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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase the phrase “at” in line 3 should be cancelled. 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: claim 1 recite a method for testing cognitive load and mental fatigue, and claims 19 and 20 recite an apparatus for testing cognitive load and mental fatigue. Thus, the claims are directed to a product and a process. which are ones of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: A) generating a VR user interface simulating high-stress multitasking scenarios; B) rendering the VR user interface on the VR headset; C) presenting a series of interactive multitasking scenarios in the VR user interface; D) continuously monitoring, using the eye-tracking sensors, eye movements and behavior during the scenarios; and E) evaluating the monitored data for indicators of cognitive load and mental fatigue. These limitations recite a mental process, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, a caregiver can monitor the patient taking multiple tasks while wearing the VR headset and evaluate a cognitive difficulties/load. Thus, the claims are drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: Claims 1, 19 and 20 does not recite additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1, 19 and 20 recites the following additional elements beyond the judicial exception: a) an electronic device including a high-resolution VR headset with eye-tracking sensors, and claims 19 and 20 recite the following additional elements beyond the judicial exception: b) memory, and c) one or more processors.
Accordingly, the combination of the additional element/step a) and b) does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of VR with eye tracking sensors and a memory is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Element c) does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of a controller/processor amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, each of the additional elements or a combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: Claims 1, 19 and 20 does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, a) an electronic device including a high-resolution VR headset with eye-tracking sensors, and claims 19 and 20 recite the following additional elements beyond the judicial exception: b) memory, and c) one or more processors.
The combination of elements a-c of VR headset having eye tracking sensors, processor and a memory does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of VR headset is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the elements a) and b) are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as is evidenced by Guzik et al (US 2019/0008441), Wood et al (US 2019/0328305), and Smith et al (US 2019/0298166) which all show VR headset having eye tracking sensors, processor and a memory as claimed in claims 1, 19 and 20 evidencing that these elements are well-understood, route, and conventional in the applanation arts.
Element c) does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because adding a controller/processor is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)II).
Accordingly, the additional elements individual or in co do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-20 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
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 1-20 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 recites the limitation "the monitored data" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the number" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the VR environment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the effectiveness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the monitored data" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the monitored data" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-14, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guzik et al (US 2019/0008441).
As to claims 1, 19 and 20, Guzik teaches a virtual reality (VR) system (system shown in fig.1-6, abstract) and method for testing cognitive load (the Field of View test measures the functional or useful range of a patient's peripheral vision under cognitive load, par.3 and par.18) and mental fatigue effects on vision (the system quickly assesses cognitive fatigue, subtle changes in physical coordination, reaction speed, and other reactionary and cognitive data providing accurate and reliable diagnosis of traumatic brain injury, par.3, apr.57), comprising:
a high-resolution VR headset (VR 110, par.21, fig.1-6) with eye-tracking sensors (eye tracking system in VR 110 to receive eye reaction data from patient test responses to tests, par.21, and/or left eye tracker 605 and a right eye tracker 610, par.56, as best seen in fig.1-6);
one or more processors (processor 141 may include one or more microprocessors, pa.22-23, fig.1); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium/memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (storage device 142 includes non-transitory, computer readable medium, par.22-23, fig.1), the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a VR user interface (display screen and/or display 300 in VR 110, par.21 and par.53, fig.3-6) simulating high-stress multitasking scenarios (transmitting a sequence of tests, each test comprised of test data to be delivered to the patient by a VR headset as stimuli intended to generate a response, par.3. par.24, par.39 and par.52-53, par.57, fig.2, Examiner respectfully notes under the broadest reasonable interpretation taking multiple different types of tests can be interpreted as high-stress multitask tests);
rendering the VR user interface on the VR headset (using the display screen 300 in VR 110 to display tests to the patient/user, par.3, par.24, par.39 and par.52, fig.2-6);
presenting a series of interactive multitasking scenarios in the VR environment (a test transmitted to virtual reality headset 110 wherein the VR display 300 presents to the user a sequence of images which together animate movement of an object 305 that moves along a path 310 from a left edge 315 to a right edge 320 of the VR display 300, and then back to the left edge 315 at least once, par.52-53, displaying multiple images to the user with moving objects and requesting the user to respond, par.24. par.28, par.33-39, par.57, fig.2);
continuously monitoring eye movements and behavior during the scenarios (eye tracking system to receive eye reaction data from patient test responses to tests, par.21, par.30, patient test response may be detection of movement of at least one patient eye, pupil, eyelid, or other part of either or both eyes by an eye-tracking system par.36, determines additional data, for example incorrect test response timing, occurrence of multiple test responses, pupil movement, par.39, and par.56-57, fig.2-6); and evaluating the monitored data for indicators of cognitive load (determining cognitive responses/function, processing speed and cogitative fatigue form monitoring user’s response and tracking eye movement, par.3, par.5, par.18, par.31, par.40, par.42, par.52-53 and par.57, and the Field of View test measures the functional or useful range of a patient's peripheral vision under cognitive load, par.3 and par.18) and mental fatigue (the system quickly assesses cognitive fatigue, subtle changes in physical coordination, reaction speed, and other reactionary and cognitive data providing accurate and reliable diagnosis of traumatic brain injury, as best seen in fig.2, 3 and 6).
As to claim 4, Guzik teaches the method, wherein the interactive multitasking scenarios include: managing data streams while tracking moving objects and solving visual puzzles (a test transmitted to virtual reality headset 110 wherein the VR display 300 presents to the user a sequence of images which together animate movement of an object 305 that moves along a path 310 from a left edge 315 to a right edge 320 of the VR display 300, and then back to the left edge 315 at least once, par.52-53, displaying multiple images to the user with moving objects and requesting the user to respond, par.24. par.28, par.33-39, fig.2); and simultaneously controlling multiple virtual instruments while responding to dynamic visual changes (simultaneously responding to tests using left and right controllers, par.31, while responding to moving to objects in the presented images, par.24. par.28, par.33-39, par.52-53 and par.56, fig.2 and 6).
As to claim 8, Guzik teaches the method, further comprising using one or more algorithms to evaluate cognitive performance by monitoring visual acuity, measuring reaction time, and analyzing error rates (using machine learning techniques to determine test response accuracy, par.40, determine correctness and timing test response in step 230, fig.2, par.31 and par.38).
As to claim 9, Guzik teaches the method, wherein monitoring visual acuity comprises tracking real-time task performance metrics in the VR environment (determining real-time user’s test response, and determining response time/speed, par.30-39, fig.2).
As to claim 10, Guzik teaches the method, wherein measuring reaction time comprises analyzing the time taken to respond to visual cues presented in the VR scenarios (determining response time/speed, par.38-39, fig.2).
As to claim 11, Guzik teaches the method, wherein analyzing error rates comprises detecting patterns of cognitive overload based on mistakes made during the multitasking scenarios (determining correctness of test response, par.31-35, and par.38-42, fig.2).
As to claim 12, Guzik teaches the method, further comprising generating a comprehensive report including cognitive load indicators, visual performance metrics, and error rates (storing this information in a plurality of current patient test-response records, par.40 in fig.2a, recording correct/incorrect responses and correct/incorrect response timing, par.39, fig.2b, storing current test results and previous test results for comparison, par.40-43 and par.57, fig.2c).
As to claim 13, Guzik teaches the method, wherein the comprehensive report includes graphs, charts (storing current test results and previous test results for comparison, par.40-43, fig.2c, Examiner respectfully notes that storing test results must be in a form of charts, tables and/or graphs), and personalized recommendations for mitigating cognitive fatigue (the diagnosis output may include recommendations, suggestions, or include test results from other types of tests, par.33).
As to claim 14, Guzik teaches the method, further comprising providing personalized strategies for mitigating mental fatigue, including tailored breaks, task difficulty adjustments, and ergonomic suggestions based on individual cognitive capacity and task performance (the diagnosis output may include recommendations, suggestions, or include test results from other types of tests, par.33).
As to claim 17, Guzik teaches the method, wherein the series of interactive multitasking scenarios include one or more scenarios tailored to specific professional environments (VR 110 displays specific tests to each user, par.25, par.38, par.44, Examiner respectfully notes that the specific test to each user is based on user’s condition or ability to do a specific task/professional task).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Guzik et al (US 2019/0008441).
As to claim 2, Guzik teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, but failed to explicitly teach the high-resolution VR headset has a visual fidelity of at least 60 pixels per degree (PPD) and a responsiveness with latency less than 20 ms.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design VR 110 to have a visual fidelity of at least 60 pixels per degree (PPD) and a responsiveness with latency less than 20 ms because the Applicant has not disclosed that that these specific features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected VR 110 of Guzik’s invention and the Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the visual fidelity and the responsiveness latency taught by Guzik’s inevntion or the claimed visual fidelity and the responsiveness latency because both VR headsets would perform the same function of being worn by a user to display different tests and receives user’s responses for cognitive evaluation.
As to claim 3, Guzik teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, wherein the number of tests transmitted to the patient may be pre-selected and be small in number, for example 5-10 tests given within 5-10 minutes (par.52), but failed to explicitly teach presenting a series of interactive multitasking scenarios comprises simulating sessions ranging from 15 to 60 minutes. However, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to present a series of interactive multitasking scenarios comprises simulating sessions ranging from 15 to 60 minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Guzik et al (US 2019/0008441) in view of Dory et al (US 2020/0093367).
As to claims 6 and 7, Guzik teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, but failed to explicitly teaches comprising progressively increasing difficulty and time constraints by gradually increasing the number of tasks and speed of stimuli, while decreasing time allowances for each task, and further comprising: performing an initial calibration to establish baseline cognitive and visual performance; and dynamically adjusting task difficulty based on real-time performance metrics.
However, Dory teaches an analogous system includes a virtual reality (VR) headset having one or more displays and eye-tracking sensors to track eye movements of the user (abstract and par.11), wherein the system teaches comprising progressively increasing difficulty and time constraints by gradually increasing the number of tasks and speed of stimuli, while decreasing time allowances for each task (responsive to the input control signal from the user-operable control device, at 204, the method includes adjusting the speed of the moving image so that the rendered moving image no longer tracks the dynamically changing gaze direction, par.28-29 and par.31-33, fig.4, 6 and 7), and further comprising: performing an initial calibration to establish baseline cognitive and visual performance (determining the dynamically changing gaze direction from an eye-tracking sensor 160. This operation may be performed by the processor 102 receiving sensor signals from eye-tracking sensor(s) in the headset via the headset interface 130. The signals may be processed by the processor to determine a gaze direction for the user, step 200, par.26, fig.4, after determining the first gaze then adjusting test speed in steps 202-204); and dynamically adjusting task difficulty based on real-time performance metrics (adjusting the speed of the moving image so that the rendered moving image no longer tracks the dynamically changing gaze direction, par.28-29 and par.31-33, fig.4, 6 and 7).
Since adjusting test speed or difficulty is well-known in the art, so it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust test speed and difficulty in Guzik’s invention, as taught by Dory’s invention, to better assist and evaluate the cognitive state of the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights