “subject tracks these two tracking target graphics with the respective fingers in accordance with the movements of the tracking target graphics …”).
Regarding claim 25, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the individual's ability to execute tasks is assessed to obtain at least one of the measures (Fig. 21, para. [0191-0195], “displays a touch instruction graphic … subject touches the displayed touch instruction graphic …”).
Regarding claim 26, modified Sano discloses a method as claimed in claim 25, wherein assessing the individual's ability to execute tasks includes assessing their ability to carry out subtasks in an exact order (Fig. 21, para. [0191-0195], “displays a touch instruction graphic … subject touches the displayed touch instruction graphic … selects another touch instruction region and displays a touch instruction graphic …”).
Claims 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al. (US 20160100788 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Sano, in view of Alberts et al. (US 20160302710 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Alberts.
Regarding claim 3, Sano discloses a computer implemented system for obtaining a measurement of cognitive performance in an individual (Abstract, para. [0013]), said system including:
an input interface configured to receive measurements from a remote source on the individual in respect of at least one of the following activity parameters (Fig. 1, element 20, element 100, para. [0041-0054], para. [0064], para. [0066]):
1) spatial memory accuracy;
2) ability to carry out dual-task interactions while navigating to a goal, wherein omission of the dual-task interactions is measured (Fig. 8c, para. [0058], “positional accuracy …”, para. [0126], Fig. 11, para. [0148-0149], Fig. 18, Fig. 19, para. [0179], Fig. 23, para. [0207]);
3) perseverations of incorrect dual-task interactions while navigating to a goal;
4) upper extremity neuro-motor parameters derived from signal processing of 3D acceleration data provided on a portable electronic device (Fig. 1, element 3, para. [0054], “body movement executed by the subject … acceleration”, para. [0057], para. [0065], “body movement detection sensor … sensor for detecting a body movement of a portion other than hands and fingers may be used … acceleration sensor …”);
5) reaction time of dual-task interactions (Fig. 8c, para. [0059], “time-series accuracy of the body movement of the subject …”, para. [0126], Fig. 11, para. [0148-0149], Fig. 18, Fig. 19, para. [0179], Fig. 23, para. [0207]);
6) planning accuracy (Fig. 4, para. [0058], para. [0074-0079], “initial position … touches the cross-shaped graphic …”);
7) total time required by the individual to complete a navigation route (para. [0059], “time-series accuracy …”, para. [0207]); and
8) reaction time of an idle state of the individual (para. [0059], “time-series accuracy … difference between an instruction timing of the instruction data and a detection timing of the detection data …”);
receiving the measurements obtained into an algorithm (Fig. 1, element 30, para. [0047]);
a processor configured to receive said measurements and configured to execute
computer program code to compute, using said measurements, a plurality of metrics
belonging to the activity parameters (Fig. 1, element 31, element 32, element 33, para. [0047], para. [0056-0059], para. [0066-0067]); the metrics being mapped to a plurality of cognitive
domains (Fig. 3, para. [0071], “body movement task selection …”).
However, Sano does not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to calculate a percentile rank score for each cognitive domain on the basis of baseline measurements obtained from a population of healthy individuals; and to compute therefrom a functional impairment score indicative of cognitive performance in the individual based on the individual's percentile rank scores for the cognitive domains.
Alberts teaches of an analogous system of obtaining a measurement of cognitive performance in an individual (Abstract, para. [0002]), including obtaining a measure of activity parameters (Fig. 2, para. [0055]). Alberts further teaches a processor is configured to calculate a percentile rank score for each cognitive domain on the basis of baseline measurements obtained from a population of healthy individuals (Fig. 2, element 60, para. [0059-0060]); and to compute therefrom a functional impairment score indicative of cognitive performance in the individual based on the individual's percentile rank scores for the cognitive domains (para. [0059-0060]). 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 system disclosed by Sano to additionally include a processor configured to calculate a percentile rank score for each cognitive domain on the basis of baseline measurements obtained from a population of healthy individuals; and to compute therefrom a functional impairment score indicative of cognitive performance in the individual based on the individual's percentile rank scores for the cognitive domains, as taught by Alberts. This is because Alberts teaches characterizing the cognitive performance based on percentile scores of normal function is a suitable evaluation method for cognitive abilities of the patient, and allows for a combined score to be calculated (para. [0059-0060]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sano discloses a computer implemented system as claimed in claim 3, said system including: the input interface configured to receive a first measurement or set of measurements obtained at a first time (Fig. 1, Fig. 9, element 20, element 100, para. [0041-0054], para. [0064], para. [0066], para. [0131]) and a second measurement or set of measurements obtained at a second different time in respect of the activity parameter or parameters (Fig. 1, Fig. 9, element 20, element 100, para. [0041-0054], para. [0064], para. [0066], para. [0131]); the processor configured to receive said first measurement or set of measurements and configured to execute computer program code to compute, using said first measurement or set of measurements, a first functional impairment score indicative of cognitive performance in the individual, and configured to receive said second measurement or set of measurements and configured to execute computer program code to compute, using said second measurement or set of measurements, a second functional impairment score; the processor configured to compare said second functional impairment score with said first functional impairment score and determine a magnitude and/or a speed of change in said functional impairment scores (Fig. 9, para. [0131-0137]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sano discloses a system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the processor or the system is configured to determine both the magnitude and the speed of change in the functional impairment scores for that individual to calculate a composite score (Fig. 9, para. [0131-0137]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants have argued on pages 9-11 of Remarks, filed 06/09/2026, that “the claims recite measuring an individual’s ability to carry out dual-task interactions while navigating to a goal (including both omission of the dual-task interactions and perseverations of incorrect dual-task interactions). This element, as well as “placing and retrieving a plurality of objects” as recited in claim 24 require a navigation workflow with a goal state and object-placement/retrieval events … Sano never discloses goal-directed navigation (in physical or AR space) …”.
Applicants arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The claims currently do not recite the ability to carry out dual-task interactions while navigating to a goal, wherein omission of the dual-task interactions is measured is performed by the individual in a physical or AR space. As recited in the rejection above, Sano teaches obtaining measures of an individuals ability to carry out dual-task interactions while navigating to a goal, wherein omission of the dual-task interactions is measured, specifically in a physical space using their hands/fingers (para. [0058], “calculates positional accuracy of a body movement of the subject based on data of a difference between position instruction data and detection data of the body movement of the subject …”, para. [0126], “touch as fast as possible the two circular graphics …”, para. [0148-0149], para. [0179], para. [0206-0207]).
Further, independent claim 3 recites “at least one of the following activity parameters …”. Applicants arguments did not address the cited portions of activity parameters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The Examiner cannot find a reason to withdraw the rejection of claims 3, 4, and 7.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KYLE W KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason M Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights