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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 08/14/2026 (“Amendment”). Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-16 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10-12, and 14, as well as the addition of new claims 15 and 16.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
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: “recording device” in claims 1, 2, and 11.
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 (e.g. for “recording device,” the microphone of claim 12).
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 § 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, 2, 4-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 11, 12, and 14 are directed to a “system” or “computer readable storage medium,” which describe one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 15, and 16 are directed to a “method,” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One: Claims 1 and 11 recite (“set forth” or “describe”) the abstract idea of a mathematical concept, substantially as follows:
dividing the tracheal recording into a plurality of time segments, and, for each segment of the plurality of time segments: computing energy of the tracheal recording of the time segment; computing power spectral density of the tracheal recording of the time segment as an auto-regressive model, the auto-regressive model having a transfer function; evaluating a set of poles for the transfer function, each pole encoding a frequency present in the segment; iterating through the set of poles from a lowest frequency to a highest frequency to produce a set of pitches for the time segment by discarding all poles outside a magnitude around 1.0, and upon finding a pole having a magnitude within a defined range around 1.0, finding all other poles encoding a frequency that is a multiple of the frequency of the respective pole, and applying criteria to the time segment regarding whether the produced set of poles includes at least one predetermined pitch to determine whether the time segment is a candidate segment for being a wheeze in the tracheal recording; and identifying each candidate segment that satisfies a proximity criterion in respect of at least one other candidate segment as being part of a wheeze in the tracheal recording; processing candidate segments identified as being part of a wheeze in the tracheal recording to determine a wheeze characteristic.
These steps involve the mathematical concepts of segmentation, computation, iteration, comparison, etc. They correspond to “[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem [that] can serve the same purpose as a formula.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Prong Two: Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that integrate the mathematical concept into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the mathematical concept. 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), and
add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: obtaining a tracheal recording, using generic data-gathering components (e.g. a recording device, recited at a high level of generality); the post-solution activity of: displaying feedback).
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. Nothing is done with the identified wheezes, the display of feedback remains in the processing realm (since it is via the processor), and nobody needs to see, heart, or act on the feedback. No improvement to the technology is evident. 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 (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1 and 11 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) for the same reasons as described above.
Dependent Claims
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 (e.g. segmenting the background recording, computing its energy, and applying criteria (claims 2 and 12), using a particular model and method (claims 4 and 5), further processing (claims 6 and 7), further criteria (claims 8 and 9), calculating an index (claim 10), determining wheeze characteristics (claims 15 and 16), etc.),
further describe the pre-solution activity (or the structure used for such activity) (e.g. obtaining a background recording, using a generic data-gathering component (claims 2 and 12), etc.), and
further describe using a computer as a tool (claim 14).
Taken alone and 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. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves another technology or technical field, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 11, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,261,238 (“Gavriely”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0083001 (“Stamatopoulos”) and US Patent Application Publication 2008/0058668 (“Seyed”).
Regarding claim 1, Gavriely teaches [a] method of processing recordings of a subject's breathing (phonopneumograph), the method comprising: obtaining, via a recording device (Fig. 1, ambient noise microphone 12 and BS sensors 4 and 6), a tracheal recording of the subject's breathing (“tracheal breath sound” – see abstract, C9L20-55); dividing, via a processor (Fig. 1, CPU 20), the tracheal recording into a plurality of time segments (Figs. 11B-12, C5L64-66 – also see C6L64-67, C8L64-67, time segments of data), and, for each segment of the plurality of time segments: computing, via the processor, energy of the tracheal recording of the time segment (C33L41-60); computing, via the processor, power spectral density of the tracheal recording of the time segment (Figs. 13A-B,16B, etc., and related descriptions, C18L45-57, C29L15-30, C31L10-14) as an auto-regressive model (C28L33-39, such a model being known for this purpose), …; evaluating, via the processor, a set of poles … , each pole encoding a frequency present in the segment (C28L33-54, mapping zeroes and poles); iterating, via the processor, through the set of poles (C34L48-56, C44L28-33, C46L8-11; note that “repeating” is “iterating”) …, and applying, via the processor, criteria to the time segment regarding whether the produced set of poles includes at least one predetermined pitch to determine whether the time segment is a candidate segment for being a wheeze in the tracheal recording (C33L41-C34L26, C35L7-44, the segment has an amplitude greater than background, and a frequency within a particular range (C6L1-9, Fig. 12 and related description, etc.)); identifying, via the processor, each candidate segment that satisfies a proximity criterion in respect of at least one other candidate segment as being part of a wheeze in the tracheal recording (C6L1-9, C9L46-55, Fig. 12 step 380, peaks within a narrow frequency range, harmonics, etc.); processing, via the processor, candidate segments identified as being part of a wheeze in the tracheal recording to determine a wheeze characteristic (C5L2-6); and displaying, via the processor, feedback (C15L45-50) … pertaining to whether the wheeze characteristic is indicative of a normal wheeze or an abnormal wheeze for the subject (C21L37-47, learning the features of the sounds specific to the patient during a training period, and then comparing to observe changes and trends. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display feedback regarding normal vs abnormal wheezes for the purpose of enabling the user to monitor the contemplated changes and trends).
Gavriely does not appear to explicitly teach iterating through the set of poles from a lowest frequency to a highest frequency to produce a set of pitches for the time segment by discarding all poles outside a magnitude around 1.0, and upon finding a pole having a magnitude within a defined range around 1.0, finding all other poles encoding a frequency that is a multiple of the frequency of the respective pole (although it does describe determining poles of peak magnitude, and their harmonics, as corresponding to wheezes, and discarding poles of weaker magnitude – Fig. 12 and related description, e.g. with respect to step 368, etc.). Gavriely does not appear to explicitly teach displaying the feedback in a smartphone application.
Stamatopoulos teaches normalizing spectral data to make all possible wheezes visible (¶ 0345). Stamatopoulos further teaches displaying feedback using a smartphone application (¶¶s 0092, 0257, 0258, 0261, Figs. 19-21, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process all frequency data from e.g. lowest to highest since this is one way of a limited number of ways to process the data, with a reasonable expectation of success (of eventually processing all data), and for the purpose of implementing a simple way to ensure all data is processed. It would have been obvious to normalize the spectral data of Gavriely as in Stamatopoulos, thereby identifying poles with respect to a magnitude around 1.0 (Gavriely: Fig. 12, step 368, C33L21-28, threshold criteria), for the purpose of making all possible wheezes visible (Stamatopoulos: ¶ 0345). Certain poles would be discarded as not corresponding to a wheeze according to the normal processing of Gavriely (e.g. since they do not correspond to a peak based on the threshold evaluation of step 368). It would have been obvious to display feedback (e.g. the changes and trends contemplated by Gavriely) via a smartphone application as in Stamatopoulos, for the purpose of being able to easily report data (Stamatopoulos: Fig. 21, ¶ 0261, etc., via a device the user carries with them).
Gavriely-Stamatopoulos does not appear to explicitly teach the auto-regressive model having a transfer function, or evaluating a set of poles for the transfer function (although Gavriely does suggest this in C28L51-54, describing mapping zeroes and poles).
Seyed teaches determining a set of coefficients according to the AR-Burg method (¶ 0171, Equation 7), which includes determining transfer function values and estimating a spectral model using absolute values to only retain poles with positive complex roots (¶ 0171, Equation 8, ¶ 0172, Equation 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the processing of Seyed into the combination as a simple substitution, since it is a known autoregressive processing methodology (Seyed: ¶¶s 0171-0173, etc.), thus achieving the spectral processing contemplated (Gavriely: C28L33-54).
Regarding claim 11, Gavriely teaches [a] system for monitoring a subject's breathing (phonopneumograph), the system comprising: a recording device (Fig. 1, ambient noise microphone 12 and BS sensors 4 and 6); and a processorin communication with the recording device (Fig. 1, CPU 20) and configured to: receive at least a tracheal recording from the recording device (“tracheal breath sound” – see abstract, C9L20-55); divide the tracheal recording into a plurality of time segments (Figs. 11B-12, C5L64-66 – also see C6L64-67, C8L64-67, time segments of data), and, for each segment of the plurality of time segments: compute energy of the tracheal recording of the time segment (C33L41-60); compute power spectral density of the tracheal recording of the time segment (Figs. 13A-B,16B, etc., and related descriptions, C18L45-57, C29L15-30, C31L10-14) as an auto-regressive model (C28L33-39, such a model being known for this purpose), …; evaluate a set of poles …, each pole encoding a frequency present in the segment (C28L33-54, mapping zeroes and poles); iterate through the set of poles (C34L48-56, C44L28-33, C46L8-11; note that “repeating” is “iterating”) …, and apply criteria to the time segment regarding whether the produced set of poles includes at least one predetermined pitch to determine whether the time segment is a candidate segment for being a wheeze in the tracheal recording (C33L41-C34L26, C35L7-44, the segment has an amplitude greater than background, and a frequency within a particular range (C6L1-9, Fig. 12 and related description, etc.)); identify each candidate segment that satisfies a proximity criterion in respect of at least one other candidate segment as being part of a wheeze in the tracheal recording (C6L1-9, C9L46-55, Fig. 12 step 380, peaks within a narrow frequency range, harmonics, etc.); process candidate segments identified as being part of a wheeze in the tracheal recording to determine a wheeze characteristic (C5L2-6); and display feedback (C15L45-50) … pertaining to whether the wheeze characteristic is indicative of a normal wheeze or an abnormal wheeze for the subject (C21L37-47, learning the features of the sounds specific to the patient during a training period, and then comparing to observe changes and trends. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display feedback regarding normal vs abnormal wheezes for the purpose of enabling the user to monitor the contemplated changes and trends).
Gavriely does not appear to explicitly teach iterating through the set of poles from a lowest frequency to a highest frequency to produce a set of pitches for the time segment by discarding all poles outside a defined magnitude of around 1.0, and upon finding a pole having a magnitude within a defined range around 1.0, finding all other poles having a frequency that is a multiple of frequency of the respective pole (although it does describe determining poles of peak magnitude, and their harmonics, as corresponding to wheezes, and discarding poles of weaker magnitude – Fig. 12 and related description, e.g. with respect to step 368, etc.). Gavriely does not appear to explicitly teach displaying the feedback in a smartphone application.
Stamatopoulos teaches normalizing spectral data to make all possible wheezes visible (¶ 0345). Stamatopoulos further teaches displaying feedback using a smartphone application (¶¶s 0092, 0257, 0258, 0261, Figs. 19-21, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process all frequency data from e.g. lowest to highest since this is one way of a limited number of ways to process the data, with a reasonable expectation of success (of eventually processing all data), and for the purpose of implementing a simple way to ensure all data is processed. It would have been obvious to normalize the spectral data of Gavriely as in Stamatopoulos, thereby identifying poles with respect to a magnitude around 1.0 (Gavriely: Fig. 12, step 368, C33L21-28, threshold criteria), for the purpose of making all possible wheezes visible (Stamatopoulos: ¶ 0345). Certain poles would be discarded as not corresponding to a wheeze according to the normal processing of Gavriely (e.g. since they do not correspond to a peak based on the threshold evaluation of step 368). It would have been obvious to display feedback (e.g. the changes and trends contemplated by Gavriely) via a smartphone application as in Stamatopoulos, for the purpose of being able to easily report data (Stamatopoulos: Fig. 21, ¶ 0261, etc., via a device the user carries with them).
Gavriely-Stamatopoulos does not appear to explicitly teach the auto-regressive model having a transfer function, or evaluating a set of poles for the transfer function (although Gavriely does suggest this in C28L51-54, describing mapping zeroes and poles).
Seyed teaches determining a set of coefficients according to the AR-Burg method (¶ 0171, Equation 7), which includes determining transfer function values and estimating a spectral model using absolute values to only retain poles with positive complex roots (¶ 0171, Equation 8, ¶ 0172, Equation 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the processing of Seyed into the combination as a simple substitution, since it is a known autoregressive processing methodology (Seyed: ¶¶s 0171-0173, etc.), thus achieving the spectral processing contemplated (Gavriely: C28L33-54).
Regarding claim 14, Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed teaches [a] computer readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising executable program code (a program stored in memory being necessary and inherent in enabling the CPU 20 of Gavriely to perform its functions – also see ¶¶s 0008, 0012, etc. of Stamatopoulos) configured to cause the processor (the CPU 20 of Gavriely) to implement the method of claim 1 (see above).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed teaches all the features with respect to the corresponding claims 1 and 11, as outlined above. Regarding claim 2, Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed further teaches obtaining, via the recording device, a background recording of the subject's breathing that is concurrent with the tracheal recording (Gavriely: Fig. 1, via ambient noise microphone 12 – also see C17L57-C18L4); dividing, via the processor, the background recording into a plurality of time segments, each corresponding to a time segment of the tracheal recording, and, for each time segment of the plurality of segments of the background recording, computing energy of the background recording (this would have been obvious to do to achieve the threshold-based processing described in C33L41-60, where energy of each tracheal segment would have been obvious to compare to energy of a corresponding background segment to increase accuracy of the comparison (and as already contemplated in C13L5-7, C17L20-21, etc.)); and upon the computed tracheal energy of a time segment of the tracheal recording being less than a defined multiple of the background energy of a concurrent segment of the background recording, treating, via the processor, the tracheal segment as not being a candidate for being part of a wheeze (C33L41-60).
Claim 12 is rejected in like manner (with Gavriely: Fig. 1 showing the tracheal and background microphones 6 and 12).
Regarding claim 5, Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed further teaches wherein the auto-regressive model is computed using the Burg method (Seyed: ¶ 0173).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed further teaches wherein the autoregressive model is of form: Y(n)=a1Y(n−1)+a2Y(n−2)+…+apY(n−p)+w(n) where a1 through ap are the coefficients, p is the order of the model, and w(n) represents residual uncorrelated error; and wherein evaluating a set of poles for the transfer function comprises determining, via the processor, values of z for which the denominator of the transfer function becomes zero, in the equation P(z)=1/1-a1z-a2z2-…-apzp, wherein evaluating a set of poles for the transfer function further comprises retaining only poles with positive complex roots (Seyed teaches determining a set of coefficients according to the formula claimed (¶ 0171, Equation 7), determining transfer function values according to the formula claimed (¶ 0171, Equation 8), and estimating a spectral model using absolute values to only retain poles with positive complex roots (¶ 0172, Equation 9)).
Regarding claim 9, Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed further teaches wherein the applied criteria include that at least one pitch in the segment has a fundamental frequency in a defined range (Gavriely: C6L1-9).
Regarding claim 15, Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed further teaches wherein a wheeze characteristic indicative of an abnormal wheeze is indicative of a need to seek medical attention (Gavriely: C5L2-6, C21L24-36, notification in risk contexts, C23L20-29, significant changes. It would have been obvious to alert regarding a need to seek medical attention, based on a significant change/trend, for the purpose of helping the user address health risks).
Regarding claim 16, Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed further teaches wherein the wheeze characteristic pertains to a wheeze type or a wheeze severity (Gavriely: C5L2-6).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed in view of US Patent 5,533,052 (“Bhaskar”).
Regarding claim 4, Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the auto-regressive model is a 64-order model.
Bhaskar teaches using a 64 order model for spectral modeling (C6L42-59).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the model of the combination 64-order, as in Bhaskar, for the purpose of increasing performance while maintaining easy of transmission (Bhaskar: C6L42-59).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed in view of US Patent 6,850,783 (“Romesburg”).
Regarding claim 8, Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the applied criteria include the segment not saturating the input range of a tracheal microphone used to capture the tracheal recording.
Romesburg teaches cancelling or ignoring noise due to source signal saturation (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exclude from analysis recordings that correspond to microphone saturation in the combination as in Romesburg, for the purpose of removing effects of these errors/noises (Romesburg: Abstract).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0401059 (“Elhasid”).
Regarding claim 10, Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Gavriely-Stamatopoulos-Seyed does not appear to explicitly teach calculating, via the processor, an index as a number of wheeze segments over the total number of segments with tracheal signal energy that are a defined multiple of the background energy of the segment.
Elhasid teaches calculating a wheeze index as the ratio of time that breathing includes a wheeze to total time (¶ 0054).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate an index to reflect the number of wheeze segments over total segments (which have been modified to exclude background as described in Gavriely: C33L41-60, thus including energy that is at least a 1x multiple of the background), as in Elhasid, for the purpose of more easily observing the trend to identify a worsening condition (Elhasid: ¶ 0054).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to the amendments and arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, they are not persuasive. Displaying feedback is via the processor, so the data remains in a processing black box. But even if it were outputted via e.g. a display, there is nothing requiring the feedback to be seen, heard, or acted on.
The amendments and arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 are persuasive to the extent that Gavriely does not explicitly mention a transfer function as claimed, because its transfer function is between breath sound data and ambient sound data. However, Gavriely suggests the claimed transfer function (mapping zeroes and poles), and Seyed has been added to explicitly teach it (i.e., Applicant’s disclosed AR-Burg method).
Generally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant has ignored the teachings of Stamatopoulos and has not addressed the equations of Seyed.
Thus, all claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm PT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-5001. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights