DETAILED ACTION
Oath/Declaration
1. Oath and declaration filed on10/29/2024 is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The prior art documents submitted by application in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/4/2024 and 2/11/2026 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO – 1449).
Double Patenting
3. A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,165,770 B2 This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application 18/929,952
Regarding claim 1, A system for detecting one or more cognitive disorders that include middle temporal lobe alterations in a subject by measuring eye movements while the subject is binding visual features, said system comprising: a. an eye tracker; b. a means for measuring pupil diameters; c. a processor, configured to: i. receive eye-tracking data of a subject from said eye tracker; and ii. receive pupil diameter data of said subject from said means for measuring pupil diameters; d. a display means configured to display a test report received from said processor; wherein said processor is further configured to analyze the eye-tracking and pupil diameter data and to report, in said test report, a detection of one or more cognitive compromises and to report, in said report, a detection of cognitive compromises in specific cognitive domains that include at leas visual working memory capabilities of said subject.
U.S.Patent No. 12,165,770 B2
Regarding claim 1, A system for detecting one or more cognitive disorders that include middle temporal lobe alterations in a subject by measuring eye movements while the subject is binding visual features, said system comprising: a. an eye tracker; b. a means for measuring pupil diameters; c. a processor, configured to: i. receive eye-tracking data of a subject from said eye tracker; and ii. receive pupil diameter data of said subject from said means for measuring pupil diameters; d. a display means configured to display a test report received from said processor; wherein said processor is further configured to analyze the eye-tracking and pupil diameter data and to report, in said test report, a detection of one or more cognitive compromises and to report, in said report, a detection of cognitive compromises in specific cognitive domains that include at leas visual working memory capabilities of said subject.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzel et al (2016/0022137 A1) in view of Ben-Ami et al (12,033,432 B2).
Regarding claim 1,Wetzel et al discloses (refer to figures 1) a system for detecting one or more cognitive disorders that include middle temporal lobe alterations in a subject by measuring eye movements while the subject is binding visual features (paragraph 0034-0035), system comprising: a. an eye tracker (see claim 1, paragraph 0027-0031); b. a means for measuring pupil diameters; c. a processor (paragraph 0041), configured to: i. receive eye-tracking data of a subject from said eye tracker; and d. a display means configured to display a test report received from processor; wherein processor is further configured to analyze the eye-tracking and pupil diameter data and to report, in said test report, a detection of one or more cognitive compromises and to report, in said report, a detection of cognitive compromises in specific cognitive domains that include at leas visual working memory capabilities of said subject (see paragraph 0037,0039 and 0045: detecting neurological disorders such as Parkinson).
Wetzel et al discloses all of the claimed limitations except pupil diameter data of subject from means for measuring pupil diameters.
Ben-Ami et al discloses pupil diameter data of subject from means for measuring pupil diameters (figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide of teaching pupil diameter data of subject from means for measuring pupil diameters in to the Wetzel a system for detecting one or more cognitive disorders that include middle temporal lobe monitoring the progress of neurological condition and digital marks as taught by (column 4, lines 30-35).
Conclusion
5.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED A HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2331. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 AM -4 PM.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MOHAMMED A HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6/8/2026
Prosecution Insights