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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/01/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 2, the term “sound map” should be replaced with –four-dimensional sound map-- for claim consistency. Mirrored changes should be made in claims 5, 6, and 13.
In Claim 8, the term “wherein the relative position data are provided by a conductive elastic band coupled to the array of acoustic sensors” should be replaced with – wherein the relative position data are provided by a conductive elastic band coupled to the array of acoustic sensors.-- to address a punctuation error.
In claim 15: “a subject” needs to be changed to --the [[a]] subject-- to clarify that the subject of claim 15 is the same subject as recited in claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required and applicant should carefully review the Claims for any other informalities.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim(s) recites “(c) reconstructing from the acoustic signal data and using the relative position data, a four-dimensional sound map that depicts a spatiotemporal distribution of acoustic sources in the subject, wherein reconstructing the four-dimensional sound map comprises reconstructing a plurality of sound maps each corresponding to a different time point and combining the plurality of sound maps to generate the four-dimensional sound map, wherein the four- dimensional sound map is stored as a unified data structure representing three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension.” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical relationships).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“(a) acquiring acoustic signal data from a subject using an array of acoustic sensors coupled to a surface of the subject and arranged around an anatomical region- of-interest;”
“(b) providing relative position data that indicate a relative position of acoustic sensors in the array of acoustic sensors;”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activity.
Furthermore, acoustic sensors are general field of use.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of constructing a map in four dimensional space by utilizing an algorithm and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-10 also do not add significantly more to the exception as they merely add details to the mental steps, add details to the extrasolution data gathering steps, add general field of use components to facilitate the extrasolution data gathering, and add mental steps.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim(s) recites “generate and store a four-dimensional sound map as a unified spatiotemporal data structure from the acoustic signal data using the relative position data,” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical relationships).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“a sensor array configured to be worn around an anatomical region-of-interest, comprising:
a plurality of acoustic sensors, wherein each acoustic sensor of the plurality of acoustic sensors comprises a dual sensor configured to measure both acoustic signals and cardiac electrical activity;
an elastic motion sensor coupling each of the acoustic sensors to form the sensor array;
a computing device in communication with the sensor array and being configured to:
receive acoustic signal data from the plurality of acoustic sensors;
receive relative position data from the elastic motion sensor;”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activity.
Furthermore, acoustic sensors and dual sensors are general field of use and computing device are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions and don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of constructing a map in four dimensional space by utilizing an algorithm and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 12-20 also do not add significantly more to the exception as they merely add details to the mental steps, add details to the extrasolution data gathering steps, add general field of use components to facilitate the extrasolution data gathering, and add mental steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 12/01/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is/are withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art rejection is applied to claims 1-3 and 5-20 because the prior art fails to teach storing a four-dimensional sound map stored as a unified data structure representing three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. Newly cited Zalev never cites storing a sound map as described, but rather lower dimensional data that may be combined later to reconstruct higher dimensional data. Further, Zalev describes the increase in processing time from higher dimensional sampling which would teach away from storing a four-dimensional sound map. Finally, Moghaddasi teaches directly comparing a result of an acoustic localization method to a separate four-dimensional mapping as impossible, and that the comparison only provides an ancillary measurement of accuracy. This teaching would reduce confidence in the efficacy of a four-dimensional sound map for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, the claims are not allowed at this time due to the rejections under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
Thus, the prior art of record neither renders obvious nor anticipates the combination of claim elements in light of the specification.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIRO H PORTILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:15 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/JAIRO H. PORTILLO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights