DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-13 and 64-68 are pending.
Claims 3, 6, 10 and 14-63 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, with respect to the 101 rejection of the claim 1 (see Amendment, Page 7-9), that for the determining function, the “amended claim 1 now expressly requires performing specific operations that cannot be performed in the human mind.” (see Amendment, Page 7 last line – Page 8 first line).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0008], [0010] and [0134], for instance, the limitation of “determining a second acoustic map indicative of the acoustic transfer function between the first location and the second location for the second acoustic test signal” is a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on an acquired acoustic sensor data. Further, under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0134] and [0178], and as Applicant remarks on Amendment Page 8, lines 8-9 (“Indeed, the claimed subject matter computes an acoustic transfer function between different locations for a specific test signal.”), for instance, the limitations, as claimed, is a process that entails purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that “even assuming claim 1 recites an abstract idea, the claim integrates the acoustic-map comparison into a practical application by using the threshold determination to generate information specifically configured for responsive building-system action. Amended claim 1 recites using a speaker or buzzer to emit a frequency-sweeping acoustic test signal swept through a plurality of frequencies over a testing interval, measuring the resulting acoustic response at a physically separate sensor location, and generating a notification or report when a difference between a baseline and updated acoustic map exceeds a threshold, with the notification and/or report being generated for a subsequent transmission to a building management controller, and with the notification and/or the report being indicative of a detected event to alter window tint, lighting, vents, and/or other actuators responsive to the detected event. It is respectfully submitted that these operations amount to a concrete technical process for detecting changes in the physical acoustic properties of an enclosure and thus provide a real- world improvement in monitoring and detecting structural or environmental changes within an enclosure.” (see Amendment, Page 8, first full paragraph)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner submits “using the threshold determination to generate information specifically configured for responsive building-system action”, more specifically, generating “the notification and/or the report being indicative of a detected event to alter window tint, lighting, vents, and/or other actuators responsive to the detected event” is not indicative of integration into a practical application, as “for responsive building-system action,” such as altering “window tint, lighting, vents, and/or other actuators” is an intended use and fails to identify how the functional result (responsive building-system action or altering) is achieved by limiting the claim scope to structures specified at some level of concreteness. In addition, “using a speaker or buzzer to emit a frequency-sweeping acoustic test signal swept through a plurality of frequencies over a testing interval, measuring the resulting acoustic response at a physically separate sensor location” is not indicative of integration into a practical application, as it amounts to generic electronic components (speaker or buzzer) as tools to perform an abstract idea. Further, “measuring the resulting acoustic response at a physically separate sensor location” is an insignificant extra-solution activity, of necessary data gathering, under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive, and 101 rejections are maintained.
With respect to claim 2 (see Amendment, Page 9), Applicant argues that the amended claim 2 “specifically requires controlling at least one apparatus in response to the difference between the second acoustic map and the first acoustic map being greater than a threshold. In this regard, claim 2 further defines a concrete control scheme.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits, that “controlling at least one apparatus” or “controlling at least one apparatus in the enclosure and/or in a facility in which the enclosure is disposed, wherein the emitter is operatively coupled to a control system; and the controlling is by the control system,” as recited in the claim, does not amount to a concrete control scheme. The control system controlling an apparatus in a facility is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Controlling a generic devices (at least one apparatus) using a generic control (a control system) fails to identify how the functional result (missing in the claim) is achieved by limiting the claim scope to structures specified at some level of concreteness.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive, and 101 rejection of claim 2 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-13 and 64-68 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.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations (1) “storing a first acoustic map indicative of an acoustic transfer function between the first location and the second location” in lines 6-7, (2) “determining a second acoustic map indicative of the acoustic transfer function between the first location and the second location for the second acoustic test signal” in lines 11-12, and (3) “generating a notification and/or a report when a difference between the second acoustic map and the first acoustic map is greater than a threshold …” in lines 13-14.
It is unclear what Applicant means by the limitations. Both the first acoustic map and the second acoustic map are indicative of the same acoustic transfer function between the first location and the second location. However, the claim recites that a notification is generated “when a difference between the second acoustic map and the first acoustic map is greater than a threshold.” It is unclear how the first acoustic map and the second acoustic map that are indicative of the same acoustic transfer function can be different. Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. For purposes of examination, the limitations (1) and (2) will be interpreted as “storing a first acoustic map indicative of a first acoustic transfer function between the first location and the second location for the first acoustic test signal” and “determining a second acoustic map indicative of a second acoustic transfer function between the first location and the second location for the second acoustic test signal”, respectively. See support in published specification paragraph [0011]. (“… (I) compensating the detected sound event according to a corresponding acoustic transfer function from the first acoustic map and/or the second acoustic map …”) (emphasis added).
Independent claims 67 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons as for the independent claim 1, as discussed above.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-13 and 64-66 are dependent claims of claim 1. The claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-13 and 64-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-13 and 64-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1:
(Step 2A, Prong One)
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations, “determining a second acoustic map indicative of the acoustic transfer function between the first location and the second location for the second acoustic test signal; and … when a difference between the second acoustic map and the first acoustic map is greater than a threshold”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0008], [0010] and [0134], for instance, the determining function and the difference comparing function are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on an acquired sensor data in response to an emitted acoustic signal. That is, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
In addition, under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0134] and [0178], and as Applicant remarks on Amendment Page 8, lines 8-9 (“Indeed, the claimed subject matter computes an acoustic transfer function between different locations for a specific test signal.”), for instance, the limitations, as claimed, is a process that entails purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of, “using an emitter to emit a first acoustic test signal, which the emitter is disposed at a first location in an enclosure; using a sensor to measure a first acoustic response corresponding to the first acoustic test signal, wherein the sensor is disposed at a second location; storing a first acoustic map indicative of an acoustic transfer function between the first location and the second location; using the emitter to emit a second acoustic test signal; measuring a second acoustic response corresponding to the second acoustic test signal; generating a notification and/or a report … for a subsequent transmission to a building management controller, the notification and/or the report indicative of a detected event to alter window tint, lighting, vents, and/or other actuators responsive to the detected event; wherein the emitter is a speaker or a buzzer, and wherein at least one of the first acoustic test signal or the second acoustic test signal is a frequency sweeping signal that is swept through a plurality of frequencies over a testing interval.”
The additional limitations “using an emitter to emit a first acoustic test signal, which the emitter is disposed at a first location in an enclosure; using the emitter to emit a second acoustic test signal; … wherein the emitter is a speaker or a buzzer, and wherein at least one of the first acoustic test signal or the second acoustic test signal is a frequency sweeping signal that is swept through a plurality of frequencies over a testing interval” as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to determine and compare as recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f)
The additional limitations of “using a sensor to measure a first acoustic response corresponding to the first acoustic test signal, wherein the sensor is disposed at a second location; storing a first acoustic map indicative of an acoustic transfer function between the first location and the second location; measuring a second acoustic response corresponding to the second acoustic test signal; generating a notification and/or a report … for a subsequent transmission to a building management controller” are insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The measuring limitations amount to necessary data gathering, and the storing and the generating limitations amounts to necessary data output. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). The feature “the notification and/or the report indicative of a detected event to alter window tint, lighting, vents, and/or other actuators responsive to the detected event” further defines what amounts to the necessary data output indicating “a detected event” of “generating a notification and/or a report”, where “to alter window tint, lighting, vents, and/or other actuators responsive to the detected event” is merely an intended use of “the notification and/or the report”.
The claim does not recite an improvement in a technology as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the additional limitations recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
(Step 2B)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional features including “using an emitter to emit a first acoustic test signal, which the emitter is disposed at a first location in an enclosure; using the emitter to emit a second acoustic test signal; … wherein the emitter is a speaker or a buzzer, and wherein at least one of the first acoustic test signal or the second acoustic test signal is a frequency sweeping signal that is swept through a plurality of frequencies over a testing interval”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitation may be tools that are used for the functions recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more.
The using a sensor to measure and measuring functions represent functions that are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, for instance, as Salonidis et al. (US 9,892,744 B1) (“Salonidis”) describes in Column 9 lines 33-44 (“Data collection module 242 receives acoustic signal reading data from sensing unit 220, for example, in the form of data packets received from sensing unit 220 over network 210, and stores each acoustic reading in data storage 250 in the form of, for example, separate data files. Generally, each acoustic reading data file contains signal data, as well as corresponding metadata, as previously described. For example, data collection module 242 may receive and store sixty individual acoustic readings, corresponding to sixty readings taken by the sensing unit 220 at sixty distinct data collection points 190 and orientations within machine room enclosure 101.”), Trayhan, JR. et al. (US 2018/0011059 A1) (“Trayhan”) describes in Paragraph [0005] (“A second aspect of the disclosure provides a method for evaluating components in an industrial plant, the method including: detecting an acoustic signature of a component in the industrial plant with a first acoustic sensor included within a first lighting device of industrial plant; determining a difference between a baseline acoustic signature and an acoustic signature of a component in the industrial plant; identifying the component from a plurality of components based on at least the acoustic signature and a position of the first lighting device; and evaluating a condition of the component based on the position of the component and the difference between the acoustic signature the baseline acoustic signature.”), and Rabinowitz et al. (US 2017/0086003 A1) (“Rabinowitz”) describes in paragraph [0004] (“According to the invention, an audio system includes a source of audio signals; signal processing circuitry coupled to the source for processing the audio signals to produce processed audio signals; a plurality of loudspeaker units, coupled to the signal processing circuitry, designed and constructed to be deployed about a room, for radiating sound waves responsive to the processed audio signals; a microphone unit, for receiving the sound waves and for transducing the sound waves to electrical signals; acoustic measuring circuitry, for receiving the transduced sound waves and calculating frequency response measurements; a memory, coupled to the acoustic measuring circuitry, for storing characteristic data of the loudspeaker units and further for storing the frequency response measurements; and equalization calculation circuitry, coupled to the memory, for calculating an equalization pattern responsive to the digital data and responsive to the characteristic data of the plurality of loudspeaker units.”)
The storing function represents a function that is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, for instance, as Salonidis describes in Column 9 lines 33-44 (“Data collection module 242 receives acoustic signal reading data from sensing unit 220, for example, in the form of data packets received from sensing unit 220 over network 210, and stores each acoustic reading in data storage 250 in the form of, for example, separate data files. Generally, each acoustic reading data file contains signal data, as well as corresponding metadata, as previously described. For example, data collection module 242 may receive and store sixty individual acoustic readings, corresponding to sixty readings taken by the sensing unit 220 at sixty distinct data collection points 190 and orientations within machine room enclosure 101.”) Trayhan describes in Paragraph [0034] (“Data 300 can also be subject to preliminary processing by modules of acoustic analysis program 220 before being recorded in one or more of fields 302, 304, 306, 308. For example, acoustic interpreter 228 can apply a set of rules to interpret the anomalous sounds of acoustic signatures) 166 from components 102, 104, 110, 126, 128. Such rules and/or other criteria may be generated from the manufacturer's design analysis of these components. For example, compressor 102 may generate acoustical energy particularly related to the number of rotating blades of various stages. In the case of combustor 110, the possible resonant frequencies, as related to the type and geometry of combustor 110, operating conditions, type of fuels combusted, etc., may be analyzed in design stage. Such analyses can determine criteria such as the amplitude limits associated with each frequency for acoustic signatures 166 to be stored in data 300.”), and Rabinowitz describes in paragraph [0004] (“According to the invention, an audio system includes a source of audio signals; signal processing circuitry coupled to the source for processing the audio signals to produce processed audio signals; a plurality of loudspeaker units, coupled to the signal processing circuitry, designed and constructed to be deployed about a room, for radiating sound waves responsive to the processed audio signals; a microphone unit, for receiving the sound waves and for transducing the sound waves to electrical signals; acoustic measuring circuitry, for receiving the transduced sound waves and calculating frequency response measurements; a memory, coupled to the acoustic measuring circuitry, for storing characteristic data of the loudspeaker units and further for storing the frequency response measurements; and equalization calculation circuitry, coupled to the memory, for calculating an equalization pattern responsive to the digital data and responsive to the characteristic data of the plurality of loudspeaker units.”)
The generating function represents a function that is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, for instance, as Salonidis describes in Column 1, lines 18-23 (“Some machines may include integrated instrumentation and network communications capability, allowing them to self-monitor and identify conditions relating to their operation performance, such as, for example, conditions relating to degradation or impending issues, and to report out such conditions.”), Trayhan describes in Paragraph [0026] (“In one example, computing device 200 can determine whether component(s) 102, 104, 110, 126, 128 require servicing, replacement, etc., based on whether an amplitude of acoustic signature(s) 166 exceed a baseline acoustic signature for component(s) 102, 104, 110, 126, 128 by a predetermined number of dB. In another embodiment, computing device 200 can determine whether component(s) 102, 104, 110, 126, 128, are possibly defective or at risk of failure, e.g., based on whether acoustic signatures 166 include wavelengths which exceed the tolerance window of one or more wavelengths in a baseline acoustic signature, thereby indicating that unusual sounds have been produced regardless of their volume.”), and Rabinowitz describes in paragraph [0008] (“In another aspect of the invention, a process for generating an equalization pattern in an audio system having a first microphone and a loudspeaker unit, includes testing, by the audio system, the microphone to determine if the microphone is functional over a frequency range; and in the event the microphone is not functional over the frequency range, generating a message to a user.”)
Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “determining that a difference between the second acoustic map and the first acoustic map is greater than the threshold.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, under its broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations, as claimed, is a process that entails purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Step 2A, Prong One analysis of the independent claim 1.
The additional limitation of “in response, … controlling at least one apparatus in the enclosure and/or in a facility in which the enclosure is disposed, wherein the emitter is operatively coupled to a control system; and the controlling is by the control system” is recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Accordingly, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 67 and 68 are not patent eligible for the similar reasons as for the independent claim 1, as discussed above.
Dependent claims 4-5, 7-8 and 64-66 are directed to further defining the tools that are used for the functions recited in the claim.
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further defining the extra solution activities in the claim.
Dependent claims 11 and 13 are directed to further defining the abstract idea and the extra solution activities in the claim.
Dependent claim 12 is directed to further defining the abstract idea, the tool, and the extra solution activities in the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL W CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-5069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL W CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights