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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This is a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 07 July 2026, wherein:
Claims 1, 11, 14, 19, 20, 27, 28, and 30 are amended.
Claims 4, 6-9, 12, 15-17, 23, 24, 26, and 29 are canceled.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 13, 18, 21, 22, and 25 are previously presented.
Claims 31-33 are new.
Claim 31 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18-22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, and 33 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 31 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: New claim 31 is directed to an embodiment wherein the user interacts only with the user interface screen 6 illustrated in Fig. 1A and 1B which is disclosed as a separate embodiment from using a virtual or augmented reality interface. The embodiment using a virtual or augmented reality interface is the embodiment claimed and examined (see claims filed 20 August 2024), which received the first action on the merits. Therefore, although the embodiment in claim 31 was present in the first filed claims (see claims filed 04 March 2024), Applicant elected away from this embodiment with the preliminary amendment filed 20 August 2024. The preliminary amendment fled 20 August 2024 received the first action on the merits and is thus considered the originally presented invention.
Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 31 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, US 62/393,337, US 15/621,068, and US 17/160,095, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, the disclosure of the prior-filed applications fail to provide sufficient written description for “the control unit is configured to and programmatically generate and administer a neurocognitive test by: generating a sequence of stimuli on the display;… and measuring a complex reaction time, wherein measuring a complex reaction time comprises determining a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus from the sequence of stimuli, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus, and physically activate the input sensor” in claim 1, "including at least one additional input sensor that records tactile, visual, or audio input generated by the user " in claim 10, "wherein the at least one additional sensor is a camera configured to record at least one of the user's eye and/or body movements" in claim 11, "including at least one external sensor environmental, physiological, and/or health data, wherein the environmental, physiological, and/or health data comprise one or more of body temperature, pulse, blood pressure, blood oxygen, ambient temperature, light, atmospheric pressure, lactic acid levels, and heart rate" in claim 13, “an interface having a display configured to selectively display at least one stimulus wherein the at least one stimulus is part of a neurocognitive test;… a control unit for measuring and recording input response to the at least one stimulus; a computer for receiving the input from the control unit and creating results responsive to the input, wherein the control unit is configured to programmatically generate and administer the neurocognitive test by: generating a sequence of stimuli on the display;… and measuring a complex reaction time, wherein measuring the complex reaction time comprises determining a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus from the sequence of stimuli, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus, and physically activate the input sensor” in claim 14, “wherein the computer is configured to determine whether the user has suffered a concussion, and wherein determining whether the user has suffered a concussion comprises: producing a first event data set from the measured complex reaction time; comparing the event data set to at least one longitudinal data set produced by at least one complex reaction time test previously administered to the user; and providing a recommendation for an activity restriction for or a recommendation to see a medical professional based on the comparison” in claims 20 and 28, “wherein the interface comprises a virtual or augmented reality interface” in claims 21 and 25, “wherein the at least one additional sensor is associated with the headset” in claim 27, and “an interface having a display configured to selectively display at least one stimulus wherein the at least one stimulus is part of a neurocognitive test, the interface configured to extend into the user’s peripheral vision;… a control unit for measuring and recording input responsive to the at least one stimulus; and a computer for receiving the input from the control unit and creating results responsive to the input, wherein the control unit is configured to administer the neurocognitive test by: generating a sequence of stimuli on the display; measuring at least one of (a) a simple reaction time to the sequence through responsive input from the user, (b) user memory; (c) peripheral awareness and (d) depth perception, wherein measuring peripheral awareness includes determining a location accuracy of a user's interaction and responsive input with the sequence of stimuli displayed at least approximately 60 degrees to the left or right of a user's forward line of sight, and wherein measuring user memory includes determining a sequence accuracy of the responsive input in comparison to an order of the sequence” in claim 30 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, the specification of the prior-filed application, at best, merely recites similar language as the claims without providing any substantive description for the claimed limitations identified above for the same reasons that the instant specification also fails as identified in the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) below for the same claim limitations.
Thus, claims 1-3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18-22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32 and 33 do not gain benefit of priority to US 62/393,337, US 15/621,068, or US 17/160,095. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18-22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32 and 33 have an effective filing date of 20 August 2024.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites the reference character “12” to designate both “control unit” and “computer”.
The specification recites the reference character “14” to designate both “data and aggregation system” and “power supply”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 27 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27 has an incorrect status identifier. The status identifier should be “(Currently Amended)”.
Claim 30 includes limitations that inconsistently end with either a semi-colon or comma. Uniformity is recommended.
At least claim 30 includes unmarked and improperly marked amendments. See, for example, the commas replacing semi-colons in the “measuring at least one of” limitation. Applicant is reminded that extra portions of text may be included before and after text being deleted, all in strike-through, followed by including and underlining the extra text with the desired change (e.g., number 14 as). See MPEP 714.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18-22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32 and 33 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what constitutes a control unit that “is configured to and programmatically generate and administer a neurocognitive test”. This is grammatically incorrect causing one of ordinary skill in the art to not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation is construed like the similar limitation found in claim 14 which recites control unit that “is configured to programmatically generate and administer a neurocognitive test” without the “and” between “configured to” and “programmatically”. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 33 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 1 and 14, it is unclear how the claimed measured reaction time is “complex” as opposed to “simple” in the instant application. Each claim recites “the complex reaction time comprises a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus, and physically activate the input sensor”. The specification recites nearly identical language in para. 47. However, this is the general definition of a simple reaction time1. It is further noted there is no meaningful difference between “a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus, and physically activate the input sensor” and “a simple reaction time to the sequence through responsive input from the user” in claim 30 further recited in para. 46 of the specification to be defined as “measuring the time it takes for a user to recognize a stimulus and interact with it.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claimed “complex reaction time” is construed as the same as “simple reaction time”, the simple reaction time claimed in claim 30. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 18-22, 25, 27, 28, 32, and 33 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 20 and 28, it is unclear what constitutes “a recommendation for an activity restriction for or a recommendation to see a medical professional based on the comparison”. In particular, it is unclear what constitutes “a recommendation for an activity restriction for”. Following the second “for” is an alternative recommendation, not anything that the activity restriction is for. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation is construed in light of the similar limitation in claim 33 which does not recite the second “for” such that it is clear that the recommendation is for an activity restriction.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the at least one additional sensor" in line 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 10 was amended to recite “at least one additional input sensor” which does not provide antecedent basis for “the at least one additional sensor”.
Further regarding claim 27, it is in unclear what constitutes at least one additional sensor being “associated with” a headset. The language “associated with” is vague and obtuse in the context of this limitation. For instance, is the additional sensor an element of the headset, is it connected to the headset in some manner, is it remote from the headset but dedicated to the headset, etc.? The disclosure does not aid understanding as it is silent regarding this feature. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Para. 41 of the specification does recite “a plurality of external sensors in the form of cameras may be a placed on a pair of glasses 54 the user would wear while interacting with the user interface screen 6.” However, this embodiment is just a pair of glasses (not a pair of virtual reality glasses) with cameras on it to be used with the user interface screen 6 illustrated in Fig. 1A which is disclosed as a different embodiment from a headset, which is only disclosed as a virtual reality headset. See para. 27 of the specification.
Regarding claim 33, it is unclear what constitutes a data collection and aggregation system being “associated with” the computer. Distinct from claim 27, a function is claimed to be performed with these elements - the limitation recites that the computer is configured to store data in the data collection and aggregation system. However, the term “associated with” remains indefinite as it is unclear how the data collection and aggregation system is “associated with” the computer. For instance, is the data collection and aggregation system an element of the computer, is it connected to the computer in some manner, is it remote from the computer but dedicated to the computer, etc.? Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. It is noted that para. 6 of the specification does recite that a computer is “electronically connected to… a data collection and aggregation system”. Thus, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim language “a data collection and aggregation system associated with the computer” is construed as a data collection and aggregation system electronically connected to the computer.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(a) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18-22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 30, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the control unit is configured to and programmatically generate and administer a neurocognitive test by: generating a sequence of stimuli on the display; recording user physical activation of the tactile input sensor in response to the generated stimuli; and measuring a complex reaction time, wherein measuring a complex reaction time comprises determining a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus from the sequence of stimuli, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus, and physically activate the input sensor” in claim 1, "including at least one additional input sensor that records tactile, visual, or audio input generated by the user" in claim 10, "wherein the at least one additional sensor is a camera configured to record at least one of the user's eye and/or body movements" in claim 11, "including at least one external sensor environmental, physiological, and/or health data, wherein the environmental, physiological, and/or health data comprise one or more of body temperature, pulse, blood pressure, blood oxygen, ambient temperature, light, atmospheric pressure, lactic acid levels, and heart rate" in claim 13, “an interface having a display configured to selectively display at least one stimulus wherein the at least one stimulus is part of a neurocognitive test;… a control unit for measuring and recording input response to the at least one stimulus; a computer for receiving the input from the control unit and creating results responsive to the input, wherein the control unit is configured to programmatically generate and administer the neurocognitive test by: generating a sequence of stimuli on the display;… and measuring a complex reaction time, wherein measuring the complex reaction time comprises determining a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus from the sequence of stimuli, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus, and physically activate the input sensor” in claim 14, and “an interface having a display configured to selectively display at least one stimulus wherein the at least one stimulus is part of a neurocognitive test, the interface configured to extend in to the user’s peripheral vision;… a control unit for measuring and recording input responsive to the at least one stimulus; and a computer for receiving the input from the control unit and creating results responsive to the input, wherein the control unit is configured to administer the neurocognitive test by: generating a sequence of stimuli on the display; measuring at least one of (a) a simple reaction time to the sequence through responsive input from the user, (b) user memory, (c) peripheral awareness, and (d) depth perception, wherein measuring peripheral awareness includes determining a location accuracy of a user's interaction with the stimuli displayed at least approximately 60 degrees to the left or right of a user's forward line of sight, and wherein measuring user memory includes determining a sequence accuracy of the responsive input in comparison to an order of the sequence” in claim 30 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The specification, at best, merely recites similar language as the claim without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary for a computer to perform the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 45-48 of the specification. In particular, the disclosure merely mentions a non-descript "neurocognitive test" that is “programmatically generated according to a series of preset algorithmic rules” and is "sequences of stimuli displayed on the user interface screen 6, where the reactions of the user to such sequences of stimuli (represented by a sinusoidal line in Fig. 1 A) are correlated with at least one of the neurocognitive data types being chosen from data types including, but not limited to, psychomotor response, complex reaction time, memory, balance, peripheral awareness, and/or any other desired neurocognitive data type." See para. 45 of the specification. Para. 46 merely recites that the neurocognitive test can "measure at least one of a peripheral awareness and/or depth perception of the user responsive to the presence of the user interface screen 6 in the user's peripheral vision." Thus, the disclosure is silent regarding any meaningful description of a neurocognitive test in the claimed invention. Furthermore, the disclosure is silent regarding what the “series of preset algorithmic rules” are to programmatically generate a neurocognitive test. With particular respect to claims 10 and 13, the disclosure does not provide any meaningful description for recording "tactile, visual, or audio input generated by the user " or "collecting at least one environmental, physiological, and/or health data, wherein the environmental, physiological, and/or health data comprise one or more of body temperature, pulse, blood pressure, blood oxygen, ambient temperature, light, atmospheric pressure, lactic acid levels, and heart rate" beyond merely reciting that these forms of data are collected in results-based language. Furthermore, para. 48 of the specification merely recites that the neurocognitive data is analyzed "using algorithms and creates results responsive to that neurocognitive data". But, there is no disclosure of what these algorithms actually are. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 18-22, 25, 27, 28, 32, and 33 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 20, 28, 32, and 33, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description “wherein the input is used to determine whether the user has suffered a concussion by: producing a first event data set from the measured complex reaction time; comparing the event data set to at least one longitudinal data set produced by at least one complex reaction time test previously administered to the user; and providing a recommendation for an activity restriction for or a recommendation to see a medical professional based on the comparison” in claims 20 and 28, “wherein administering the neurocognitive test further comprises: producing a first event data set from the measured complex reaction time; and comparing the event data set to at least one longitudinal data set produced by at least one complex reaction time test previously administered to the user” in claim 32, and “receiving input from the control unit and creating results responsive to the input… store, in a data collection and aggregation system associated with the computer, the complex reaction time data from a plurality of neurocognitive tests administered at different times to the same user as a longitudinal data set; store corresponding complex reaction time data from at least one test administered in temporal proximity to an event that may cause a change in neurocognitive function as event data; automatically compare the event data to the longitudinal data set to determine whether changes in at least one of the complex reaction-time data exceed a predefined threshold; and in response to determining that the predefined threshold is exceeded, generate and display a user-perceptible recommendation selected from: a recommendation for a user activity restriction, a recommendation for the user to see a medical professional, and relevant neurocognitive data statistical information” in claim 33 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding the steps, calculations, and algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. The disclosure merely mentions a non-descript “neurocognitive test” that is a “sequences of stimuli displayed on the user interface screen 6, where the reactions of the user to such sequences of stimuli (represented by a sinusoidal line in Fig. 1A) are correlated with at least one of the neurocognitive data types being chosen from data types including, but not limited to, psychomotor response, complex reaction time, memory, balance, peripheral awareness, and/or any other desired neurocognitive data type.” See para. 45 of the specification. Para. 46 merely recites that the neurocognitive test can “measure at least one of a peripheral awareness and/or depth perception of the user responsive to the presence of the user interface screen 6 in the user’s peripheral vision.” Furthermore, para. 48 of the specification merely recites that the neurocognitive data is analyzed “using algorithms and creates results responsive to that neurocognitive data”. Similar language in s found in para. 56 which recites that “the data collection and aggregation systems uses algorithms to compare the event data with the longitudinal data set.” But, there is no disclosure of what these algorithms actually are, let alone any meaningful description of the analysis of the collected data beyond generic statements of “comparing”. Similarly, with respect to the “providing a recommendation” limitations, para. 56 merely recites, in results-based language, that “the data collection and aggregation system creates results responsive to the potential change in neurocognitive function of the user” and that “the results may take the form of a recommendation for a user activity restriction 312, a recommendation for the user to see a medical professional 314, and/or relevant neurocognitive data statistical information 316.” However, the disclosure is silent regarding any description for a computer determining which recommendation to provide as claimed.
Regarding claims 21, 25, and 27, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the interface comprises a virtual or augmented reality interface” in claims 21 and 25, and “wherein the at least one sensor is associated with a headset” in claim 27 which are claimed to further limit “an interface having a display configured to selectively display stimuli; an input sensor configured to accept input in response to the stimuli, wherein the input sensor is configured to accept tactile input;… the control unit is configured to and programmatically generate and administer a neurocognitive test by: generating a sequence of stimuli on the display; recording user physical activation of the tactile input sensor in response to the generated stimuli; and measuring a complex reaction time, wherein measuring complex reaction time comprises determining a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus from the sequence of stimuli, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus, and physically activate the input sensor” in independent claim 1 and “an interface having a display configured to selectively display at least one stimulus wherein the at least one stimulus is part of a neurocognitive test; an input sensor configured to accept input in response to the stimulus, wherein the input sensor is configured to accept tactile input;… wherein the control unit is configured to programmatically generate and administer the neurocognitive test by: generating a sequence of stimuli on the display; recording user activation of the tactile input sensor in response to the generated stimuli; and measuring a complex reaction time, wherein measuring the complex reaction time comprises determining a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus from the sequence of stimuli, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus, and physically activate the input sensor” in independent claim 14 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding how any sensor is incorporated into a system comprising a virtual or augmented reality interface that performs any of these claimed functions. (Italicized for emphasis). With particular respect to claim 27, the disclosure is particularly silent regarding “wherein the at least one sensor is associated with the headset”. The closest disclosure is found in Fig. 5 which illustrates eyeglasses that have sensors 56 and 58 on them (not associated with), but the specification makes clear that this does not include the embodiment including a virtual or augmented reality interface and that sensors 56 and 58 are not configured to receive tactile input. See para. 41 of the specification which identifies 56 as a video camera that records what the user is looking at and 58 as an infrared camera that records pupil movements of the user. Furthermore, para. 41 of the specification recites that the apparatus includes at least one external sensor 52 as shown in Fig. 5. However, item 52 in Fig. 5 only designates a temple tip on eyeglasses, not any perceivable sensor. Additionally, the disclosure merely mentions a non-descript "neurocognitive test" that is a "sequences of stimuli displayed on the user interface screen 6, where the reactions of the user to such sequences of stimuli (represented by a sinusoidal line in Fig. 1 A) are correlated with at least one of the neurocognitive data types being chosen from data types including, but not limited to, psychomotor response, complex reaction time, memory, balance, peripheral awareness, and/or any other desired neurocognitive data type." See para. 45 of the specification. Para. 46 merely recites that the neurocognitive test can "measure at least one of a peripheral awareness and/or depth perception of the user responsive to the presence of the user interface screen 6 in the user's peripheral vision." However, this is a different embodiment from the claimed embodiment with a virtual or augmented reality interface. Furthermore, para. 48 of the specification merely recites that the neurocognitive data is analyzed "using algorithms and creates results responsive to that neurocognitive data". But, there is no disclosure of what these algorithms actually are.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 101 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18-22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32 and 33 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 including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to products which fall under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
Independent claim 1 recites:
A system for collecting neurological data about a user, the system comprising:
an interface having a display configured to selectively display stimuli;
an input sensor configured to accept input in response to the stimuli, wherein the input sensor is configured to accept tactile input; and
a control unit electronically connecting the system to a computer wherein the control unit is configured to and programmatically generate and administer a neurocognitive test by:
generating a sequence of stimuli on the display;
recording user physical activation of the tactile input sensor in response to the generated stimuli; and
measuring a complex reaction time, wherein measuring a complex reaction time comprises determining a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus from the sequence of stimuli, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus, and physically activate the input sensor.
Independent claim 14 recites:
A system for collecting neurological data about a user, the system comprising:
an interface having a display configured to selectively display at least one stimulus wherein the at least one stimulus is part of a neurocognitive test;
an input sensor configured to accept input in response to the at least one stimulus, wherein the input sensor is configured to accept tactile input;
control unit for measuring and recording input responsive to the at least one stimulus; and
a computer for receiving the input from the control unit and creating results responsive to the input, wherein the control unit is configured to programmatically generate and administer the neurocognitive test by:
generating a sequence of stimuli on the display;
recording user activation of the tactile input sensor in response to the generated stimuli; and
measuring a complex reaction time, wherein measuring the complex reaction time comprises determining a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus from the sequence of stimuli, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus, and physically activate the input sensor.
Independent claim 30:
A system for collecting neurological data about a user, the system comprising:
an interface having a display configured to selectively display at least one stimulus wherein the at least one stimulus is part of a neurocognitive test, the interface configured to extend into the user’s peripheral vision;
at least one input sensor configured to accept input in response to the at least one stimulus, wherein the input sensor is configured to accept tactile input or voice input;
a control unit for measuring and recording input responsive to the at least one stimulus; and
a computer for receiving the input from the control unit and creating results responsive to the input, wherein the control unit is configured to administer the neurocognitive test by:
generating a sequence of stimuli on the display;
measuring at least one of (a) a simple reaction time to the sequence through responsive input from the user, (b) user memory, (c) peripheral awareness, and (d) depth perception,
wherein measuring peripheral awareness includes determining a location accuracy of a user's interaction and responsive input with the sequence of stimuli displayed at least approximately 60 degrees to the left or right of a user's forward line of sight, and
wherein measuring user memory includes determining a sequence accuracy of the responsive input in comparison to an order of the sequence.
All of the foregoing underlined elements identified above amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because they amount to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by merely implementing a neurocognitive test between a tester and a testee and evaluating the results. In other words, it is merely collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. These elements are also interpreted as a series of steps that could reasonably be performed by mental processes with the aid of pen and paper because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Even if humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited steps, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations.
Dependent claims 10, 11, 13, 20, 22, 23, 28, 32, and 33 amount to merely further defining the judicial exception with additional elements addressed in Prong 2 and Step 2B. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 18, 19, 21, 25, and 27 recite additional elements that are addressed in Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a system comprising an interface having a display, a tactile input sensor, and a control unit electronically connecting the system to a computer (claim 1); a system comprising an interface having a display, a tactile input sensor, a control unit, and a computer (claim 14); the display comprises an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display (claims 5 and 18) or an electronically controlled stimulus display (claim 2) including a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (claim 3); at least one additional input sensor (claim 10); the at least one additional sensor is a camera (claim 11); at least one external sensor (claim 13); the computer is a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone, or a hand-held computer device (claim 19); the interface comprises a virtual or augmented reality interface (claims 21 and 25); the interface includes a speaker (claim 22); the at least one sensor is associated with a headset (claim 27); a computer (claims 28 and 33); a system comprising an interface having a display, an input sensor, a control unit, and a computer (claim 30); a data collection and aggregation system associated with the computer (claim 33). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the drawings and the instant specification. For example, the only element disclosed with any specificity is the embodiment of the portable user interface screen illustrated generically in Fig. 1A-4C and described in detail in para. 27-36 of the specification. However, the portable user interface screen is merely providing insignificant pre-solution data test presentation in the context of the claimed process. See, for example, at least para. 27 which recites that the "electronically controlled stimulus display 18 may use liquid crystal display (LCD), light emitting diode (LED), organic light emitting diode (OLEO), plasma display panel (PDP), or any other desired technology to create a two-dimensional video display that covers a substantial portion of the surface area of the front of the interface panel 2." The remaining elements are not illustrated in the drawings (excluding the sensors which are illustrated in Fig. 2 as a generic rectangle) and are merely described generically in the specification. See, for example, at least para. 26-28, 35, 37, 41, 43, 44, and 57 of the specification. This also evidences that the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system. Thus, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. The claims are silent regarding any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. For instance, the interface and sensors, as claimed and organized, merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere pre-solution stimuli presentation and extra-solution data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). It is noted that claim 30’s reciting that the stimuli is “displayed at least approximately 60 degrees to the left or right of a user's forward line of sight” is merely the identification of the conventional displaying of the stimuli in the peripheral vision range. See at least para. 30 and 46 of the specification. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the drawings and specification as identified above. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the additional elements does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For instance, while the claims identify that the claimed invention is for analyzing neurocognitive data, it is silent regarding any specific treatment or prophylaxis for any specific disease or medical condition. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: YES).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed systems and the process they perform do not require the use of a particular machine, nor do they result in the transformation of an article. Although the claims recite elements, identified above, for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing, outputting data). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the instant specification. For example, the only element disclosed with any specificity is the embodiment of the portable user interface screen illustrated generically in Fig. 1A-4C and described in detail in para. 27-36 of the specification. However, the portable user interface screen is merely providing insignificant pre-solution data test presentation in the context of the claimed process. See, for example, at least para. 27 which recites that the "electronically controlled stimulus display 18 may use liquid crystal display (LCD), light emitting diode (LED), organic light emitting diode (OLEO), plasma display panel (PDP), or any other desired technology to create a two-dimensional video display that covers a substantial portion of the surface area of the front of the interface panel 2." The remaining elements are not illustrated in the drawings (excluding the sensors which are illustrated in Fig. 2 as a generic rectangle) and are merely described generically in the specification. See, for example, at least para. 26-28, 35, 37, 41, 43, 44, and 57 of the specification. Thus, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. For instance, the interface and sensors, as claimed and organized, merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere pre-solution stimuli presentation and extra-solution data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). It is noted that claim 30’s reciting that the stimuli is “displayed at least approximately 60 degrees to the left or right of a user's forward line of sight” is merely the identification of the conventional displaying of the stimuli in the peripheral vision range. See at least para. 30 and 46 of the specification. This further identifies that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, 20-22, 25, 28, 30, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tinjust (US 2016/0098934).
Regarding claim 1, Tinjust teaches a system for collecting neurological data about a user (Tinjust, Abstract, “A cognitive/multisensory stimulation system simulates real sports action/job task scenarios for assessing, profiling, practicing, improving or rehabilitating cognitive function performance of athletes or individuals.”), the system comprising:
an interface having a display configured to selectively display stimuli (Tinjust, Fig. 24, stimulus device 14; para. 160, “The stimulus device 14 can be a device as illustrated in FIG. SA described above, or it can comprise a display, such as a flat panel TV or computer display screen, or a head-mounted display, and includes the appropriate interface between the testing module 12 and the resulting stimulus, for example graphics hardware and driver software in the case of a computer display.”);
an input sensor configured to accept input in response to the stimuli (Tinjust, Fig. 24, user response input device 16; para. 160, “The user response input device 16 can be as simple as a push button for the patient, or it can be a sensor (cognitive interface I/O module) for a more complex action performed by the patient.”), wherein the input sensor is configured to accept tactile input (Tinjust, para. 160, “The user response input device 16 can be as simple as a push button for the patient”); and
a control unit electronically connecting the system to a computer (Tinjust, Fig. 24, cognitive function testing module 12; para. 160, “The apparatus can comprise a testing module 12 that drives a stimulus device (cognitive slave interface) 14 and collects patient response signals from an input device (cognitive interface) 16. The testing module 12 can be implemented as logic instruction in software executed by a processor or in electronic circuitry.”), wherein the control unit is configured to and programmatically generate and administer a neurocognitive test (Tinjust, Fig. 24, cognitive function testing module 12) by:
generating a sequence of stimuli on the display (Tinjust, at least para. 145 describes this.);
recording user physical activation of the tactile input sensor in response to the generated stimuli (Tinjust, para. 145, “The proposed cognitive-multisensory stimulation system evaluates the visual mapping of human cognitive-multisensory-motor reaction-time (production of a motor-reaction-time after the integration, by the brain, of different sensory and cognitive input) in live sports/job situations. The proposed solution can also evaluate tactile-motor-reaction-time and auditory-motor-reaction-time which could be useful for athletes or other individuals.”); and
measuring a complex reaction time, wherein measuring a complex reaction time comprises determining a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus from the sequence of stimuli, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus from the sequence of stimuli, and physically activate the input sensor (Tinjust, para. 57, “motor-reaction time following stimulus information processing by the brain in response to different stimuli relative to the subject's visual field is assessed and profiled.” para. 149, “decision-making, reaction-time and the capability to process simple or complex sensory stimulation (including unimodal, bimodal and/or multimodal stimulation in performing specific cognitive tasks) can be evaluated via baseline profiling after the occurrence of the disruptive incident (concussion).”).
Regarding claim 14, Tinjust teaches a system for collecting neurological data about a user (Tinjust, Abstract, “A cognitive/multisensory stimulation system simulates real sports action/job task scenarios for assessing, profiling, practicing, improving or rehabilitating cognitive function performance of athletes or individuals.”), the system comprising:
an interface having a display configured to selectively display at least one stimulus (Tinjust, Fig. 24, stimulus device 14; para. 160, “The stimulus device 14 can be a device as illustrated in FIG. SA described above, or it can comprise a display, such as a flat panel TV or computer display screen, or a head-mounted display, and includes the appropriate interface between the testing module 12 and the resulting stimulus, for example graphics hardware and driver software in the case of a computer display.”) wherein the at least one stimulus is part of a neurocognitive test (Tinjust, para. 9, “the proposed solution makes use of cognitive/multisensory reaction-time mapping of multiple sensory and cognitive stimuli over the entire subjects visual field for assessment, profiling and feedback purposes.” This is considered teaching the at least one stimulus is part of a neurocognitive test because the use of the term “neurocognitive test” in the instant disclosure is in reference to evaluating concussion. See, for example, at least para. 3, 4, 51, 52, and 55.),
an input sensor configured to accept input in response to the stimuli (Tinjust, Fig. 24, user response input device 16; para. 160, “The user response input device 16 can be as simple as a push button for the patient, or it can be a sensor (cognitive interface I/O module) for a more complex action performed by the patient.”), wherein the input sensor is configured to accept tactile input (Tinjust, para. 160, “The user response input device 16 can be as simple as a push button for the patient”); and
a control unit for measuring and recording input responsive to the at least one stimulus (Tinjust, Fig. 24, cognitive function testing module 12; para. 160, “The apparatus can comprise a testing module 12 that drives a stimulus device (cognitive slave interface) 14 and collects patient response signals from an input device (cognitive interface) 16. The testing module 12 can be implemented as logic instruction in software executed by a processor or in electronic circuitry.”); and
a computer for receiving the input from the control unit and creating results responsive to the input (Tinjust, Fig. 24, test data processor (e.g. analyzing post-trauma stabilization of response time, or change in uniformity of response time as a function of peripheral vision stimulus location, etc.) 20), wherein the control unit is configured to programmatically generate and administer the neurocognitive test (Tinjust, Fig. 24, cognitive function testing module 12; para. 160, “The apparatus can comprise a testing module 12 that drives a stimulus device (cognitive slave interface) 14 and collects patient response signals from an input device (cognitive interface) 16. The testing module 12 can be implemented as logic instruction in software executed by a processor or in electronic circuitry.”) by:
generating a sequence of stimuli on the display (Tinjust, at least para. 145 describes this.); and
recording user activation of the tactile input sensor in response to the generated stimuli (Tinjust, para. 145, “The proposed cognitive-multisensory stimulation system evaluates the visual mapping of human cognitive-multisensory-motor reaction-time (production of a motor-reaction-time after the integration, by the brain, of different sensory and cognitive input) in live sports/job situations. The proposed solution can also evaluate tactile-motor-reaction-time and auditory-motor-reaction-time which could be useful for athletes or other individuals.”); and
measuring a complex reaction time, wherein measuring the complex reaction time comprises determining a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus from the sequence of stimuli, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus, and physically activate the input sensor (Tinjust, para. 57, “motor-reaction time following stimulus information processing by the brain in response to different stimuli relative to the subject's visual field is assessed and profiled.” Para. 149, “decision-making, reaction-time and the capability to process simple or complex sensory stimulation (including unimodal, bimodal and/or multimodal stimulation in performing specific cognitive tasks) can be evaluated via baseline profiling after the occurrence of the disruptive incident (concussion).”).
Regarding claim 30, Tinjust teaches a system for collecting neurological data about a user (Tinjust, Abstract, “A cognitive/multisensory stimulation system simulates real sports action/job task scenarios for assessing, profiling, practicing, improving or rehabilitating cognitive function performance of athletes or individuals.”), the system comprising:
an interface having a display configured to selectively display at least one stimulus (Tinjust, Fig. 24, stimulus device 14; para. 160, “The stimulus device 14 can be a device as illustrated in FIG. SA described above, or it can comprise a display, such as a flat panel TV or computer display screen, or a head-mounted display, and includes the appropriate interface between the testing module 12 and the resulting stimulus, for example graphics hardware and driver software in the case of a computer display.”) wherein the at least one stimulus is part of a neurocognitive test (Tinjust, para. 9, “the proposed solution makes use of cognitive/multisensory reaction-time mapping of multiple sensory and cognitive stimuli over the entire subjects visual field for assessment, profiling and feedback purposes.”), the interface configured to extend into the user’s peripheral vision (Tinjust, para. 9, “the proposed solution makes use of cognitive/multisensory reaction-time mapping of multiple sensory and cognitive stimuli over the entire subjects visual field for assessment, profiling and feedback purposes.” The entire visual field explicitly includes the user’s peripheral vision, not just the central visual field.),
an input sensor configured to accept input in response to the stimuli, wherein the input sensor is configured to accept tactile input or audible input (Tinjust, para. 145, “The proposed cognitive-multisensory stimulation system evaluates the visual mapping of human cognitive-multisensory-motor reaction-time (production of a motor-reaction-time after the integration, by the brain, of different sensory and cognitive input) in live sports/job situations. The proposed solution can also evaluate tactile-motor-reaction-time and auditory-motor-reaction-time which could be useful for athletes or other individuals.”); and
a control unit for measuring and recording input responsive to the at least one stimulus (Tinjust, Fig. 24, cognitive function testing module 12; para. 160, “The apparatus can comprise a testing module 12 that drives a stimulus device (cognitive slave interface) 14 and collects patient response signals from an input device (cognitive interface) 16. The testing module 12 can be implemented as logic instruction in software executed by a processor or in electronic circuitry.”); and
a computer for receiving the input from the control unit and creating results responsive to the input (Tinjust, Fig. 24, test data processor (e.g. analyzing post-trauma stabilization of response time, or change in uniformity of response time as a function of peripheral vision stimulus location, etc.) 20), wherein the control unit is configured to administer the neurocognitive test (Tinjust, Fig. 24, cognitive function testing module 12; para. 160, “The apparatus can comprise a testing module 12 that drives a stimulus device (cognitive slave interface) 14 and collects patient response signals from an input device (cognitive interface) 16. The testing module 12 can be implemented as logic instruction in software executed by a processor or in electronic circuitry.”) by:
generating a sequence of stimuli on the display (Tinjust, at least para. 145 describes this.); and
measuring at least one of (a) a simple reaction time to the sequence through responsive input from the user, (b) user memory; (c) peripheral awareness and (d) depth perception (Tinjust, para. 57, “motor-reaction time following stimulus information processing by the brain in response to different stimuli relative to the subject's visual field is assessed and profiled.” para. 149, “decision-making, reaction-time and the capability to process simple or complex sensory stimulation (including unimodal, bimodal and/or multimodal stimulation in performing specific cognitive tasks) can be evaluated via baseline profiling after the occurrence of the disruptive incident (concussion)… This type of evaluation can be done for all the pertinent cognitive parameters that are important in human behavior (anticipation, visual memory, decision-making, visual-field detection etc.)”),
wherein measuring peripheral awareness includes determining a location accuracy of a user's interaction with the stimuli displayed at least approximately 60 degrees to the left or right of a user's forward line of sight (Tinjust, para. 160, “The test data can comprise, for example, response times for different positions within the field of view (i.e. different peripheral vision locations) of the patient”), and
wherein measuring user memory includes determining a sequence accuracy of the responsive input in comparison to an order of the sequence (Tinjust does not need to teach this limitation as it depends from an alternative limitation.).
Regarding claim 2, Tinjust teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the display comprises an electronically controlled stimulus display (Tinjust, Fig. 24, stimulus device 14; para. 160, “The stimulus device 14 can be a device as illustrated in FIG. SA described above, or it can comprise a display, such as a flat panel TV or computer display screen, or a head-mounted display, and includes the appropriate interface between the testing module 12 and the resulting stimulus, for example graphics hardware and driver software in the case of a computer display.” Each example in Tinjust of the stimulus device is an example of an electronically controlled stimulus display.).
Regarding claim 10, Tinjust teaches the system of claim 1, including at least one additional input sensor that records tactile, visual, or audio input generated by the user (Tinjust, para. 104, “the athlete's sight can be monitored by a camera of a facial recognition component and/or monitored by a camera of a component configured to determine where the athlete's eyes are pointing.”).
Regarding claim 11, Tinjust teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the at least one sensor is a camera configured to record at least one the user's eye and body movements (Tinjust, para. 104, “the athlete's sight can be monitored by a camera of a facial recognition component and/or monitored by a camera of a component configured to determine where the athlete's eyes are pointing.”).
Regarding claims 20 and 28, Tinjust teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the computer is configured to determine whether the user has suffered a concussion (Tinjust, para. 148, “A comparison between an initial baseline assessment and a subsequent baseline assessment (both of which can be post-incident) can lead to an objective clinical diagnosis of a post-traumatic concussion.” Para. 159, “It will be appreciated that a patient suffering from a concussion can be assessed or treated using the above-described systems and methods. In particular, it has been found that the technique of testing a patient's response time to peripheral vision stimulus can be applied not only to performing an assessment of a state (degree) of concussion, but also as a rehabilitation or therapeutic tool to help recover from the effects of concussion.”), and wherein determining whether the user has suffered a concussion comprises:
producing a first event data set from the measured complex reaction time (Tinjust, para. 148, “A comparison between an initial baseline assessment and a subsequent baseline assessment (both of which can be post-incident) can lead to an objective clinical diagnosis of a post-traumatic concussion.”);
comparing the event data set to at least one longitudinal data set produced by at least one complex reaction time test previously administered to the user (Tinjust, para. 148, “A comparison between an initial baseline assessment and a subsequent baseline assessment (both of which can be post-incident) can lead to an objective clinical diagnosis of a post-traumatic concussion.” Para. 149, “can be evaluated via baseline profiling after the occurrence of the disruptive incident (concussion). Such repeated evaluations can be performed in a static or dynamic set-up relative to the capability of the athlete/subject to perform a given task after the disruptive incident (brain trauma).”); and
providing a recommendation for an activity restriction for or a recommendation to see a medical professional based on the comparison (Tinjust, para. 150, “If the concussion is asserted, some embodiments can propose a cognitive function rehabilitation program to progressively get back to normal cognitive function, for example the post-concussion baseline profile can be optimized like the athletic performance improvement described hereinabove.” Para. 165, “The information from processor 20 is presented to a clinician or physician on a display device 22. The health care professional can then decide from the cognitive function/health information presented if the patient can be considered sufficiently recovered from the trauma event to return to work, to school or otherwise to resume daily functions.” One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a proposed cognitive function rehabilitation program to progressively get back to normal cognitive function includes a recommendation for an activity restriction illustrated by the restrictions being progressively lifted as the user improves over the course of the rehabilitation program.).
Regarding claims 21 and 25, Tinjust teaches the system of claim 1 and the system of claim 14, wherein the interface comprises a virtual or augmented reality interface (Tinjust, para. 155, “As well the master interface can be implemented as a display moving with the athlete/subject. Such a moving display includes two types a wearable display such as a head mounted display or a retinal projection display”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both of these types of wearable displays are virtual or augmented reality interfaces.).
Regarding claim 22, Tinjust teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the interface includes a speaker configured to output audible stimuli (Tinjust, Fig. 15, Auditory slave interface (wireless auditory module); para. 93, “An example of an auditory cue slave human-machine interface is illustrated in FIG. 15. The auditory slave-interface can include the same or scaled down electronics functional components as the master-interface (a main computer board, a control board, a rechargeable battery pack, an identification module) with the I/O chip configured to drive with a sound producing element. Without limiting the invention, FIG. 15 illustrates an auditory slave-interface having a preferably wireless personalized sound playback device such as a headset or ear buds, the proposed solution can also be implemented as an omnidirectional buzzer, bell, public system announcement source, etc. to implement sport action/job task action specific cues.”).
Regarding claim 32, Tinjust teaches the system of claim 14, wherein administering the neurocognitive test further comprises:
producing a first event data set from the measured complex reaction time (Tinjust, para. 148, “a subsequent baseline assessment”); and
comparing the event data set to at least one longitudinal data set produced by at least one complex reaction time test previously administered to the user (Tinjust, para. 148, “A comparison between an initial baseline assessment and a subsequent baseline assessment (both of which can be post-incident) can lead to an objective clinical diagnosis of a post-traumatic concussion.”).
Regarding claim 33, TInjust teaches the system of claim 1, and further comprising a computer for receiving input from the control unit and creating results responsive to the input, wherein the computer is further configured to:
store, in a data collection and aggregation system associated with the computer, the complex reaction time data from a plurality of neurocognitive tests administered at different times to the same user as a longitudinal data set (Tinjust, Fig. 24, test data storage (e.g. response time as a function of peripheral vision stimulus location at a number of testing times) 18; para. 148, “A comparison between an initial baseline assessment and a subsequent baseline assessment (both of which can be post-incident) can lead to an objective clinical diagnosis of a post-traumatic concussion.”);
store corresponding complex reaction time data from at least one test administered in temporal proximity to an event that may cause a change in neurocognitive function as event data (Tinjust, Fig. 24, test data storage (e.g. response time as a function of peripheral vision stimulus location at a number of testing times) 18; para. 149, “can be evaluated via baseline profiling after the occurrence of the disruptive incident (concussion). Such repeated evaluations can be performed in a static or dynamic set-up relative to the capability of the athlete/subject to perform a given task after the disruptive incident (brain trauma).”);
automatically compare the event data set to the longitudinal data set to determine whether changes in at least one of the complex reaction-time data exceed a predefined threshold (Tinjust, para. 148, “A comparison between an initial baseline assessment and a subsequent baseline assessment (both of which can be post-incident) can lead to an objective clinical diagnosis of a post-traumatic concussion.” Para. 149, “can be evaluated via baseline profiling after the occurrence of the disruptive incident (concussion). Such repeated evaluations can be performed in a static or dynamic set-up relative to the capability of the athlete/subject to perform a given task after the disruptive incident (brain trauma).”); and
in response to determining that the predefined threshold is exceeded, generate and display a user-perceptible recommendation selected from: a recommendation for a user activity restriction, a recommendation for the user to see a medical professional, and relevant neurocognitive data statistical information (Tinjust, para. 150, “If the concussion is asserted, some embodiments can propose a cognitive function rehabilitation program to progressively get back to normal cognitive function, for example the post-concussion baseline profile can be optimized like the athletic performance improvement described hereinabove.” Para. 165, “The output of processor 20 can provide a confidence score for recovery from the concussion or trauma event based on an average of "recovery change detection" scores from individual positions, a 3D display of the "maps" as illustrated in FIGS. 6A and 6B so as to illustrate visually the progression overtime of the "maps", an analysis that compares the change in response times for the different positions, comparison of the test data of the patient to data obtained from a comparable cohort of patients, or the like. The information from processor 20 is presented to a clinician or physician on a display device 22. The health care professional can then decide from the cognitive function/health information presented if the patient can be considered sufficiently recovered from the trauma event to return to work, to school or otherwise to resume daily functions.” One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a proposed cognitive function rehabilitation program to progressively get back to normal cognitive function includes a recommendation for an activity restriction illustrated by the restrictions being progressively lifted as the user improves over the course of the rehabilitation program.).
Claims 3, 5, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinjust (US 2016/0098934) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 14, further in view of Haddick et al. (US 2013/0127980, hereinafter referred to as Haddick).
Regarding claim 3, Tinjust teaches the system of claim 2,
While Tinjust teaches the display includes a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in an embodiment (Tinjust, para. 67, “Preferably (but not required) configurable arms having a distribution of (RGB) LEDs can be fitted to the hub of the stimulation-section. The arms are configured to provide peripheral visual stimulation via the LEDs encompassing the human visual field (not to be confused with the visual field mapped profile output presented in FIGS. 6A and 6B) as a subject is positioned in front of the master interface at a corresponding distance in front of the master interface.” Para. 82, “the cognitive slave human-machine interface illustrated in FIGS. 10A through 10F includes: a (high power RGB) LED stimulator creating a light pattern visible around the slave interface”), Tinjust does not explicitly teach wherein the display includes a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in the claimed embodiment using a headset.
However, in an analogous art, Haddick teaches wherein the display comprises an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display (Haddick, para. 292, “the display may be… LED,…OLED, QLED, OLED arrays that have CMOS style pixels sensors at the junctions between the O[L]ED pixels… active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (Amoled) display”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for the display in Tinjust to comprise an LED display as disclosed by Haddick because Haddick illustrates, in at least para. 292, that a multitude of display types are readily available and it is within the general skill of a person in the art to select a known display type on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Tinjust teaches the system of claim 1 and the system of claim 14,
Tinjust does not explicitly teach wherein the display comprises an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display.
However, in an analogous art, Haddick teaches wherein the display comprises an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display (Haddick, para. 292, “the display may be… OLED”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for the display in Tinjust to comprise an OLED display as disclosed by Haddick because Haddick illustrates, in at least para. 292, that a multitude of display types are readily available and it is within the general skill of a person in the art to select a known display type on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 13, Tinjust teaches the system of claim 1.
Tinjust does not explicitly teach at least one external sensor for collecting environmental, physiological, and/or health data, wherein the environmental, physiological, and/or health data comprise one or more of body temperature, pulse, blood pressure, blood oxygen, ambient temperature, light, atmospheric pressure, lactic acid levels, and heart rate.
However, in an analogous art, Haddick teaches at least one external sensor for collecting environmental, physiological, and/or health data, wherein the environmental, physiological, and/or health data comprise one or more of body temperature, pulse, blood pressure, blood oxygen, ambient temperature, light, atmospheric pressure, lactic acid levels, and heart rate (Haddick, para. 616, “it is possible to have not merely a temperature sensor in the AR glasses, but an entire sensor array. These sensors may include, as noted, a temperature sensor, and also sensor to detect: pulse rate; beat-to-beat heart variability; EKG or ECG; respiration rate; core body temperature; heat flow from the body; galvanic skin response or GSR; EMG; EEG; EOG; blood pressure; body fat; hydration level; activity level; oxygen consumption; glucose or blood sugar level; body position; and UV radiation exposure or absorption. In addition, there may also be a retinal sensor and a blood oxygenation sensor (such as an Sp02 sensor), among others.” Para. 617, “In some embodiments, it may be more useful to have sensors mounted on the person or on equipment of the person, rather than on the glasses themselves.” Para. 618, “The AR glasses or goggles may also include environmental sensors or sensor arrays. These sensors are mounted on the glasses and sample the atmosphere or air in the vicinity of the wearer. These sensors or sensor array may be sensitive to certain substances or concentrations of substances. For example, sensors and arrays are available to measure concentrations of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen ("NO/'), temperature, relative humidity, noise level, volatile organic chemicals (VOC), ozone, particulates, hydrogen sulfide, barometric pressure and ultraviolet light and its intensity.” Para. 619, “In one embodiment, environmental sensors, health monitoring sensors, or both, are mounted on the frames of the augmented reality glasses. In another embodiment, the sensors may be mounted on the person or on clothing or equipment of the person.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system as taught by Tinjust to include at least one external sensor for collecting environmental, physiological, and/or health data, wherein the environmental, physiological, and/or health data comprise one or more of body temperature, pulse, blood pressure, blood oxygen, ambient temperature, light, atmospheric pressure, lactic acid levels, and heart rate as taught by Haddick because the additional sensors are “useful for monitoring the condition of the wearer”. See Haddick at para. 616.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tinjust (US 2016/0098934) as applied to claim 14, in view of Slobounov et al. (US 2012/0108909, hereinafter referred to as Slobounov).
Regarding claim 19, Tinjust teaches the system of claim 14.
While Tinjust identifies that “the test data processor 20 can comprise logic instructions (software) executed on a same computer as the testing module 12, or it can be a separate device (Tinjust, para. 163)” and that the “information from processor 20 is presented to a clinician or physician on a display device 22 (Tinjust, para. 165)”, Tinjust does not explicitly teach wherein the computer comprises a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone, or a hand-held computer device.
However, in an analogous art, Slobounov teaches wherein the computer comprises a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone, or a hand-held computer device (Slobounov, para. 119, “The CPU can comprise, but is not limited to: a computer, laptop, desktop computer, portable computer, computer workstation, microprocessor, computer system, iPad, tablet computer, wireless computer, wired computer, netbook, electronic communications device, portable networking device, internet communication device, mobile phone, flip phone, camera phone, clamshell phone, radio telephone, cellular phone, smart phone, tablet phone, portable media payer (PMP), personal digital assistant (PDA), wireless e-mail device, handheld electronic device, mobile electronic device, video game device, video game console, video game player, electronic amusement device for use with a television or monitor, video gaming device, or a combination of any of the preceding.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the computer as taught by Tinjust to comprise a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone, or a hand-held computer device as taught by Slobounov because Slobounov illustrates that the claimed types of computers are commonly known alternatives used for the same purpose (see at least para. 118 in Slobounov) and it is well within the general skill of a person in the art to select a known computer type on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as anticipated by Tinjust (US 2016/0098934) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tinjust (US 2016/0098934) as applied to claim 10, in view of Haddick et al. (US 2013/0127980, hereinafter referred to as Haddick).
Regarding claim 27, Tinjust teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the at least one additional sensor is associated with a headset (Tinjust, para. 104, “In accordance with a sophisticated example, the athlete's sight can be monitored by a camera of a facial recognition component and/or monitored by a camera of a component configured to determine where the athlete's eyes are pointing.” Para. 160, “The user response input device 16 can be as simple as a push button for the patient, or it can be a sensor (cognitive interface I/O module) for a more complex action performed by the patient.” The head-mounted display (i.e., the claimed headset) is the stimulus device in Tinjust and the sensors in Tinjust are detecting the user’s reactions to the stimuli presented in the head-mounted display. Therefore, any sensor in Tinjust is construed as “associated with” the headset.).
In the event that Tinjust is considered to not teach the at least one additional sensor being associated with a headset, in an analogous art, Haddick teaches wherein the at least one additional sensor is associated with a headset (Haddick, para. 29, “facilities internal and external to the eyepiece, such as… sensing devices, user action capture devices,… camera, sensors, microphone, through a transceiver, through a tactile interface”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system as taught by Tinjust to include wherein the at least one additional sensor is associated with a headset as taught by Haddick because Haddick provides a headset employed to display a view of the virtual reality space that includes additional head-worn sensing that are useful in the system of Tinjust (see Haddick at least at para. 1031-1033).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the denial of benefit of priority have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 8, Applicant asserts that the disclosure of the present application is sufficient for claiming priority under 35 USC 120 and addresses whether such explicit disclosure is sufficient for meeting the requirements of 35 USC 112 when addressing rejections under that section.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure is insufficient for claiming priority under 35 USC 120 as it fails written description requirement under 35 USC 112(a) for the same reasons that the instant specification also fails as identified in the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) for the same claim limitations. Applicant is directed to the response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) which identify that Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the objected claims have been amended to overcome the objections.
Examiner is not persuaded. The objections have been updated to address the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In pg. 9, Applicant asserts that, with respect to the absence of indenting sub-limitations, one of skill in the art would be able to understand the scope of protection sought.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant’s argument is moot in light of the amendments made to obviate the rejection.
In pg. 10, Applicant asserts that the Office Action conflates written description under 35 USC 112(a) with the question of definiteness, and then asserts that para. 27, 47, and 48 provide one of ordinary skill in the art with a description to understand what requirements apply to whether an input sensor is “configured to accept input in response to the stimuli”.
Examiner is not persuaded. No conflation has occurred in examination of the claims. A decision on whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification… it is important to analyze claim terms in view of the application’s specification from the perspective of those skilled in the relevant art since a particular term used in one patent or application may not have the same meaning when used in a different application. See MPEP 2173.02. Applicant incorrectly mixes two distinct and separate embodiments – (1) the elected by original presentation virtual or augmented reality embodiment which is silent regarding an input sensor and (2) the non-elected interactive touch screen embodiment. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how a virtual or augmented reality embodiment or a headset detects tactile input, let alone input in general, without some description in the specification or identification of a particular element that performs such a function because a virtual or augmented reality embodiment or a headset do not inherently include a tactile input sensor, let alone an input sensor. With this in mind, the disclosure was reviewed to identify if such a description or identification exists. However, while a tactile input sensor is disclosed in the interactive touch screen embodiment, this embodiment is disclosed as separate and distinct from the virtual or augmented reality embodiment, including not involving a combination of the two. Thus, as the only disclosure of a tactile input sensor is in a separate embodiment, it is unclear how the claimed embodiment performs such a function.
In pg. 10-11, Applicant asserts that that multiple commercial and developer VR and AR headsets capable of accepting tactile input were widely available to ordinary developers before 12 September 2016 and that selecting/”touching” a target with or without a physical button was solved problem in VR/AR by the time of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Examiner is not persuaded. While some headsets do exist in the market, it is noted that, even now let alone in 2016, VR and AR headsets do not necessarily include any particular sensors. Applicant acknowledges this with asserting the VR headsets "generally use" a variety of sensors. See pg. 18 in Remarks filed 23 April 2025. Even though some headsets that do exist as exampled in the arguments (Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, Samsung SM-R322, and Microsoft HoloLens), no such headsets, nor which sensors the headsets include let alone to detect input, are identified in the disclosure. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of accept input in response to stimuli in the claimed VR/AR context.
In pg. 11-13, Applicant asserts that the complex vs. simple reaction time distinction is a long-settled, definite, art-recognized construct, and not an ambiguous term. Here, Applicant also asserts that one of skill in the art would understand the complex reaction time as distinguishable from simple reaction time based on the specification.
Examiner is not persuaded. While complex reaction time and simple reaction time have known separate definitions, Applicant is acting as their own lexicographer in the specification causing ambiguity regarding any distinction between complex reaction time and simple reaction time. MPEP 2111.01(IV) identifies that the applicant acting as their own lexicographer is an exception to giving the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning in the art. In particular, Applicant defines simple reaction time in para. 46 of the specification as “the time it takes for a user to recognize a stimulus and interact with it” and defines complex reaction time in para. 47 of the specification as “the time it takes for a user to recognize a stimulus, decide whether to interact with the stimulus, and then interact with the stimulus”. Deciding whether to interact with the stimulus is inherently between recognizing a stimulus and interacting with it in Applicant’s definition of simple reaction time. Thus, Applicant has provided identical definitions for the two terms.
In pg. 13-14, Applicant asserts the amendments to claim 27 overcome the rejections.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejections which have been updated to address the amendments to the claim.
In pg. 14, Applicant asserts that claim 19 has been amended to overcome the rejection.
Examiner is persuaded. The amendment obviates the rejection. Thus, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 15-16, Applicant asserts that, when properly considered, one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the claims would have no reasonable question as to [Applicant’s] possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing and as subsequently amended.
Examiner is not persuaded. As a preliminary note, since this application was filed on or after March 16, 2013, it is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Thus, “at the time of filing” is incorrect. “At the effective filing date of the claimed invention” is proper. See MPEP 2152.01. Regardless, as illustrated in the rejections above, the claims have been properly considered wherein it has been identified that the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for the claimed invention.
Applicant then asserts that the relevant person of ordinary skill in the art is a software/hardware engineer or interactive-application developer familiar with interactive display systems, real-time game engines, and deployment of VR/AR applications, with one or more years of work experience. Here, Applicant asserts that such a person would be well-acquainted with stimulus-response testing paradigms, touch-input sensing technologies, and basic timing measurements in interactive software.
Examiner records the assertion of whom Applicant considers as a person having ordinary skill in the art. It is noted such a person, in general, has no knowledge of nor experience with neurocognitive test administration as claimed, let alone programming a computer to determine whether the user has suffered a concussion and provide a medical recommendation to a user based on analysis of reaction times.
In pg. 16-17, regarding neurocognitive test administration and measurement, Applicant asserts that the Office Action mischaracterizes the disclosure, but rather the disclosure sets forth in detail how each neurocognitive measurement is performed. Here, Applicant points to para. 45-47 of the specification as support.
Examiner is not persuaded. It is noted that these paragraphs of the specification are explicitly identified as insufficient. Merely reciting “measuring a complex reaction time, wherein measuring a complex reaction time comprises determining a duration required for the user to recognize a specific stimulus from the sequence of stimuli, decide whether to interact with the specific stimulus, and physically activate the input sensor" is not an algorithm. For instance, regarding reaction times, the disclosure is silent regarding any description for measuring the time it takes for a user to recognize a stimulus and decide whether to interact with the stimulus. There is only a minimal recitation, not a description, in the disclosure of measuring the time it takes to interact with the stimulus and a generic statement that a neurocognitive test may be “programmatically generated according to a series of preset algorithmic rules” and that the neurocognitive data may be of any desired neurocognitive data type and is analyzed “using algorithms and creates results responsive to that neurocognitive data” while being silent regarding what these “algorithmic rules” and “algorithms” may be, let alone any meaningful description for analyzing any desired neurocognitive data type. See para. 45 and 48 of the specification, respectively.
In pg. 17-18, Applicant asserts that para. 27 and 28 of the specification provide extensive structural detail for the hardware that performs these functions.
Examiner is not persuaded. Reciting a basic list of alternative elements including “any other desired technology” is the opposite of “providing extensive structural detail”. Furthermore, the recitation provided from these paragraphs are directed towards the non-elected embodiment that is not the elected virtual or augmented reality embodiment.
In pg. 18-19, regarding additional sensors, Applicant asserts that para. 41 of the specification provides comprehensive written description support and that the specification identifies specific sensor types, their configurations, and their functions.
Examiner is not persuaded. Para. 41 of the specification recites, in results-based language, that some sensors (including a camera) may be used in the non-elected embodiment, it is silent regarding “comprehensive written description support”. It is particularly silent regarding any sensor capable of detecting data exampled as blood pressure, lactic acid levels, etc. Furthermore, “video camera, infrared camera, thermometer, pulse oximeter, barometer” are generic sensor types, not specific; and contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the disclosure is silent regarding their configurations in the claimed invention. Similarly, cameras, microphones, and “physiological sensors” do not detect tactile input and the disclosure is silent regarding these sensors in the claimed invention. It is further noted Applicant has a duty to disclose the claimed hardware components, the functions they perform, and sufficiently describe how they perform these functions such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Applicant has possession of the claimed invention. As identified by the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) above, the disclosure fails to meet this requirement.
In pg. 19, regarding concussion determination, Applicant asserts that claims 20 and 28 have been amended to specify the concussion determination methodology with particularity.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejections of the claims which has been updated to address the amendments to the claims.
Then Applicant asserts that the skilled person would have understood that the specification’s disclosure of a longitudinal comparison methodology for concussion determination in para. 49-56 of the specification could also be performed using VR/AR hardware.
Examiner is not persuaded. The disclosure, and in particular para. 49-56 of the specification, only generically recite similar language as in the claim without any description. In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding any analysis beyond a mere recitation that data is compared while para. 48 of the specification recites that undisclosed “algorithms” are used. As identified in the rejection, the algorithm to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I).
In pg. 20, regarding a virtual or augmented reality interface, Applicant asserts that para. 27 of the specification explicitly contemplates a VR/AR embodiment and that the specification describes functions (displaying stimuli and accepting tactile input) that are technology-agnostic. Here, Applicant also asserts that extensive commercial VR/AR hardware existed before the filing date (pointing to HTC Vive, Samsung Gear VR, Microsoft HoloLens, Oculus [Rift]) with development kits permitting programmatic stimulus display and tactile input recording. Applicant then asserts that para. 27 (a) recites specific input-sensing modes, (b) expressly extends that apparatus to a headset embodiment, and (c) the optical imaging technology genus encompasses the computer-vision cameras used to detect controllers of a VR headset.
Examiner is not persuaded. Para. 27 is explicitly identified as insufficient as it merely recites the alternative use of virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) without any description of the elements of a VR or AR system. It is also noted that, even now let alone in 2016, VR glasses and headsets do not necessarily include any sensors and thus do not have a settled, conventional meaning that includes any particular sensor. Applicant acknowledged this in pg. 18 of Remarks filed 23 April 2025 with asserting that VR headsets “generally use” a variety of sensors. Even though some headsets (note, not extensive) that do exist as exampled in the arguments, no such headsets are identified in the disclosure. Thus, any assertion that the claimed VR headset is an HTC Vive, Samsung Gear VR, Microsoft HoloLens, or Oculus [Rift] would amount to new matter. It is further noted that the singular generic sentence regarding a virtual or augmented reality interface recited in para. 27 is silent regarding recording tactile input. It merely recites “[i]t is also contemplated that the display screen could be virtual, or augmented reality, such as by providing the user with a pair of virtual reality glasses or any suitable virtual reality headset and appropriate software/hardware to display stimuli and accept input in an analogous manner-in virtual space-to the use of the method and apparatus described and shown herein as occurring at least partially in physical space.” Thus, the virtual or augmented reality interface embodiment is merely recited as an afterthought with no contemplation of the elements and functionality required to implement such an embodiment as claimed. In particular, the (a) specific input-sensing modes are specific to the distinctly different display embodiment illustrated in Fig. 1A and 1B. Para. 27 explicitly does not (b) extend that apparatus to a VR or AR headset. Any assertion otherwise is a misrepresentation of the single sentence in para. 27 that references a virtual or augmented reality interface embodiment. It is recited as an alternative embodiment with no description of its implementation. Para. 47-48 of the specification are specific to the real-world interactive display panel embodiment illustrated in Fig. 1A and 1B. It is noted that these paragraphs are silent regarding “computer-vision cameras used to detect controllers of a VR headset.” In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding anything referring to the use of computer vision algorithms. In fact, para. 47 merely recites the following results-based language statement specific to the real-world interactive display panel embodiment illustrated in Fig. 1A and 1B:
“If the apparatus uses a video camera to track eye movement by obtaining and recording video input of the user responding physically to the neurocognitive test 10 (Fig. 1A), then the neurocognitive test 10 may indirectly characterize a user's balance ability responsive to measurements of at least one of eye movement, peripheral awareness and depth perception, because measurements of vision can be correlated with the neurocognitive data type of balance.”
Thus, not only are para. 47-48 silent regarding “computer-vision cameras used to detect controllers of a VR headset”, they do not even imply this.
In pg. 20-21, regarding a sensor associated with a headset, Applicant asserts that claim 27 has been amended to remove the “integral to” language, but that this is not commensurate with the understanding of a person skilled in the art and familiar with commercial VR/AR glasses.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejection above which has been updated to address the amendments to the claim. It is again noted that the disclosure (in particular, Fig. 5 and associated description in the specification) is silent regarding any sensors in VR/AR embodiment. Fig. 5 illustrates regular eyeglasses that have cameras on them to be used with the real-world display embodiment, not the VR/AR embodiment. See para. 41 of the specification which makes this explicit.
In pg. 21, regarding written description summary, Applicant asserts that the amended claims recite specific measurement steps, generating stimuli, recording tactile sensor activation, and measuring reaction time as a duration between specific physical events.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejections above which have been updated to address the amendments to the claims.
Applicant also asserts that given the sophisticated nature of the technical field of the present application, the disclosure of the specification, and the state of the art at the time of the invention, and the relative lack of complexity of the specific claim limitations, one skilled in the art one skilled in the art would have been able to provide "a control unit is configured to administer the neurocognitive test" without needing a specific recitation of algorithm steps.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is reminded that claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that undisclosed “algorithmic rules” and “algorithms” are used without any indication of what these comprise. The disclosure fails 35 USC 112(a) for at least these reasons as well as others identified in the rejections.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 23-24, under Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant asserts that the claims are directed to recording tactile input in response to displayed stimuli and measuring psychomotor response variables and that is not similar to a certain method of organizing human activity.
Examiner is not persuaded. Recording input (tactile or otherwise) and measuring psychomotor response variables is literally collecting information and analyzing the collected information which the courts have repeatedly identified as wholly encompassed in the abstract idea groupings of a certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes. The claims are silent regarding even a particular method of performing this as it recites the conventional process of presenting stimuli and measuring the reaction times to the stimuli. This is further exemplified by the absence of any meaningful description of the claimed neurocognitive test that is administered.
In pg. 25, Applicant also asserts that the claims do not recite a mental process. Here, Applicant asserts that one cannot measure precise reaction times with pen and paper because the claims require electronic measurement of temporal durations between hardware-generated stimuli and hardware-detected physical sensor activation.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is reminded that even if humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited steps, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. The mere use of a sensor in its ordinary capacity is assessed under Prong Two of Step 2A and under Step 2B to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere extra-solution data gathering in conjunction a law of nature or abstract idea).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, in pg. 26, Applicant asserts that the claims require a specific combination of hardware performing specific functions.
Examiner is not persuaded. At best, the combination of a stimulus display, a tactile input sensor, and a control unit programmatically generating tests and measuring reaction times defines a conventional system for testing reaction time.
Applicant also asserts that the claims are analogous to the eligible claims in CardioNet and Thales Visionix because Applicant asserts that the present claims are directed to a specific neurological data collection system with specific hardware (tactile sensor, stimulus display, control unit) and specific measurement methodologies (complex reaction time as a measured duration of defined physical events).
Examiner is not persuaded. No aspect of the pending claims are similar to either CardioNet or Thales Visionix. Not only does the combination of a conventional tactile sensor, stimulus display, and control unit define a conventional system for measuring reaction times, Applicant’s definition of “complex” reaction time is a conventional definition of a simple reaction time. Regardless, even if complex reaction time is actually used, it would still be conventional complex reaction time, not some improvement in complex reaction time monitoring. Even Applicant’s inaccurate portrayal of the claimed system is unrelated to the fact patterns that cause the claims in both CardioNet and Thales Visionix to be patent eligible. For instance, the patent eligible claims in CardioNet are directed to a device that detects beat-to-beat timing of cardiac activity, detects premature ventricular beats, and determines the relevance of the beat-to-beat timing to atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, taking into account the variability in the beat-to-beat timing caused by premature ventricular beats identified by the device’s ventricular beat detector, thereby focusing on a specific means or method that improves cardiac monitoring technology. See CardioNet at least at pg. 13. Regarding Thales Visionix, the patent eligible claims are directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame. See Thales Visionix at least at pg. 10. Applicant’s portrayal is of a system merely specific to measuring reaction times, not any improvement to reaction time monitoring, let alone neurocognitive monitoring. It also uses a tactile sensor in a conventional manner to merely act in its ordinary capacity to detect tactile input and thus is not implemented in any way to reduce errors in measuring tactile input. Further, the conventional reaction time measuring does not provide any improvement in reaction time measuring. It is further noted that even the “neurocognitive test” that is claimed to be administered is not some new or improvement test as illustrated in the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112. The disclosure further identifies that no similarities exist with CardioNet and Thales Visionix. See, for example, at least para. 55 of the instant specification which identifies that the disclosed systems’ asserted benefits are found in the non-elected embodiment of a real-world interactive display which is more portable and quick to assemble/disassemble allowing for ease of prompt access. Portability is a conventional feature of an AR/VR interface (the elected embodiment) that is wholly unrelated to CardioNet and Thales Visionix. It is noted that such a feature neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor adds significantly more as it is conventional to an AR/VR interface and AR/VR interfaces, as well as interactive interfaces, are routinely used in reaction time testing and neurocognitive assessment.
In pg. 27, Applicant asserts the claims apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way. Here, Applicant asserts that the claims recite the specific physical steps of generating stimuli sequences on an electronic display, recording physical tactile activation, and measuring temporal durations of physical interactions between a user and hardware. Applicant further asserts that the interface, input sensor, and control unit form a particular machine.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant has merely described the conventional use of a computer to implement reaction time testing and thus is not “particular” which is illustrated in more detail in the rejection above.
Under Step 2B, in pg. 28, Applicant asserts that the Office Action does not meet the standard for establishing that the claimed elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Here, Applicant asserts the determination in the Office Action mailed 07 January 2026 that the elements are "recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions" is conclusory and made without supporting evidence.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is reminded that “examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional.” See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I). Such evidence is provided in that Office Action immediately following the determination which is reproduced here for Applicant’s convenience –
“This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the instant specification. For example, the only element disclosed with any specificity is the embodiment of the portable user interface screen illustrated generically in Fig. 1A-4C and described in detail in para. 27-36 of the specification. However, the portable user interface screen is merely providing insignificant pre-solution data test presentation in the context of the claimed process. See, for example, at least para. 27 which recites that the ‘electronically controlled stimulus display 18 may use liquid crystal display (LCD), light emitting diode (LED), organic light emitting diode (OLED), plasma display panel (PDP), or any other desired technology to create a two-dimensional video display that covers a substantial portion of the surface area of the front of the interface panel 2.’ The remaining elements are not illustrated in the drawings (excluding the sensors which are illustrated in Fig. 2 as a generic rectangle) and are merely described generically in the specification. See, for example, at least para. 26-28, 35, 37, 41, 43, 44, and 57 of the specification. Thus, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed.”
In pg. 28-29, Applicant asserts that claims 1, 14, and 30 add limitations other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Here, Applicant recites some elements from these claims and asserts that the Office Action has not shown that the specific claimed combination of stimulus generation, tactile input recording, and complex reaction time/measurements in claims 1 and 14 is conventional.
Examiner is not persuaded. Stimulus generation, tactile input recording, and complex reaction time/measurements are wholly encompassed in the judicial exception as they amount to a conventional reaction time test. It is again noted that Applicant’s use of the term “complex” when referring to reaction time is indistinguishable from the Applicant’s use of the term “simple” because Applicant has acted as its own lexicographer. Regardless, even if the conventional understanding of “complex reaction time” is used, it would not change the determination. As Zajdel (the reference used in the rejections under 35 USC 112) noted in the Introduction in pg. 1724, “[r]eaction time testing is one of the oldest diagnostic methods used in modern psychology.” It is further noted that the disclosure is silent regarding any new or improved manner of generating stimuli, recording input, nor of measuring reaction time regardless of whether it is complex or simple. Thus, such elements, both individually and as a whole, are wholly encompassed in the judicial exception and are not additional elements that integrate the judicial exception nor add significantly more.
Applicant also asserts that claim 30’s combination of peripheral-vision stimulus display, measurement of peripheral awareness via location accuracy, measurement of user memory via sequence accuracy, and measurement of simple reaction time through responsive input, all via tactile or voice input, represents an unconventional ordered combination that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Examiner is not persuaded. Just as with respect to claims 1 and 14, these elements are wholly encompassed in the judicial exception, not additional elements, as they amount to merely collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis that are part of conventional psychological testing.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Zajdel, R., & Nowak, D. (2007). Simple and complex reaction time measurement. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 37(12), 1724–1730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2007.04.008
Prosecution Insights