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 .
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 26-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of estimating fundamental frequencies of the received signals; calculating envelopes of high-pass filtered received signals estimating periodicity of the envelopes of the high-pass filtered received signals; evaluating the periodicity of the envelopes of the high-pass filtered received signals in terms of fundamental frequencies of the received signals; and calculating one or plural indices to detect snoring.
The limitation of estimating the fundamental frequencies, calculating envelopes, evaluating periodicity and calculating indices, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the claims are direct to concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or analogous to human mental work and nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “estimating” and “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually confirming the data matches or calculating a correction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites only recite a microphone and one or more processor. The processor is a generic computer element used for its routine purpose and the microphone is used for pre-solutional data gathering. Accordingly, nothing in the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly the dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 26-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raviv et al. US 5,961,447 in view of Nakatani et al. US 2005/0113711.
Regarding claim 26, Raviv discloses a snoring sound detection method, comprising:
By a microphone, acquiring a plurality of sounds produced by a subject ([C4 L4-7] microphones 11 and 12);
by one of processors, performing the steps of:
converting the sounds produced by the subject to a plurality of received signals ([C5 L24-31] the signals are converted for processing and determining snoring);
storing the received signals and/or filtered received signals (recorder 15);
estimating fundamental frequencies of the received signals (C9 L60-64);
calculating envelopes of the filtered received signals ([C5 L45-51])
calculating, based on the evaluating, one or plural indices to detect snoring ([¶C7 L61-68] snoring is determined and a report is generated).
Raviv does not specifically disclose calculating envelopes of high-pass filtered received signals estimating periodicity of the envelopes of the high-pass filtered received signals;
evaluating the periodicity of the envelopes of the high-pass filtered received signals in terms of fundamental frequencies of the received signals; and
Nakatani teaches a similar snore detection device that processes a breath signal by calculating an envelope ([¶12,99-100]) and evaluating the periodicity ([¶112]) of high pass filtered signals ([¶71]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Raviv with the teachings of Nakatani in order to have an increased detection sensitivity ([¶112]).
Regarding claim 27, Raviv discloses the method comprises applying Fourier transform to received signals; calculating intensity of received signals in the frequency domain; and searching fundamental frequencies of received signals; the duration of the time window for Fourier transform is 1 s or less, and one of window functions, including rectangular window, B-spline window, Hann window, Hamming window, and Tukey window, is applied to received signals before Fourier transform ([C9 L40-64][C10 L52-54] a fast Fourier transform is used and a window function).
Regarding claim 28, Raviv discloses adding data without information to the beginning or/and end of each received signal ([C9 L40-68] extra data points can be added).
Regarding claim 29, Nakatani teaches Applying interpolation to intensity of received signals in the frequency domain after application of Fourier transform ([¶99]).
Regarding claim 30, Raviv discloses the method comprises to employ one of Fourier-related transforms, including Wavelet transform, Laplace transform, fast Fourier transform, discrete Fourier transform, short-time Fourier transform, Z-transform and singular value decomposition, as a substitute of Fourier transform ([C3 L46-59] Fast Fourier transforms are used).
Regarding claim 31, Nakatani discloses applying a high-pass filter with a cutoff frequency to received signal; the cutoff frequency of a high-pass filter is higher than the fundamental frequency of the received signal ([¶95] the bandpass filter is set at a range to encompass the breathing signal so could be set to encompass the snore signal of Raviv).
Regarding claim 32, Raviv discloses storing indices; using the stored indices for the calculation of one or plural indices to detect snoring ([¶C7 L61-68] snoring is determined and a report is generated).
Regarding claim 33, Raviv discloses detecting the local maxima of the intensity of received signal in the frequency domain; and determining the local maximum with the lowest frequency as the fundamental frequency ([C10 L25-35] the lowest max is set as the fundamental to find harmonics).
Regarding claim 34, Raviv discloses determining one of the local maxima of the intensity of received signal in the frequency domain as the fundamental frequency by judging criteria using the amplitude of each local maximum, the intensity of each local maximum, the distance of each local maximum to other local maxima in the frequency domain, and the prominence of each local maximum ([C10 L25-35]).
Regarding claim 35, Nakatani teaches snoring sound detection method according to claim 26, wherein the method comprises estimating the fundamental frequency of each received signal by calculating the periodicity of the signal amplitude in time domain ([¶12,13,112]).
Regarding claim 36 and 37, Raviv discloses determining the fundamental frequency of received signals using a plurality of conditions including the fundamental frequencies are in the range from 10 to 300 Hz ([C9 L60-C10 L24]).
Regarding claim 38, Raviv discloses applying Fourier transform to the envelopes of high-pass filtered received signals; and searching the maximum of local maximum of the intensity of each received signal in the frequency domain after Fourier transform in order to estimates periodicity of the envelopes of high-pass filtered received signals ([C10 L25-35]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument against the 101 step 2A analysis, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites a judicial exception. Specifically, the mental process of estimating fundamental frequencies of the received signals; calculating envelopes of high-pass filtered received signals estimating periodicity of the envelopes of the high-pass filtered received signals; evaluating the periodicity of the envelopes of the high-pass filtered received signals in terms of fundamental frequencies of the received signals; and calculating one or plural indices to detect snoring. All of these steps can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Applicant argues that a user cannot mentally acquire a plurality of sounds or filter the signals. This is true, a user cannot collect the signals but this step is pre-solutional data gathering and not the abstract idea. Similarly, filtering is often part of the data gathering but a user can manually calculate a filter and envelope or simply exclude points in the data stream over a certain frequencies.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against prong 2 of the analysis, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The microphone is a generic component that is simply performing pre-solutional data gathering which does integrate the exception into practical application or particular machine. Similarly, the use of the abstract idea for detecting snoring merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against step 2B of the analysis, Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not clear how the claimed steps provide a technical improvement other than Applicant’s bare statement that it does. The prior art also teaches all of the steps claimed so it is unclear where the improvement is. Additionally, the judicial exception itself cannot provide the improvement. Applicant states the claimed improvement is evaluating the periodicity of the envelopes of the highpass filtered received signals in terms of the fundamental frequencies of the received which is part of the mental concept and it is recited in conclusory manner with no details of what in terms of the fundamental frequency means for the evaluating.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 103 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Raviv and Nakatani are analogous in that they both are directed toward processing breathing signals. Nakatani uses a different sensor but the respiration signals have similar features and one of ordinary skill in the art would have availed themselves of art relating to processing respiratory signals. Nakatani does not disclose using microphones but uses piezoelectric sensors which just measure a different vibration than a microphone. Additionally, Nakatani is reasonably pertinent to the current application and Raviv in that Nakatani provides for an improvement to snoring and apnea detection which is also the purpose of Raviv ([C1 L13-57]).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Raviv and Nakatani do not disclose the recited claim language, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Raviv teaches analyzing the microphone signals where a fundamental frequency is determined ([C3 L39-59]), an envelope is determined ([C5 L52-67]) and at least some measure of periodicity is examined ([C13 L15-30]). Raviv does not specifically disclose the envelope is of the high-pass filtered signals or that the periodicity is specifically calculated. Nakatani teaches analyzing the periodicity of the envelope for apnea and the incorporation of the teachings of Nakatani would allow for the detection of slight apnea as well ([¶13]).
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 MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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.
/MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791