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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 5, 15, 18 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.
Claims 2, 5, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim. The term “optionally” appears to be an example of exemplary claim language and the examiner cannot ascertain whether the subsequent language to optionally is required or not. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-26 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.
Each of Claims 1-26 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-26 recite at least one step or instruction for observing, judging or evaluating data, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-26 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites A computer-implemented method for providing a fertility indicator or an ovulation status for a subject, the method comprising: receiving, at a processor (additional element) in communication with a memory (additional element), a voice sample from the subject (observation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG); - extracting, at the processor (additional element), at least one voice feature value from the voice sample for at least one predetermined voice feature (observation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG); - determining, at the processor (additional element), an ovulation status for the subject based on the at least one voice feature value (judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and - outputting, at an output device (additional element), (i) a fertility level indicator for the subject based on the ovulation status, and/or (ii) an ovulation status indicator for the subject based on the ovulation status (judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Specifically claim 14 recites A system for determining a fertility level for a subject, the system comprising:- a memory (additional element); - a processor (additional element) in communication with the memory (additional element), the processor (additional element) configured to: - receive a voice sample from the subject (observation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG); - extract at least one voice feature value from the voice sample for at least one predetermined voice feature (observation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG); - determine an ovulation status for the subject based on the at least one voice feature value (judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG) and - output, at an output device, (additional element) (i) a fertility level indicator for the subject based on the ovulation status, and/or (ii) an ovulation status indicator for the subject based on the ovulation status (judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-13, 15-23 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in independent Claim 1, 14 (and their respective dependent Claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1, 14), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: an output device, a memory and processor are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 1, 14 (and its respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1, 14 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.,memory, processor, output device as claimed). In other words, independent Claim 1, 14 and its dependent claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity related to collecting data. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1, 14 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claim 1, 14 (and its dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-23 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: an output device, a memory and processor.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the output device, memory and processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Furthermore, Goren (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090306537) discloses an output device, memory, and processor (see 106) (paragraph 0016).
Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-23 amounts to mere instructions to collect data with extra-solution activity and implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system of Claims 1-23 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-23 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1, 14 (and its dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-23 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-23 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-23 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 14, 17, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a(1)) as being anticipated by Ajit (US 20180322893).
Regarding claim 1, Ajit discloses A computer-implemented method for providing a fertility indicator or an ovulation status for a subject (abstract), the method comprising:- receiving, at a processor (201) in communication with a memory (203), a voice sample from the subject (PARAGRAPH 0031); - extracting, at the processor, at least one voice feature value from the voice sample for at least one predetermined voice feature (PARAGRAPH 0033-0034); - determining, at the processor, an ovulation status for the subject based on the at least one voice feature value (PARAGRAPH 0035, 0041-0045); and - outputting, at an output device (202 via report) (paragraph 0026), (i) a fertility level indicator for the subject based on the ovulation status, and/or (ii) an ovulation status indicator for the subject based on the ovulation status (tables 3 and 5) (steps 309-310, Fig 3) (paragraph 0018, 0051).
Regarding claim 4, Ajit discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject is a category comprising: menstruating, follicular, or luteal; and wherein the ovulation status indicator comprises an indicator of ovulation based on a transition from the follicular category to the luteal category (tables 1-5 provide information on hcg, estrogen, fsh, progesterone, and lh levels which would provide information on what stage a female is in).
Regarding claim 6, Ajit discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the fertility level indicator comprises a percentage; and wherein the at least one predetermined voice feature is at least 39 one selected from a group of a fundamental frequency (FO) feature, a spectral flux feature, a jitter feature, a harmonic to noise ratio feature, a shimmer feature, and an alpha ratio feature (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 14, Ajit discloses A system for determining a fertility level for a subject, the system comprising:- a memory; - a processor (201) in communication with the memory, the processor (201) configured to: - receive a voice sample from the subject (PARAGRAPH 0031); - extract at least one voice feature value from the voice sample for at least one predetermined voice feature (PARAGRAPH 0033-0034); - determine an ovulation status for the subject based on the at least one voice feature value (PARAGRAPH 0035, 0041-0045); and - output, at an output device (202 via report) (paragraph 0026), (i) a fertility level indicator for the subject based on the ovulation status, and/or (ii) an ovulation status indicator for the subject based on the ovulation status (tables 3 and 5) (paragraph 0018, 0051).
Regarding claim 17, Ajit discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject is a category comprising: menstruating, follicular, or luteal; and wherein the ovulation status indicator comprises an indicator of ovulation based on a transition from the follicular category to the luteal category (tables 1-5 provide information on hcg, estrogen, fsh, progesterone, and lh levels which would provide information on what stage a female is in).
Regarding claim 19, Ajit discloses The system of claim 16, wherein the fertility level indicator comprises a percentage; and wherein the at least one predetermined voice feature is at least one selected from a group of a fundamental frequency (FO) feature, a spectral flux feature, a jitter feature, a harmonic to noise ratio feature, a shimmer feature, and an alpha ratio feature (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 23, Ajit discloses The system of claim 14 wherein the processor is further configured to:- authenticate the subject by comparing the voice sample to the initial voice sample prior to performing the determining and outputting of the ovulation status (paragraph 0031-0032).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 15-16, 18, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajit (US 20180322893) in view of Shoup-Knox et al (“Fertility-Dependent Acoustic Variation in Women’s Voices Previously Shown to Affect Listener Physiology and Perception”)
Regarding claim 2, Ajit discloses all of the limitations of the claim except The method of claim 1, wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject comprises a historical fertility indicator for the subject, optionally wherein the historical fertility indicator is provided over a single menstrual cycle of the subject. Shoup teaches wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject comprises a historical fertility indicator for the subject, optionally wherein the historical fertility indicator is provided over a single menstrual cycle of the subject (“Fertility Assessment”, page 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Regarding claim 3, Ajit discloses all of the limitations of the claim except The method of claim 2, wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject is a category comprising fertile or not fertile. Shoup teaches wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject is a category comprising fertile or not fertile (Fig 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Regarding claim 5, Ajit discloses all of the limitations of the claim except The method of claim 3, wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject is a category comprising: a low category, a medium category, and a high category and optionally wherein the low category, the medium category, and the high category each comprise predetermined thresholds. Shoup teaches wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject is a category comprising: a low category, a medium category, and a high category and optionally wherein the low category, the medium category, and the high category each comprise predetermined thresholds (“Fertility Assesment”, pages 3-4, Table 1, Fig 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Regarding claim 7, Ajit disclose all of the claimed limitations except The method of claim 6, wherein the at least one predetermined voice feature comprises a fundamental frequency standard deviation feature, and wherein the determining, at the processor, the ovulation status for the subject comprises:- determining, at the processor, the at least one voice feature value comprising a mean fundamental frequency standard deviation of the voice sample and a deviation of the fundamental frequency standard deviation of the voice sample from the mean fundamental frequency standard deviation of the voice sample; and when the deviation is greater than a predetermined threshold, determine an occurrence of ovulation. Shoup teaches wherein the at least one predetermined voice feature comprises a fundamental frequency standard deviation feature, and wherein the determining, at the processor, the ovulation status for the subject comprises:- determining, at the processor, the at least one voice feature value comprising a mean fundamental frequency standard deviation of the voice sample and a deviation of the fundamental frequency standard deviation of the voice sample from the mean fundamental frequency standard deviation of the voice sample; and when the deviation is greater than a predetermined threshold, determine an occurrence of ovulation (“Acoustic Analysis”, page 4-5, Table 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Regarding claim 8, Ajit discloses of the limitation of the claim except The method of claim 7, wherein the determining, at the processor, the ovulation status for the subject comprises:- determining, at the processor, the at least one voice feature value comprising a derivative of the fundamental frequency (FO) feature; and - determining the ovulation status based on the derivative of the fundamental frequency (FO) feature, wherein the ovulation status is determined based on a negative derivative of the fundamental frequency (FO). Shoup teaches The method of claim 7, wherein the determining, at the processor, the ovulation status for the subject comprises:- determining, at the processor, the at least one voice feature value comprising a derivative of the fundamental frequency (FO) feature; and - determining the ovulation status based on the derivative of the fundamental frequency (FO) feature, wherein the ovulation status is determined based on a negative derivative of the fundamental frequency (FO) (“Acoustic Analysis”, page 4-5, Table 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Regarding claim 9, Ajit discloses all of the claimed limitations except the method of claim 8, wherein the at least one predetermined voice feature is a shimmer mean feature and wherein the determining the ovulation status for the subject comprises:- determining the at least one voice feature value comprising at least one local maximum shimmer mean feature value of the voice sample, and - determining the ovulation status based on the at least one local maximum shimmer mean feature value; and - wherein the ovulation status is determined based a decision tree, the decision tree using the at least one predetermined voice feature of the voice sample to determine the ovulation status. Shoup teaches wherein the at least one predetermined voice feature is a shimmer mean feature and wherein the determining the ovulation status for the subject comprises:- determining the at least one voice feature value comprising at least one local maximum shimmer mean feature value of the voice sample, and - determining the ovulation status based on the at least one local maximum shimmer mean feature value; and - wherein the ovulation status is determined based a decision tree, the decision tree using the at least one predetermined voice feature of the voice sample to determine the ovulation status (“Acoustic Analysis”, page 4-5, Table 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Regarding claim 15, Ajit discloses all of the claimed limitations except The system of claim 14, wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject comprises a historical fertility indicator for the subject, optionally wherein the historical fertility indicator is provided over a single menstrual cycle of the subject. Shoup teaches wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject comprises a historical fertility indicator for the subject, optionally wherein the historical fertility indicator is provided over a single menstrual cycle of the subject (“Fertility Assessment”, page 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Regarding claim 16, Ajit discloses all of the claimed limitations except the system of claim 15, wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject is a category comprising fertile or not fertile. Shoup teaches wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject is a category comprising fertile or not fertile (Fig 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Regarding claim 18, Ajit discloses all of the claimed limitations except The system of claim 16, wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject is a category comprising: a low category, a medium category, and a high category and optionally wherein the low category, the medium category, and the high category each comprise predetermined thresholds. Shoup teaches wherein the fertility level indicator for the subject is a category comprising: a low category, a medium category, and a high category and optionally wherein the low category, the medium category, and the high category each comprise predetermined thresholds (“Fertility Assessment”, pages 3-4, Table 1, Fig 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Regarding claim 20, Ajit discloses all of the claimed limitations except The system of claim 19, wherein the at least one predetermined voice feature comprises a fundamental frequency standard deviation feature, and wherein the processor determines the ovulation status for the subject by:- determining the at least one voice feature value comprising a mean fundamental frequency standard deviation of the voice sample and a deviation of the fundamental frequency standard deviation of the voice sample from the mean fundamental frequency standard deviation of the voice sample; and when the deviation is greater than a predetermined threshold, determine an occurrence of ovulation. Shoup teaches wherein the at least one predetermined voice feature comprises a fundamental frequency standard deviation feature, and wherein the processor determines the ovulation status for the subject by:- determining the at least one voice feature value comprising a mean fundamental frequency standard deviation of the voice sample and a deviation of the fundamental frequency standard deviation of the voice sample from the mean fundamental frequency standard deviation of the voice sample; and when the deviation is greater than a predetermined threshold, determine an occurrence of ovulation (“Acoustic Analysis”, page 4-5, Table 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Regarding claim 21, Ajit discloses all of the claimed limitations except the system of claim 20, wherein the processor determines the ovulation status for the subject by:- determining the at least one voice feature value comprising a derivative of the fundamental frequency (FO) feature; and - determining the ovulation status based on the derivative of the fundamental frequency (FO) feature, wherein the ovulation status is determined based on a negative derivative of the fundamental frequency (FO). Shoup teaches wherein the processor determines the ovulation status for the subject by: determining the at least one voice feature value comprising a derivative of the fundamental frequency (FO) feature; and determining the ovulation status based on the derivative of the fundamental frequency (FO) feature, wherein the ovulation status is determined based on a negative derivative of the fundamental frequency (FO) (“Acoustic Analysis”, page 4-5, Table 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Regarding claim 22, Ajit discloses all of the claimed limitations except The system of claim 21, wherein the at least one predetermined voice feature is a shimmer mean feature and wherein the determining the ovulation status for the subject comprises:- determining the at least one voice feature value comprising at least one local maximum shimmer mean feature value of the voice sample, and - determining the ovulation status based on the at least one local maximum shimmer mean feature value; and - wherein the ovulation status is determined based a decision tree, the decision tree using the at least one predetermined voice feature of the voice sample to determine the ovulation status. Shoup teaches wherein the at least one predetermined voice feature is a shimmer mean feature and wherein the determining the ovulation status for the subject comprises:- determining the at least one voice feature value comprising at least one local maximum shimmer mean feature value of the voice sample, and - determining the ovulation status based on the at least one local maximum shimmer mean feature value; and - wherein the ovulation status is determined based a decision tree, the decision tree using the at least one predetermined voice feature of the voice sample to determine the ovulation status (“Acoustic Analysis”, page 4-5, Table 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Claim(s) 10, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajit (US 20180322893) in view of Goren (US 20090306537)
Regarding claim 10, Ajit discloses all of the claimed limitations except authenticating the subject by comparing the voice sample to the initial voice sample prior to performing the determining and outputting of the ovulation status. Goren teaches authenticating the subject by comparing the voice sample to the initial voice sample prior to performing the determining and outputting of the ovulation status (paragraph 0013-0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an indicator of fertility status as taught by Ajit for the purpose of providing an easy, accurate, non-invasive and timely indicator to estimate hormone levels and predict gynecological phases.
Regarding claim 23, Ajit discloses all of the claimed limitations except the system of claim 14 wherein the processor is further configured to:- authenticate the subject by comparing the voice sample to the initial voice sample prior to performing the determining and outputting of the ovulation status. Goren teaches authenticate the subject by comparing the voice sample to the initial voice sample prior to performing the determining and outputting of the ovulation status (paragraph 0031-0032).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASMEEN S WARSI whose telephone number is (571)272-9942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am to 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YASMEEN S WARSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791