www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/757,030
`
`04/17/2020
`
`Hirobumi NAKAJIMA
`
`NIIP.10PUSO1
`
`4362
`
`MARKD. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`ISTH FLOOR
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44115
`
`TU, AURELIE H
`
`3791
`
`08/3 1/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`ipdocket @rennerotto.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`16/757,030
`Examiner
`AURELIE H TU
`
`Applicant(s)
`NAKAJIMAetal.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`3791
`Yes
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s)filed on 17 April 2020.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-16 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 9-16 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`[) Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)____is/are objected to.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`“If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)C) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 17 April 2020 is/are: a) accepted or b){) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[¥] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a) All
`1.4] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20220818
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page2
`
`DETAILEDACTION
`
`Notice ofPre-AlAorAIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The presentapplication,filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventorto file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Election/Restrictions
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Group |, claims1-7, have been elected with traverse. Claims 1-8 will be examined.
`
`Claims 9-16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b),as beingdrawn
`
`toa nonelected invention, there being noallowable generic or linkingclaim. Applicant timely traversed
`
`the restriction (election) requirementin the reply filed on 04 August 2022.
`
`4.
`
`Applicant's election withtraverse of claims 1-7 inthe reply filed on04 August 2022 is
`
`acknowledged. The traversal is onthe ground(s) that Kimura does notdisclose the s pecial technical
`
`feature of Group l, claims 1-7, and Group ll, claim 8.Examiner respectfully agrees andthe unity of
`
`invention/election requirementfor group ll, claim 8, hasbeen withdrawn andclaim 8 will be examined
`
`accordingly. Claims9 and 16 didnot haves pecific arguments towards them thus the restrictions are
`
`being maintained. They maybe amended during prosecution for possible rejoinder.
`
`The requirementis still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`ClaimInterpretation
`
`(f} Element in Claim fora Combination. —An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as
`ameans orstep for performinga specified function without therecital of structure, material, or acts
`in support thereof, and such claimshall beconstrued to cover thecorresponding structure, material,
`oracts described in thespecification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An element in aclaim for a combination may be expressed as a means orstep for performinga
`specified function without therecital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and suchclaim
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
`specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page3
`
`6.
`
`The claimsin this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain
`
`meaning ofthe claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skillintheart. The broadest reasonable interpretation ofa claim element (alsocommonly referred to as
`
`a claim limitation) is limited by the description inthe specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,is invoked.
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181,s ubsectionI, claim limitations that meet the following three -prong
`
`test willbeinterpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlIA35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph:
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means”or “step” ora termusedas a substitute for “means”
`
`that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce termora non-structuralterm havingno
`
`specific structural meaning) for performingthe claimed function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means”or “step” orthe generic placeholder is modified by functional language,
`
`typically, but not always linked bythe transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking
`
`word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “sothat’; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified bys ufficients tructure,
`
`material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use ofthe word “means”(or “step”)in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means”(or “step”)in a claimcreates a rebuttable presumption that the
`
`claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA35 U.S.C.112,sixth
`
`paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is notinterpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre -
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page4
`
`AIA35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without
`
`recitings ufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Claim limitations inthis application that use the word “ means”(or “step”) are being interpreted
`
`under35U.8.C.112(f) or pre-AlA35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicatedin an
`
`Office action. Conversely, claim limitations inthis application that do not use the word “means”(or
`
`“step”) are not beinginterpreted under 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre -AIA35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`exceptas otherwiseindicatedin an Office action.
`
`7.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do notuse the word “means,” but
`
`are nonetheless beinginterpreted under 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre -AIA35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph,
`
`because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language
`
`without recitings ufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not
`
`preceded bya structural modifier. Suchclaim limitation(s) is/are: acquisition unit, determination unit,
`
`and outputunitinclaims1 and/or 3-7.
`
`Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre -AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,it/theyis/are being interpreted to coverthe corresponding structure
`
`described inthe specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`“Acquisition unit” is interpreted as a general-purpose or dedicated electric circuit, as mentioned
`
`in [0045] ofthe PGPUB.
`
`“Determination unit”is interpreted as a general-purposeor dedicated electric circuit, as
`
`mentionedin [0051] ofthe PGPUB.
`
`“Output unit” is interpreted as a general-purpose or dedicated electric circuit, as mentionedin
`
`[0058] of the PGPUB.
`
`If applicantdoes notintend to have this/these li mitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
`
`pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1)amendthe claim limitation (s) to avoid itAhem
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`PageS
`
`being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting
`
`sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) presenta sufficient showing that the claim
`
`limitation(s) recite(s) s ufficients tructure to perform the claimed functions oas to avoid it/them being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`Claim Rejections -35 USC § 112
`
`8.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b}) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall concludewith oneor moreclaimsparticularly pointing out
`and distinctly claiming thesubject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
`invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall concludewith oneor moreclaims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which theapplicant regards as his invention.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1,5, 7,and8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second
`
`paragraph, as beingindefinite for failingto particularly point outand distinctly claim the subject matter
`
`whichthe inventor ora joint inventor(or fora pplications subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the
`
`applicant), regardsas the invention. Claims 2-4 and6 are further rejected due to their dependencyto
`
`claim1.
`
`
`
`10. Claim1recites “...todetermine that the dementia level is more severe as the longpressratiois
`
`lower” inlines 10-11 andclaim 8 recites “inthe determining, the dementia level is more severe as the
`
`long press ratiois lower” inlines 12-13. Itis unclear what the dementia levelis being compared to when
`
`lines 10-11 in claim 1 and line 12 of claim8 recite “...the dementia level is more severe...” Furthermore,
`
`itis unclear what the long pressratio is lowerthan. Itis unclear ifthereis areference ratioora
`
`threshold ratio. Clarification is requested.
`
`11.
`
`Claim5S recites “whenthe dementia level determined by the determination unit is mores evere
`
`thana reference level”
`
`|”
`
`inlines 2-3. Itis unclearwhat is considered “severe.” Itis unclear ifthe dementia
`
`levelis below or about the reference | evel. [0014] ofthe specification states thatthe dementia level may
`
`be setin twostages:a normal level correspondingto a range ofa healthy personand ana bnormal level
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page6
`
`corresponding to a range of mild cognitive impairment and dementia. The abnormal mayalso be further
`
`s ubdividedintos ub-levels. It is unclear what range is considered as a healthy person and what range is
`
`consideredas a person with mild cognitive impairmentand dementia. Clarification is requested.
`
`
`
`12. Claim7recites “...in a determination target period includinga training periodin which the
`
`training contentis displayed” in lines 3-5.
`
`13.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Claim Rejections -35 USC §101
`
`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 requirementsof this title.
`
`14.
`
`Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-
`
`statutory subject matter. The claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually andin
`
`combination, do not amount to significantly more thanan abstract idea. Astreamlined analysis of claim
`
`8 follows.
`
`Regardingclaim 8, the claim recites a series ofsteps or acts, including outputting dementia
`
`information indicating the dementia level determined bythe determining. Thus, the claim is directed to
`
`a process, whichis one ofthe statutory categories of invention.
`
`The claimis then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The step
`
`of determining a dementia level of the user basedon the long press ratio acquired bythe acquiring sets
`
`forth a judicial exception. This step describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an
`
`observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an
`
`Abstract Idea.
`
`Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements
`
`that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional
`
`element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page7
`
`manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 8 recites outputting
`
`dementia information indicating the dementia level determined by the determining, whichis merely
`
`addinginsignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The outputting of
`
`the dementia information does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does
`
`not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the outputted dementia
`
`information, nor does the method useaparticular machine to perform the Abstract Idea. Claim 8 merely
`
`recitesa processor performsthe recited steps. According to section 2106.05(f) ofthe MPEP, merely using
`
`a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical
`
`application.
`
`Next, the claimas a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of
`
`elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amountsto significantly more than the exception. Besides
`
`the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of acquiring a long press ratio and determining a
`
`dementia level ofthe user based on the long press ratio acquired by the acquiring. Acquiring a value (long
`
`press ratio) and analyzing the determined value to determine a severity (dementia level) is well-
`
`understood, routine and conventional activity for those inthe field of medical diagnostics. Further, the
`
`acquiring and determining steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to
`
`insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea.
`
`When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or
`
`unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering
`
`and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore,
`
`itis well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining
`
`and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see,
`
`e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page8
`
`Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful
`
`limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the
`
`eligible claim in Diehrin which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken
`
`together act inconcert toimprovea technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvementto
`
`the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the
`
`exceptionintoa patent-eligible a pplication of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does notamount
`
`to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject
`
`matter.
`
`The same rationale applies to claim 1.
`
`Regardingclaim 1, the system recitedin the claimis a generic device comprising generic
`
`components configured to perform the abstract idea. The acquisition unitis a generic sensor configured
`
`to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, the output unit is a generic device configured to
`
`perform well-understood, routing, and conventional outputting, and the determination unit is
`
`configured to performthe Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) ofthe MPEP, merely usinga
`
`computer as a tool to perform ana bstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea intoa practical
`
`application.
`
`The dependent claims also fail toadd something more tothe abstractindependentclaims as they
`
`generally recite method steps pertaining to data analyzing and the display of data. The analyzing steps
`
`recited inthe independent claims maintainahigh level of generality even when considered incombination
`
`with the dependent claims.
`
`Claim Rejections -35 USC § 103
`
`15.
`
`Inthe eventthe determination ofthe status of the application as subject to AIA35U.S.C.102
`
`and 103 (oras subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction ofthe statutory
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page9
`
`basis forthe rejection willnot be considered a new ground of rejectionifthe prior art relied upon, and
`
`the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
`
`16.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections
`
`set forthin this Office action:
`
`A patent fora claimed invention may not beobtained, notwithstanding that theclaimed 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 theclaimed invention as a whole would havebeen obvious beforethe
`effective filingdate of theclaimed invention to aperson havingordinary skill in theart to which the
`claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not benegated by the mannerin which theinvention
`was made.
`
`17.
`
`Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kandori etal.
`
`’957 (US Pub No. 2017/0251957)in view of Dagum ‘899 (US Pub No. 2015/0112899).
`
`Regarding claim1, Kandoriet al. ‘957 teaches a dementia determination system (Title, [0028)),
`
`comprising:
`
`an acquisition unit configured to acquire, anumber of presses of the button of the operating
`
`device used by a user to operate an electric device ([0049]);
`
`a determination unit configured to determine a dementia level of the user ([0049]); and
`
`an output unitconfigured to output dementia information indicating the dementia | evel
`
`determined bythe determination unit ([0049]).
`
`Kandoriet al.‘957 teachesallofthe elements ofthe currentinvention as mentioned above
`
`exceptfor acquiring a long pressratio whichis a ratio ofa numberof long pressesin whicha button of
`
`an operating device is pressed for a time longer thana reference time; and determininga dementia level
`
`of the user based on the long press ratio acquired bythe acquisition unit; wherein the determination
`
`unit is configured to determine that the dementia level is more severe as the long press ratio is lower.
`
`Dagum ‘899 teachesthe frequency of events canbe monitored for cognitive measurement as
`
`wellas the quality of each event, suchas latencies between gestures, tapping, body motions, eye
`
`movements or keystrokes, erroneous keystrokes or gestures, duration of key presses, misspellings and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page10
`
`kinetic activities of motion,gait, or balance that are captured by wearable electronics ensors and
`
`recordedor transmitted to anelectronic device ([0052]).
`
`Dagum ‘899 teachesthat cognitive function, whichis affected by dementia (Title, [0011]) canbe
`
`evaluated by determining the amountof keystrokes and duration of key presses. Kandori et al. ‘957
`
`teachesthat dementia could be determined fromthe a mountof presses of a button. It would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skillin the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
`
`calculateda long press ratio which is a ratioofa number of long presses in which a button ofan
`
`operating deviceis pressed fora time longerthana reference time, to a number of presses of the
`
`button ofthe operating device used bya userto operate an electric deviceasa ratioisasimpleand
`
`well-known mathematicalconcept for comparingtwonumbers.
`
`Regarding claim2, Kandori et al. ‘957 in view of Dagum ‘899 teachesall ofthe elements ofthe
`
`currentinvention as mentioned above except for whenthe long press ratiois greater than orequaltoa
`
`threshold, the determination unit is configured to determine that the dementia levelis a normal level
`
`corresponding to a range ofa healthy person, and
`
`whenthe long press ratiois lower than the threshold, the determination unit is configured to
`
`determine that the dementia level is anabnormal level corresponding to a range of mild cognitive
`
`impairment and dementia.
`
`Dagum ‘899 teachesthat irregularities in keystrokes and duration of key presses may be an
`
`indication of cognitive impairment ([0079]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinarys killin the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to have modified the long press ratioto indicate a normal dementia level when
`
`the long press ratiois greater than or equaltoa threshold and to have modified the long press ratio to
`
`indicate an abnormal level of dementia when the long pressratiois lower than the threshold as Dagum
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Pageil
`
`‘899 teaches that more irregularitiesin keystrokes and duration of key presses are indicative of cognitive
`
`impairment.
`
`Regarding claim3, Kandori et al. ‘957 teaches wherein the output unitis configured to cause the
`
`dementia informationto be displayed on a screen of the electric device by outputting the dementia
`
`information (Fig. 1 display unit 1400 and [0027]).
`
`Regarding claim8, Kandorietal.‘957, as modified by Dagum ‘899, teaches a computer-readable
`
`non-transitory recording medium onwhich a program for causing a computer to execute a dementia
`
`determination process is recorded, the dementia determination process comprising the recited
`
`elements.
`
`18.
`
`Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandori et al.’957 in
`
`view of Dagum ‘899 furtherin view of WalkerII ‘232 (US Pub No. 2015/0213232).
`
`Regarding claim4, Kandoriet al. ‘957 inview of Dagum ‘899 teachesall ofthe elements of the
`
`currentinvention as mentioned above except for wherein by outputting training content foran
`
`operationin which the operating device is used based onthe dementia level determined by the
`
`determination unit, the outputunit is configured to cause the training contentto be displayed ona
`
`screenofthe electric device.
`
`Walker II ‘232 teaches outputting a therapyto improve a person’s cognitive healthorto prevent
`
`future dementia-related diseases ([0012]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinarys killin the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kandori etal. ‘957 in view of Dagum ‘899 to
`
`include outputting training contentas Walkerll ‘232 teachesthat this willaidin improving a person’s
`
`cognitive health or prevent future dementia-related diseases.
`
`Regarding claim5, Kandoriet al. ‘957 inview of Dagum ‘899 furtherin view of Walker II ‘232
`
`teachesallofthe elements of the currentinventionas mentioned above except for wherein when the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page12
`
`dementia level determined by the determination unit is more severe thana reference level, the output
`
`unit is configured to cause the training content to be displayed on the screen by outputting the training
`
`content.
`
`Walker II ‘232 teaches outputting a therapyto improve a person’s cognitive healthorto prevent
`
`future dementia-related diseases ([(0012]). Previous recommendations and priority lists are compared to
`
`any newinformation either from the profile or from other s ources, and anew recommendationis
`
`prepared anda priority list forthe person ([0078)).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskillin the art before the effective filingdate of
`
`the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kandorietal. ‘957in view of Dagum ‘899 further
`
`in view of Walker II ‘232 to include outputting training content whenthe dementia level is determined
`
`to be more severe thana reference level as Walker II ‘232 teaches thatthis willaidin updating the
`
`recommendation for the person’s therapy.
`
`Regarding claim6, Kandori et al. ‘957 inview of Dagum ‘899 further in view of Walker II ‘232
`
`teachesallofthe elements of the currentinvention as mentioned above except for whereinthe output
`
`unit is configured to cause the training content to be displayed on the screen by outputting the training
`
`contentset forthe dementia level determined by the determination unit.
`
`Walker II ‘232 teaches outputting a therapyto improve a person’s cognitive healthorto prevent
`
`future dementia-related diseases ([(0012]). Previous recommendations and priority lists are compared to
`
`any newinformation either from the profile or from other s ources, and anew recommendationis
`
`prepared anda priority list forthe person ([0078)).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinarys killin the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kandorietal. ‘957 in view of Dagum ‘899 further
`
`in view of Walker II ‘232 to include outputting training content set for the dementia level determined as
`
`Walker II ‘232 teaches that this willaidinupdatingthe recommendation for the person’s therapy.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page13
`
`Regarding claim7, Kandoriet al. ‘957 inview of Dagum ‘899 further in view of Walker II ‘232
`
`teachesallofthe elements ofthe currentinvention as mentioned above except for wherein the
`
`acquisition unit is configured to newly acquire the longpress ratioin a determination target period
`
`including a training periodin which the training contentis displayed, andthe determination unitis
`
`configured to newly determine the dementia level based on the long press ratio newly acquired by the
`
`acquisition unit.
`
`Walker II ‘232 teaches outputting a therapyto improve a person’s cognitive healthorto prevent
`
`future dementia-related diseases ([(0012]). Previous recommendations and priority lists are compared to
`
`any new information either from the profile or from other sources, suchas a new long pressratio, anda
`
`new recommendationis preparedanda priority list for the person ({[0078]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinarys killin the art before the effective filingdate of
`
`the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kandorietal. ‘957 in view of Dagum ‘899 further
`
`in view of Walker II ‘232 to include acquiringa new longpress ratioin a determination target period
`
`including a training period in whichthe trainingcontentis displayed as Walker II ‘232 teaches that this
`
`willaidin updating the recommendationfor the person’s therapy.
`
`Conclusion
`
`19.
`
`The prior art made of recordand not relied uponis considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`disclosure. Pozos et al. ‘482 (US Pub No. 2001/0049482) teaches a force measuring device. Lindberg et
`
`al. ‘625 (US PubNo. 2019/0380625) teachesa method ofa user pressing keys to determine dexterity.
`
`20.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to AURELIEH TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can
`
`normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/757 ,030
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page14
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a
`
`USPTOs upplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule aninterview,applicant is encouraged to use
`
`the USPTO AutomatedInterview Request (AIR) at http://www. uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571) 272-4233. 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 un published applications may be obtained from
`
`Patent Center. Unpublished a pplication information in Patent Centeris available to registered users. To
`
`file and manage patent submissionsin Patent Center,visit: https ://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Centerand
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information aboutfilingin 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.
`
`/AURELIEH TU/
`Examiner, Art Unit 3791
`/ALEX MVALVIS/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
`
`