DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “220” has been used to designate both “the frame” and “the 3D display 220 in para. 0058-0060. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The attorney docket number in para. 0003 should be removed
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 1-11, 23-26, 29-31, 33 and 34 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 significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-11, 23-26, 29-31, 33 and 34 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-11, 23-26, 29-31, 33 and 34 recites at least one step or instruction for determining an efficiency index of quality of movement of movement of a body part from a starting to a target location, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-11, 23-26, 29-31, 33 and 34 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claims 1, 23 and 34 recites displaying a virtual target at a location in the user’s MR field of view, tracking a part of the body that the user moves it from a starting location to a target, determining the total distance and compute an efficiency index (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Further, dependent Claims 2-11, 24-26, 29-31 and 33 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 23 and 34 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-11, 24-26, 29-31 and 33) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 23 and 34), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: MR display system and a computer are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 23 and 34 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 23 and 24 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., MR display system and computer as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 23 and 34 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 23 and 34 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-11, 23-26, 29-31, 33 and 34 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: MR display system and a computer.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term MR display system and computer is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the MR display system and computer. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims1-11, 23-26, 29-31, 33 and 34 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method and system of Claims 1-11, 23-26, 29-31, 33 and 34 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-11, 23-26, 29-31, 33 and 34 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 23 and 34 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations 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 itself. Thus, Claims 1-11, 23-26, 29-31, 33 and 34 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-11, 23-26, 29-31, 33 and 34 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-11, 23-26, 29-31, 33 and 34 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11, 23-26, 29-31, 33 and 34 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.
Claim 1, 23 and 34 recites the limitation "the total distance traveled". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 1, 23 and 34, the limitation “each respective starting location to the respective target location” renders the claim indefinite because the claims previously recite only a single “body part starting location”. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim “from the body part starting location to the target location”.
Claim 1, 23 and 34 recites the limitation "the respective target location". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, it is unclear if this is the same a “target location” due to the addition of the limitation “respective”. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the same target location.
Claim 1, 7, 8, 11, 23, 29, 30, 33, and 34 recites the limitation "the starting location". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim “the body part starting location”.
Claims 5 and 26 recite the limitation “the location of a finger”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “proficiency” in claims 7, 8, 29 and 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proficiency” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim a degree to which the user’s gaze follows the body part.
Regarding claims 5 and 26, the limitation “a finger of a hand of the user” renders the claim indefinite, because it reintroduces the finger, and therefore, it is unclear if this is the same finger as the previously recited “the location of a finger”. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the same finger.
Regarding claims 7 and 29, the limitation “a user” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if this is the same user previously recited. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the second instance of “a user” as “the user”.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 29 and 30, the limitation “the quality” renders the claim indefinite, is it is unclear if this is the same quality as the previously recited “overall quality”. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the same overall quality.
Regarding claims 8 and 30, the limitation “a proficiency of the user’s eye tracking” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if this is the same proficiency as previously recited in claims 7/29. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the same proficiency of the user’s eye tracking.
Regarding claim 11 and 33, the second instance of the limitation “a path of the body part” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same path of the body part as previously recited in the claim. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the same path.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “a user” is recited twice, which renders the claim indefinite, it is unclear if these are the same user. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the second instance of “a user” as “the user”.
Regarding claims 23 and 34, the claims are indefinite because they recite both an “AR field of view” and an “MR field of view”, and it is unclear if these are the same or differently recited field of views. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the same display and same field of view.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 11, 23, 26, 33 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patient-Tailored Augmented Reality Games for Assessing Upper Extremity Motor Impairments in Parkinson’s Disease and Stroke to Bank et al. (hereinafter, Bank).
Regarding claims 1, 23 and 34, Bank discloses a computer-implemented method and system of performing a motor skills neurological test using augmented reality (Abstract, “Augmented reality (AR) systems with contactless tracking of the hand and upper body offer opportunities for objective quantification of motor (dys)function… two highly prevalent neurological conditions (N = 10 patients with Parkinson’s Disease and N = 10 stroke patients)”; p. 3, Hardware, “The application was run on a Dell Precision M4800 laptop.”; p. 3, Software, “Software components were integrated in Unity3D”; p. 4, Data analysis, “Data was processed using MATLAB”), comprising inter alia:
displaying a virtual target to a user (p. 3, Game 1: Balloons, “twelve balloons were displayed at various positions within the measured interaction space and at random depths (one at a time, in predefined order). Participants were instructed to touch the balloons as quickly as possible.” in an MR field of view on an MR display system (p. 3, Hardware, “Virtual content was visualized using an AIRO II headmounted display (HMD)”; p. 3, FIG. 1 “optical see-through HMD”; p. 4, FIG. 2 “background of these screen captures appears almost transparent in the HMD so that the participant’s real hand and real environment are visible together with the virtual content”) at a target location in a 3D world coordinate system (p. 3, Software, “The virtual world was aligned to the real world using the Vuforia tracking library”; p. 3, Game 1: Balloons “at various positions within the measured interaction space and at random depths”);
tracking movement of a body part of the user (p. 3, Hardware, “tracking of the hand”; p. 3, Software “The Leap Motion Orion Beta software development kit (SDK) provided 3D-coordinates of hand ‘joints’ (e.g., hand palm and finger tips).”; p. 4, Game 1, Balloons “‘index finger tip’ coordinate provided by Leap Motion”) as the user moves the body part from a body part starting location in the 3D world coordinate system (p. 4, Game 1, Balloons, position of the index finger “from the moment that the balloon became visible in the HMD”) to the target location in the 3D world coordinate system (p. 4, Game 1, Balloons “until it was touched”; p. 3, Game 1: Balloons, “Balloons exploded upon touch”);
determining the total traveled distance of the body part of the user (p. 4, Game 1: Balloons, “index finger’s actual path length”) in moving the body part from each respective starting location to the respective target location in the 3D world coordinate system (p. 4, Game 1: Balloons “from the moment that the balloon became visible in the HMD until it was touched”) based on tracking the movement of the body part (p. 4, Game 1: Balloons, “based on ‘index finger tip’ coordinate provided by Leap Motion)”;
determining a linear distance between the body part starting location and the target location in the 3D world coordinate system (p. 4, Game 1: Balloons, “shortest possible distance”; p. 5, Game 3: Hungry squirrel, “shortest possible distance from position at first grasp to final position in basket).”);
determining an efficiency index which represents an overall quality of movement of the body part from the starting location to the target location based on the total traveled distance and the linear distance (p. 4, Game 1: Balloons “goal-directedness was evaluated by means of relative path length (dimensionless; index finger’s actual path length divided by shortest possible distance, from the moment that the balloon became visible in the HMD until it was touched).”; p. 7, Game 3: Hungry squirrel, “PD patients needed more time, their movements were slower, and relative path length was longer.”).
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 26 , Bank discloses wherein the body part is a finger of the user (p. 3, Hardware, “tracking of the hand”; p. 3, Software “The Leap Motion Orion Beta software development kit (SDK) provided 3D-coordinates of hand ‘joints’ (e.g., hand palm and finger tips).”; p. 4, Game 1, Balloons “‘index finger tip’ coordinate provided by Leap Motion”) as the user moves the body part from a body part starting location in the 3D world coordinate system (p. 4, Game 1, Balloons, position of the index finger “from the moment that the balloon became visible in the HMD”), and wherein the body part is tracked by tracking one or more keypoints representing the location of a finger of a hand of the user (p. 3, Hardware, “tracking of the hand”; p. 3, Software “The Leap Motion Orion Beta software development kit (SDK) provided 3D-coordinates of hand ‘joints’ (e.g., hand palm and finger tips).”; p. 4, Game 1, Balloons “‘index finger tip’ coordinate provided by Leap Motion”) as the user moves the body part from a body part starting location in the 3D world coordinate system (p. 4, Game 1, Balloons, position of the index finger “from the moment that the balloon became visible in the HMD”).
Regarding claims 11 and 33, Bank discloses further comprising:determining one or more of the following metrics: (1) an elapsed time to completion for the user to move the body part from the starting location to the target location (p. 4, Game 1: Balloons, “movements was evaluated by means of Tballoon (i.e., time in seconds from balloon appearance until touch)”); (2) a velocity of the movement of the body part in moving the body part from the starting location to the target location ((p. 4, Game 1: Balloons, “average movement speed (in cm/s; based on ‘index finger tip’ coordinate provided by Leap Motion”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bank.
Regarding claims 2 and 24, Bank discloses an efficiency index based on the total traveled distance and the linear distance (see 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, above). Bank does not expressly disclose where the efficiency index is proportional to the linear distance divided by the total traveled distance. Bank instead expresses the index as the total traveled distance divided by the linear distance. However, one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to express the efficiency index of Bank as the linear distance divided by the total traveled distance because: 1) a ratio of two quantities can be expressed in only two ways, and both convey the same information about movement, 2) Bank’s index equals 1 for perfect direct movement and increases as the path becomes less accurate/direct, the reciprocal equals 1 for a perfect direct movement and decreases toward 0 as the path becomes less accurate/direct, 3) selecting between these two forms is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 3 and 25, Bank as modified above teaches where the efficiency index equals the linear distance divided by the total traveled distance. Bank does not expressly disclose that this ratio is multiplied by 100. Bank, however, expresses its other outcome measures as percentages: 1) p. 4, Game 1: Balloons, “(MRD) per quadrant was calculated as maximum distance between index finger and shoulder in each movement direction, expressed as percentage of Kinect-extracted upper extremity length (i.e., length of upper arm +forearm + hand including index finger) to allow comparison between individuals… success rate was calculated as percentage of balloons touched”). One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to multiply the ratio of Bank, as modified, by 100 so that the efficiency index is expressed as a percentage. This is consistent with Bank own’s practice of express outcome measures as percentages “to allow comparison between individual” (p. 4, Game 1: Balloons, “to allow comparison between individuals”). Multiplying a 0-1 ratio by 100 is a routine change in the form of expressing a result, and does not change the underlying measurement and yields the predictable result of a 0-100% result.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 10 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bank in view of Does the Finger-to-Nose Test measure upper limb coordination in chronic stroke? to Rodrigues et al. (hereinafter, Rodrigues).
Bank discloses determining the efficiency index (see 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, above). Bank does not expressly disclose (Claim 9) that the determination of the efficiency index includes normalizing a calculation of the efficiency, (Claim 10) wherein the anthropomorphic characteristic is a length of the user's arm, and (Claim 6) where the target location is representative of a noise of the user.
However, Rodrigues teaches a finger-to-nose motor assessment in which the index fingertip is tracked (p. 4, Data collection, “markers placed on the index finger tip… nose-tip and target”) and an index is calculated from the actual path and the shortest distance (p. 5, Data analysis, “index of curvature (IC), the ratio between the actual endpoint movement path to the shortest distance between the two targets”), where the calculation is normalized relative to the length of the user’s arm (p. 2, Experimental task “of 90% arm-length measured from the medial axillary border to the index fingertip to eliminate bias due to inter-subject arm-length differences.”).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to normalize the calculation of the efficiency index of Bank relative to the user’s arm length, as taught by Rodrigues, as Rodrigues teaches this would have eliminated bias due to vary subject arm length differences (p. 2, Experimental task “of 90% arm-length measured from the medial axillary border to the index fingertip to eliminate bias due to inter-subject arm-length differences.”). Furthermore, Bank already states the normalization of kinematic measurements to upper extremity length “to allow comparison between individuals” (p. 4, Game 1: Balloons, “upper extremity length (i.e., length of upper arm + forearm + hand including index finger) to allow comparison between individuals”). Furthermore, one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify Bank so that the target location is representative of the nose of the user, because Rodriges teaches the finger-to-nose test is a common task used to assess coordination in a standard neurological exam (p. 2).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bank in view of Eye-Hand Coordination Assessment Metrics Using a Multi-Platform Haptic System with Eye-Tracking and Motion Capture Feedback to Pernalete et al. (hereinafter, Pernalete).
Bank discloses tracking the movement of the body part of a user as the user moves the body part from the body part starting location to the target location (see 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, above). Bank does not expressly discloses detecting a user's eye tracking of the body part while tracking the movement of the body part of the user as the user moves the body part from the body part starting location to the target location; and determining a correlation between a proficiency of the user's eye tracking and the quality of movement of the body part from the starting location to the target location and providing correlation data representative of the correlation between a proficiency of the user's eye tracking and the quality of movement of the body part from the starting location to the target location.
However, Pernalete teaches detecting the user’s eye tracking of a body part while the movement is tracked (p. 2152, D. Eye-Hand Number Metric for Haptic-Gaze Correlation, “The MyGaze eye tracker device is used to record the user’s gaze. We can establish a measure comparing the haptic pattern trace coordinates to the user’s eye gaze”), where the gaze coordinates are recorded simultaneously while the user traces a path. (see Figure 2) (p. 2151, B. Development of the Multi-Platform Haptic System), determining a correlation between proficient of the user’s eye tracking and the quality of movement (p. 2152, D. Eye-Hand Number Metric for Haptic-Gaze Correlation, “The Pearson correlation coefficient for the x-coordinates 𝜌𝑥 and the y-coordinates py are computed separately”; p. 2152, Tasks with the Multi-Platform Haptic System using Tunnel Assistance and Eye-Gaze Data Recording, “it is expected that if Pscore is high, then pe will approach 1”, where the Pscore is the movement performance score based on “percentage of valid points within the path region and within the ideal path” (p. 2152, Tasks with the Multi-Platform Haptic System using Tunnel Assistance and Eye-Gaze Data Recording); p. 2153, V. Conclusion, “the user’s eye-gaze was highly correlated to their performance on the haptic pattern trace, which helped define a novel haptic number to reflect this correlation”), and providing correlation data representative of the correlation (p. 2153, Tasks with the Multi-Platform Haptic System using Tunnel Assistance and Eye-Gaze Data Recording, “the Pearson coefficients of the X haptic-gaze coordinates and Y haptic-gaze coordinates of the user’s pattern traces are in the .8-.9 range, meaning that the correlation between the haptic pattern traces’ X and Y coordinates and the eye-gaze recordings’ X and Y coordinates is high.”; see also p. 2152, FIG. 2 “Multi-Platform Haptic System with MyGaze eye tracking GUI.”).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify Bank to detect the user’s eye tracking of the body part during the movement, and to determine and provide correlation data between the user’s eye tracking and the quality of movement, as taught by Pernalete, because Pernalete teaches that current systems “do not evaluate the level of eye-hand coordination and fine motor dexterity,” which “establishes the need to design new metrics to evaluate not only the upper arm level of disability but also the eye-hand coordination in patients” (p. 2150). A skilled artisan would have recognized that the would have predictably extended Bank’s AR motor assessment of stroke and Parkinson’s patients to also quantify eye-hand coordination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
