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 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 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claim(s) are directed to a “system” which is within a statutory category of invention.
According to Revised Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the claims recite(s) details of a mental steps to “detect” and “determine” information from collected signals, further “determine” indicators responsive to the first two mental steps, and “assess” diagnostic information relying on the determined indicator results, and thus recite abstract ideas.
According to Revised Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, these judicial exceptions (abstract idea: mental process) are not integrated into a practical application because the claims only provide details drawn to generic measurement aspects beyond the judicial exception, as the claims merely require the processor to be provided the necessary data from generalized ‘brain signal’ and ‘response motion’ sensors. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated, the additional elements relate to nominally recited sensors to acquire the measurement data, but do not serve to meaningfully limit the manner in which a processor acts to apply the analysis to data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated, any additional elements in the claims are merely recited in a generalized/high level manner or do not positively limit the claim scope.
Further, no details in any dependent claim are sufficient to show integration of the judicial exception, nor do any of those claims recite details that are considered to amount to significantly more under the eligibility analysis Step 2B, since they merely recite aspects of the judicial exception and/or mere generalized details.
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 – 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gevins et al. (USPN 6,947,790). Gevins et al. teach a neurocognitive EEG measurement system (Figure 1; column 11, line 52 – column 12, line 5), comprising EEG sensing elements for collecting signals responsive to stimuli delivered by display or loud speaker. Additionally, the subject may provide inputs via a pressure switch, keyboard, or joystick in response to the stimuli/tasks and response times may be determined therefrom. The measured signals may be analyzed to determine plural primary and secondary measures to provide data corresponding to Behavioral Performance, Neurophysiological Cognitive, and Neurophysiological Alertness (column 12, lines 10 – 46), where the measures include values corresponding to evoked potential and motor readiness aspects of the EEG signals. The measures may be analyzed in a variety of ways to assess whether the subject exhibits normal or impaired state for the corresponding measure, and additionally a combined state score may be computed from the data (column 12, line 60 – column 13, line 14, line 45; column 8, lines 8 - 26). One would recognize that the NCFC parameter of Gevins et al. is a value consistent with the broadly claimed MMSE score. Gevins et al. disclose various Experiments (1 – 9) wherein the system is used to assess cognitive responses to treatments and medications as well as other drugs, sleep deprivation, and sleep apnea. Experiment 2 particularly is concerned with assessment of changes in the collected data over time.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Gevins et al. teach a cognitive assessment system, as discussed above. Additionally, Applicant cites several references related to assessment of cognitive ability through detection of response to stimuli, including Kunimatsu (USPGPub 2021/0282687) and Dementia Front LTD (JP2019013375A). Further, Tadi et al. (USPGPub 2016/0235323) teaches a physiological parameter and motion tracking system (Figures 2d, 8-10, and 14) for collecting and analyzing stimulus response information. Jung et al. (USPGPub 2017/0035317) teach a portable brain activity sensing system for assessing visual field information responsive to stimuli (Figures 1b, 4, 5) and Sridhar et al. (USPGPub 2019/0307350) teach an alternate portable brain and vision diagnostic system (Figure 4). Javitt et al. (USPGPub 2020/0178834) discusses relationships between EEG measurements and determination of mental disorders through analysis of visual stimulation results. However, the prior art does not teach or suggest providing a sound for assessing hearing impairment of the subject and controlling the test stimulus responsive thereto or estimate before a stimulus is present a possibility of cognitive function decline by analyzing a specific frequency of brain signal and using the result in subsequent assessment of cognitive function, in combination with the other claimed elements.
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC FRANK WINAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 6 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, Chuck Marmor, II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights