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 .
The following is a non-final, first office action on the merits, in response to application filed 8/2/2023. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a provisional application filed on 8/16/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/2/2023, 12/4/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, regardless of a system/apparatus, a method, or a product claim.
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. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea of itself”, “mental process” which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in here (https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility) including 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
Independent claim 17 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and “Mental process”.
Claim 17, Steps of,
receiving an audio input associated with a user;
applying an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model on the received audio input;
detecting a short-winded breath duration associated with the received audio input, based on the application of the Al model on the received audio input, wherein the short-winded breath duration corresponds to a time duration between an end of a first spoken word and a start of a second spoken word succeeding the first spoken word in the received audio input;
detecting a speaking pattern associated with the received audio input, based on the application of the Al model on the received audio input and a geolocation of the user;
applying a recurrent neural network (RNN) model on audio samples associated with the received audio input, based on the detected short-winded breath duration and the detected speaking pattern;
reconstructing a set of short-winded breath audio samples based on the application of the RNN model on the audio samples associated with the received audio input;
generating an audio sample dataset and a set of audio features associated with the generated audio sample dataset, based on a statistical analysis of the reconstructed set of short-winded breath audio samples;
applying a modular neural network model on the generated audio sample dataset and on the generated set of audio features; and
determining a set of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) metrics associated with the user, based on the application of the modular neural network model on the generated audio sample dataset and the generated set of audio features.
fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because the instant claims recite “obtaining data, applying a model/technique, detecting data, reconstructing/generating audio samples, determining data“, which are human activities and/or interactions and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer/a device.
In addition, claim 17, steps mentioned above also falls within the abstract
“Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since these limitation covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by paper and pen. For example, observe/receive data, observe/receiving/detecting data, can observe/applying AI model/technique, can observe/generate/construct voice sample, can evaluate/determine data.
Further, steps of (“receiving…”) are considered as “insignificant extra-solution activity” to the judicial exception since they are merely receiving/collecting/providing data.
Independent claim 17, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element (an electronic device) that are not significant more than the abstract ideas. There are no hardware or machine actually perform the instant steps. Other than reciting “an electronic device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and is simply organized information through human activity or merely mental tasks, and is part of, or a related, judicial exception and does not meaningfully limit the application of the identified judicial exception, and as such does not constitute significantly more.
There is no specificity regarding any technology, just broadly, execute the programming instructions to collect data, receive/generate data, detect data, apply data, determine data. The steps are mainly receiving data, detecting data, applying data, and determining data. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 17, (step 2B):
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. There are no additional elements in claim 17 actually perform the steps. The additional element (“n electronic device), is recited at a high level of generality, and add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
In light of the specification, ([0058]), the components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer/device components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/transmit/display information does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 17).
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward
information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or 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)”.
Dependent claims 18-19, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 17 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 18-19 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 1, 20: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent system/apparatus claim 1 and 20 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claim(s) 17.
Further, the components (i.e., an electronic device, circuity, a computer-readable medium) described in independent claims 1 and 20, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Similarly, as it relates to the computer system claims, the limitations appear to be performed by a generic computing system/device. These components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/access/identify/search/transmit/send/display information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 17).
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward
information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or 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)”.
Applicant’s Specification, [0058] indicate a general-purpose computer perform the instant steps and demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the information processing device in any computing implementation. Thus, evidence has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to Berkheimer memo. Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above steps do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-16, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-16 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Viewed as a whole, the claims (1-20) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, the claimed invention, as a whole, does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea, and is non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art Rejection
A search of publicly available prior art fails to yield a reference or combination of references that would make the claimed combination obvious when considered as a whole.
Independent claims 1, 17, 20, as a whole recite a combination of limitations that has Not been found as define over prior art of record (the combination of Vatanparvar et al. (US Patent 11,350,885), Lisic et al. (US 2023/0238019), Valanparvar et al. (US 20230257175), Edwards et al. (US 2020/0380957), Berisha et al. (US 2024/0049981), Bacher, Gerald (WO-2021148967-A1), Buckley et al. (US 2023/0094583), Stamatopoulos et al. (US 2019/0088367), which was directed towards the entirety of the claimed subject matter and was the best reference known to one of ordinary skill in the art to address the instant claims,
and
NPL1, Lella KK, Pja A. Automatic COVID-19 disease diagnosis using 1D convolutional neural network and augmentation with human respiratory sound based on parameters: cough, breath, and voice. AIMS Public Health. 2021 Mar 10;8(2):240-264. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021019. PMID: 34017889; PMCID: PMC8116184.
NPL2--A. Ponomarchuk et al., "Project Achoo: A Practical Model and Application for COVID-19 Detection From Recordings of Breath, Voice, and Cough," in IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 175-187, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1109/JSTSP.2022.3142514.
NPL3--Saldanha J, Chakraborty S, Patil S, Kotecha K, Kumar S, Nayyar A. Data augmentation using Variational Autoencoders for improvement of respiratory disease classification. PLoS One. 2022 Aug 12;17(8):e0266467. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266467. PMID: 35960763; PMCID: PMC9374267.
and the other references fail to teach all the claimed features.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are deemed to be allowed in light of the specification, claims filed on 8/2/2023. As to the prior art rejections, upon further search and consideration, it is found that claims 1-20 are allowable subject to outstanding 101 rejections.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with, and pending remedy to outstanding issues cited above. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The prior art made of record and relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Shouldice (US 2020/0297955, teaches monitoring a patient suffering from a chronic disease, such as a chronic respiratory and/or cardiac disease, including, for example, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or congestive heart failure (CHF), based on multiple sources of information, and managing the patient's condition in the context of their overall lifestyle).
Vatanparvar et al. (US 2021/0134319, relates to obtaining an audio segment comprising one or more audio events of a target subject, and extracting audio embeddings from the one or more audio events using an embedding model, the embedding model comprising a trained machine learning model).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489.
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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 571-272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN M LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights