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 Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 line 3 should recite “containing a particular sound event of interest” if the event is singular or “containing particular sound events” if there are a plurality of events. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 20, 23-25, 27, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A method for identifying segments of a digital audio recording of sounds from a subject, where the segments contain particular sound events of interest, the method comprising:
filtering the digital audio recording based on a characteristic frequency range of the sound events to produce a filtered digital audio signal; processing the filtered digital audio signal to produce a corresponding signal envelope;
fitting a statistical distribution to the signal envelope;
determining a threshold level for the signal envelope based on the statistical distribution and a predetermined probability level; and
identifying segments of the signal envelope that are above the threshold level to thereby identify corresponding segments of the digital audio recording of sounds from the subject as segments of the digital audio recording containing the particular sound events of interest.
Independent Claim 23 recites:
An apparatus comprising a sound event identification machine configured to identify portions of a digital audio recording of a subject containing a particular sound events of interest, including:
a processor for processing the digital recording;
a digital memory in data communication with the processor, the digital memory storing instructions to configure the processor, the instructions including instructions configuring the processor to:
filter the recording based on a characteristic frequency range of the sound events;
process the filtered recording to produce a corresponding signal envelope;
fit a statistical distribution to the signal envelope to thereby determine a threshold level corresponding to a predetermined probability level; and
identify segments of the signal envelope that are above the threshold to thereby identify corresponding segments of the digital audio recording as segments containing the particular sound events.
Step 1:
After applying the two-part Alice/Mayo test to the claims, the examiner finds during step one that claim 1 is drawn to a method and claim 13 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The above claim limitations constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claimed steps of filtering, fitting, processing, and identifying recite mental processes and mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
The step of “filtering” the recording in independent Claims 1 and 23 is an example of a mental process capable of being performed by the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of filtering out the sound of air conditioning or the crunch of popcorn when watching a movie. The steps of “fitting” a statistical distribution to a signal envelope in independent Claims 1 and 23 is a mathematical calculation to select a mathematical function that best represents the data. The step of “processing” the signal/recording in claims 1 and 23 is a mental process capable of being performed by the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of processing the words on a page to determine meaning. The step of “identifying” in independent claims 1 and 23 is an example of a mental process capable or being performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of identifying differences between a dog and an elephant.
The claimed steps of filtering, fitting, processing, and identifying can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
“[T]he ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The pending claims merely recite steps for estimation that include observations, evaluations, and judgments.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind,
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind,
University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information, which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Regarding the dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 20, 24-25, 27, and 31-32, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B:
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 20, 23-25, 27, and 31-32 is not integrated into a practical application because:
• The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computing device. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components filtering, fitting, processing, and identifying merely invoke a computer as a tool.
• The data-gathering step and the data-output step do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
• There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computing device that is used as a tool for filtering, fitting, processing, and identifying.
• The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to estimate bio-information.
• The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computing device for filtering, fitting, processing, and identifying. The claims do not apply the obtained prediction to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
The additional elements are identified as follows: processor, memory, and a microphone.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
• Applicant’s Background in the specification; and
• The non-patent literature of record in the application.
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional generic computer components as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the units associated with the steps do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. A computer, processor, memory, or equivalent hardware is merely used as a tool for executing the abstract idea(s). The process claimed does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 23-25, 27, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peltonen (WO 2018141013 A2) in view of Billi Fabrizio (WO 2014138435 A1) and Townsend (WO 2014036651 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Peltonen teaches a method for identifying segments of a digital audio recording of sounds from a subject, where the segments contain particular sound events of interest, the method comprising:
filtering the digital audio recording based on a characteristic frequency range of the sound events to produce a filtered digital audio signal [page 13 lns. 13-15]; and
identifying segments of the signal envelope that are above the threshold level to thereby identify corresponding segments of the digital audio recording of sounds from the subject as segments of the digital audio recording containing the particular sound events of interest [see Fig. 6A, thd1 and thd2 as “thresholds”].
Peltonen teaches processing the filtered digital audio signal [page 12 lns. 19-20], but fails to teach processing to produce a corresponding signal envelope and fitting a statistical distribution to the signal envelope.
Billi Fabrizio teaches processing the digital signal [0046 “digital signal processor”] to produce a corresponding signal envelope [Fig. 22A-C]; and
fitting a statistical distribution to the signal envelope [Fig. 22A-C].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Petonen and incorporate the teachings of Billi Fabrizio to include processing to produce a corresponding signal envelope and fitting a statistical distribution to the signal envelope. Doing so configures the system to analyze the data with a “…discrimination system that is amplitude independent and that can be used in combination with time domain envelopes for classification”, as recognized by Billi Fabrizio para 00101.
Peltonen teaches determining a threshold level for the signal envelope based a predetermined probability level [page 12 lns. 32-34], but fails to teach the threshold is based on the statistical distribution.
Townsend teaches the threshold is based on the statistical distribution [0070 “One method to select thresholds is by analysis of the histogram and cumulative distribution function of the stationarity models applied to a dataset”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Peltonen and incorporate the teachings of Townsend to include the threshold is based on the statistical distribution. Doing so configures the system to utilize a model to provide a more accurate baseline to classify a patient’s condition.
Regarding claim 23, Peltonen teaches an apparatus comprising a sound event identification machine configured to identify portions of a digital audio recording of a subject containing a particular sound events of interest, including:
a processor for processing the digital recording [page 20 lns. 32-33];
a digital memory in data communication with the processor [page 20 lns. 32-33], the digital memory storing instructions to configure the processor [page 21 lns. 1-5], the instructions including instructions configuring the processor to:
filter the recording based on a characteristic frequency range of the sound events [page 13 lns. 13-15];
identify segments of the signal envelope that are above the threshold to thereby identify corresponding segments of the digital audio recording as segments containing the particular sound events [see Fig. 6A, thd1 and thd2 as “thresholds”].
Peltonen teaches processing the filtered digital audio signal [page 12 lns. 19-20], but fails to teach processing to produce a corresponding signal envelope and fitting a statistical distribution to the signal envelope.
Billi Fabrizio teaches processing the recording [0046 “digital signal processor”] to produce a corresponding signal envelope [Fig. 22A-C]; and
fitting a statistical distribution to the signal envelope [Fig. 22A-C].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Petonen and incorporate the teachings of Billi Fabrizio to include processing to produce a corresponding signal envelope and fitting a statistical distribution to the signal envelope. Doing so configures the system to analyze the data with a “…discrimination system that is amplitude independent and that can be used in combination with time domain envelopes for classification”, as recognized by Billi Fabrizio para 00101.
Peltonen teaches determining a threshold level for the signal envelope based a predetermined probability level [page 12 lns. 32-34], but fails to teach the threshold is based on the statistical distribution.
Townsend teaches the threshold is based on the statistical distribution [0070 “One method to select thresholds is by analysis of the histogram and cumulative distribution function of the stationarity models applied to a dataset”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Peltonen and incorporate the teachings of Townsend to include the threshold is based on the statistical distribution. Doing so configures the system to utilize a model to provide a more accurate baseline to classify a patient’s condition.
Regarding claim 24, Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, and Townsend teach the apparatus of claim 23, including a microphone that is configured to pick up sounds of the subject [Peltonen page 12 ln. 15].
Regarding claim 25, Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, and Townsend teach the apparatus of claim 23, including an audio interface comprising a filter and an analog-to-digital converter configured to convert the sounds of the subject into a digital audio signal [Peltonen page 13 lns. 12-13, see also page 21 lns. 23-34], wherein the apparatus is confiqured to store the diqital audio siqnal as the diqital audio recordinq in the digital memory accessible to the processor [Peltonen page 21 lns. 27-29].
Regarding claim 27, Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, and Townsend teach the apparatus of claim 23, including a human-machine-interface, wherein the instructions stored in the digital memory include instructions that confiqure the processor to display information on the human-machine-interface [Peltonen page 21 ln. 29 “screen”] including information identifying segments in the digital audio recording containing the events of interest [Peltonen page 21 lns. 29-30].
Regarding claim 31, Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, and Townsend teach the apparatus of claim 27, wherein the digital memory includes instructions that configure the processor to write a start and an end time for each identified segment in a non-volatile manner [Peltonen page 17 lns. 11-13] to thereby tangibly label segments containing the events of interest in respect of the digital audio recording [Peltonen page 17 lns. 17-19].
Regarding claim 32, Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, and Townsend teach a machine-readable media bearing tangible, non-transitory instructions for execution by one or more processors to implement the method of claim 1 [page 20 lns. 32-33].
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, and Townsend as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grace (US 20190239772 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, and Townsend teach the method of claim 1, but fails to teach applying a first downsampling by which a sample rate of the digital audio recording is reduced by an integer factor to produce a first downsampled digital audio signal.
Grace teaches applying a first downsampling by which a sample rate of the digital audio recording is reduced by an integer factor to produce a first downsampled digital audio signal [0039 “…the input signal is downsampled to obtain a downsampled signal”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, and Townsend and incorporate the teachings of Grace to include applying a first downsampling by which a sample rate of the digital audio recording is reduced by an integer factor to produce a first downsampled digital audio signal. Doing so configures the system to reduce file size, provide a means for faster data processing, and provide for more efficient storage, which ultimately lead to lower operating costs and quicker analysis.
Regarding claim 3, Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, Townsend, and Grace teach the method of claim 2, wherein the first downsampled digital audio signal is filtered in the characteristic frequency range to select for the sound events of interest to thereby produce a first downsampled and event-filtered digital audio signal [Grace 0039 “…downsampling the input signal is performed by downsampling with anti-aliasing filter to a sampling rate of 1500 Hz”].
Regarding claim 4, Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, Townsend, and Grace teach the method of claim 3, wherein a combination of Peltonen and Grace further teach the events of interest comprise breath sounds [Grace 0040 “…obtain a signal where a user's breath signal is most likely present”] and wherein filtering the digital audio recording comprises applying a high pass filter [Peltonen page 13 lns. 13-15].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, Townsend, and Grace as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lindquist (US 20100204614 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, Townsend, and Grace teach the method of claim 3, wherein filtering the digital audio recording comprises applying a low pass filter [Peltonen page 13 lns. 13-15], but fails to teach the events of interest comprise snore sounds.
Lindquist teaches the events of interest comprise snore sounds [abstract “…an audio input signal including snoring”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, Townsend, and Grace and incorporate the teachings of Lindquist to include the events of interest comprise snore sounds. Doing so configures the system to analyze the respiratory condition of the patient to identify potentially snoring related health conditions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, Townsend, and Grace as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Azevedo (WO 2019241704 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, Townsend, and Grace teach the method of claim 3, wherein Peltonen and Grace further teach filtering [Peltonen page 13 lns. 13-15] and downsampling [Grace 0039 “…the input signal is downsampled to obtain a downsampled signal”] the digial signal, but fail to teach processing the filtered digital audio signal to produce a corresponding signal envelope is implemented by an envelope detection procedure that includes applying an absolute value filter to the first downsampled and event-filtered signal to produce an absolute value filtered signal.
Azevedo teaches processing the filtered digital audio signal to produce a corresponding signal envelope is implemented by an envelope detection procedure that includes applying an absolute value filter to the first downsampled and event-filtered signal to produce an absolute value filtered signal [0148 “…an absolute value filter and a low pass filter (e.g., envelope detection)…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, Townsend, and Grace and incorporate the teachings of Azevedo to include processing the filtered digital audio signal to produce a corresponding signal envelope is implemented by an envelope detection procedure that includes applying an absolute value filter to the first downsampled and event-filtered signal to produce an absolute value filtered signal. Doing so configures the system to have a means for efficient and low-cost extraction of a signal's amplitude varying envelope so as to enable real-time signal analysis by effectively removing high-frequency components.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, Townsend, Grace, and Azevedo as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Felix (US 9619660 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, Townsend, Grace, and Azevedo teach the method of claim 6, wherein the absolute value filtered signal is filtered, but fails to teach the signal is filtered by a forward and reverse filter to produce a low pass filtered absolute value signal.
Felix teaches the signal is filtered by a forward and reverse filter to produce a low pass filtered absolute value signal [col. 28 lns. 43-45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Peltonen, Billi Fabrizio, Townsend, Grace, and Azevedo and incorporate the teachings of Felix to include the signal is filtered by a forward and reverse filter to produce a low pass filtered absolute value signal. Doing so configures the system to “cancel out any phase distortion”, as recognized by Felix col. 28 ln. 46.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 0730-1630 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)272-4233. 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.
/JONATHAN M HANEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791