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 Status
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Priority
This instant application claims the benefit and priority of Chinese Patent Application No.202111341534.7, filed on 12 November 2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such, the Effective Filing Date of claims 1-5 is assigned 12 November 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has been filed in the instant Application. Applicant is kindly reminded herein of the duty to disclose information material to patentability under 37 CFR 1.156(a).
Drawings
The drawings filed 9 September 2022 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 1 includes a description of “BM” in the text of the Specification but no indication of such designation in the Drawing. Further, Figures 2(a) and 2(b) and Figures 3(a)-3(d) are not separately described in the instant Specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Note: All references to the Specification herein pertain to the PG publication: US20230149712A1.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification contains grammatical errors of which should be corrected in their entirety. As one example, the Specification reads, at [0006], “To describe the biological activity of the BM by comprehensively considering a periodic function of stiffness of the BM varying with space and time, and to study the coupled vibration behavior of the BM with the lymph fluid through the periodic variation of its internal materials without external excitation”, which is an incomplete sentence. Other errors of spelling and grammar are present and should be corrected herein.
The Specification further includes recitation of the following at [0063]:
“The present disclosure is compact in structure and simple in operation. By vertically rotating a short beam by 90° around an optical axis, a table board installed on a fixed seat can be placed vertically, avoiding the disassembly, assembly, and storage of the table board, which is conducive to saving the interior space of a recreational vehicle (RV), and has strong practicability and application value”, which seemingly has no relevance to the instant invention directed to biological activity of a cochlear amplification mechanism and modeling thereof.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “characterizes a relationship between physical parameters of a human cochlear”, which is grammatically incorrect and should be amended to recite, “characterizes a relationship between physical parameters of a human cochlea”.
Claim 1 recites, “using non-periodic solution and periodic solution to obtain resonant characteristics of the analytical model”, which is missing the appropriate articles in the claim and should be amended to recite, “using a non-periodic solution and a periodic solution to obtain resonant characteristics of the analytical model”.
Claim 2 recites, “the computational method for considering contribution of biological activity” wherein the claim is missing the appropriate article and would be best amended to recite, “the computational method for considering contribution of the biological activity”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)-Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “establishing an analytical model, which considers periodic variation of a stiffness of a cochlear basement membrane in space and time, and characterizes a relationship between physical parameters of a human cochlear and an amplitude of the basement membrane”, wherein the claim is unclear with respect to concrete steps whereby an analytical model is established. Rather, the instant claim step is directed only to the characteristics of the model rather than any derivation of a model, per se. As such, the metes and bounds of said “model” establishment are unclear. It is suggested that the claim be amended to more clearly recite definitive parameters of the recited “model”. It is noted that claim 2 is clear with respect to the indefinite rejection pertaining to this steps as the claims further define the model establishment in terms of calculations.
Claim 1 recites, “establishing an analytical model, which considers periodic variation of a stiffness of a cochlear basement membrane in space and time, and characterizes a relationship between physical parameters of a human cochlear and an amplitude of the basement membrane”, wherein the recitation of “amplitude of the basement membrane” is not clear, as the previous recitation in the claim is directed to a “cochlear basement membrane” and it is not clear if the “basement membrane” is intended to be the same as the “cochlear basement membrane”. For examination purposes, it is assumed that the second recitation is that of “cochlear basement membrane”. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites, “performing stability analysis of the analytical model, using non-periodic solution and periodic solution to obtain resonant characteristics of the analytical model”, wherein the claim is not clear with respect to concrete steps whereby a stability analysis is performed. Further, the recitation of “using non-periodic and periodic solution” is indefinite with respect to what is intended by said operations. It is suggested that the claim step is amended to recite active, positive steps of analysis that include periodic and non-periodic calculations, or the like. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recite, “obtaining a stiffness of a basement membrane of a hearing-impaired person by using the analytical model with a vertical displacement of the basement membrane of the hearing-impaired person as an input of the analytical model”, wherein the claim is indefinite with respect to the use of the analytical model for obtaining a “stiffness” parameter, as there are no steps prior to indicate a particular model for example. It is further unclear as to what parameter(s) of the model would be operational to receive an “input” as claimed. Clarification through clearer claim language is requested.
Claim 1 recites, “determining a hardening degree of the basement membrane of the hearing-impaired person according to the stiffness of the basement membrane of the non-hearing-impaired person and the stiffness of the basement membrane of the hearing-impaired person”, wherein the claim is indefinite with respect to the parameters that constitute a “hardening degree” as relates to the stiffness of the basement membrane. For example, there are no ranges or provision as to what the “degree” herein refers. As such, the claim is indefinite and clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 2 recite, “X(s,t) represents position parameters of the basement membrane (BM) in a Lagrangian coordinate, and Xo(s)=(s, 0) represents an equilibrium position”. However the formula for “volume force” does not contain said parameters and it is unclear as to what X(s,t) refers and to what X0(s)=(s, 0) refers in the context of said formula. Clarification is requested.
Claim 2 recite, “in the formula, a subject on a wavy line is the dimensionless quantity” is unclear with respect to “a subject on a wavy line” wherein said reference fails to provide the corresponding feature in the formula to which said language pertains. Clarification is requested.
Claim 2 recites formulas for “characteristic scales”, “parameters in equations”, “a system equation of the analytical model” and “following conditions” of which only a few of the formula variables are defined in the claim. Further reference to “parameters in equations” is unclear with respect to what equations are intended. Clarification is requested.
Claim 3 recites, “the computational method for considering contribution of biological activity to a cochlear sensory amplification mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the solution of the analytical model satisfies the following forms”, wherein the claim is not clear with respect to which “solution” is intended herein. It appears that the set of equations pertains to the “periodic solution” as in claim 1, however, clarification is requested through clearer claim language.
Claims 3-5 recite numerous formulas of which only a few of the formula variables are defined in the claim. Clarification is requested to define each of the claim formula variables.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The instant rejection reflects the framework as outlined in the MPEP at 2106.04:
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
(2B) If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
Step 1 Analysis: Are claims directed to process, machine, manufacture/composition of matter
With respect to step (1): yes, the claims are directed to a method for considering contribution of biological activity to a cochlear sensory amplification mechanism.
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis: Do claims recite abstract idea
With respect to step (2A)(1), the claims recite abstract ideas. The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
mathematical concepts, (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations);
certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and/or
mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information).
With respect to the instant claims, under the (2A)(1) evaluation, the claims are found herein to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and in conjunction with mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas).
The claim steps to abstract ideas are as follows:
Claim 1:
establishing an analytical model, which considers periodic variation of a stiffness of a cochlear basement membrane in space and time, and characterizes a relationship between physical parameters of a human cochlear and an amplitude of the basement membrane;
performing stability analysis of the analytical model, using non-periodic solution and periodic solution to obtain resonant characteristics of the analytical model;
obtaining a stiffness of a basement membrane of a non-hearing-impaired person by using the analytical model with a vertical displacement of the basement membrane of the non-hearing-impaired person as an input of the analytical model;
obtaining a stiffness of a basement membrane of a hearing-impaired person by using the analytical model with a vertical displacement of the basement membrane of the hearing-impaired person as an input of the analytical model; and
determining a hardening degree of the basement membrane of the hearing-impaired person according to the stiffness of the basement membrane of the non-hearing-impaired person and the stiffness of the basement membrane of the hearing-impaired person. The instant claims steps are each directed to modeling steps whereby said modeling is a mathematical concept as provided in the instant Specification (see the Specification at least at [0013]; [0026]; [0057]). Thus under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the instant claim recitation, each step is performed mathematically. Alternatively, establishing a model, performing analysis, using a model are steps that are mental in nature whereby one can provide a model and perform calculations using pen and paper. Further to mental activity, the step directed to “determining” may be considered such, under the BRI of the claim, as there are no parameters set whereby a determination is established other than to make a comparison of given data. As such, the claims recite abstract ideas.
Claims 2-5: recite numerous equations pertaining to establishing the model; and defining a solution and a non-periodic solution, wherein said steps represent mathematical equation/calculation and are abstract.
Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that, individually and in combination, constitute abstract ideas.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the BRI and determined herein to each cover performance either in the mind (calculations by hand or pen and paper) and performance by mathematical operation (calculation for model establishment). There are no specifics as to the methodology involved in “establishing” or in “using the model” and thus, under the BRI, one could simply, for example, perform said operation with pen and paper, or, alternatively with the aid of a generic computer as a tool to perform said calculations. These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and providing certain results from the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in (Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind with pen and paper, and can include mathematical concepts.
Further, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Even if said claims were computer-implemented (which they are not) the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation (see, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674: noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind" (see Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis: Integration to a Practical Application
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under (2A)(2) provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim is said to fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims do not recite any additional elements:
Step 2B Analysis: Do Claims Provide an Inventive Concept
The claims are lastly evaluated using the (2B) analysis, wherein it is determined that because the claims recite abstract ideas, and do not integrate that abstract ideas into a practical application, the claims also lack a specific inventive concept. Applicant is reminded that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the inventive concept or the practical application and that the identification of whether the additional elements amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, there are no recited additional elements
The dependent claims have been analyzed with respect to step 2B and none of these claims provide a specific inventive concept, as they all fail to rise to the level of significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
For these reasons, the claims, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboulkhouatem et al. (British Journal of Mathematics & Computer Science 20(6): 1-11, 2017, Article no.BJMCS.30856:11 pages) in view of Elliott et al. (J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122 5, November 2007:2759-2771).
Claim 1 is directed to:
A computational method for considering contribution of biological activity to a cochlear sensory amplification mechanism, comprising:
establishing an analytical model, which considers periodic variation of a stiffness of a cochlear basement membrane in space and time, and characterizes a relationship between physical parameters of a human cochlear and an amplitude of the basement membrane [Aboulkhouatem et al. discloses a cochlear model wherein BM stiffness is associated with cochlear parameters-p. 4; p.6 (Figure 3)];
performing stability analysis of the analytical model, using non-periodic solution and periodic solution to obtain resonant characteristics of the analytical model [Aboulkhouatem et al. disclose analysis using the cochlear model of sound stimulus which include periodic state assumption (resonance analysis)-p. 5];
obtaining a stiffness of a basement membrane of a non-hearing-impaired person by using the analytical model with a vertical displacement of the basement membrane of the non-hearing-impaired person as an input of the analytical model [Aboulkhouatem et al. use said model for normal (hearing) cases-p.7];
obtaining a stiffness of a basement membrane of a hearing-impaired person by using the analytical model with a vertical displacement of the basement membrane of the hearing-impaired person as an input of the analytical model [Aboulkhouatem et al. use said model for anormal (hearing-impaired) cases-p.7; and
determining a hardening degree of the basement membrane of the hearing-impaired person according to the stiffness of the basement membrane of the non-hearing-impaired person and the stiffness of the basement membrane of the hearing-impaired person [Aboulkhouatem et al. disclose assessment as related to the loss of hearing-p.9].
The prior art to Aboulkhouatem et al. fails to specifically disclose use of a non-periodic (non-linear) model as claimed. However, the prior art to Elliott et al. discloses state space model formulations at [p.2762] and nonlinear time domain simulations [2769], wherein “the prevalence of analytical and numerical tools for dynamic systems cast in this time domain form then allows several aspects of the behavior of cochlear models to be explored in more detail than is possible with an entirely frequency domain model [p.2771].
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 have combined the teachings as set forth in Aboulkhouatem et al. with those that further include a non-linear modeling technique as set forth in Elliott et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as the prior art teachings of Elliott et al. motivate the need for developing accurate representations using mathematical models of cochlear mechanics [p. 2759]. Further the prior art to Elliott et al. discusses that liner models are a starting point for more realistic nonlinear models as the cochlear partition has varying mechanical properties in which a number of elements are very large, such that a single model generates numerous individual frequency response functions. As such, stability of the model may be compromised lending to development of a state-space model providing a more accurate representation [p.2759; p.2771].
Prior Art Made of Record
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. Ma et al. ( Journal of Biomechanical Engineering (September 2020)Vol. 142:11 pages) disclosing discussion of hearing mechanisms within the cochlea.
2. Yao et al. (Biological Physics-arXiv:1805.10443 [physics.bio-ph]; posted 26 May 2018:7 pages) disclosing low-frequency sound mechanisms in the cochlea.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Claims 2-5 herein appear to be free from the prior art as the prior art seemingly fails to teach or fairly disclose the specific formulas as in claims 2-5.
E-mail Communications Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting following form via EFS-Web or Central Fax (571-273-8300): PTO/SB/439. Applicant is encouraged to do so as early in prosecution as possible, so as to facilitate communication during examination.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Inquiries
Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)). The Central Fax Center Number is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lori A. Clow, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0715. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 12:00PM to 10:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached on (571) 272-9047.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to (571) 272-0547.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
/Lori A. Clow/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights