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 Status
Claims 1-20 filed 4/28/26, are pending.
The Notice of Allowance of 5/19/2026 was withdrawn on 10/14/26.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (behavioral impairment assessment) in the reply filed on 4/28/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there is not serious burden”. Given that Claims 1-20 were previously examined together, Applicant’s arguments are found convincing, and the restriction requirement is withdrawn. No claims are withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-In paragraph 1, line 3, “which claims” should be corrected/updated to “issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,029,574, which claims”
-In the abstract, “such as: mild cognitive impairment; dementia; impairment of fine motor control; impairment of sensory-motor feedback; or behavioral impairment” should be corrected to “such as mild cognitive impairment, dementia, impairment of fine motor control, impairment of sensory-motor feedback, or behavioral impairment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1)
Claims 1 and 20 recite method and Claim 19 recites a product, thus the Claims belong in one of the four statutory categories. All dependent Claims meet this step.
Step 2a, prong one)
The claims recite:
a. generating keystroke tensors from a data set;
b. generating a set of features from the tensors;
c. inputting the features into a machine learning algorithm;
d. outputting an indication of a neuroperformance.
which are directed to an ineligible concept. These limitations are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper and/or they involve mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. Each of the steps, recited at the high level of generality, do not involve overly complex steps, nor are they required to be accomplished within any particular time constraint. They simply involve processing data and generating an output that has no required accuracy. As such, the identified abstract steps, recited at the high level of generality, do not suggest an undue level of complexity for a person with ordinary skill in the art to be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
All dependent claims include this ineligible concept.
Step 2a, prong two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: the claims do not recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1, 19-20 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above. e.g., there are no identified steps recited outside of the recognized judicial exception.
In view of the above, there are no additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. None of these limitations add to the claims: a) improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, b) use of the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, c) a particular machine or a transformation, or d) use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The independent claims do not even provide an output that is perceptible by a user, something which is indicative of the generality of the scope of the claims and the lack of integration to anything practical.
Thus, Claims 1, 19-20 do not meet the requirements of Step 2a.
Claim 2 only adds that the ineligible concept is performed in “real-time or near real-time”. Real-time or near real-time is not specific and would include the time as experienced by any person (ie. we all live and think in real-time). If anything, this is part of the abstract idea itself.
Similarly, Claims 3-18 add details that are part of the mental process itself, details that are extra-solution activities, such as different types and hardware related to data gathering and different types of data reporting/outputting, that do not integrate the ineligible concept into a practical application. None of the dependent claims recites limitations which add to the claims: a) improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, b) use of the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, c) a particular machine or a transformation, or d) use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Thus, no claims meet the requirements of Step 2a.
Step 2b)
Claims 1, 19-20 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above. e.g., there are no identified steps recited outside of the recognized judicial exception. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of all the reasons explained in Step 2a, prong two. In addition, any recited elements in dependent claims 2-18 individually or in combination are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, as evidenced by US 2018/0235548 by Giancardo, and WO 2019/036749 by Adams. The computers, the memory, the types of models, the types of output, as recited in the dependent claims, are all well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. These are recited with a high level of generality, that merely append the exception to generally the field of keystroke dynamics monitoring. This conclusion is further supported by the subject matter rejections below. Thus, no claim meets the requirements of Step 2b.
No claim is found eligible.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANOLIS Y PAHAKIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, 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, JENNIFER MCDONALD can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MANOLIS PAHAKIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
