CTFR 17/823,565 CTFR 86568 DETAILED ACTION Double Patenting Previous rejection is withdrawn in view of the interpretation of the claim limitations “single microphone frequency characteristic evaluation 1, single microphone frequency characteristic evaluation 2, two microphone intensity evaluation 1, two microphone intensity evaluation 2” as narrow (and not under BRI), limited to only covering what is disclosed in the specification. Further explaining, Applicant has stated that the above limitations should only be limited to what is defined in the specification on page 24 of the Applicant’s reply submitted on 02/19/2026 (portion of which is reproduced below). PNG media_image1.png 140 604 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 6-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The dependent claims 6-9 and 13 recites limitations that are already part of the “single microphone frequency characteristic evaluation 1, single microphone frequency characteristic evaluation 2, two microphone intensity evaluation 1, two microphone intensity evaluation 2,” and as such, do not further limit what is recited in the independent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 5. Claims 16-17 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 being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court ( Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014 ) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019 )), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101. Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 16 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “calculate an impulse response based on the sound reception signal, calculate an acoustic characteristic using the impulse response, and analyze a state of the diagnosis target object by detecting a change of the sound reception signal, and diagnose the state of the diagnosis target object based on an analysis result of the analyzing the state of the diagnosis target, extract, in a first step, waveforms in a linear characteristic section and respective distortion characteristic sections from the calculated impulse response, calculate, in a second step, a shift time and a tap value corresponding io a distance between the first microphone and the second microphone, PNG media_image2.png 754 538 media_image2.png Greyscale are abstract ideas, as they involved a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for the dependent claim 17. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application. In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “an acoustic vibrator, including at least one speaker configured to apply an acoustic vibration to a diagnosis target object, a sound receiver, including at least one microphone, configured to receive an evaluation target sound including a sound wave reflected from the diagnosis target object and a vibration radiated sound from the diagnosis target object, and output a sound reception signal, a radiated sound from the at least one speaker reflecting off the diagnosis target object and the reflected sound being sound wave, the vibration radiated sound being generated by vibration of the diagnosis target object, processing circuitry configured to generate an acoustic vibration signal and control the at least one speaker by continuously inputting the acoustic vibration signal to the at least one speaker, wherein the sound receiver, includes a first microphone located between the at least one speaker and the diagnosis target object and a second microphone located between the first microphone and the diagnosis target object, the acoustic vibration signal is a Logss signal for evaluating a distortion characteristic, a change in the distortion characteristic corresponding to a change in a nonlinear characteristic of the vibration radiated sound,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, and general purpose processor for implementing the abstract idea. In short, the claims do not recite sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “an acoustic vibrator, including at least one speaker configured to apply an acoustic vibration to a diagnosis target object, a sound receiver, including at least one microphone, configured to receive an evaluation target sound including a sound wave reflected from the diagnosis target object and a vibration radiated sound from the diagnosis target object, and output a sound reception signal, a radiated sound from the at least one speaker reflecting off the diagnosis target object and the reflected sound being sound wave, the vibration radiated sound being generated by vibration of the diagnosis target object, processing circuitry configured to generate an acoustic vibration signal and control the at least one speaker by continuously inputting the acoustic vibration signal to the at least one speaker, wherein the sound receiver, includes a first microphone located between the at least one speaker and the diagnosis target object and a second microphone located between the first microphone and the diagnosis target object, the acoustic vibration signal is a Logss signal for evaluating a distortion characteristic, a change in the distortion characteristic corresponding to a change in a nonlinear characteristic of the vibration radiated sound,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and general purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not recite the additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. In Summary , the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101. Allowable Subject Matter 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 1 . The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination including “calculate the two microphones, impulse responses based on the sound reception signals output by the two microphones, calculate an acoustic characteristic using the calculated impulse responses of the two microphones, an analyze a state of the diagnosis target object by detecting changes of the sound reception signals, and diagnose the state of the diagnosis target based on an analysis result of analyzing the state of the diagnosis target object, wherein calculating the acoustic characteristic is done by extracting, for the two microphones, a plurality of waveforms in a linear characteristic section and respective distortion characteristic sections from the calculated impulse responses of the two microphones, and performing the following processes using the extracted waveforms: a single microphone frequency characteristic evaluation 1 based on the extracted waveforms for a single microphone of the two microphones, a single microphone frequency characteristic evaluation 2 based on the extracted waveforms for the single microphone of the two microphones, a two microphone intensity evaluation 1 based on the extracted waveforms for each of the two microphones, and a two microphone intensity evaluation 2 based on the extracted waveforms for each of the two microphones, single microphone frequency characteristic evaluations 1 and 2 using one of the sound reception signals to evaluate frequency characteristics, and the two microphone intensity evaluations 1 and 2 using both of the sound reception signals to evaluate intensities.” (where the limitations “single microphone frequency characteristic evaluation 1, single microphone frequency characteristic evaluation 2, two microphone intensity evaluation 1, two microphone intensity evaluation 2” are interpreted narrow (and not under BRI), limited to cover only what is disclosed in the specification). Similar reasons are given for independent claims 18 and 19. The dependent claims 2-4, 10, 13-15 are allowed due to their dependencies to said independent claim 1. Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action . 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 16 . The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including all the recited steps from first step to sixth step . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim 16 is directed to diagnosing the state of the target based on the analysis result of analyzing the state of the diagnosis target object. In so doing, the claim additionally recites an acoustic vibrator and microphones near the target and inputting of the Logss signal, but they are recited at high level of generality and merely directed to insignificant data collection activity. The additional elements are also well-understood, routine and conventional. Having said that, the focus of the claimed invention is really on the abstract idea of evaluation aspect of diagnosing the state of the target and not on the data collection arrangement. Thus, the reason the data collection limitations are recited at high level of generality and insignificant to the focus of the claim. As such, at most, the claimed invention is an improvement in the abstract idea of diagnosing the state of the target object. However, improved or new abstract idea is still an abstract idea, and not eligible under the 101. Consequently, there is no improvement in technology under the practical application criteria and the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Note that the recited steps from first step to six steps are not used in the diagnosing analysis at all. For these reasons, the 101 rejection is maintained for claims 16-17. Note also that the rejection has been discussed with the upper management. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4. 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 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 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. /HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/823,565 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/823,565 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/823,565 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/823,565 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/823,565 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/823,565 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/823,565 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/823,565 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/823,565 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/823,565 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights