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 .
Notice of Reply
This communication is responsive to the amendment(s) and/or argument(s) filed 7/6/26. The previous ground(s) of objection and/or rejection is/are withdrawn. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth hereinbelow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, wherein the abstract idea comprises a mental process of generating a psychiatric disorder based on user movement.
For independent claim 1, the claim recites a process of generating a psychiatric disorder based on user movement based on generating a parameter related to a psychiatric disorder from user activity data indicative of multiple movements. As broadly as claimed these steps may be reasonably considered as the judicial exception of a mental process performable within the human mind, including by observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion forming, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection III). For example, at least, these limitations are nothing more than a psychiatric medical professional capturing patient data during a routine diagnostic examination, writing it down and/or printing it out, and using the data to mentally extract, classify or learn from data features to determine a parameter related to a psychiatric disorder by evaluating multiple user movements while a video is being viewed.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the process steps as broadly as claimed are not tied to nor required to be performed, executed, or programmed on a special purpose computer. Further, the judicial exception is not even required to be performed on or tied to a mere generic processing device, controller, or the like.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the preliminary steps of displaying multiple different images sets to each eye and detecting movement during the displaying are well-known, routine and conventional amounting to insignificant data gathering as pre-solution activity.
Depending claims 2, 3 and 5-14 inherit and do not remedy the non-statutory deficiency noted above. Despite further specifying limitations regarding (i) the displayed images, sets, angles, scenes, video game images, and/or predetermined triggers; (ii) user confidence parameter based scoring; (iii) user movement being detected eye movement; and/or (iv) notifications regarding psychiatric disorder risk over time, severity, or medication effectiveness, the depending claims do not integrate into a practical application, do not add additional elements amounting to significantly more as they are well-known, routine and conventional amounting to insignificant data gathering as pre-solution activity, and/or continue to be merely the abstract idea of a mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jusyte et al. (2/22/24 IDS NPL cite no 3, “Jusyte et al., Binocular rivalry transitions predict inattention symptom severity in adult ADHD. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 2018 Jun;268(4):373-82. doi: 10.1007/s00406-017- 0790-1. Epub 2017 Apr 13.”, and hereinafter Jusyte).
For claim 1, Jusyte discloses a method for generating a parameter related to a psychiatric disorder (Figs 1) (Pgs 373-382), comprising inter alia:
displaying to a user a first image set (Pgs 374-376), the first image set comprising a first image having a first trigger image and a second image different from the first image (Pgs 374-376), such that the first image and the second image are displayed to each eye of the user (Pgs 374-376);
detecting a first movement of the user whilst the first image set is displayed (one or more button pushing or release based on user’s eye movements) (Pgs 374-376);
displaying to the user a second image set (Pgs 374-376), the second image set comprising a third image having a second trigger image and a fourth image different from the third image (Pgs 374-376), such that the third image and the fourth image are displayed to each eye of the user (Pgs 374-376);
detecting a second movement of the user whilst the second image set is displayed (one or more button pushing or release based on user’s eye movements) (Pgs 374-376); and
generating a parameter related to the psychiatric disorder in the user based on user activity data that is indicative of the first movement of the user and the second movement of the user (Pgs 376-380);
wherein the first image set and the second image set depict a video game scene (plurality of binocular rivalry image interface scenes may be considered a video game) (Pgs 374-376); and the first trigger image and the second trigger image include a target object for a player to attempt to reach (square perception adjustment) or an object for the player to avoid (practice period, testing trails, fusion calibration breaks, control trials) (Pgs 374-376).
For claim 2, Jusyte discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the fourth image is displayed on the same display area as the first image (Pgs 374-376) and the third image is displayed on the same display area as the second image (Pgs 374-376).
For claim 3, Jusyte discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the first image and the second image depict the same subject from different angles (Pgs 374-376).
For claim 4, Jusyte discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the parameter related to the psychiatric disorder in the user is based on an average inter-dominance period of the user's eyes calculated from the user activity data that is indicative of the first movement of the user and the second movement of the user (Pgs 376-380).
For claim 5, Jusyte discloses the according to claim 1, wherein the parameter related to the psychiatric disorder in the user is based on a user response confidence calculated from user activity data that is indicative of the first movement of the user and the second movement of the user (square perception adjustment) (Pgs 374-376).
For claim 6, Jusyte discloses the according to claim 1, wherein the first trigger image and the second trigger image are configured to incite a predetermined response (binocular rivalry) in a user (Pgs 374-376).
For claim 7, Jusyte discloses the according to claim 1, wherein the psychiatric disorder is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Pgs 374-376).
For claim 8, Jusyte discloses the according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first movement of the user and the second movement of the user is an eye movement (one or more button pushing or release based on user’s eye movements) (Pgs 374-376).
For claim 9, Jusyte discloses the according to claim 1, wherein the method further includes generating a parameter related to a second psychiatric disorder in the user based on user activity data that is indicative of the first movement of the user and the second movement of the user (Pgs 376-380).
For claim 10, Jusyte discloses the according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises notifying a result that indicates the risk of a psychiatric disorder in the user measured by the parameter (Pgs 376-380).
For claim 11, Jusyte discloses the according to claim 10, wherein the result further indicates a change in the risk of the psychiatric disorder in the user over time. (Pgs 376-380)
For claim 12, Jusyte discloses the according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises notifying a result that indicates a severity of the psychiatric disorder in the user measured by the parameter (Pgs 376-380).
For claim 13, Jusyte discloses the according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises notifying a result that indicates a medication effectiveness in the user measured by the parameter (Pgs 376-380).
For claim 14, Jusyte discloses the according to claim 1, wherein the first image set and the second image set depict a user interface scene (plurality of binocular rivalry image interface scenes) (Pgs 374-376), and the first trigger image and the second trigger image indicate a notification for the user (Pgs 374-376).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 7/16/26, with respect to the newly amended claims overcoming the 112(b) rejection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, wherein Applicant argues the following:
Regarding the 101, “none of the claim limitations recite an abstract idea” and “the claims recite an improvement to technology that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application”
Regarding the 102:
“Jusyte does not describe measuring binocular rivalry transitions in children.”
Jusyte does not disclose a video game because “The images used in Jusyte are a series of geometric constructions and changes in them are noted by pressing a single key on a keyboard. There are no descriptions of scenery, characters, interaction, or measurements of direction.“
Jusyte does not disclose “use of a video game setup (interaction with a familiar scene and/or character, joystick controller) to accomplish binocular rivalry transition measurements“
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and in response notes the following:
Regarding the 101, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an improvement to technology that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the 101 arguments, the Examine respectfully notes that consistent with the instant Specification and set forth hereinabove, as broadly as structurally claimed it is more than fair and reasonable to consider the claimed method an abstract idea executable within the mind of an individual. Furthering the example in the rejection, it is well within the mental grasp of a neurologist to ascertain a psychiatric disorder, such as PTSD, OCD, and/or ADHD, based on evaluating a patient’s movement responses to video movement prompts.
Regarding the 102 arguments, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “measuring binocular rivalry transitions in children”, “scenery, characters, interaction, or measurements of direction”, “use of a video game setup to accomplish binocular rivalry transition measurements””) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the 102 arguments, the Examine respectfully notes that consistent with the plain meaning, absent any special definition in the instant Specification upon which Applicant does not appear to rely, consistent with the instant Specification, and set forth hereinabove, as broadly as structurally claimed and absent any claimed structure to the contrary it is more than fair and reasonable to consider Jusyte’s changing series of displayed geometric constructions as a “video game scene” that may be considered at least an interactive displayed screen of electronic images that react to keyboard inputs. Further Jusyte discloses a practice and trial periods with breaks therebetween.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-3pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles A. Marmor II can be reached at (571)272-4730. 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.
Jeffrey G. Hoekstra
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights