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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is silent regarding the technical disclosure of the patent and does not include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. Instead, it refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 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.
Claims 3-8, 12, 16, 21, and 22 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 3, 12, and 21 each recite “wherein the first notation method and the second notation method are different from each other in one or more selected from a group…”. It is unclear how the first notation method and the second notation method are different from each other because there is at least one term missing following “in one or more”. 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 limitation is construed to recite “wherein the first notation method and the second notation method are different from each other, wherein the difference is one or more differences selected from a group…”. Dependent claims 4 and 5 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3, 12, and 21 each recite “selected from a group including a font color of the displayed number, a shade color of the displayed number, and a shade shape of the displayed number”. This is a Markush grouping requiring selection from an open list of alternatives and is thus indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(h). Dependent claims 4 and 5 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the D1" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 7, 16, and 22, each of these claims recites “wherein the i is 2 to 49”. This is grammatically incongruous with respect to the antecedent basis of “I” in independent claims 1, 10, and 19 which recite “I is an integer greater than or equal to 3”. 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 limitation is construed to recite “wherein the i is an integer from 2 to 49”. Dependent claim 8 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 7, 16, and 22, each of these claims recites “wherein the i is 2 to 49”. This conflicts with independent claims 1, 10, and 19 which recite “I is an integer greater than or equal to 3”. In other words, it is unclear how i can be 2 when the independent claims identify that 3 is the lowest integer that i can be. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claim 8 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “wherein the i is 9 to 29”. This is grammatically incongruous with respect to the antecedent basis of “I” in independent claims 1, 10, and 19 which recite “I is an integer greater than or equal to 3”. 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 limitation is construed to recite “wherein the i is an integer from 9 to 29”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Although claim 24 refers to independent claim 10, claim 24 is written such that infringement of this claim may occur without infringement of independent claim 10. For instance, claim 24 recites “A computer program stored in a computer-readable recording medium for executing, on a computer, respective operations according to claim 10.” Thus, claim 24 does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed in independent claim 10 nor does it include all of the limitations of independent claim 10. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to software per se, which is non-statutory subject matter. For instance, the claimed subject matter is directed towards a computer program. As the claim is found to be software per se the claim is found to be directed towards ineligible subject matter as set forth in MPEP 2106(I) (see computer program per se, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US at 72, 175 USPQ at 676-77).
Claim 24 encompasses a transitory medium given the claim's broadest reasonable interpretation of a computer-readable recording medium. Such media have been held to be ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
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.
Claims 1-12, 16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. At least Simfukwe et al.1 (Digital trail making test-black and white: Normal vs MCI, hereinafter referred to as Simfukwe) discloses the Trail Making Test – Black and White which illustrates a public use of the claimed invention. It is further noted that the named inventor is one of the authors in this prior art as well as others, like the Jang et al. prior art made of record and not relied upon identified below and cite no. CC in the Information Disclosure Statement filed by Applicant on 31 December 2024.
Regarding claim 1, Simfukwe teaches a cognitive function assessment test board on which numbers n to n+i (n is an integer greater than or equal to 0 and i is an integer greater than or equal to 3) are arranged, wherein n is displayed once, n+1 to n+i are displayed twice, respectively, and two identical numbers displayed twice are displayed by a first notation method and a second notation method, which are distinct from each other, respectively (Simfukwe, Fig. 2 and 4, Part B illustrate this),
wherein the numbers are classified into two groups of couplers and intruders (Simfukwe, Fig. 2 and 4, Part B illustrate this),
wherein the couplers comprise n defined as a starting point and the n is displayed by the first notation method or the second notation method (Simfukwe, Fig. 2 and 4, Part B illustrate this),
wherein the couplers comprise n+b (b is an odd number greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to i) displayed by a notation method different from n, among the first notation method and the second notation method, and n+a (a is an even number greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to i) displayed by the same notation method as n (Simfukwe, Fig. 2 and 4, Part B illustrate this), and
wherein the intruders comprise n+a (a is an even number greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to i) displayed by a notation method different from n, among the first notation method and the second notation method, and n+b (b is an odd number greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to i) displayed by the same notation method as n (Simfukwe, Fig. 2 and 4, Part B illustrate this).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Simfukwe teaches a method of cognitive function assessment (claim 10) and a device for providing a cognitive function test (claim 19), the device comprising:
a display configured to randomly display numbers n to n+i (n is an integer greater than or equal to 0 and i is an integer greater than or equal to 3) on a screen (Simfukwe, Fig. 2 and 4 illustrate this);
an input/output unit configured to receive information about numbers clicked or sequentially connected by a user (Simfukwe, pg. 2, “touch screen tablets”; pg. 3, “Timing begins as soon as the subject makes contact with the first numbered white circle and stops as soon as the last numbered white circle is touched.”); and
a control unit configured to determine whether the numbers belonging to couplers are sequentially clicked or sequentially connected from the smallest to the biggest, based on the information received from the user (Simfukwe, Fig. 3 illustrates this; pg. 3, “1. Number of Successes: The number of times a subject touches the correct circles. 2. Number of Errors: The number of times a subject touches a circle in the incorrect order. 3. Time to Completion: The time it takes a subject to connect all the circles in the correct order.”),
wherein the display is configured to display a determination result of the control unit on the screen (Simfukwe, Fig. 3 illustrates this),
wherein n is displayed once, n+1 to n+i are displayed twice, respectively, and two identical numbers displayed twice are displayed by a first notation method and a second notation method, which are distinct from each other, respectively, wherein the numbers are classified into two groups of couplers and intruders, wherein the couplers comprise n defined as a starting point and the n is displayed by the first notation method or the second notation method, wherein the couplers comprise n+b (b is an odd number greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to i) displayed by a notation method different from n, among the first notation method and the second notation method, and n+a (a is an even number greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to i) displayed by the same notation method as n, and wherein the intruders comprise n+a (a is an even number greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to i) displayed by a notation method different from n, among the first notation method and the second notation method, and n+b (b is an odd number greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to i) displayed by the same notation method as n (Simfukwe, Fig. 2 and 4 illustrate this).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Simfukwe teaches the cognitive function assessment test board according to claim 1, the method of cognitive function assessment according to claim 10, and the device for providing a cognitive function test according to claim 19, wherein, when a distance between n+x and n+x+1 (x is an integer greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to i-1) belonging to the couplers is defined as D1, a distance between n+x belonging to the couplers and n+x+1 belonging to the intruders is defined as D2, and a distance between n+x+1 belonging to the intruders and n+x+1 belonging to the couplers is defined as D3, conditions D1≥D2 and D1≥D3 are satisfied (Simfukwe, at least Fig. 5 illustrates this).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 21, Simfukwe teaches the cognitive function assessment test board according to claim 1, the method of cognitive function assessment according to claim 11, and the device for providing a cognitive function test according to claim 20, wherein the first notation method and the second notation method are different from each other in one or more selected from a group including a font color of the displayed number, a shade color of the displayed number, and a shade shape of the displayed number (Simfukwe, at least Fig. 2, 4, and 5 illustrate this).
Regarding claim 4, Simfukwe teaches the cognitive function assessment test board according to claim 3, wherein the first notation method and the second notation method are different from each other in the shade colors of the displayed numbers (Simfukwe, at least Fig. 2, 4, and 5 illustrate this).
Regarding claim 5, Simfukwe teaches the cognitive function assessment test board according to claim 4, wherein the first notation method and the second notation method are distinguished from each other by the numbers being displayed differently in black and white, respectively, as the shade colors of the numbers (Simfukwe, at least Fig. 2, 4, and 5 illustrate this).
Regarding claim 6, Simfukwe teaches the cognitive function assessment test board according to claim 1, wherein the D1 is greater than the D2 and the D3 (Simfukwe, at least Fig. 5 illustrates this).
Regarding claims 7, 16, and 22, Simfukwe teaches the cognitive function assessment test board according to claim 1, the method of cognitive function assessment according to claim 10, and the device for providing a cognitive function test according to claim 20, wherein the i is 2 to 49 (Simfukwe, at least Fig. 2, 4, and 5 illustrate this. Fig. 2 illustrates i as 8 and as 14, Fig. 4 and 5 each illustrate i as 14 and as 29.).
Regarding claim 8, Simfukwe teaches the cognitive function assessment test board according to claim 7, wherein the i is 9 to 29 (Simfukwe, at least Fig. 2, 4, and 5 illustrate this. Fig. 2 illustrates i as 8 and as 14, Fig. 4 and 5 each illustrate i as 14 and as 29.).
Regarding claims 9, 18, and 23, Simfukwe teaches the cognitive function assessment test board according to claim 1, the method of cognitive function assessment according to claim 10, and the device for providing a cognitive function test according to claim 20, wherein, when connecting the numbers belonging to the couplers in the order from the smallest to the biggest using line segments, none of the line segments intersect each other (Simfukwe, at least Fig. 2, 4, and 5 illustrate this).
Regarding claim 24, Simfukwe teaches a computer program stored in a computer-readable recording medium for executing, on a computer, respective operations according to claim 10 (Simfukwe, pg. 2, “dTMT-B&W was developed as an Android application for touch screen tablets”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang et al. (A Comparison of Five Types of Trail Making Test in Korean Elderly) discloses a comparison of the Trail Making Test – Black and White against other versions of the Trail Making Test.
Friberg (Executive function, working memory and speech-in-noise recognition – Comparing a non-semantic black and white version of the Trail Making Test to the original Trail Making Test) discloses the Trail Making Test – Black and White also includes a variation wherein i=49 just like the Colors Trail Test.
Najafi et al. (US 2021/0290148 and US 12,011,282 B2) discloses the instrumented Trail Making Test.
Alberts and McIntyre (US 2012/0330182 and US 2014/0074267) disclose a computerized Trail Making Test.
Ramachandran et al. (US 2015/0359477) discloses a computerized Trail Making Test.
Vlaskamp et al. (US 2019/0205777) discloses a computerized Trail Making Test including more specific detail in tracking the motion of the user connecting the elements during the test.
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 Simfukwe et al. (February 2, 2021). Digital Trail making test-black and white: Normal vs MCI. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 29(6), 1296–1303. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2021.1871615
Prosecution Insights