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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed on 5/26/26. Claims 31 and 38 are cancelled. Claims 26-30 and 32-37 are currently pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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 26-30 and 32-37 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; applying a high pass filter, calculating envelopes of high-pass filtered received signals estimating periodicity of the envelopes of the high-pass filtered received signals; applying a Fourier transform, 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) 26-28, 30, 32-34 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raviv et al. US 5,961,447 in view of Demirli et al. US 2019/0200777.
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 discloses Fourier transforming the signals and determining maxima and minima ([C9 L50-66][C10 L25-35]) but 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.
Demirli teaches a similar snore detection device that processes a breath signal by applying a high-pass filter to the received signals, wherein the high-pass filter has a cutoff frequency that is higher than the estimated fundamental frequencies of the received signals to eliminate fundamental frequency components of snoring sound from the received signals ([¶203]);
calculating envelopes of high-pass filtered received signals ([¶248]);
applying Fourier transform to the envelopes of the high-pass filtered received signals, and estimating periodicity of the envelopes of the high-pass filtered received signals by searching a maximum among local maxima of intensity in the frequency domain after the Fourier transform ([¶203,272-273]);
evaluating the periodicity of the envelopes of the high-pass filtered received signals in terms of fundamental frequencies of the received signals by determining whether the periodicity of the envelopes is close to the estimated fundamental frequencies ([¶203] periodicity and fundamental frequency are compared across modalities).
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 high pass filtering of Demirli in order to have more accurate and efficient processing ([¶203]).
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 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 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 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]).
Claim(s) 29 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raviv et al. US 5,961,447 in view of Demirli et al. US 2019/0200777 further in view of Nakatani (previously cited).
Regarding claim 29, Raviv does not disclose applying interpolation to intensity of received signals in the frequency domain after application of Fourier transform. Nakatani teaches similar apnea analysis system that applies interpolation to intensity of received signals in the frequency domain after application of Fourier transform ([¶99]). 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 determine an envelope in the time domain for further analysis of the breath signal ([¶99]).
Regarding claim 35, Raviv does not disclose the method comprises estimating the fundamental frequency of each received signal by calculating the periodicity of the signal amplitude in time domain. Nakatani teaches 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]). 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 detect a slight apnea symptom, compared with the conventional detection equipment ([¶112]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 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 step 2A analysis, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of a filter to determine snoring frequencies merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, see example ii. in MPEP 2106.05(h). Similarly, the filtering is not similar to example 40 in that claim 1 of example 40 limits the collection of protocol data to a conditional case, when the collected traffic is greater than the threshold, providing a practical application rather than . The filtering of the current claims and subsequent processing is not like example 40. The current limitations merely link the abstract determinations to the field of snores in respiratory data.
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 the same improvements and advantages argued. Filtering signals for more precise analysis is not an improvement in the art.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 16-20, filed 5/26/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 26-38 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Demirli.
Conclusion
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 CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights