DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/15/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 20-23 are new.
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 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method for characterizing an airflow, comprising: receiving acoustic signals generated by the airflow by means of a microphone array; extracting a characteristic information from the acoustic signals by means of an acoustic signal analysis unit; determining an information on the airflow based on the characteristic information by means of an estimating unit; wherein the information on the airflow comprises an information regarding a wind speed U and/or a wind direction OW; wherein the determining of the information is based on the characteristic information extracted from the acoustic signals and an expected version of the respective characteristic information; wherein the expected version is determined using the Corcos model, an ad-hoc model or another model; or wherein determining an information is based on a regression or a classification of the characteristic information,
Claim 13 recites a non-transitory digital storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for performing a method for characterizing an airflow, comprising: receiving acoustic signals generated by the airflow by means of a microphone array; extracting a characteristic information from the acoustic signals by means of an acoustic signal analysis unit; determining an information on the airflow based on the characteristic information by means of an estimating unit; wherein the information on the airflow comprises an information regarding a wind speed U and/or a wind direction OW; wherein the determining of the information is based on the characteristic information extracted from the acoustic signals and an expected version of the respective characteristic information; wherein the expected version is determined using the Corcos model, an ad-hoc model or another model; or wherein determining an information is based on a regression or a classification of the characteristic information, when said program is run by a computer…
Claim 14 recites an apparatus for characterizing an airflow, comprising: a microphone array for receiving acoustic signals generated by the airflow; an acoustic signal analysis unit configured to extract a characteristic information from the acoustic signal; and an estimating unit configured to determine an information on the airflow based on the characteristic information; wherein the information on the airflow comprises an information regarding a wind speed U and/or a wind direction OW; wherein the determining of the information is based on the characteristic information extracted from the acoustic signals with an expected version of the respective characteristic information; wherein the expected version is determined using the Corcos model, an ad-hoc model or another model; or wherein determining an information is based on a regression or a classification of the characteristic information.…
and thus grouped as Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, the data gathering step, (claim 1) “receiving acoustic signals generated by the airflow by means of a microphone array; extracting a characteristic information from the acoustic signals” (claim 13) “receiving acoustic signals generated by the airflow by means of a microphone array; extracting a characteristic information from the acoustic signals” (claim 14) “a microphone array for receiving acoustic signals generated by the airflow; an acoustic signal analysis unit configured to extract a characteristic information from the acoustic signal” are mere data gathering that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional elements (claims 1, 13, and 14) the “by means of an acoustic signal analysis unit,” “by means of an estimating unit,” “said program is run by a computer,” and “signal analysis unit, estimating unit” are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions amount to no more than using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see “Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4/ Monday, January 7, 2019 / Notices” – page 55, second column).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the data gathering steps are mere data collect steps which fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of the computer and units are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-12, 15-19 and 22 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
To note: Claims 20, 21 and 23 are patent eligible with regards to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The claims, taken as a whole amount to a practical application of the judicial exception see MPEP 2106.04(d) (a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 20-21 and 23 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is objected to because the closest prior art, Mirabilii et al. [Non-Patent Literature, “Multi-Channel Wind Noise Reduction using the Corcos Model], fails to anticipate or render obvious information on the airflow comprises an information regarding a wind speed U and/or a wind direction θW; wherein the determining of the information is based on the characteristic information extracted from the acoustic signals and an expected version of the respective characteristic information; wherein the expected version is determined using the Corcos model, an ad-hoc model or another model, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Claim 13 is objected to because the closest prior art, Mirabilii et al. [Non-Patent Literature, “Multi-Channel Wind Noise Reduction using the Corcos Model], fails to anticipate or render obvious information on the airflow comprises an information regarding a wind speed U and/or a wind direction θW; wherein the determining of the information is based on the characteristic information extracted from the acoustic signals and an expected version of the respective characteristic; wherein the expected version is determined using the Corcos model, an ad-hoc model or another model, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Claim 14 is objected to because the closest prior art, Mirabilii et al. [Non-Patent Literature, “Multi-Channel Wind Noise Reduction using the Corcos Model], fails to anticipate or render obvious information on the airflow comprises an information regarding a wind speed U and/or a wind direction θW; wherein the determining of the information is based on the characteristic information extracted from the acoustic signals with an expected version of the respective characteristic information; wherein the expected version is determined using the Corcos model, an ad-hoc model or another model, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “that the claims, when properly considered as a whole, are directed to a specific, practical application of airflow characterization using physical acoustic signals, special-purpose hardware, and targeted signal processing steps,” and references Thales Visionix vs. United States in that “the claimed invention applied mathematical formulas in combination with specific sensor arrangement to solve a real world technical problem, here, reversed airflow measurement without intrusive flow sensors,” (see pages 10 and 12, first paragraph of the response).
In response, the Examiner disagrees and indicates the recited features in Applicant's claims of a microphone array, particularly, “receiving acoustic signals generated by means of a microphone array” (claim 1) and “receiving acoustic signals generated by means of a microphone array” (claim 13) are nothing more than well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. Nothing of the steps add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application other than what is well-understood.
The claims of Thales “are directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame.” (see page 10 of THALES VISONIX INC v US). Thus, Applicant's claims are directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more because the additional elements of receiving acoustic signals generated by the airflow by means of a microphone array are nothing more than routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Strumolo (US Patent Number 5,568,404) discloses a method and system for predicting sound pressure levels within a vehicle due to wind noise.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857