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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they contain improperly shaded Figures. Specifically, Figures 1a and 1b are improperly shaded. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “recording data representing displacement between the indicated location of the target and the defined target location at least when the target location is hidden… ”.
The limitation of “recording data representing displacement between the indicated location of the target and the defined target location at least when the target location is hidden” covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a two-dimensional display screen”, “a computer” and a “user input device”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind.
For example, but for the “a two-dimensional display screen”, “a computer” and a “user input device” language, “recording” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or physically determining a distance between an indicated location and a defined location. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “a two-dimensional display screen”, “a computer” and a “user input device”. These elements are all claimed at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components and instructions to implement routine computing functions. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components and instructions to implement the abstract idea using the generic computer components. Furthermore, the generic components are used in manners consistent with their known usage in the field, with the computer used for processing data, the display used for presenting data to a user and the user input device used for receiving input from a user. Therefore, the additional elements are not held to be significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
With respect to the dependent claims, they are drawn to the location of stimuli, analyzing data, which, as broadly claimed is an abstraction itself that can be completed in the mind or with pen and paper, comparing data, which is also an abstraction, the presentation of data and the shape of the stimuli. These neither integrate the above-discussed judicial exception into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, therefore the dependent claims are also rejected as being drawn to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20110066069 (Duffy).
In re Claims 1, 13 & 14
Duffy teaches a method and system of assessing spatial cognition of a human subject comprising:
displaying to the subject on a two-dimensional display screen, in a plurality of trials, visual stimuli including at least two rotational orientation cues having a mutual angular separation that varies between at least some of the trials (par. 0270-0274), the visual stimuli having a target location defined therein, wherein a rotational orientation of the visual stimuli including the target location is varied between said trials, and wherein the target location is hidden in some of the trials (par. 0271, 0280-0291);
receiving as input from the subject, in at least some of the trials, an indication of the location of the target ((par. 0280-0291); and
recording data representing displacement between the indicated location of the target and the defined target location at least when the target location is hidden, and corresponding values of said mutual angular separation of the rotational orientation cues (par. 0270-0274).
In re Claim 2
Duffy further teaches wherein the displacement comprises a horizontal and/or vertical displacement in Cartesian coordinates, normalized for said rotational orientation of the visual stimuli (par. 0190, 00198).
In re Claim 3
Duffy further teaches wherein the displacement comprises a radial and/or angular displacement (par. 0190, 0198).
In re Claims 4-6
Duffy further teaches analyzing said recorded data to calculate a variation of said displacement as a function of said angular separation and comparing said variation with at least one variation representative of a condition affecting spatial cognition in a human subject and at least one variation representative of normal spatial cognition in a human subject (par. 0121, 0318).
In re Claim 7
Duffy further teaches wherein the target location relative to the visual stimuli varies between at least some of the trials (Figs. 25-32).
In re Claims 8-11
Duffy further teaches wherein the plurality of trials are arranged in one more sequences; wherein the target location relative to the visual stimuli is constant within the same sequence; wherein the mutual angular separation between the rotational orientation cues is constant within the same sequence of trials; and wherein the target location either remains hidden or displayed within the same sequence of trials (par. 0240-0249).
In re Claim 12
Duffy further teaches wherein the visual stimuli comprises a circle and the discrete visual orientation cures comprise discrete arcs of the circle (Figs. 25-32).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday (7-5).
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights