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 1-17 are pending and examined herein.
Claims 1-17 are rejected.
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to.
Priority
Claims 1-17 are granted the claim to the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional application 63/075336 filed 08 September 2020. Thus, the effective filling date of claims 1-17 is 08 September 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were received on 07 May 2023, 27 December 2024, and 16 July 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received 08 March 2023 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
112/f Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is: “computational unit configured for: (a) extracting a sequence… and (b) transforming said sequence of time-related biological events into rhythm and/or melody…” in claim 17.
The instant disclosure does not provide an associated structure of the “computation unit configured for: (a) extracting a sequence… and (b) transforming said sequence of time-related biological events into rhythm and/or melody…”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “transforming said sequence of time-related biological events into sonification…” in line 4 should read “transforming said sequence of time-related biological events into sound by performing a sonification process…” to enhance clarity due to sonification being the process of transforming data into sound.
Claim 8 recites “combining… to said video or time lapse capture of the biological process” should read “combining… with said video or time lapse capture of the biological process”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112/a
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites “computational unit configured for: (a) extracting a sequence… and (b) transforming said sequence of time-related biological events into rhythm and/or melody…”. When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see MPEP 2181). There is an insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure of the computational unit (i.e., computer hardware which performs the recited function of the computational unit).
112/b
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein said rhythm is percussion rhythm” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The indefiniteness arises because it is unclear what “said rhythm” is referring to. For the sake of furthering examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “wherein said sonification generates a percussion rhythm”.
Claims 8-10, 15, and 16 recite “said rhythm and/or melody” and claims 12 and 13 recite “said rhythm and/or said melody” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. The indefiniteness arises because it is unclear what “said rhythm and/or said melody” or “said rhythm and/or melody” is referring to. Dependent claim 14 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on a rejected claim without alleviating the indefiniteness. For the sake of furthering examination, these limitations will be interpreted as “said sound generated by said sonification”.
Claim 10 recites “said time-related biological events of a normal biological process is more rhythmic and/or melodic than that of an abnormal biological process” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The indefiniteness arises because it is unclear what constitutes as “more rhythmic and/or melodic” (i.e., it is unclear because melodic is a subjective term (see MPEP 2173.05(b))). For the sake of further examination this limitation will be interpreted as “more rhythmic and/or includes different pitches.
Claim 14 recites “said signal processing algorithm extracts human-perceivable and quantifiable high-level musical information” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The indefiniteness arises because it is unclear what constitutes as high-level musical information and if it differs from measurable information of the audio such as temporal patterns of audio signals (e.g., rhythm). For the sake of furthering examination, this limitation will be interpreted as being “said signal processing algorithm extracts human -perceivable and quantifiable patterns in the sonification”.
Claim 12 recites wherein said sonification is analyzed for changes over time and claim 13 recites wherein said sonification is analyzed using a signal-processing algorithm which renders the metes and bounds of these claims indefinite. The indefiniteness arises because is unclear if this is meant to be an intended use of the sonification or if these limitations are meant to add additional active steps of the method. Dependent claims 14-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claims without alleviating the indefiniteness. For the sake of furthering examination, these limitations will be interpreted as intended uses of the sonification and the limitations in claims 14-16 are interpreted as further limiting the intended uses of the sonification.
112/b Rejection based on 112/f claim interpretation
Claim limitation “computation unit configured for: (a) extracting a sequence… and (b) transforming said sequence of time-related biological events into rhythm and/or melody…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim 17 recites “computational unit configured for: (a) extracting a sequence… and (b) transforming said sequence of time-related biological events into rhythm and/or melody…”. There is an insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure of the computational unit (i.e., computer hardware which performs the recited function of the computational unit). For the sake of furthering examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “a processor configured for: (a) extracting a sequence… and (b) transforming said sequence of time-related biological events into rhythm and/or melody…”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
112/d
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 12-16 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. Claims 12-16 does not limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends because these claims recite intended uses of the sonification. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The claims are patent eligible because the additional elements of “transforming said sequence of time-related biological events into sonification representative of said sequence of time-related biological events thereby representing the biological process via non-speech audio” (in claim 1) and “transforming said sequence of time-related biological events into rhythm and/or melody representative of said time-related biological events thereby representing the biological process via non-speech audio” (in claim 17) meaningfully limits the judicial exception of “extracting a sequence of time-related biological events from the biological process” because the purpose of the claim is to represent the time-related biological events of a biological process as non-speech audio. Further, this additional element interacts with the judicial exception by utilizing the information produced by the judicial exception to process the information itself into non-speech audio and goes beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception (extracting a sequence of time related biological events) to a particular technological environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verrier et al. ("Interactive software for the sonification of neuronal activity." (2020)).
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method of representing a biological process via non-speech audio comprising: (a) extracting a sequence of time-related biological events from the biological process
Verrier et al. shows performing calcium imagining to extract a sequence of calcium activity in regions of interest in neurons in the brain of larval zebrafish over time (Verrier et al. page 285 right col.). Verrier et al. shows extracting a sequence of calcium activity in regions of interest over a recording containing around 3000 frames (Verrier et al. page 285 right col.).
and (b) transforming said sequence of time-related biological events into sonification representative of said sequence of time-related biological events thereby representing the biological process via non-speech audio.
Verrier et al. shows transforming the sequence of calcium activity in regions of interest over a recording by mapping fluorescence values captured in the video recording into audio by utilizing a sonification process (Verrier et al. page 286 left col. - right col., page 286 figure 1 and figure 2, and page 287 left col. - right col.).
Independent claim 17 is directed to a system for representing a biological process via non-speech audio comprising a computational unit configured for: (a) extracting a sequence of time-related biological events from the biological process
Verrier et al. shows performing calcium imagining to extract a sequence of calcium activity in regions of interest in neurons in the brain of larval zebrafish over time (Verrier et al. page 285 right col.). Verrier et al. shows extracting a sequence of calcium activity in regions of interest over a recording containing around 3000 frames (Verrier et al. page 285 right col.). Verrier et al. shows utilizing software for extracting a sequence of time-related biological events from the biological process (Verrier et al. page 285 right col.).
and (b) transforming said sequence of time-related biological events into rhythm and/or melody representative of said time-related biological events thereby representing the biological process via non-speech audio.
Verrier et al. shows transforming the sequence of calcium activity in regions of interest over a recording by mapping fluorescence values captured in the video recording into audio by utilizing a sonification process (Verrier et al. page 286 left col. - right col., page 286 figure 1 and figure 2, and page 287 left col. - right col.). Verrier et al. shows using small intervals between selected noted which was perceived as a melody which is interpreted as transforming the sequence into a melody (Verrier et al. page 290 right col.). Verrier et al. shows utilizing software for transforming a sequence of time-related biological events from the biological process into sonification (Verrier et al. page 286 left col.).
Claim 2 is directed to wherein said sequence of time-related biological events is extracted from a video or time lapse capture of the biological process.
Verrier et al. shows the sequence of calcium activity in regions of interest is extracted from a video of measuring calcium activity in neurons (Verrier et al. page 285 right col.).
Claim 8 is directed to further comprising combining said sonification representative of said time-related biological events to said video or time lapse capture of the biological process.
Verrier et al. shows the software consists of an interface which allows for the display of the calcium activity recording (movie) and provide the audio feedback corresponding to the sonified data which is interpreted as a combination of the video and sonification data (Verrier et al. page 286 left col.).
Claim 11 is directed to wherein said sequence of time-related biological events is extracted from a video or time lapse capture of the biological process using image recognition software.
Verrier et al. shows the sequence of calcium activity in regions of interest is extracted from a video of measuring calcium activity in neurons utilizing image recognition software to extract fluorescence intensity over each region of interest (Verrier et al. page 285 right col.).
Claim 12 is directed to wherein said sonification is analyzed for changes over time. Claim 13 is directed to wherein said sonification is analyzed using a signal-processing algorithm. Claim 14 is directed to said signal processing algorithm extracts human -perceivable and quantifiable patterns in the sonification. Claim 15 is directed to wherein said signal-processing algorithm extracts a rhythmic periodicity of said sonification. Claim 16 is directed to wherein said signal-processing algorithm measures a self-similarity of said sonification.
These limitations are interpreted as intended uses of the sonification and does not limit the method of the claimed invention. Thus, these claims are anticipated by Verrier et al. due to showing the active steps of the claimed method.
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verrier et al. as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 above, and further in view of Gilboa et al. (WO 2020058931 A1; cited in IDS received 07 May 2023).
Claim 3 is directed to wherein the biological process is embryonic development.
Verrier et al. does not show that the biological process is embryonic development.
Like Verrier et al., Gilboa et al. shows performing microscopy on a biological sample to capture a time-related biological process by generating a video containing pixel intensities that contain information on the biological process. Gilboa et al. shows obtaining a sequence of time-stamped images tracking development of a pre-implantation embryo (Gilboa et al. page 4 lines 31-35). Gilboa et al. further shows that the sequence of time stamped images may be video sequences (Gilboa et al. page 5 lines 14-15 and page 33 lines 15-21).
Claim 4 is directed to wherein said sequence of time-related biological events includes cellular division, growth and/or differentiation. Claim 5 is directed to wherein said sequence of time-related biological events includes changes to a subcellular structure. Claim 6 is directed to wherein said subcellular structure is a nucleus, a pronucleus, cytoplasm or a cytoskeleton.
Verrier et al. does not show the biological events includes cellular division, growth and/or differentiation, changes to a subcellular structure, or wherein the subcellular structure is a nucleus, a pronucleus, cytoplasm or a cytoskeleton.
Gilboa et al. shows the sequence of time-stamped images include typical time points in development which includes cellular division and changes in subcellular structure such as a pronucleus (Gilboa et al. page 33 lines 31-35, page 34, and page 35 lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have substituted the biological process in the sonification procedure of Verrier et al. with the biological process of embryo development of Gilboa et al. because both methods produce videos capturing a biological process along with extracting information (i.e., intensity data) from frames of the videos produced by performing microscopy on a biological sample undergoing a biological process and would lead to predictable results of sonifying embryo development based on intensity data of embryo development captured over a period of time. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have combined that time-lapse capture of embryo development of Gilboa et al. with the sonification process of Verrier et al. because this would allow for a process for sonifying embryo development to complement visual information to aid physicians in analyzing embryonic development (Verrier et al. page 285 left col.). One would have a reasonable expectation of success for this combination because Verrier et al. shows this sonification process is applied to microscopic data capturing a sequence of time-related biological events of a biological process while Gilboa et al. shows capturing a sequence of time-related biological events of the biological process of embryonic development.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verrier et al. as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 above, and further in view of Kagawa et al. (2014 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics - Taiwan, Taipei, Taiwan, 2014, pp. 119-120).
Claim 7 is directed to wherein said sonification is percussion rhythm.
Verrier et al. does not show utilizing percussion in the sonification of images.
Kagawa et al. shows utilizing drums for the sonification of images (Kagawa et al. page 120 left col.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have substituted the sound used in the sonification procedure of Verrier et al. with the use of drums as the base sound shown in Kagawa et al. because both methods perform sonification on images and would lead to predictable results of sonifying images utilizing drums as a base sound.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Verrier et al. as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 above as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dascalu et al. (US 20190336063 A1).
Claim 9 is directed to wherein said sonification representative of said time-related biological events of a normal biological process differs from that of an abnormal biological process. Claim 10 is directed to wherein said sonification representative of said time-related biological events of a normal biological process more rhythmic and/or includes different pitches than that of an abnormal biological process.
Verrier et al. does not show wherein said sonification representative of said time-related biological events of a normal biological process differs from that of an abnormal biological process or wherein said sonification representative of said time-related biological events of a normal biological process is more rhythmic and/or includes different pitches than that of an abnormal biological process.
Like Verrier et al., Dascalu et al. shows a process of performing sonification on image data of a biological sample. Dascalu et al. shows utilizing audio sounds including different pitches, loudness, durations, timbres, and other sound attributes to distinguish between abnormal features in the medical image comparatively to normal features in the medical image (Dascalu et al. [0073]).
An invention would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art if some motivation in the prior art would have led that person to modify reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have modified the process of performing sonification of images of Verrier et al. to include the process of sonifying abnormalities in the biological sample with different sounds than normal features in the biological sample of Dascalu et al. because this would allow for the ability to distinguish between normal features and abnormal features in the biological sample undergoing a biological process utilizing different sounds to alert a user of abnormalities (Dascalu et al. [0073]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success because both Verrier et al. and Dascalu et al. show sonifying image data from a biological sample being analyzed.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN EDWARD HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-6165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached at 571-272-2249. 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.
/J.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights