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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant is of the opinion that claims are not directed to abstract idea. The computer-implemented voice-signal-processing limitations solve a technical problem. The computer-implemented voice instructions solve the technical problem by providing a way to process the human voice data to generate the T2DM diabetic status prediction both efficiently and practically. The specification frames the technical problem in that: voice signal analysis "involves digital signal processing of the voice data," requires "significant processing capabilities" to determine biomarker signals and extract relevant information, and must address the "sheer number of available biomarker signals" by efficiently selecting biomarkers to reduce processing overhead. The specification also discloses efficiently selecting biomarkers to reduce processing overhead. The specification also identifies a real-time implementation challenge: voice-analysis prediction systems should operate with voice data collection, across different processing platforms and deliver predictions to user in a timely manner (Paragraph 0008). The claims addresses the technical problem by using a processor-based pipeline that extracts predetermined voice biomarker feature values from a voice sample and applies a diabetic status prediction model stored in memory to generate and output a T2DM diabetic status prediction. Claims also not reciting an observation or metal judgement. A human mind, with or without pen and paper, is not equipped to perform at least the claimed extraction of predetermined voice biomarker feature values from a voice sample and execution of a stored prediction model on that voice-sample data in the claimed manner. Additionally, claims are similar to SRI Int. Inc v. Cisco system inc, DDR holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, and Ex Parte Desjardins. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims directed to receiving information, analyzing information and providing the result which is an abstract idea. The claims involve a series of steps of receiving information, extracting data from the received information, determining by analyzing the extracted information and output the result of analysis which is a mental process perform in human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
With respect to claims integrated into a practical application because the voice-signal-processing limitations solve a technical problem identified in the specification. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification ¶0008 describes problems, eligibility is assessed based on what is actually claimed not what is disclosed. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claim recites only “extracting…at least one voice biomarker feature value from the voice sample for at least one predetermined voice biomarker features” with no recited technique, algorithm or processing step that reduces computational overhead or addresses the “sheer number of available biomarker signals” problem; and “determining…the T2DM diabetic status prediction…based on the at least one voice biomarker feature value and the diabetic status prediction module” which is purely functional, result-oriented recitation of applying a black box model, with no limitation on how the model is structured, trained or executed to achieve any efficiency gain. Because the claim recites only the desired outcome i.e. extract a value, apply a model, get a prediction rather than specific technical solution. The “significant processing capabilities” and biomarker-selection-overhead problem described in ¶0008 would need to be reflected in claim language. For example, a specific feature-selection criterion, a specific DSP technique, or a specific model architecture etc.
With respect to arguments that “a human mind cannot perform digital processing” cannot overcome the rejection. The relevant question under Step 2A, Prong Two and step 2B is not simply whether a human could perform the recited steps unaided, but whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application or provides significantly more than the exception, through a specific technical improvement. Even accepting that a human mind can not literally “extract” a digital feature value from an audio waveform, the claim’s use of a generic processor (i.e. additional elements) to perform that extraction without reciting how it is extracted in a way that improves computer functionality. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
The claims are not in any way similar to SRI international INC v. Cisco System, in SRI international INC v. Cisco System, the claims are directed to using a specific technique using a plurality of network monitors that each analyze specific types of data on the network and integrating reports from the monitors to solve a technological problem arising in the computer network. However, Applicant’s claims are directed to receiving information, analyzing information and providing the result which is an abstract idea.
Claims are not similar to DDR Holdings, In the case of DDR Holdings, the claim addresses the problem of retaining Web site visitors from being diverted from a host’s web site to an advertiser’s Web site, for which the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer network". Here, however, the instant claim is directed to abstract idea of receiving information, analyzing information and providing the result. Unlike the situation in DDR Holdings, Applicant did not identify any problem particular to computer networks and/or the Internet that claim allegedly overcome.
Claims are not similar to Ex Parte Desjardins. The Ex Parte Desjardins claimed invention was a methos of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks where machine learning model learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous task to overcome the problem of catastrophic forgetting. However, the Applicant’s claims and specification is silent with respect to description of any technique/way to solve any specific computer problem. Additionally, Applicant does not provide any comparison to the applicant’s claims with Ex Parte Desjardins.
The rejection is maintained.
With respect to double patenting rejection applicant does not provide any arguments, therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to U.S.C. 102 rejection, Applicant is of the opinion that prior art does not disclose “determining, at the processor, the type-II (T2DM) diabetic status prediction for the subject based on the at least one voice biomarker” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Fossat discloses: determining, at the processor, the type-Il (T2DM) diabetic status prediction for the subject based on the at least one voice biomarker feature value and the diabetic status prediction model (See claim 1 para 336-345, 450-451, 458 i.e. The glucose trend indication may indicate a rising or falling BG level. The trend in blood glucose levels may indicate a trend of the user towards type-ll diabetes, or another disease. For example, in one embodiment a blood glucose level from 140 to 199 mg/dL (7.8 to 11.0 mmol/L) in the subject is indicative of prediabetes. In another embodiment, a blood sugar level of 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) or higher in the subject is indicative of type 2 diabetes.). Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of pending Application No. 18/039264. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Application No. 18/039264 recites almost the same limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-12 are directed to a method and claims 12-24 are directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims directed to receiving information, analyzing information and providing the result which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving …a voice sample…; extracting…feature value from the voice sample…; determining…diabetic status prediction…; output…prediction…” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps of receiving information, extracting data from the received information, determining by analyzing the extracted information and output the result of analysis which is a mental process perform in human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as, diabetic status prediction model, network device, user device, memory, and processor merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the diabetic status prediction model, network device, user device, memory, and processor perform the steps or functions of receiving information, extracting data from the received information, determining by analyzing the extracted information and output the result of analysis. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of diabetic status prediction model, network device, user device, memory, and processor, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of receiving information, analyzing information and providing the result. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, diabetic status prediction model, network device, user device, memory, and processor perform the steps or functions of receiving information, extracting data from the received information, determining by analyzing the extracted information and output the result of analysis. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of receiving information, analyzing information and providing the result. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 further describe the abstract idea of receiving information, analyzing information and providing the result. Specifically, claims 2-3, 15-16 further discloses the features values which is part of abstract idea, claims 4-7 and 17-20 describing processing of the voice samples which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 8-12 and 21-24 describing predication values by utilizing additional element which is also part of the abstract idea of receiving information, analyzing information and providing the result which is a mental process perform in human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fossat (WO2022/109713).
With respect to claims 1 and 13 Fossat discloses:
providing, at a memory, a diabetic status prediction model (See Claim 1);
receiving, at a network device, a voice sample from a user device of the subject (See Claim 1 and paragraph 354-358);
extracting, at a processor in communication with the network device and the memory, at least one voice biomarker feature value from the voice sample for at least one predetermined voice biomarker feature (See claim 1 and paragraph 354-358);
determining, at the processor, the type-Il (T2DM) diabetic status prediction for the subject based on the at least one voice biomarker feature value and the diabetic status prediction model (See Claim 1, para 336-345, 450-451, 458); and
outputting, at an output device, the type-Il (T2DM) diabetic status prediction for the subject or an output based on the diabetic status prediction for the subject (See claim 1 and para 344-345).
With respect to claims 2 and 14 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein each of the at least one voice biomarker feature value is selected from the group consisting of: a statistical feature category, a shimmer feature category, and a jitter feature category (See paragraph 66).
With respect to claims 3 and 15 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: the statistical feature category comprises one selected from the group consisting of: a mean pitch feature value, a pitch standard deviation feature value, a mean intensity feature value, an intensity standard deviation feature value and a harmonic-to-noise ratio feature value; the shimmer feature category comprises one selected from the group consisting of: a localShimmer feature value, a localdbShimmer feature value, an apq3Shimmer feature value, an apq5Shimmer feature value, and an apq11Shimmer feature value; and the jitter feature category comprises one selected from the group consisting of: a localiitter feature value, a localabsJitter feature value, a rapJitter feature value and a ppq5Jitter feature value. (See paragraphs 79, 446, 461).
With respect to claims 4 and 16 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: preprocessing, at the processor, the voice sample by: storing, at a database in communication with the processor, a plurality of historical voice samples of the subject; and- averaging the voice sample based on at least one of the plurality of historical voice samples of the subject (See paragraph 59, 70).
With respect to claims 5 and 17 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the voice sample comprises a predetermined phrase vocalized by the subject; and the voice sample is received from the user device in network communication with the processor via the network device. (See paragraph 28).
With respect to claims 6 and 18 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the predetermined phrase is displayed to the subject on a display device of the user device (See paragraph 29).
With respect to claims 7 and 19 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: transmitting, to the user device in network communication with the processor, the type-Il (T2DM) diabetic status prediction for the subject, wherein the outputting of the diabetic status prediction for the subject occurs at the user device (See paragraphs 26, 46, 114).
With respect to claims 8 and 20 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the diabetic status prediction comprises a categorical prediction (See paragraphs 36, 72).
With respect to claims 9 and 21 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the categorical prediction is one of a type-Il (T2DM) diabetic category and a normal category. (See paragraph 36).
With respect to claims 10 and 22 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the determining the diabetic status prediction for the subject is based on vocal parameter data of the subject, age data of the subject, and/or Body Mass Index (BMI) data of the subject (See paragraphs 458, 467-468).
With respect to claims 11 and 23 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the diabetic status prediction model comprises at least one of a Logistic Regression (LR) model, a Naive Bayes (NB) model, and a Support Vector Machine (SVM) model. (See paragraphs 41, 42, 411).
With respect to claims 12 and 24 Fossat discloses all the limitations as described above. Fossat further discloses: wherein the diabetic status prediction model comprises an ensemble model, the ensemble model comprising averaging all the prediction probabilities for an individual, averaging a voice prediction result with a T2DM prevalence at a participant age, averaging the voice prediction result with the T2DM prevalence at a participant BMI, and/or a combination thereof. (See paragraphs 24 and claim 10).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights