DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 02/25/24 .
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continuity
Applicant’s claim to the benefit of and priority to US Provisional Application 63/448,490 is acknowledged. Accordingly, a priority date of 02/27/23 has been given to this application.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not commence on a separate sheet and includes other part of the application. The Abstract is printed on the same sheet as part of Claim 6 and Claim 7. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections/Claim Interpretations
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 uses multiple instances of a letter followed by a period, e.g., Steps 5-7 contain parts “A.” and “B.”. Per MPEP 608.01(m), “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, at Step 3, recites the following, which appears to include grammatical and/or typographical errors and/or omissions:
“Establishing the individual authorized player for each that player's profile (A, B, C) a neurological baseline (their baseline) using a group of interactive digital games and a digital cognitive assessment tool called the Sign Inventory (SIT) which is administered by an authorized caregiver”. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as “Establishing, for each individual authorized player’s profile, a neurological baseline using a group of interactive digital games and a digital cognitive assessment tool called the Sign Inventory (SIT) which is administered by an authorized caregiver”. Please clarify claim language or explain on the record.
Claim 1 appears to contain accidental capitalization of “A” in Administer and “C” in “Consider” on Page 2, at lines 7 and 8 respectively of Step 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 appears to contain a typographical error of “result are” rather than “results are” at Step 6 B line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites instances of both “digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT)” (e.g., Step 3 lines 3-4) and “cognitive assessment tool” (SIT) (e.g., Step 7 B line 2). Examiner interprets these as being the same thing, but recommends streamlining terminology throughout for increased clarity and coherence of the claims.
Claim 1 appears to use both terms “individual authorized player” and “the player” (Step 5B, line 5) interchangeably. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting these to refer to the “individual authorized player”. Please streamline and use the same terminology across all claims for increased clarity and coherence of the claims.
Claim 1 contains a plurality of spacing errors which appear to include more than one space between words (see at least, Claim 1 Step 1 line 4, extra spaces between “player” and “(A, B, C)”; Step 3, line 2, extra spaces between “a” and “neurological”). Please correct.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the player profile” in Step 6A line 1 and B line 1. Examiner is interpreting this to be the same as “a profile of an individual authorized player” of Step 1. Please streamline and use the same terminology across all claims for increased clarity and coherence of the claims.
Claim 1 appears to recite both “application” and “app”. Please streamline and use the same terminology across all claims for increased clarity and coherence of the claims.
Claims 2-7 are objected to as they inherit the deficiencies of parent Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim 1 is narrative in form and replete with indefinite language as explained below. Note the format of the claims in the patent publications cited as prior arts.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the player profile circle" at page 3, section (3) of Step 6B (line 14-15). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to what “circle” this refers. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as a circle on a player’s profile page.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the individual brain performances” in Step 1, line 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this refers to each of the individual authorized player’s brain performances over time, or to what “brain performances” refers. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as “brain performances of individual authorized player”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the caregivers” (plural) in Step 4, line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this refers to “an authorized caregiver” (singular) in Step 3. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as “the authorized caregiver of an individual authorized player”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the caregiver” in Step 5B(2) line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this refers to the “authorized caregiver” in step 3, or a different caregiver. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as “the authorized caregiver”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the acceptable range” in Step 5A, line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as “an acceptable range”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the screen” in Step 6B(1), line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as “a screen”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the app icon” in Step 6B(3), line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as “an app icon”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the smart phone” in Step 6B(3), line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the “electronic device” recited by Step 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the specific profile” in Step 6B(3), line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as “a smart phone”.
Claim 1, Step 6B(2)-(4) recites limitations pertaining to “the account” and “the account’s profile page” which render the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite. Step 1 recites limitations pertaining to “registering an account, and creating a profile of an individual authorized player”. Step 6B(3) recites “the account’s profile page”, which lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if recitations of “account” refers to the player’s profile (e.g., the account that was created in Step 1), or to an administrator account per Steps 6B(3) and (4). ,
Claim 1 uses various terms pertaining to results, e.g., “interactive digital game result” (Step 5A, line 1 and 5), “the game result” (Step 5B, line 1), “their game result” (Step 5B line 4), “their result” (Step 6A line 3) and “the result” (Step 7 line 4) which renders the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite, as both the digital game and digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT) appear to have a “result”. Examiner recommends specifically labeling all instances of “result(s)” with the digital game or digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT) to which they are associated. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting “results” recited in the same limitation as digital game to be digital game results, and is interpreting “results” recited in the same limitation as SIT to be SIT results.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the player profile’s game home page” (Step 6B(4) line 1) and “the profile’s game home page” (Step 7B line 6) which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. “Home page” does not appear to have antecedent basis. It is unclear if these two entities are the same home page or different homepages.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the profile's game home page information window” in Step 7A lines 6-7 and Step 7B line 6, which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. This limitation does not appear to have antecedent basis. It is unclear if this refers to the “information window” in Step 6B(4) line 3, or something else.
Dependent Claims 2-7 inherit the deficiencies of parent Claim 1 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the caretaker”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as “the authorized caregiver” of Claim 1.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-7 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
Step 1: Registering an account and creating a profile of an individual authorized player (A, B, C) wherein a change in a cognitive status in each of the individual brain performances over time can be monitored;
Step 2: When able, accessing “Safe Brain” content by an account administrator and/or authorized individual;
Step 3: Establishing, for each individual authorized player for each player’s profile (A, B, C), a neurological baseline using a group of interactive games and a cognitive assessment tool called the Sign Inventory (SIT) which is administered by an authorized caregiver;
Step 4: Periodically sending reminders and notifications to the caregivers and the individual authorized player profiles to instruct and encourage game play several times a week;
Step 5:
A. If an interactive game result of an individual authorized player falls within a certain measurable of their individual baseline, using their score to further define the acceptable range and baseline of the interactive digital game result;
B. if the game result falls under a certain measurable of their individual baseline,
(1) alerting the individual authorized player and informing the player that their game result fell beneath their acceptable range and request that the player gets focused and play again, and
(2) alerting the caregiver to immediately Administer the SIT assessment and to consider further evaluation;
Step 6:
A. If the player profile is playing the interactive game again within a designated period of time and their result is falling within their acceptable range, no further action transpires;
B. If the player profile is playing the game and result are falling under a certain measurable of their individual baseline a second time, or if the player profile is not playing the game again within the designated period, four things occur:
(1) the player is informed that their game result fell below their acceptable range and that their caregiver has been notified,
(2) an alert is sent to an account administrator(s) and any other authorized party(ies) associated with the account informing them the player profile has scored below their acceptable range and needs attention,
(3) applying a red alert dot to indicate that a player profile within that account needs attention, and changing the player profile circle on the account’s profile page to red indicating the specific profile in the account that needs attention, and
(4) the player profile’s page viewable by the account administrator(s) is populated with an information and the account administrator is informed to either administer the cognitive assessment tool (SIT) to the individual authorized player profile, or to consider further evaluation for the profile;
Step 7:
A. If the caregiver elects to administer the cognitive assessment tool (SIT) and the result is below a certain measurable of the individual authorized player profile’s cognitive assessment tool (SIT) baseline, recommending they consider further evaluation and all red dot alerts and the profile’s game page information remains until the player profile either (1) successfully completes one of the games within their acceptable range, or (2) is administered the cognitive assessment tool (SIT) and the result falls within their acceptable range;
B. If the caregiver elects to administer the cognitive assessment tool (SIT) and the result falls within a certain measurable of the player profile’s cognitive assessment tool (SIT) baseline, stating the player profile is within range and removing all red dot alerts and the profile’s game page information;
Step 8: Maintaining a running history of each individual authorized player profile’s interactive game play results, their cognitive assessment tool (SIT) results, and any alert notifications previously sent to an account administrator(s) based on results of both the individual authorized player profile’s game play results and the results of the cognitive assessment tool (SIT) that was administered to them; and
Step 9: Repeating Steps 5 and 6 for each individual authorized player profile when preparing for an upcoming physical practice or game, when changing to a different type of physical activity, or when observing a change in the individual authorized player profile’s behavior.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Providing interactive games to a player to evaluate and identify signs of a concussion in the player by comparing a game score to a baseline score, subsequently notifying a caregiver when a player’s score is below a threshold to instruct the caregiver to conduct a cognitive assessment tool on the player, and managing a history of a player’s results over time, are personal behaviors that may be performed by caregivers/healthcare providers.
The above claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Independent claim 1 additionally recites:
Downloading a mobile application called “Safe Brain” onto an electronic device with internet capability / logging into the mobile application called “Safe Brain” as a means of electronically accessing “Safe Brain” content using an electronic device
The Safe Brain application as implementing the steps of recommending the player consider further evaluation (Step 7A), stating the player profile is within range (Step 2B), maintaining a running history of each individual authorized player profile’s interactive game play results, their cognitive assessment tool (SIT) results, and any alert notifications previously sent to an account administrator(s) based on results of both the individual authorized player profile’s game play results and the results of the cognitive assessment tool (SIT) that was administered to them (Step 8);
digital game play/game play results and digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT) as a means of electronically (digitally) providing game play/game play results and a cognitive assessment tool
the app icon of the smart phone as a means of displaying information on an electronic device
an alert window on the screen as implementing the step of informing the user that their game result fell below their acceptable range and that their caregiver has been notified
home page as a means of electronically tracking player profile information
an information window as a means of electronically displaying information via a computer window
The broad recitation of the aforementioned general purpose computing elements at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools. For example, the “electronic device” is understood to be a general purpose computing device functioning in its ordinary capacity, e.g., cell phone, computers, tablets, laptops, smart devices for manipulating data per para. [0039] of Applicant’s specification). Downloading a mobile application to an electronic device, logging into the application, using the application to implement steps of the abstract idea, displaying information in a window on the screen of the electronic device, displaying an app icon on a smartphone, and using a “home page” to display information all amount to applying the abstract idea on a computing device. Recitation of “digital” game play and assessment tool only amounts to mere instructions to apply the assessment tools using an electronic device.
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claim 1, as a whole, is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claim 1 only recites the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims 2-7 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim 2 merely describes the type of electronic device, which further narrows the scope.
Claim 3 merely lists the names of the digital games, which further narrows the scope.
Claim 4 merely describes the parameters that are used to measure cognitive function, which further narrows the scope.
Claim 5 merely describes the type of cognitive functions evaluated by the SIT, which further narrows the scope.
Claim 6 merely describes the type of caregiver, which further narrows the scope.
Claim 7 merely describes the type of change in user’s behavior, which further narrows the scope.
Dependent claims 2-7, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1-7 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
Claim 1 is free of the prior art. The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows:
Handal (US Publication 20210074405A1), which is directed to automated assessment of medical conditions such as concussions, teaches on the following limitations:
Step 1: Downloading a mobile application onto an electronic device with internet capability ([0062] teaches on downloading an application to a remote device such as a smartphone for evaluating suspected concussions of other traumatic brain injuries), registering an account ([0088] teaches on a new user being instructed to create an account with a user name and password), and creating a profile of an individual authorized player (A, B, C) wherein a change in a cognitive status in each of the individual brain performances over time can be monitored ([0088] teaches on a new user being instructed to create an account with a user name and password – an account is synonymous to profile; [0069] teaches on performing repeated automated assessments to track the condition of the user over time, e.g., charting a recovery process);
Step 2: When able, logging into the mobile application by an account administrator and/or authorized individual ([0088]-[0089] teach on a user creating an account with a user name and password (interpreted as “logging in”) to perform a first automated assessment; if the individual has been granted a user name/password it is interpreted as being an “authorized” individual);
Step 3: Establishing the individual authorized player for each that player’s profile (A, B, C) a neurological baseline (their baseline) ([0069] teaches on establishing a baseline for future assessments of the patient using the automated assessment in which the assessment is a questionnaire per [0068]) ;
Handal does not teach on establishing a baseline using a group of interactive digital games and a digital cognitive assessment tool called the Sign Inventory (SIT) which is administered by an authorized caregiver.
Handal further teaches on comparing clinical scores provided in received automated assessments to a threshold to diagnose the user as having or not having a concussion or TBI (para. [0081]), but does not teach on any of the particulars of the instant invention as recited in steps 4-9.
Mazza et. al. (US Publication 20210290149A1), which is directed to a system for generating indications of neurological impairment, teaches on
a group of interactive digital games ([0034] teaches on the cognitive impairment testing application measuring various neurological functioning vectors; the neurological functioning tests may include “interactive tests, such as games”).
Mazza further teaches on administering a baseline test for comparing subsequent follow-up tests ([0013] teaches on using a mobile device to gather baseline test data; after an individual experiences an impairment, the system receives post-impairment test data gathered from a neurological functioning test performed via a mobile device associated with the individual);
Mazza further teaches on the limitations pertaining to:
Step 5 B. if the game result falls under a certain measurable of their individual baseline, (1) alerting the individual authorized player and informing the player that their game result fell beneath their acceptable range ([0030]-[0031] teach on comparing the individual’s baseline of expected neurological functioning and post-impairment test data; a notification of the individual’s score is output to the mobile device for the individual) , and (2) alerting to consider further evaluation ([0050] teaches on, in the event of an indication of neurological impairment, prompting the individual to take certain remedial measures such as contacting a healthcare professional). However, Mazza does not teach on requesting that the player gets focused and play again when the player’s score is beneath an acceptable range, nor does Mazza teach on alerting the caregiver to immediately administer the SIT assessment when the player’s score is beneath an acceptable range.
Ramachandran (US Publication 20150359477A1), which is directed to systems and methods for assessing possible cognitive impairment, teaches on
Step 3: Establishing the individual authorized player for each that player’s profile (A, B, C) a neurological baseline (their baseline) (see Fig. 27, showing a list of athletes and dates of their baseline tests; green boxes represent tests taken)
Step 6: A. If the player profile is playing the interactive digital game again within a designated period of time and their result is falling within their acceptable range, no further action transpires ([0073] teaches on the user taking an assessment score; the score is compared to a threshold; if the user’s assessment score meets or exceeds the user’s performance threshold, the process ends with outputting the results to designated receiving users – e.g., no further action is taken, whereas when a score is below threshold, a coach/parent etc. is notified per [0074]);
B. If the player profile is playing the game and results are falling under a certain measurable of their individual baseline, or if the player profile is not playing the game again within the designated period, :
(1) an alert window appears on the screen informing them that their game result fell below their acceptable range (See Fig. 23 in which the smart phone displays “Test Results” with the user’s score and notification their score is more than one standard deviation away from their mean)
(2) an alert is sent to an account administrator(s) and any other authorized party(ies) associated with the account informing them the player profile has scored below their acceptable range and needs attention ([0053] teaches on a user being associated with a performance threshold which may be based on regular baseline tests administered to the user, and input received from the user in response to the assessment tasks is received; an indicator representative of a comparison of the input score to the performance threshold is outputted, which may include providing the comparison to a coach, referee, parent, legal guardian, medical professional).
Step 8: Maintaining by the application a running history of each individual authorized player profile’s interactive digital game play results ([0067] teaches on user database storing a user’s assessment test results history; Examiner interprets the interactive exercises shown in Figs. 13-22 on smartphone screen to be “digital games”),
Ramachandran does not teach on notifying a player that their caregiver has been notified when their game play score is under a certain measurable of their baseline, nor does Ramachandran teach on storing a running history of a cognitive assessment tool (SIT) results, and any alert notifications previously sent to an account administrator(s) based on results of both the individual authorized player profile’s digital game play results and the results of the digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT) that was administered to them.
The closest non-patent literature (NPL) is understood to be the Fischer et. al. article “Concussion management application for amateur sports”. Fischer teaches on a mobile application to be run on an Android smartphone to allow for easily accessible baseline testing and access to a player’s concussion history (Section III, Aims and Objections); the application of Fischer requires a user to log in every time the Application is used (Section IV Application, A. Player Database Management). Fischer further teaches on a “player profile home page” (“(4) the player profile’s game home page, is viewable by the account administrator(s) is populated with an information window”; see Fig. 2d Player Profile).
Fischer further teaches on selecting a test to be conducted on a player, each test is a digitized version of the corresponding Head Injury Assessment (HIA) test; test result interpretation is done automatically by comparing a score to a protocol specified minimum based on normative data and the player’s baseline score; after a test is conducted, the results are displayed in a results screen (Section IV Application, B. Test Data Recording). Fischer also teaches on using a “red brain icon” to indicate that a player is currently either suspected of concussion, has a confirmed concussion, or is undergoing rehabilitation for a concussion injury (Section IV Application, A. Player Database Management). Though Fischer teaches on indicating a “red brain” icon, Fischer does not teach on the specifics of the instant claim language with respect to using the color red to indicate a player needing attention and requiring a SIT test completed with the results falling in range to clear the red dot on a player’s profile (Step 6B, (3) a red alert dot appears on the app icon of the smart phone indicating that a player profile within that account needs attention, and the player profile circle on the account’s profile page turns red indicating the specific profile in the account that needs attention; Step 7: A. If the caregiver elects to administer the digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT) and the result is below a certain measurable of the individual authorized player profile’s cognitive assessment tool (SIT) baseline, the app recommends they consider further evaluation and all red dot alerts and the profile’s game home page information window remains until the player profile either (1) successfully completes one of the games within their acceptable range, or (2) is administered the digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT) and the result falls within their acceptable range; B. If the caregiver elects to administer the cognitive assessment tool (SIT) and the result falls within a certain measurable of the player profile’s cognitive assessment tool (SIT) baseline, the app states the player profile is within range and all red dot alerts and the profile’s game home page information window go away”).
Neither Handal, Mazza, Ramachandran, nor Fischer teach on the following limitations in their entirety pertaining to independent Claim 1: Step 3: Establishing the individual authorized player for each that player’s profile (A, B, C) a neurological baseline (their baseline) using a group of interactive digital games and a digital cognitive assessment tool called the Sign Inventory (SIT) which is administered by an authorized caregiver; Step 4: Periodically sending reminders and notifications to the caregivers and the individual authorized player profiles to instruct and encourage game play several times a week; Step 5: A. If an interactive digital game result of an individual authorized player falls within a certain measurable of their individual baseline, using their score to further define the acceptable range and baseline of the interactive digital game result; B. if the game result falls under a certain measurable of their individual baseline, (1) alerting the individual authorized player and informing the player that their game result fell beneath their acceptable range and request that the player gets focused and play again, and (2) alerting the caregiver to immediately Administer the SIT assessment and to Consider further evaluation; Step 6B. If the player profile is playing the game and results are falling under a certain measurable of their individual baseline a second time, or if the player profile is not playing the game again within the designated period, four things occur: (1) an alert window appears on the screen informing them that their game result fell below their acceptable range and that their caregiver has been notified, (2) an alert is sent to an account administrator(s) and any other authorized party(ies) associated with the account informing them the player profile has scored below their acceptable range and needs attention, (3) a red alert dot appears on the app icon of the smart phone indicating that a player profile within that account needs attention, and the player profile circle on the account’s profile page turns red indicating the specific profile in the account that needs attention, and (4) the player profile’s game home page, is viewable by the account administrator(s) is populated with an information window and the account administrator is informed to either administer the digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT) to the individual authorized player profile, or to consider further evaluation for the profile; Step 7: A. If the caregiver elects to administer the digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT) and the result is below a certain measurable of the individual authorized player profile’s cognitive assessment tool (SIT) baseline, the app recommends they consider further evaluation and all red dot alerts and the profile’s game home page information window remains until the player profile either (1) successfully completes one of the games within their acceptable range, or (2) is administered the digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT) and the result falls within their acceptable range; Step 8: Maintaining by the Safe Brain application a running history of each individual authorized player profile’s interactive digital game play results, their cognitive assessment tool (SIT) results, and any alert notifications previously sent to an account administrator(s) based on results of both the individual authorized player profile’s digital game play results and the results of the digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT) that was administered to them; and Step 9: Repeating Steps 5 and 6 for each individual authorized player profile when preparing for an upcoming physical practice or game, when changing to a different type of physical activity, or when observing a change in the individual authorized player profile’s behavior.
Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, specifically within Steps 5-6, requires a computerized application which is comprised of both “interactive digital games” and “a digital cognitive assessment tool called the Sign Inventory (SIT)”, in which a digital game result score lower than the player’s individual baseline by a certain measurable triggers an alert to be sent to the player’s caregiver to instruct them to administer the digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT) to the player. None of the prior art of record teach on using a game or other testing means with which the player routinely engages to monitor the player for a game result or score below a threshold which may indicate a concussion or impaired cognitive function, and as a result of detecting the score lower than a threshold, alert a caregiver to administer a second evaluation to the player (the digital cognitive assessment tool (SIT)).
A search of publicly available prior art fails to yield a reference or combination of references that would make the claimed combination of limitations in Claim 1 obvious when considered as a whole. Therefore, Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 2-7 are free of the prior art.
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20190216381A1, teaching on a portable neurocognitive assessment and evaluation system for diagnosing acute concussions in the field location of an injury and tracking subject performance data during their recovery
US Publication 20070027406A1, teaching on a display enhanced testing for concussions and mild TBI
US Publication 20150040685A1, teaching on a concussion risk assessment system which uses a smartphone application to guide a user through a concussion risk test for an injured athlete in conjunction with impact data from wearable impact sensors
Timeline of the UPMC Sports Medicine Concussion Program website, teaching on development of a “paper and pencil” neurocognitive protocol for obtaining objective data regarding a concussed athlete; subsequently, “baseline results” are collected for the entire team.
US Publication 20200258629A1, teaching on a system for diagnosing cognitive disease pathology
SportsSafe Webpage “Baseline Test” teaching on administering a baseline neurocognitive test to a child and subsequently administering the same test when the child sustains an injury for comparison, in which the test can be administered online.
Pediatric Associates of Austin blog, “Concussion Baseline Testing” teaching on administering a baseline cognitive test to children participating in contact sports, specifically the impact test which is a computerized cognitive test to evaluate verbal and visual memory and processing speed;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682