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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 16, and 24 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.
Claims 8, 16, and 24 refer to “each time series” at the end of the claim language. It is unclear what this refers to. In the claims which these claims depend from, previous references recite only “time-series data” not some set of “time series”. For examination purposes it will be assumed that “each” should be replaced with “a”.
From the specification, the examiner sees that Fig. 9 displays a graph in which 60 seconds of total finger movement data is displayed in four overlapping 15-second lines, where the values of each 15-second interval are changed by a constant that re-centers the first value of each interval on the origin. This enables one to easily compare the slopes of all four 15-second intervals. Does Applicant intend to refer to this in the claim language?
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 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a computer program per se (see MPEP § 2106.03). One way to address this issue would be to amend the claims to recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium having thereon a computer program…”
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sano (US 20200042323 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sano discloses a finger tapping measurement processing apparatus (Fig. 1, hand movement evaluation system; Abstract: "A technique for evaluating human cognitive and motor functions by a plurality of hand movement tasks is disclosed"; ¶49: a hand movement evaluation system evaluates finger tap movements) comprising:
a measurement detector including a tapping sensor (Fig. 1 and ¶49: finger tap movement evaluation device) that magnetically detects a finger tapping motion that is an opening and closing motion of two fingers (¶49: finger tap movement evaluation device uses magnetic sensors; Fig. 5 and ¶66: "it is assumed that the motion sensor 20 is attached to the target hand of the subject, for example, two fingers of the thumb and index finger of the left hand. In this state, the subject performs finger tapping which is a movement of the two fingers repeating opening and closing."); and a processor that processes measurement data measured by the measurement detector (See Fig. 1 and ¶56: control unit 101 controls generation device 1; it has a CPU; it achieves functions such as processing and analyzing measurement data), wherein the processor includes:
a feature amount extraction circuit that extracts, as quantitative data, a feature amount (characteristic quantity) related to a fatigue degree of the fingers from detection information detected by the tapping sensor (¶60: "The analysis evaluation part 13 performs processes such as extracting the nature and characteristic quantity of movement based on the task measurement data 42B, and calculating the evaluation value of a given index item such as motor function based on the characteristic quantity or other factors." The characteristic quantities describe hand movement during a finger-tapping test which is related to fatigue of the fingers.); and
a time-series data generation circuit that generates time-series data of the feature amount extracted by the feature amount extraction circuit (See Fig. 7 and ¶72, analysis evaluation part 13 obtains a waveform signal of a predetermined characteristic quantity).
Regarding claim 2, Sano discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the feature amount extracted by the feature amount extraction circuit includes at least one of
a phase difference between tapping waveforms of a right hand and a left hand in the finger tapping motion of cyclically opening and closing the fingers (¶75: "The characteristic quantity classification includes [distance], [speed], [acceleration], [tap interval], [phase difference], and [marker tracking]"; With reference to ¶75, ¶85 states that "The phase difference is an index value that represents the deviation of the left hand finger tap from the right hand, in which one cycle of the right hand finger tap is 360 degrees."),
a total motion distance accompanied by opening and closing the fingers (¶76: "'Total movement distance' [mm] is the sum of the absolute values of the distance change in the total measurement time of one measurement."),
a tapping cycle in the finger tapping motion (The "tap interval" of ¶75), and
a maximum separated distance between the two fingers (¶76: "'Maximum amplitude of distance' [mm] is the difference in amplitude between the maximum value and the minimum value in the distance waveform"; the distance described is distance between two fingers).
Regarding claim 3, Sano discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the time-series data generation circuit generates graphed time-series data (¶146: "The measurement device 3 measures the movement of the task to obtain a waveform signal. The terminal device 4 displays the measured waveform corresponding to the waveform signal being measured, in real time, as a graph.").
Regarding claim 4, Sano discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the finger tapping measurement processing apparatus comprises a display that displays the time- series data generated by the time-series data generation circuit (see the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 7, Sano discloses the limitations of claim 4 and further discloses that the time-series data generation circuit divides a time axis of the time-series data of the feature amount into a plurality of time zones each having an equal elapsed time (See at least Fig. 7(a): The time axis is divided into a plurality of time zones (see 1 sec. intervals)), generates each section data that is the time-series data corresponding to each time zone (the data for each interval is displayed therefore it was generated), and also generates display data to be displayed on the display in such a manner that the each section data is arranged side by side along a continuous time series to be distinguishable from each other (The data for each section is displayed side by side in a continuous time series. Each section is distinguishable (one can easily distinguish between the data corresponding to the [0,1] time segment from the data corresponding to the [1,2] time segment)).
Regarding claim 8, Sano discloses the limitations of claim 4 and further discloses that the time-series data generation circuit divides a time axis of the time-series data of the feature amount into a plurality of time zones each having an equal elapsed time (See at least Fig. 7(a): The time axis is divided into a plurality of time zones (see 1 sec. intervals)), generates each section data that is the time-series data corresponding to each time zone (the data for each interval is displayed therefore it was generated), and also generates display data to be displayed on the display in such a manner that the each section data is arranged side by side in a time series in each time zone to be distinguishable from each other (The data for each interval is displayed side by side in a continuous time series. Each time zone is distinguishable (one can easily distinguish between the data corresponding to the [0,1] time segment from the data corresponding to the [1,2] time segment)).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, many of the limitations of these claims are found in claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 17 also recites a computer program; this is also disclosed by Sano (¶57: “the functions such as calculation and control are achieved through a predetermined process in cooperation with other hardware devices in such a way that a software program stored in ROM, RAM, or the storage unit is executed by the CPU”).
Regarding claims 10-12, 15-16, 18-20, and 23-24, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-4 and 7-8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 20200042323 A1) in view of Looman (US 20130339098 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sano discloses the limitations of claim 4 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5. However, Sano does disclose a database including data collected from multiple test subjects (Abstract: a test subject group task database includes "characteristic quantities obtained from a plurality of tasks stored as past data corresponding to each of a plurality of test subjects"). Sano also teaches dividing subjects into two groups based on a score (¶12), where the score distinguishes between levels of cognitive impairment (¶99).
Looman discloses a system for routing vehicles in a fleet (Abstract). Looman teaches that outliers can be detected by comparing a particular value to a mean value, and that if the particular value exceeds a threshold it is an outlier (¶73: “Outliers can be detected by comparing the distance of stops to a mean stop distance from a reference point and considering stops that exceed a threshold distance from the mean to be outliers.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Looman with the invention of Sano by causing the processor to further include an average value data generation circuit that generates average value data related to each feature amount of a plurality of subjects whose finger tapping motions are measured by the measurement detector, and to cause the time-series data generation circuit to generate display data to be displayed on the display in such a manner that a reference line indicating the average value data is superimposed on the time-series data. Doing so would enable one to visually compare a patient’s feature amount data with the mean data from a given group of other subjects to determine if that patient should belong in the group. This would be useful, for example, for quickly determining if a patient’s feature amount data is consistent with a healthy individual with no cognitive impairment.
Regarding claims 13 and 21, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claims 6, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 20200042323 A1) in view of Tsuji (US 20100106060 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sano discloses the limitations of claim 4 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6.
Tsuji teaches that bradykinesia is a slowing of physical movement seen in Parkinson's disease. Tsuji teaches that one test for inspecting this is the finger-tapping test used by Sano (see Abstract; ¶6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tsuji with the invention of Sano by causing the time-series data generation circuit to generate display data to be displayed on the display in such a manner that past history data in the time-series data of an identical feature amount is arranged side by side. Doing so would enable one to display a patient’s past history data alongside current data so a user can evaluate whether a patient’s bradykinesia has become more severe over time.
Regarding claims 14 and 22, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhao (“Time series clustering to examine presence of decrement in Parkinson’s finger-tapping bradykinesia”) collects visual data of finger tapping from multiple subjects (see Fig. 1), finds the maximum distance envelope between fingers during each test (Fig. 3), clusters the data into five groups, and compares the average envelopes of the five groups (see Figs. 5-6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights