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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed on 1/2/26. Claims 5, 6, 9, 16 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-15 and 17-20 are currently pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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.
Claim 1-4, 7, 8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of determining first snore information before the target audio clip and second snore information after the target audio clip based on the initial audio clips, determining a confidence value for the target audio clip based on the first snore information and the second snore information, wherein the confidence value is configured to represent a possibility that the target audio clip is an abnormal sleep audio clip and determining whether the target audio clip is the abnormal sleep audio clip based on the confidence value of the target audio clip.
The limitation of determining the snore information, determining a confidence value and determining whether the target audio clip is abnormal, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, the claims are direct to concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or analogous to human mental work and nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor, communications interface and output language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating information from the obtained signals. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of obtaining a plurality of initial audio clips. This is just data gathering and amounts to insignificant extra-solutional activity, specifically pre-solutional activity. Additionally, the processor, memory and implied output device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly the dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 11, 12, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. US 2013/0261485.
Regarding claim 1, 12 and 20, Ishikawa discloses a method for recognizing an abnormal sleep audio clip, performed by an electronic device, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of initial audio clips collected by a sensor, wherein the initial audio clip comprises a first audio clip, a target audio clip, and a second audio clip with continuous timing information ([¶50,51,55-57]);
determining the target audio clip matching a preset sleep state from the initial audio clips, wherein the preset sleep state represent an abnormal sleep state ([FIG4][FIG6b][¶84] one of the midway segments is the target clip with segments before and after);
determining first snore information in the first audio clip before the target audio clip and second snore information in the second audio clip after the target audio clip based on the initial audio clips ([¶84] breathing information before and after the target segment are determined);
determining a confidence value for the target audio clip based on the first snore information and the second snore information, wherein the confidence value is configured to represent a possibility that the target audio clip is an abnormal sleep audio clip ([¶103,104-113] based on the determinations about the previous segment and the following segment and duration criteria it is determined if apnea has occurred); and
determining whether the target audio clip is the abnormal sleep audio clip based on the confidence value of the target audio clip ([¶104-110,163,185-186] the sound level or intensity is used as the confidence value to determine the difference in sound between segments).
wherein determining the confidence value for the target audio clip based on the first snore information and the second snore information comprises:
determining a difference between the first snore intensity in the first snore information and the second snore intensity in the second snore information ([¶10-110,113,163] the sound level between the segments is compared. Specifically a difference is the sound of the segments is used to determine apnea); and
determining the confidence value for the target audio clip based on the difference, the preset sleep state corresponding to the target audio clip and a duration corresponding to the preset sleep state ([¶113,163,185-186] apnea is determined).
Ishikawa does not specifically disclose a first snore intensity in the first snore information is an average value of snore intensities at respective time points in the first audio clip, or a snore intensity of a last moment in the first audio clip, and a second snore intensity in the second snore information comprises an average of snore intensities at respective time points in the second audio clip, or a snore intensity of a first moment in the second audio clip. Ishikawa does disclose taking the average value or weight average value of several of the metrics determined ([¶75,158]) but not specifically sound or intensity. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ishikawa to determine the average of the sound Ishikawa clearly determines other averages and determining an average is a common statistical calculation.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Ishikawa discloses determining whether the target audio clip is the abnormal sleep audio clip based on the confidence value of the target audio clip comprises:
determining that the target audio clip is the abnormal sleep audio clip in response to the confidence value of the target audio clip being greater than a threshold ([¶111,112] if enough threshold conditions are met or exceed apnea is determined).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Zheng US 2015/0342519.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Ishikawa does not specifically discloses using a sleep event recognition model. Zheng teaches a similar apnea detection system that determines the sleep event by
obtaining a sleep event recognition result corresponding to each initial audio clip by inputting the initial audio clips into a preset sleep event recognition model ([¶40] the analysis engine is a rules based classifier model);
for each initial audio clip, determining a sleep state recognition result of the initial audio clip in response to the sleep event recognition result corresponding to the initial audio clip matching a preset sleep event, wherein the sleep state recognition result comprise the preset sleep state ([¶41]); and
determining the initial audio clip as the target audio clip in response to a sleep state of the initial audio clip being the preset sleep state ([¶41] the processing model determines the sleep state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Ishikawa with the teachings of Zheng in order to determine an overall sleep index ([¶43]).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Ishikawa discloses determining the sleep state recognition result of the initial audio clip, comprises: extracting an audio feature of the initial audio clip; and determining the sleep state identification result of the initial audio clip based on the audio feature of the initial audio clip ([¶63] frame noise and volume is determined).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Zheng discloses the preset sleep event comprises a snoring event within a same initial audio clip and a breathing event; and the preset sleep state comprises hypopnea and apnea within the same audio clip ([¶40]).
Claim(s) 8, 10, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Manjunath et al. US 2022/0138300.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Ishikawa does not disclose obtaining a historical abnormal clip. Manjunath teaches a similar machine learning based apnea detector that further comprises: obtaining a historical abnormal clip based on a sleep state of the abnormal sleep audio clip, wherein the historical abnormal clip is an abnormal clip determined by a user operation; and determining whether the abnormal sleep audio clip is a true abnormal clip based on the historical abnormal clip ([¶560-562] historical patterns are used in the determination of the apnea events). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Ishikawa with the teachings of Manjunath to have a more personalized detection model.
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa does not disclose obtaining and displaying sleep aid device information and/or medical aid resource information corresponding to the abnormal sleep audio clip. Manjunath teaches a similar machine learning based apnea detector that provides therapy and treatment recommendations ([¶566]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Ishikawa with the teachings of Manjunath to have a more personalized detection model.
Regarding claim 11, Ishikawa discloses determining a sleep cycle, generating a sleep curve based on the sleep cycle and labeling the abnormal sleep audio clip in the sleep curve, wherein the sleep curve is used to represent sleep states of a user at different time points ([FIG1]). Ishikawa does not specifically disclose using machine learning to do these steps. Manjunath teaches a similar machine learning based apnea detector that determines cycles and events ([¶560-562]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Ishikawa with the teachings of Manjunath to have a more personalized detection model.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-11, filed 1/2/26, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 101 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it provides an improvement to the technology. Specifically, the claims supposedly provide a method that improves accuracy and reliability in identifying abnormal sleep data and significantly reduces computational complexity. However, the claims and the specification do not seem to support the argued improvement. Applicant’s disclosure in the specification does not recite any particular improvements and mentions accuracy once in ¶99 as it relates to personalizing a model. It is not clear what additional elements or parts of the method provide for these improvements.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 102 and 103 rejections, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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 A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights