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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/13/2025 has been entered.
Claims Pending
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 11, in the response filed 10/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 and 12-24 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 13, “()” (Line 2), should read - - (Examiner's Note: Either removal of the parenthesis or insertion of a term into the parenthesis),
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are blurry (Examiner's Note: For example, the flow chart in Fig. 2 contains writing that is barely legible). 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the 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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 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 claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 6: The claim limitation “a suitable filter so as to identify in the normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n) a sampling instant (tSR) which corresponds to the beginning of K first samples of the resampled and normalized reference audio signal (SR,n)” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “suitable filter” coupled with functional language “so as to identify in the normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n) a sampling instant (tSR) which corresponds to the beginning of K first samples of the resampled and normalized reference audio signal (SR,n)” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier that has a known structural meaning before the phrase “suitable filter”.
Claim 22: The claim limitation “a central processing unit configured to perform at least steps of the method according to claim 1” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to perform at least steps of the method according to claim 1” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier that has a known structural meaning before the phrase “unit”.
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/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
a filter that amplifies the normalized reference audio signal, or equivalents thereof, as described on Page 15, lines 1-15 of the disclosure filed on 01/14/2022,
a processor, or equivalents thereof, as described on Page 8 of the disclosure filed on 01/14/2022.
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/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-24 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.
Claim 1 recites “thereby improving training of users with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD).”, which is considered to be new matter, as the applicant made no previous indication as to any manner in which the determination of tap times was related to the improvement of training of individuals with ADHD. The applicant does indicate “The method according to the invention finds its application in particular in the study of the auditory-motor synchronization. The method according to the invention could be implemented in the context of experimental studies seeking to analyze the auditory- motor coordination in the user, or simply could be implemented in educational games aimed at improving the auditory-motor coordination in children for example” (Page 1, lines 14-18 of applicant’s spec.). However, this does not make any indication as to any type of training improvement for individuals with ADHD. The applicant further makes reference to US Pub. No. 20140249447, which states “Being able to track small changes in cognitive function will allow us to determine the most effective guidelines, interventions, and treatments. Cognitive deficits occur in many human brain disorders including psychiatric (e.g., schizophrenia), developmental {e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), and neurological {e.g., Huntington's disease). Detecting subtle differences in cognitive deficits is important for diagnosis or distinguishing subtypes that require different treatments or to identify the intervention, treatment or drug with optimal cognitive outcome. Thus early detection of mild cognitive dysfunction may also help with diagnosis, evaluation and discovery of treatments.” (Par. 7)(US Pub. No. 20140249447) (Examiner's Note: While this reference is referred to within the applicant’s specification, this reference is not incorporated by reference). While this reference does indicate the presence of ADHD, this reference is the sole indication of ADHD and there is no indication as to the manner in which tap times improve the training of users with ADHD. As such, the claim limitation contains new matter and is rejected.
Claims 2-10 and 12-24 are dependent on claim 1, and as such also rejected.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-24 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “thereby improving training of users with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD)”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim, as it is unclear as to which user’s training is being improved as well as the manner in which the method improves the training of the user. For example, the limitation itself recites an improvement to training when there is no indication as to any step within the rest of the claim that involves training a user with ADHD, or any type of training. How does the tap time measurement relate to the improvement to training for a user with ADHD? As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, because the method of claim 1 calls for “A method for providing a highly reliable and improved recording of the tap times of a user…” (Claim 1), which leads to “improving training of users with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD)” (Claim 1), the limitation will be interpreted as the improvement of training of users with ADHD being the resultant of providing the highly reliable and improved recording of tap times.
Claimed measurements of reaction time would improve any method with the purpose of training a user with ADHD.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “subsequently to the step of detecting the reference audio signal (SR) in the recorded audio signal (SE) and the step of filtering the recorded signal, detecting vibro-acoustic events (eva) in which instants (ti) associated with the vibro-acoustic events (eva) are identified in the signal obtained at the end of the step of filtering the recorded signal”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to when “detecting vibro-acoustic events (eva) in which instants (ti) associated with the vibro-acoustic events (eva) are identified in the signal obtained at the end of the step of filtering the recorded signal” occurs. The claim itself refers to the filtering step as “filtering the recorded signal obtained subsequently and normalizing the recorded signal…” (Claim 1), however, this is not just a filtering step as there is also normalizing that is also present. Does the “step of filtering” include entirety of the limitation that includes both the filtering and the normalizing? Where does the detecting of the events step occur? Does the detecting of events step occur between the filtering and normalizing? As such, it is unclear as to when the detecting step occurs. The applicant’s specification indicates within Figure 3 of the provided drawings that both filtering and normalization occur in step 300, which is prior to detecting vibro-acoustic events in step 500 (as indicated in Figure 3 of the applicant’s drawings). As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, detecting vibro-acoustic events will be interpreted as occurring at the end of both the filtering and normalizing.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “locally normalizing a filtered normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n,f) obtained so as to obtain a filtered normalized recorded audio signal”, which is indefinite as it is unclear as to how “normalizing a filtered normalized recorded audio signal” results in obtaining a “filtered normalized recorded audio signal”, as each signal has the same name. As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, the second of the “filtered normalized recorded audio signal” will be interpreted as a locally normalized filtered normalized recorded audio signal.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “corresponding to local maxima (mli) and/or onset candidates (mli)”, which is indefinite as “(mli)” is used to refer to both “candidates” and “local maxima”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, the candidates will be interpreted as “maxima”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation, “grouping of candidate sampling instants” (lines 5-6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as -grouping of local maxima sampling instants-.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the computer” in line 2 (Examiners note: the first instance of “the computer” in line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as a computer.
Claims 2-10 and 12-24 are dependent on claim 1, and as such are also rejected.
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 1-10 and 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more. These claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test.
Prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of a mental process as follows: “recording the reference audio signal (SR) and one or more vibro-acoustic events (eva)”, “detecting the reference audio signal (SR) in the recorded audio signal (SE)”, “placing the reference audio signal (SR) and the recorded audio signal (SE) on a single common time scale”, “filtering the recorded signal obtained subsequently and normalizing the recorded signal in such a way as to keep only the frequencies corresponding to the vibro-acoustic events (eva)…”, and “detecting vibro-acoustic events (eva) in which instants (ti) associated with the vibro-acoustic events (eva) are identified in the signal obtained at the end of the step of filtering the recorded signal”.
Prong 1: Claim 1 further recites the abstract idea of managing human activity as follows: “improving training of users with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD)”.
The recording the reference audio signal (SR) and one or more vibro-acoustic events (eva), detecting the reference audio signal (SR) in the recorded audio signal (SE), placing the reference audio signal (SR) and the recorded audio signal (SE) on a single common time scale, filtering the recorded signal obtained subsequently and normalizing the recorded signal in such a way as to keep only the frequencies corresponding to the vibro-acoustic events (eva), and detecting vibro-acoustic events (eva) in which instants (ti) associated with the vibro-acoustic events (eva) are identified in the signal obtained at the end of the step of filtering the recorded signal can be practically performed by the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper, but for performance on a generic processor, in a computer environment, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the steps.
The improving training of users with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD) involves managing the personal behavior of an individual to perform a series of steps. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably train a user with a series of instructions provided to the user.
A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably record an audio signal using a pen and paper. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably detect a reference signal in a recorded signal with their eyes based on being handed a piece of paper with both signals. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably place two signals on a common time scale with a generic computer or a pen and paper based on having a piece of paper with both signals. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably filter and normalize a signal with a generic computer or with a pen and paper based on having a piece of paper with that signal on it. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably detect instants associated vibro-acoustic events with a generic computer based on having a piece of paper with those vibro-acoustic events. There is currently nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the recording or detecting steps. Therefore, a person would be able to practically be able to perform the filtering, placing, and normalizing steps mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
Prong Two: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the mental process or managing of personal behavior into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the mental process and managing of personal behavior. The additional elements merely:
Recite the words “apply it” or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g., a processor, a touchscreen device with a microphone, and a speaker) and
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: using generic data-gathering components (e.g. “one or more taps by the user on a touchscreen of a touchscreen device”, “vibro-acoustic events (eva) generated by the actions of the user on the touchscreen”, “a microphone of the touchscreen device”, “playing back the auditory stimulus”).
For claim 1, the additional elements merely serve to gather data to be used by the abstract idea. The touchscreen device, microphone, and speaker are merely used as a pre-solution step of necessary data gathering to be used by the abstract idea. The taps by the user on the screen, microphone of the touchscreen device, and playing back the auditory stimulus are merely used as additional types data gathering. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing that is performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e. the gathered data is not used for a treatment or meaningful purpose. Additionally, there is no overall improvement to existing technology present. The mental process merely functions on generic computer elements that do not change the functionality of the device itself. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test for Claim 1.
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example,
A touchscreen device with a microphone as disclosed by Sereno (Us Pub. No. 20140249447), hereinafter Sereno, “For the main problem in using the iPad touchscreen for cognitive testing (lack of touch detection precision because iPad's native mechanism for sensing touch is capacitance based), a mechanism had to be designed to provide significantly enhanced temporal resolution (variability reduction from about 44 or 35 msec to sub millisecond). To improve precision of the touch, in one embodiment we used the built in microphone on the iPad to add information from a recorded audio trace of the touch with a sampling rate 44 kHz (sampled every 0.02 ms).” (Par. 53) (Examiners Note: an iPad is commercially available), the applicant’s own disclosure “Also known are the methods in which processing is applied to an audio signal recorded by the microphone of a touchscreen device or by sensors placed in proximity to the touchscreen of the device. In most cases, the goal is to suppress unwanted vibrations generated by the taps of a user on the touchscreen device or other events” (Page 2, lines 22-27 of applicant’s spec.), and Dimino (US Pub. No. 20180130484) hereinafter Dimino “the computing device 300 may include input devices, such as a keyboard, keypad, mouse, microphone, touch input device, touch screen, tablet, and/or the like. Such input devices may be coupled to the computing device 300 by wired or wireless connections including RF, infrared, serial, parallel, Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy, USB, or other suitable connections protocols using wireless or physical connections. Similarly, the computing device 300 may also include output devices such as a display, speakers, printer, etc. Since these devices are well known in the art, they are not illustrated or described further herein.” (Par. 112),
A speaker and playing an auditory stimulus as indicated in the applicant’s own disclosure (Page 10, lines 16-27 of applicant’s spec.),
Vibro-acoustic events generated by the actions of a user on a touchscreen as disclosed by Harrison (US Pub. No. 20160077664) hereinafter Harrison “a touch screen sensor 12, a vibro-acoustic event sensor 14 and a window timer 16. The touch screen sensor 12 comprises a touch-sensitive surface on a device (i.e., smart phone) which may be based on well-known capacitive, optical, resistive, electric field, acoustic or other technologies that form the underlying basis for touch interaction. An actual example of such a surface may be by way of illustration one of a Synaptics “Clear Pad Family” of capacitive touch screens.” (Par. 21) and in the applicant’s own disclosure “Also known are the methods in which processing is applied to an audio signal recorded by the microphone of a touchscreen device or by sensors placed in proximity to the touchscreen of the device. In most cases, the goal is to suppress unwanted vibrations generated by the taps of a user on the touchscreen device or other events” (Page 2, lines 22-27 of applicant’s spec.),
are all well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claims 2-10 and 12-24 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) as all of the elements are directed to the further describing of the abstract idea, pre-solution activities, and computer implementation.
The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely further describe the abstract idea:
detecting the reference audio signal further comprises normalizing the recorded audio signal (SE) so as to obtain a normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n) (Claim 2),
detecting the reference audio signal further comprises resampling the reference audio signal (SR) at the same rate as the recorded audio signal (SE) and normalizing the reference audio signal (SR) so as to obtain a resampled and normalized reference audio signal (SR,n) (Claim 3),
normalization operation is performed with a normalization function defined by (Examiners note: the equation of claim 4)(Claim 4),
identifying the beginning of the resampled and normalized reference audio signal (SR,n) in the normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n) (Claim 5),
constructing a suitable filter so as to identify in the normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n) a sampling instant (tSR) which corresponds to the beginning of K first samples of the resampled and normalized reference audio signal (SR,n) (Claim 6),
determining a time window of size (TSR,n) in which to search for the normalized resampled reference audio signal (SR,n) in the normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n) (Claim 6),
determining a time window of size (TSR,n) in which to search for the normalized resampled reference audio signal (SR,n) in the normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n) (Claim 6),
determining the sampling instant (tSR) (Claim 6),
sampling instant (tSR) (Examiners Note: the equation of claim 7) (Claim 7),
a first filtering step and a second filtering step (Claim 8),
filtering with a 1st order Butterworth bandpass filter having a low frequency of 50 Hz and a high frequency of 200 Hz (Claim 9),
the second filtering step is filtering with a 1st order Butterworth low-pass filter having a high frequency of 400 Hz (Claim 9),
obtaining a filtered normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n,f) (Claim 9),
locally normalizing a filtered normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n,f) obtained so as to obtain a filtered normalized recorded audio signal (Examiners note: the equation of Claim 10) (Claim 10),
determining the energy of a filtered normalized recorded audio signal (Examiners note: the equation of Claim 12) (Claim 12),
smoothing the signal obtained at the end of the first sub step with a smoothing function defined by the convolution product of the signal with a Hamming-type weighting window (Claim 13),
extracting from the smoothed signal a set of P sampling instants (Claim 14),
grouping local maxima (mli) associated with the P sampling instants (ti) according to a first selection criterion, the first selection criterion corresponding to the grouping of candidate sampling instants spaced by a predetermined number m of samples, so as to form groups (gi) of local maxima (mli) (Claim 15),
conserving in each group (gi) the instants associated with the local maxima (mli) (Claim 15),
sorting, by decreasing height, the local maxima (mli) (Claim 16),
conserving a ρNtap largest local maxima (mli) (Claim 16),
pairing the set of the instants (ti), with i<ρNtap, of the local maxima (mli) with a set of model instants (tj), with j<Ntap (Claim 17),
evaluating the quality of the pairing with an objective function (Claim 17),
maximizing the objective function (ƒ(δ)) with a parameter (δopt) (Claim 17),
selecting the local maxima (mli) associated with the sampling instants (ti) which are exactly paired to the model instants (tj) (Claim 17),
objective function is defined by: (Examiners Note: the equations of Claim 18) (Claim 18),
wherein the parameter (δopt) is defined by (Examiners note: Equation of claim 19) (Claim 19),
adjusting the local maxima (mli) selected so as to conform to the recorded audio signal (SE) (Claim 20),
applying a phase shift compensation function to the maxima (Examiners note: Equation of claim 21) (Claim 21).
Further describe the pre-solution activity (or structure used for such activity):
Touchscreen (Claim 17),
A device with a touchscreen, microphone, and Processor (Claim 22).
Further describe computer implementation:
A computer program with instructions executed by a computer (Claim 23),
A non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions executed by a processor (Claim 24).
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example,
A device with a touchscreen, microphone, and processor as disclosed by Dimino above and Kim (Us Pub. No. 20120079402) hereinafter Kim, “The processor 610 is connected to at least one I/O interface, such as a video monitor, trackball, mouse, keyboard, microphone, touch screen type display, card recorder, magnetic or paper tape recorder, sound or writing recognizer, joystick, and other computer I/O devices known in the art. Furthermore, the processor 610 may be connected to a wired or wireless communication network through a network interface 670. The procedures of the method described above may be carried out through such network connection. The apparatus and instruments described above are well known to a person in the field of computer hardware and software technology.” (Par. 119),
A computer program with instructions executed by a computer and non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions executed by a processor as disclosed Margolis (US Pub. No. 20120130271) “Computers are well known in the art and for clarity, little detail is provided herein about the computer….” “…the computer 202 includes one or more user input and output devices 210 (display, keyboard, mouse, etc.) that allow a user to interact with the hearing testing program.” (Par. 39) and Dimino as indicated above,
are all well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The additional elements do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. The collective functions of the additional elements merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, data gathering, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a mobile device, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The claims are generally drawn towards a method of detecting the reaction time of a user in response to an auditory stimulus, where the user taps a screen upon hearing the stimulus. The method further involves detecting and processing the auditory signals produced by the stimulus and the user in response to the stimulus.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sereno, and further in view of Schuijers (US Pub. No. 20200210042) hereinafter Erik.
Regarding claim 1, Sereno discloses A method for providing a highly reliable and improved recording of the tap times of a user in response to an auditory stimulus (Par. 105 (reaction time to a sound trigger)) (Par. 109), the method comprising:
playing back the auditory stimulus, the auditory stimulus corresponding to a reference audio signal (SR) (Par. 105, “playing a brief sound buffer on an internal speaker of the device (a sound trigger)”) (Fig. 6, step 204-206) (Par. 105);
recording the reference audio signal (SR) (Fig. 6, step 208) (Par. 105), and one or more vibro-acoustic events (eva) (Fig. 6, step 210-214), the vibro-acoustic events (eva) being subsequent to one or more taps by the user on a touchscreen of a touchscreen device in reaction to the reference audio signal (SR) (Fig. 6, Step 208,212,214), resulting in a recorded audio signal (SE) (Fig. 6, step 214, 216), wherein the recorded audio signal (SE) is recorded with a microphone of the touchscreen device (Fig. 6, step 214, 216) (Par. 105, (microphone port)):
detecting the reference audio signal (SR) (Fig. 6, step 210 (Tv)) in the recorded audio signal (SE) (Fig. 7, Par. 107 (sound trigger at Tv in the log file)), the method further comprising the following computer implemented steps (Par. 105 (modules implemented in software));
during the step of detecting the reference audio signal (SR) in the recorded audio signal (SE) (Fig. 6, step 210 (Tv)) (Fig. 7, Par. 107 (sound trigger at Tv in the log file)), placing the reference audio signal (SR) and the recorded audio signal (SE) on a single common time scale (Fig. 6, step 210 (Tv)) (Fig. 7, Par. 107 (common time scale of the log file));
detecting vibro-acoustic events (eva) in which instants (ti) associated with the vibro-acoustic events (eva) are identified in the signal obtained (Fig. 6, step 214) (Fig. 7, Par. 107 (at time Tt)) (Fig. 7, (Nmax)).
Sereno fails to explicitly disclose subsequently to the step of detecting the reference audio signal (SR) in the recorded audio signal (SE), filtering the recorded signal obtained subsequently and normalizing the recorded signal in such a way as to keep only the frequencies corresponding to the vibro-acoustic events (eva) generated by the actions of the user on the touchscreen.
However, Sereno does teach the step of detecting the reference audio signal (SR) in the recorded audio signal (SE) (As indicated above).
Erik teaches subsequently to the step of detecting the reference audio signal (SR) in the recorded audio signal (SE) (Par. 107, “Signal 64 is an exemplary (digital) sensor signal received from a microphone 48 that includes the measured sound of the stimuli and touches of the touch screen 4”) (Par. 108, “The pulse train signal 66 therefore has an amplitude of 0 where it is not close to the timing of a touch of the screen 46, and an amplitude of 1 where it is close to the timing of a touch of the screen 46. Optionally, instead of a binary amplitude, a more gradual transition may be employed.”), filtering the recorded signal obtained subsequently and normalizing the recorded signal in such a way as to keep only the frequencies corresponding to the vibro-acoustic events (eva) generated by the actions of the user on the touchscreen (Par. 107, “Signal 64 is an exemplary (digital) sensor signal received from a microphone 48 that includes the measured sound of the stimuli and touches of the touch screen 4”) (Par. 108, “The pulse train signal 66 therefore has an amplitude of 0 where it is not close to the timing of a touch of the screen 46, and an amplitude of 1 where it is close to the timing of a touch of the screen 46. Optionally, instead of a binary amplitude, a more gradual transition may be employed.”) (Par. 109, “Next, the stimuli (i.e. beeps) are removed from the sensor (microphone) signal 64…” “…This results in the filtered signal 68 in FIG. 6. Alternatively an adaptive filter may be used to automatically subtract the stimuli from the sensor signal 64.”) (Par. 110, “From filtered signal 68, a characteristic signal for the filtered sensor signal 68 is generated. The characteristic signal represents or corresponds to one or more characteristics of the filtered signal 68, such as the amplitude.”) (Par. 111-112, “it can be seen that both the stimulus and the noise outside the windows have been removed, leaving (mainly) just the sound of the screen touches.”).
Sereno and Erik are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they involve the measurement of user reaction times with a touch screen device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sereno with that of Erik to include subsequently to the step of detecting the reference audio signal (SR) in the recorded audio signal (SE), filtering the recorded signal obtained subsequently and normalizing the recorded signal in such a way as to keep only the frequencies corresponding to the vibro-acoustic events (eva) generated by the actions of the user on the touchscreen through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of filtering out unwanted audio signals and improving the accuracy.
Modified Sereno fails to explicitly disclose subsequently to the step of detecting the reference audio signal (SR) in the recorded audio signal (SE) and the step of filtering the recorded signal, detecting vibro-acoustic events (eva) in which instants (ti) associated with the vibro-acoustic events (eva) are identified in the signal obtained at the end of the step of filtering the recorded signal.
However, Sereno does teach detecting vibro-acoustic events (eva) in which instants (ti) associated with the vibro-acoustic events (eva) are identified in the signal obtained (Fig. 6, step 214) (Fig. 7, Par. 107 (at time Tt)) (Fig. 7, (Nmax)).
Erik further teaches subsequently to the step of detecting the reference audio signal (SR) in the recorded audio signal (SE) and the step of filtering the recorded signal (Par. 107, “Signal 64 is an exemplary (digital) sensor signal received from a microphone 48 that includes the measured sound of the stimuli and touches of the touch screen 4”) (Par. 108, “The pulse train signal 66 therefore has an amplitude of 0 where it is not close to the timing of a touch of the screen 46, and an amplitude of 1 where it is close to the timing of a touch of the screen 46. Optionally, instead of a binary amplitude, a more gradual transition may be employed.”) (Par. 109, “Next, the stimuli (i.e. beeps) are removed from the sensor (microphone) signal 64…” “…This results in the filtered signal 68 in FIG. 6. Alternatively an adaptive filter may be used to automatically subtract the stimuli from the sensor signal 64.”), detecting vibro-acoustic events (eva) in which instants (ti) associated with the vibro-acoustic events (eva) are identified in the signal obtained at the end of the step of filtering the recorded signal (Par. 110, “From filtered signal 68, a characteristic signal for the filtered sensor signal 68 is generated. The characteristic signal represents or corresponds to one or more characteristics of the filtered signal 68, such as the amplitude.”) (Par. 111-112, “it can be seen that both the stimulus and the noise outside the windows have been removed, leaving (mainly) just the sound of the screen touches.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sereno and Erik with that of Erik to include subsequently to the step of detecting the reference audio signal (SR) in the recorded audio signal (SE) and the step of filtering the recorded signal, detecting vibro-acoustic events (eva) in which instants (ti) associated with the vibro-acoustic events (eva) are identified in the signal obtained at the end of the step of filtering the recorded signal through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of filtering out unwanted audio signals prior to making any determinations, improving data quality, and improving the accuracy.
Modified Sereno fails to explicitly disclose thereby improving training of users with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD). (Examiner's Note: Interpreted under 112(b) as indicated above)
However, Sereno does teach assessment of cognitive changes in users based on reaction time (Par. 109, “Summarizing, we developed a method and system using a tablet based portable system with special signaling techniques precise enough for testing to detect mild cognitive changes (deficits/improvements)….”) (Par. 105 (reaction time to a sound trigger)) and cognitive deficits that include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Par. 7, “…Cognitive deficits occur in many human brain disorders including psychiatric (e.g., schizophrenia), developmental {e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), and neurological {e.g., Huntington's disease).”).
Erik further teaches improving cognitive training of users (Par. 2 (cognitive performance))(Par. 3 (reaction time test)) (Par. 5, “FTT is a test of psychomotor performance…”) (Par. 7 (frequent performance)) (Par. 9 (timing)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sereno and Erik with that of Erik as referenced by Sereno to include thereby improving training of users with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD) of Sereno through the combination of references as differing cognitive disorders are known in the art (Sereno (Par. 7)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of improving measurement accuracy and assessing individuals with ADHD. The combination as above clearly suggests a method for providing highly reliable and improved recording of tap times, which thereby improves training of users with ADHD. (Examiner's Note: Limitation interpreted as under 112(b) as indicated above)
Regarding claim 2, modified Sereno fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Erik further teaches normalizing the recorded audio signal (SE) so as to obtain a normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n) (Erik (Par. 108, “The pulse train signal 66 therefore has an amplitude of 0 where it is not close to the timing of a touch of the screen 46, and an amplitude of 1 where it is close to the timing of a touch of the screen 46. Optionally, instead of a binary amplitude, a more gradual transition may be employed.”) (Par. 111, “Correlating the pulse signal 66 with the characteristic signal provides a delay at which the timing of the touches of the touch screen 46 roughly correspond to the microphone representations of the touch screen touches, and this delay is applied to the pulse signal 66 to form the delayed pulse signal 70.”) (Par. 112, “This delayed pulse train 70 is used to create a windowed microphone signal 64 (i.e. by multiplying the delayed pulse train 70 with the microphone signal 64). The time windowed microphone signal is shown as signal 72 in FIG. 6, and it can be seen that both the stimulus and the noise outside the windows have been removed, leaving (mainly) just the sound of the screen touches.”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sereno and Erik with that of Erik to include normalizing the recorded audio signal (SE) so as to obtain a normalized recorded audio signal through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of improving the overall accuracy.
Regarding claim 22, modified Sereno further discloses A touchscreen device suitable for carrying out the method according to claim 1 (method taught by Sereno and Erik in claim 1 above) (Sereno (Abstract (touch screen apparatus))), the device comprising:
a touchscreen (Sereno (Par. 53, touch screen – 2));
a microphone (Sereno (Par. 53, internal microphone – 7)); and
a central processing unit configured to perform at least steps of the method according to claim 1 (method taught by Sereno and Erik in claim 1 above) (Sereno (Par. 25,29 (processor))).
Regarding claim 23, modified Sereno further discloses a computer program comprising instructions which when executed by the computer cause a computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (Sereno (Par. 25)) (Sereno (Par. 105 (program of instructions))) (method taught by Sereno and Erik in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 24, modifies Sereno further discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon (Sereno (Par. 29) (Par. 105 (program of instructions))), which when executed by one or more processor circuits causes the one or more processor circuits to carry out the method of claim 1 (Sereno (Par. 25,29) (Par. 105 (program of instructions))) (method taught by Sereno and Erik in claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sereno in view of Erik as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ragot (Us Pub. No. 20160343384) hereinafter Ragot.
Sereno and Erik teach the method of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sereno fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Ragot teaches wherein detecting the reference audio signal further comprises resampling the reference audio signal (SR) at the same rate as the recorded audio signal (SE) (Par. 135, “resampling is applied to this signal; this operation is repeated for the two segments of predetermined length, the resampled segments are then combined and the result is then used to normalize (divide) the resampled audio signal s.sub.ech(n)”) (Par. 164) and normalizing the reference audio signal (SR) so as to obtain a resampled and normalized reference audio signal (SR,n) (Par. 135, “resampling is applied to this signal; this operation is repeated for the two segments of predetermined length, the resampled segments are then combined and the result is then used to normalize (divide) the resampled audio signal s.sub.ech(n)”) (Par. 164).
Sereno, Erik, and Ragot are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they involve processing of audio signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sereno and Erik with that of Ragot to include wherein detecting the reference audio signal further comprises resampling the reference audio signal (SR) at the same rate as the recorded audio signal (SE) and normalizing the reference audio signal (SR) so as to obtain a resampled and normalized reference audio signal (SR,n) through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of compensating for signals at different frequencies (Ragot (Abstract)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sereno fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Ragot further teaches identifying the beginning of the resampled and normalized reference audio signal (SR,n) in the normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n) (Ragot (Par. 130 (finding the start of the resampled segment))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sereno, Erik, and Ragot with that of Ragot include wherein detecting the reference audio signal further comprises, identifying the beginning of the resampled and normalized reference audio signal (SR,n) in the normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n) through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of compensating for signals at different frequencies (Ragot (Abstract)).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sereno in view of Erik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Atti (US Pub. No. US 20170148447) hereinafter Atti.
Sereno and Erik teach the method of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Sereno fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Atti teaches wherein the filtering further comprises a first filtering step (Par. 261, de-emphasizer – 1804 (first order infinite impulse response filter)) and a second filtering step (Par. 263, de-emphasizer – 1808 (first order infinite impulse response filter)).
Sereno, Erik, and Atti are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they involve processing of audio signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sereno and Erik with that of Atti to include wherein the filtering further comprises a first filtering step and a second filtering step through the substitution of filtering methods as it would have yielded the predictable result of reducing the computational power required for further processing of the signal (Atti (Par. 124)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sereno in view of Erik and Atti as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Reams (US Pub. No. 20040013272) hereinafter Reams and Lopez-Poveda (US Pub. No. 20200197703) hereinafter Lopez-Poveda.
Sereno, Erik, and Atti teach the method of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Sereno fails to explicitly disclose the first filtering step is filtering with a 1st order Butterworth bandpass filter having a low frequency of 50 Hz and a high frequency of 200 Hz.
However, Reams teaches the first filtering step is filtering with a 1st order Butterworth bandpass filter having a low frequency of 50 Hz and a high frequency of 200 Hz (Par. 42 (frequency band of 50-200 Hz)) (Par. 43 (filtering performed by a first order Butterworth filter)).
Sereno, Erik, Atti, and Reams are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they involve processing of audio signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sereno, Erik, and Atti with that of Reams to include the first filtering step is filtering with a 1st order Butterworth bandpass filter having a low frequency of 50 Hz and a high frequency of 200 Hz through the substitution of the infinite impulse response filter of Atti for that of Reams as it would have yielded the predictable result of outputting the desired frequency bands.
Modified Sereno fails to explicitly disclose the second filtering step is filtering with a 1st order Butterworth low-pass filter having a high frequency of 400 Hz.
However, Lopez-Poveda teaches the second filtering step is filtering with a Butterworth low-pass filter having a high frequency of 400 Hz (Par. 30).
Sereno, Erik, Atti, Reams, and Lopez Poveda are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they involve processing of audio signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sereno, Erik, Atti, and Reams with that of Lopez-Poveda to include the second filtering step is filtering with a 1st order Butterworth low-pass filter having a high frequency of 400 Hz through combination of references as differing frequencies are a known variation in the art (Reams (Par. 42)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of allowing the user to customize the desired frequency ranges (Reams (Par. 42)).
Modified Sereno fails to explicitly disclose obtaining a filtered normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n,f).
However, Erik further teaches obtaining a filtered normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n,f) (Erik (Par. 107, “Signal 64 is an exemplary (digital) sensor signal received from a microphone 48 that includes the measured sound of the stimuli and touches of the touch screen 4”) (Par. 108, “The pulse train signal 66 therefore has an amplitude of 0 where it is not close to the timing of a touch of the screen 46, and an amplitude of 1 where it is close to the timing of a touch of the screen 46. Optionally, instead of a binary amplitude, a more gradual transition may be employed.”) (Par. 109, “Next, the stimuli (i.e. beeps) are removed from the sensor (microphone) signal 64…” “…This results in the filtered signal 68 in FIG. 6. Alternatively an adaptive filter may be used to automatically subtract the stimuli from the sensor signal 64.”)(Par. 110, “From filtered signal 68, a characteristic signal for the filtered sensor signal 68 is generated. The characteristic signal represents or corresponds to one or more characteristics of the filtered signal 68, such as the amplitude.”) (Par. 111-112, “it can be seen that both the stimulus and the noise outside the windows have been removed, leaving (mainly) just the sound of the screen touches.”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sereno, Erik, Atti, Reams, and Lopez-Poveda with that of Erik to include obtaining a filtered normalized recorded audio signal (SE,n,f) for the reasoning as indicated in claim 1 above.
Prior Art
Regarding claim 4, Sereno, Erik, and Ragot teach the method of claim 3, from which claim 4 is dependent on.
However, Sereno, Erik, and Ragot fail to explicitly disclose that wherein the normalization operation is performed with a normalization function defined by: 𝑓𝑛(𝑋):=(𝑋-mean(𝑋))/(median(abs(𝑋)) Where X is the recorded audio signal (SE) or the resampled reference audio signal (SR), mean (X) is a mean value of the signal under consideration, abs (X) is a signal whose samples are absolute values of the samples of the signal X and median (abs(X)) is a median value of the signal abs (X).
The closest prior art includes Bilobrov (US Pub. No. 20120209612) hereinafter Bilobrov, Erik, Cao et al. (2016, “A robust data scaling algorithm to improve classification accuracies in biomedical data”) hereinafter Cao.
Bilobrov does teach normalization of audio signals (Par. 60-61), but fails to explicitly disclose the use of the above indicated equation with the explicit use of the above variables. Erik teaches does teach normalization of the signal as indicated in claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose that the normalization equation is that as claimed by the applicant above with the explicit use of the above variables. Cao teaches the use of the Min-Max algorithm and Z-score algorithm (Page 2, Col. 2) for data normalization. However, none of the indicated equations make explicit use of “median(abs(x))” as an input to the normalization calculation that is made. As such, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Sereno, Erik, and Ragot teach the method of claim 5, from which claim 5 is dependent on.
Sereno, Erik, and Ragot fail to explicitly teach determining the sampling instant (tSR), wherein the sampling instant is determined by the equation of claim 7.
The closest prior art includes Bilobrov and Atti.
Bilobrov does teach performing a Fast Fourier transformation (FFT) on individual audio frames that isolates the signal for each of the frequency bands (Fig. 6A, Par. 65), and obtaining feature vectors from band samples (Par. 70,72). Atti does teach the use of two audio signals in an equation to find the difference in the shift between the two signals (Par. 136-138 (Equation 6)). Both of the above references fail to explicitly teach wherein a sampling instant is determined by the use of the equation of claim 7 with the explicit use of the corresponding indicated inputs. As such, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Sereno, Erik, and Atti the method of claim 8, from which claim 10 is dependent on.
Sereno, Erik, and Atti fail to explicitly disclose locally normalizing a filtered signal using the equation of claim 10.
The closest prior art includes Bilobrov, Erik, and Vouin (US Pub. No. 20170097992) hereinafter Vouin.
Bilobrov does teach normalization of audio signals (Par. 60-61), but fails to explicitly disclose the use of the above indicated equation with the explicit use of the above variables. Erik teaches does teach normalization of the signal as indicated in claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose that the normalization equation is that as claimed by the applicant above with the explicit use of the above variables. Vouin teaches a local normalization algorithm (Par. 65), but fails to explicitly teach that the local normalization algorithm has the same inputs as claimed by the applicant in claim 10. As such, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 12, Sereno and Erik teach method of claim 1, from which claim 12 is dependent on.
Sereno and Erik fail to explicitly disclose the use of the equation of Claim 12 to calculate the energy.
The closest prior art of record includes Erik and Liu (US Pub. No. 20150045920) hereinafter Liu.
Erik does teach the calculation of the spectral energy of individual frequency bands (par. 41-42), but fails to explicitly teach the use of the equation of claim 12. Liu teaches calculating the energy of individual audio signal frames in a window (Abstract), but fails to explicitly teach the use of the equation of claim 12 in accomplishing those calculations. As such, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
Claims 13-21 are dependent on claim 12, and as such the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claims.
Response to Amendment
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 09/30/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-24 based upon insufficiency of disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in the last Office action because: facts presented are not germane to the rejection at issue. For example, as indicated in the 112(a) rejection above, the applicant made no previous indication as to any type of training of users with ADHD. As such, the content is considered to be new matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 regarding the previous 101 rejection, have been fully considered, and deemed as not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments, on page 12, that the amendments overcome the 101 rejection have been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive. As the limitation was not previously addressed, the limitation has been addressed in the 101 rejection as indicated above.
The applicant’s argument, that the claims do not recite a mental process and the output at the end of the filtering step is not a mental process has been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive. As indicated in the 101 rejection above, a person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably filter and normalize a signal with a generic computer or with a pen and paper based on having a piece of paper with that signal on it. A person would be able to practically be able to perform the filtering, placing, and normalizing steps mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” (See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Additionally, the additional elements merely serve to gather data to be used by the abstract idea. The touchscreen device, microphone, and speaker are merely used as a pre-solution step of necessary data gathering to be used by the abstract idea. The taps by the user on the screen, microphone of the touchscreen device, and playing back the auditory stimulus are merely used as additional types data gathering. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing that is performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e. the gathered data is not used for a treatment or meaningful purpose. Additionally, there is no overall improvement to existing technology present. The mental process merely functions on generic computer elements that do not change the functionality of the device itself. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As such, the applicant’s arguments are deemed as not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 regarding the previous 103 rejection, have been fully considered, and deemed as not persuasive.
The applicant’s argument, that Sereno does not involve signal processing and does not involve placing the reference signal and recorded signal on a single common time scale has been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive. As the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “placing the reference audio signal (SR) and the recorded audio signal (SE) on a single common time scale” solely requires that the signals be placed on a common time scale. As indicated above, Sereno involves the processing of signals (Sereno (Fig. 6) (Par. 105)) and placing the signals on a log timer (Sereno (Fig. 6, step 210 (Tv)) (Fig. 7, Par. 107 (common time scale of the log file))), which reads on the indicated limitation. As such, the applicant’s arguments are deemed as not persuasive.
The applicant’s argument, that Sereno and Erik do not teach “detecting vibro-acoustic events (eva) in which instants (ti) associated with the vibro-acoustic events (eva) are identified in the signal obtained at the end of the step of filtering the recorded signal”, has been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive, as simply stating that the prior art does not teach the limitation does not amount to a sufficient argument.
The applicant’s argument, that Erik does not involve normalizing a recorded signal has been fully considered, and deemed as not persuasive. As indicated in the 103 rejection above, Erik teaches a characteristic signal that is representative of the amplitude of the filtered signal while further indicating additional scaling steps (Erik (Par. 108, “The pulse train signal 66 therefore has an amplitude of 0 where it is not close to the timing of a touch of the screen 46, and an amplitude of 1 where it is close to the timing of a touch of the screen 46. Optionally, instead of a binary amplitude, a more gradual transition may be employed.”) (Par. 110, “From filtered signal 68, a characteristic signal for the filtered sensor signal 68 is generated. The characteristic signal represents or corresponds to one or more characteristics of the filtered signal 68, such as the amplitude.”) (Par. 111-112, “it can be seen that both the stimulus and the noise outside the windows have been removed, leaving (mainly) just the sound of the screen touches.”)). As such, Erik teaches signal normalization while not explicitly reciting the word “normalizing”. As such, the applicant’s arguments are deemed as not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments, regarding the dependent claims, rely on the arguments related to the independent claims, and as such are also deemed as not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARI SINGH KANE PADDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571) 272-7540. 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.
/ARI S PADDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791