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
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the specification is improperly formatted including at least missing paragraph numbers.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-7 and 9-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 14 recite “time constraint” with and without a hyphen. This decreases clarity. Uniformity is recommended.
Claim 13 is missing the letter “y” in “battery”.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 9-14 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 1 and 14 each recite the limitation "the one or more first tests" in line 14 of claim 1 and line 12 of claim 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of these claims. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 1, 7, and 14, it is unclear what constitutes the battery of cognitive tests that is administered. The first step of the claimed method performed recites “controlling… a test apparatus to administer a battery of cognitive tests to a subject, wherein at least a subset of the battery of cognitive tests are configurable to either impose or not impose a time-constraint when administering the test, wherein the battery of cognitive tests includes: a plurality of first tests, wherein each of the first tests is a test for which a time constraint is imposed related to a completion time for the test or for which another cognitive demand constraint is imposed, and a plurality of second tests, wherein each of the second tests is a test for which said time constraint is not imposed or said other cognitive demand constraint is not imposed”. Steps 2-5 of the claimed method recite “first administer a cognitive test with a time constraint or other cognitive demand constraint, to form one of the one or more first tests; determine a score for said test; determining whether said score is within a pre-defined normal range; responsive to the score being outside of the pre-defined normal range, administer the same cognitive test without the time-constraint or other cognitive demand constraint imposed, to form one of the second tests.” Claim 7 recites substantively the same language as steps 2 and 5. Step 1 is a distinctly different method from steps 2-5 because step 1 requires the administering of a plurality of first tests with a time-constraint and a plurality of second tests without a time-constraint. Steps 2-5 only administers one first test (with a time constraint or other cognitive demand constraint) and depending upon analysis of the first test administering the first test again (without a time constraint or other cognitive demand constraint), calling it a second test. Furthermore, steps 6-10 are directed to step 1 leaving steps 2-5 isolated from the claimed method. It is unclear how the steps of the claimed method are performed to detect presence of subtle cognitive impairment when steps 2-5 are directed to a different test administration from step 1. Furthermore, step 1 requires the cognitive load to be a time constraint while steps 2-5 identifies the cognitive load to be a time constraint or other cognitive demand constraint. Thus, the cognitive load in steps 2-5 may not be a time constraint. The disclosure does not aid understanding as it recites the method of steps 2-5 as a separate embodiment from step 1. See, for example, at least para. 29-33, 109, and 111-115 of the published specification. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the one or more second cognitive tests" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear how the one or more additional cognitive demand constraints includes presence of environmental noise in the claimed system. The claimed system is silent regarding any means for either providing the environmental noise or detecting the presence of an environmental noise. This causes a lack of clarity regarding how the presence of environmental noise can be included as an additional cognitive demand constraint. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear how the claimed system performs the function of sensing an environmental noise, let alone the intensity of an environmental noise, during the administering of the battery of cognitive tests. The claimed system is silent regarding any means for sensing an environmental noise. This causes a further lack of clarity regarding how the derived scores can be calibrated or compensated based on the sensed environmental noise intensity as the claim is silent regarding how an environmental noise intensity is determined. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for the claimed method to include both step 1 and steps 2-5 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Step 1 of the claimed method recites “controlling… a test apparatus to administer a battery of cognitive tests to a subject, wherein at least a subset of the battery of cognitive tests are configurable to either impose or not impose a time-constraint when administering the test, wherein the battery of cognitive tests includes: a plurality of first tests, wherein each of the first tests is a test for which a time constraint is imposed related to a completion time for the test or for which another cognitive demand constraint is imposed, and a plurality of second tests, wherein each of the second tests is a test for which said time constraint is not imposed or said other cognitive demand constraint is not imposed”. Steps 2-5 of the claimed method recite “first administering a cognitive test with a time constraint or other cognitive demand constraint, to form one of the one or more first tests; determine a score for said test; determining whether said score is within a pre-defined normal range; responsive to the score being outside of the pre-defined normal range, administering the same cognitive test without the time-constraint or other cognitive demand constraint imposed, to form one of the second tests”. The claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The specification, at best, merely recites similar language as the claim without providing the means, steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary for a computer to perform the claimed functionality. In particular, the specification provides steps 2-5 as a separate embodiment from step 1. See, for example, at least para. 29-33, 109, and 111-115 of the published specification. Furthermore, not only are steps substantively different processes, step 1 requires the cognitive load to be a time constraint while steps 2-5 identifies the cognitive load to be a time constraint or other cognitive demand constraint. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 10, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein at least a subset of the battery of cognitive tests are configurable to… impose… other cognitive demand constraint when administering the test” in claim 7, “wherein at least a subset of the battery of cognitive tests are configurable to impose one or more additional cognitive demand constraints; and wherein the method additionally comprises: administering at least a subset of the battery of cognitive tests a further time with an additional one or more of the cognitive demand constraints added” in claim 9, and “the method comprises administering at least a subset of the battery of cognitive tests at least a further two more times, each time with a different number of the additional cognitive demand constraints added” in claim 10 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The specification, at best, merely recites similar language as the claim without providing the means, steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary for a computer to perform the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 18, 34-41, and 116-132 of the published specification. In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding any means for the claimed system to impose any additional cognitive demand beyond a time constraint in the context of known cognitive tests that already include a time constraint in the form of a completion time - Trail Making Test, Controlled Oral Word Association Test, Category Fluency Test, Star Cancellation Test, and Symbol Digit Modalities Test. Dependent claims 10 and 11 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “calibrating or compensating the derived scores for the battery of tests to control for the sensed environmental noise; and/or generating an advice item for communication to an operator indicative of the detected presence and intensity of environmental noise” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The specification, at best, merely recites similar language as the claim without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary for a computer to perform the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 41, 42, and 131 of the published specification regarding calibrating or compensating and at least 42, 131, and 134-136 of the published specification regarding generating an advice item. For instance, para. 134-136 of the published specification recite several examples of what advice items may be but are silent regarding any analysis of environmental noise to determine which advice item to communicate. Similarly, the disclosure is silent regarding analysis of environmental noise (or its intensity) in relation to derived scores in order to calibrate or compensate the derived score to control for the sensed environmental noise.
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 7 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. Claim 7 is substantively equivalent to steps 2 (“first administer a cognitive test with a time constraint or other cognitive demand constraint, to form one of the one or more first tests”) and 5 (“responsive to the score being outside of the pre-defined normal range, administering the same cognitive test without the time-constraint or other cognitive demand constraint imposed, to form one of the second tests”) of the claimed method in independent claim 1. Thus, claim 7 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it covers both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. More specifically, the claim is directed to functions that amount to software per se, which is non-statutory subject matter. For instance, the claimed subject matter is claimed as “a computer program product comprising code means”. Therefore, the claim as drafted is found to lack structure and appear to be directed to software. 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).
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 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 including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
Claims 1-13 are directed to a product which falls under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES). Claim 14 does not fall under the four statutory categories, as identified above. Regardless, for the purposes of compact prosecution, this claim will still be evaluated under Step 2.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
an input/output; and
one or more processors adapted to execute a method, the method comprising:
controlling, via control signals communicated though the input/output, a test apparatus to administer a battery of cognitive tests to a subject, wherein at least a subset of the battery of cognitive tests are configurable to either impose or not impose a time-constraint when administering the test, wherein the battery of cognitive tests includes:
a plurality of first tests, wherein each of the first tests is a test for which a time constraint is imposed related to a completion time for the test or for which another cognitive demand constraint is imposed, and
a plurality of second tests, wherein each of the second tests is a test for which said time constraint is not imposed or said other cognitive demand constraint is not imposed;
first administering a cognitive test with a time constraint or other cognitive demand constraint, to form one of the one or more first tests;
determining a score for said test;
determining whether said score is within a pre-defined normal range;
responsive to the score being outside of the pre-defined normal range, administering the same cognitive test without the time-constraint or other cognitive demand constraint imposed, to form one of the second tests;
generating a first composite score from a combination of test scores obtained for the subject from the plurality of first tests;
generating a second composite score from a combination of test scores obtained for the subject from the plurality of second tests;
computing a characteristic value based on the first composite score and the second composite score;
detecting presence of subtle cognitive impairment based on the characteristic value; and
generating an output at the input/output indicative of the detection.
Claim 14 recites:
A computer program product comprising code means, configured, when run on a processor, to cause the processor to:
control a test apparatus to administer a battery of cognitive tests to a subject, wherein at least a subset of the battery of cognitive tests are configurable to either impose or not impose a time-constraint when administering the test, wherein the battery of cognitive tests includes:
a plurality of first tests, wherein each of the first tests is a test for which a time constraint is imposed related to a completion time for the test or for which another cognitive demand constraint is imposed, and
a plurality of second tests, wherein each of the second tests is a test for which said time constraint is not imposed or said other cognitive demand constraint is not imposed;
first administer a cognitive test with a time constraint or other cognitive demand constraint, to form one of the one or more first tests;
determine a score for said test;
determining whether said score is within a pre-defined normal range;
responsive to the score being outside of the pre-defined normal range, administer the same cognitive test without the time-constraint or other cognitive demand constraint imposed, to form one of the second tests;
generate a first composite score from a combination of test scores obtained for the subject from the plurality of first tests;
generate a second composite score from a combination of test scores obtained for the subject from the plurality of second tests;
compute a characteristic value based on the first composite score and the second composite score;
detect presence of subtle cognitive impairment based on the characteristic value; and
generate an output indicative of the detection.
All of the foregoing underlined elements identified above, both individually and as a whole, amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis in the implementation of a cognitive assessment. This also amounts to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes as the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Lastly, the steps involved in score and composite score determination, characteristic value computation, and detecting presence of subtle cognitive impairment amount to the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts because they recite mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations as defined in MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(I) which recites that a “mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers [that] may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols” such as “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” and that a “claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping” because a “mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation."
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a system comprising an input/output and one or more processors (claim 1), controlling a test apparatus via control signals communicated through the input/output (claim 1), a test apparatus (claim 13), a computer program product comprising code means (claim 14), a processor (claim 14), control a test apparatus (claim 14). Although the claims recite the elements identified above, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing, outputting data). This is evidenced by at least Fig. 2 which illustrate the elements of the system as a conventional collection of black boxes while Fig. 1, 3, and 4 illustrate that the claimed invention is focused on the judicial exception itself. Further evidence is provided by the specification. See, for example, at least para. 56, 69-77, and 138-144 of the published specification which identify that any suitable combination of hardware, software, or firmware may be used to implement the judicial exception. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Additionally, the claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system as the computer system and its elements are merely recited to be used in the performance of the steps. For instance, the claimed steps do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because they are merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) since the claims merely recite the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity to perform these tasks. See MPEP 2106.04(d). This also evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system as the claimed steps are wholly focused on the judicial exception itself while the computerized elements are merely recited to be used in their performance. This further identifies that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. The claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. In particular, the claims are silent regarding any specific treatment or prophylaxis for any specific disease or medical condition. The additional elements do not apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that is implementation with a computer. For instance, the claims, and disclosure as a whole, merely recite the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented in the technology, itself. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. Although claims recite computer components (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., collecting, processing, and outputting data). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that Applicant believes the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this also evidences that the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. Additionally, as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, the mere inclusion of generically recited computerized elements conventionally configured to perform their conventional functions merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This further evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. The focus of the claimed invention is on the analysis of the collected data, which is itself at best merely an improvement within the abstract idea. See pg. 2-3 in SAP America Inc. v. lnvestpic, LLC (890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018) which proffered “[w]e may assume that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, but that is not enough for eligibility. Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations.” This further identifies that none of the additional elements offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide any 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 of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Thus, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spelt et al. (US 18/867,510, published as US 2025/0380889) and Klaming et al. (US18/993,014, published as US 2026/0020811) are both closely related to the instant application. Applicant should remain cognizant of both of these applications when making amendments so as to avoid double patenting.
Philips (Philips launches first clinical product for aiding cognitive assessment) discloses that Intellispace Cognition was used for cognitive assessment years before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Darby et al. (US 2002/0192624, US 2005/00143630) discloses detecting Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Minimal Progressive Cognitive Impairment (MPCI) wherein each test in the battery may include one or more time limits.
Doniger et al. (US 2005/0187436, US 7,294,107) discloses detecting MCI including identifying that memory, executive function, visual spatial skills, verbal fluency outcome parameters as well as medium and high-load information processing outcome parameters discriminate significantly between MCI from normal health elderly.
Dagum (US 2015/0112899, US 2017/0086727) discloses that cognitive function tests performed on a computer may include standardized neuropsychological tests such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale test, California Verbal Memory Test, Trail-Making (A&B) test, Wechsler Memory Scale-III test, Symbol Digit Modalities test, Wechsler Digit Span test, Conner's Continuous Performance test, Logical Memory test, Brief Visuospatial Memory test, Controlled Oral Word Association (FAS Fluency) test, Animal Naming Test of Verbal Fluency, and the Grooved Pegboard test.
Noh et al. (US 2023/0346297, US 2023/0346298) discloses detecting early stage MCI including using tests with time limits.
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
Prosecution Insights