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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 recite ‘a trained classifier’ but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. The term “trained classifier” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this algorithm. For example, How many and what types of layers are there? How is the data propagated? What logics are programmed to help the machine learning algorithm make a decision? Is the training supervised or unsupervised? What are the weightings? Are other training concepts used such as regression? The closest disclosure is Paragraph 0091 and Equation 2, but neither is specific. The specific functions used in Equation 2 are not disclosed, the weightings are not disclosed. Equation 2 is merely described with a high level of generality. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-16 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a system (claims 1-15) and a method (claim 16).
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the recited steps are directed mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Specifically from independent claims 1 and 16:
a contact microphone;
a processor operatively connected to the contact microphone;
a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
receiving audio comprising sounds emanating from a human patellofemoral joint during knee flexion;
extracting a plurality of features from the audio;
providing the plurality of features to a trained classifier; and
obtaining from the trained classifier a first score indicative of patellofemoral joint health.
These underlined limitations describe a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental process steps.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exceptions (abstract ideas) in claims 1-16 are not integrated into a practical application because:
•The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for receiving, extracting, providing, and obtaining merely invoke a computer as a tool.
•The data-gathering step (receiving) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
•There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for receiving, extracting, providing, and obtaining.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide a medical measurement.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer receiving, extracting, providing, and obtaining. The claims do not apply the obtained response measurement to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Step 2B
The additional elements are identified as follows: ‘a contact microphone’ in claim 1, ‘a processor’ in claim 1, ‘a computer readable storage medium having instructions’ in claim 1, ‘a trained classifier’ in claims 1, 8-10, and 16, ‘a second microphone’ in claim 5, ‘a bandpass filter’ in claim 6.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant’s Specification (Paragraphs 0059-0060) for the microphones
Applicant's specification (Paragraphs 0057 and 0097-0100) which discloses that the processor and memory comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; and
The prior art provided by the Applicant in the IDS and by the Examiner in PTO-892 which disclose each of the elements as being known and conventional in the art elements;
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry or 3) further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art.
Claim 2-15 are steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis
Claims 5, 6, and 8-10 recites additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Reference CD on IDS filed 02/08/2024) in view of Czernicki (US 2004/0054302).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Kim teaches a system and method (Abstract) comprising:
a contact microphone (seen as the electro-stethoscope and piezo=polymer sensor combination; Page 716; Experimental Protocols);
a processor (the PC) operatively connected to the contact microphone (Page 716; Experimental Protocols);
a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
receiving from the contact microphone audio comprising sounds emanating from a human patellofemoral joint during knee flexion (See Experimental Protocols on Pages 716-717);
extracting a plurality of features from the audio (See Acoustical parameter extraction on Pages 717-718; Figure 2);
providing the plurality of features to a trained classifier; and
obtaining from the trained classifier a first score indicative of patellofemoral joint health.
Kim is silent on the use of a trained classifier and the out of the score from the classifier.
Czernicki teaches providing the plurality of features to a trained classifier (Paragraphs 0083-0085 and 0089); and obtaining from the trained classifier a first score indicative of patellofemoral joint health (Paragraphs 0089-0090; the score being the degree of the illness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim with Czernicki because it allows one to obtain additional diagnostic advantages and allows for carrying out investigations and diagnoses at a lower cost without being too invasive (Paragraphs 0010 and 0035 of Czernicki).
Kim in view of Czernicki are silent on obtaining specifically a first numeric score indicative of patellafemoral joint health. Dixon teaches obtaining a first numeric score indicative of joint health (Paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0041-0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view of Czernicki with Dixon because it allows for a more comprehensive examination of patients and helps to provide more information with regards to predicting possible future issues that’s helping to prevent such issues (Paragraph 0012 of Dixon).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the method further comprising: capturing the audio via the contact microphone in contact with the exterior of a human knee (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the contact microphone is in contact with an anterior patellar surface (Figure 1; Page 717, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the method further comprising: canceling noise from the audio prior to extracting the plurality of features (See Pre-processing and segmentation section on Page 717).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches wherein canceling the noise comprises: applying a bandpass filter to the audio (See Pre-processing and segmentation section on Page 717).
Regarding claim 9, Kim is silent on wherein the trained classifier comprises a neural network. Czernicki teaches wherein the trained classifier comprises a neural network (Paragraphs 0083-0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim with Czernicki because it allows one to obtain additional diagnostic advantages and allows for carrying out investigations and diagnoses at a lower cost without being too invasive (Paragraphs 0010 and 0035 of Czernicki)
Regarding claim 15, Kim is silent on the outputting of the score. Czernicki teaches the method further comprising outputting the first score or the second score to a user (Paragraph 0091). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim with Czernicki because it allows one to obtain additional diagnostic advantages and allows for carrying out investigations and diagnoses at a lower cost without being too invasive (Paragraphs 0010 and 0035 of Czernicki)
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Reference CD on IDS filed 02/08/2024) in view of Czernicki (US 2004/0054302) and Dixon et al. (US 2005/0015002) and in further view of Tran (US 2008/0013747).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches wherein canceling noise comprises: capturing an ambient audio signal by a microphone; removing the ambient audio signal from the audio (Figure 2; See Pre-processing and segmentation section on Page 717). Kim is silent on the capturing of audio through a second microphone. Tran teaches acquiring biological sounds with a first microphone and ambient audio with a second microphone (Paragraph 0035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim with Tran because it helps in removing noise artifacts as well as allows recording in multiple patient positions (Paragraph 0035 of Tran).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Reference CD on IDS filed 02/08/2024) in view of Czernicki (US 2004/0054302) and Dixon et al. (US 2005/0015002) and in further view of Loui et al. (US 2014/0056432).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches wherein the plurality of features comprises features such as signal frequency, amplitude (frequency and amplitude; See Acoustical parameters section Pages 717-718; Table 2, Figure 5), but is silent on the features being zero-crossing rate, entropy of energy, spectral centroid, spectral spread, mel- frequency cepstral coefficients, or chroma vector. Loui teaches wherein the plurality of features comprises signal frequency, amplitude, zero-crossing rate, entropy of energy, spectral centroid, spectral spread, mel- frequency cepstral coefficients, or chroma vector (Paragraph 0036; zero-crossing and mel-frequency). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim with Loui because Loui teaches theses audio parameters and the extraction as such as being known in the art (Paragraph 0036 of Loui; various citations to NPLs) and thus using one or ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect using these parameters/features to yield predictable results.
Claims 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Reference CD on IDS filed 02/08/2024) in view of Czernicki (US 2004/0054302) and Dixon et al. (US 2005/0015002) and in further view of Chen et al. (US 2009/0281981).
Regarding claim 8, Kim is silent on the classifier being a random decision forest. Chen teaches wherein the trained classifier comprises a random decision forest (Paragraph 0007-0008). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view Czernicki with Chen because Chen teaches this type of classifier as being known in the art (Paragraph 0007) and thus using one or ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect this type of classifier to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Kim is silent on wherein the trained classifier comprises a support vector machine. Chen teaches wherein the trained classifier comprises a support vector machine (Paragraph 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view Czernicki with Chen because Chen teaches this type of classifier as being known in the art (Paragraph 0006) and thus using one or ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect this type of classifier to yield predictable results.
Claims 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Reference CD on IDS filed 02/08/2024) in view of Czernicki (US 2004/0054302) and Dixon et al. (US 2005/0015002) and in further view of Hirsch et al. (US 2006/0062448).
Regarding claim 11, Kim is silent on the method further comprising: computing a second score indicative of joint health from the first score. Kim is silent on the computing of a second score. Czernicki and Hirsch teach the method further comprising: computing a second score indicative of joint health from the first score (One would use the degree of illness as taught by Czernicki Paragraphs 0089-0090 and input in Hirsch Paragraphs 0004 and 0058 to determine a second score of the patient health). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim with Cznericki and Hirsch because it allows one to obtain additional diagnostic advantages and allows for carrying out investigations and diagnoses at a lower cost without being too invasive (Paragraphs 0010 and 0035 of Czernicki) and because Hirsch teaches it as being known in the art (Paragraph 0004) and being able to provide improved assessments (Paragraphs 0004-0005 of Hirsch).
Regarding claim 12, Kim is silent on wherein computing the second score comprises weighting the first score according to a reported pain value. Hirsch teaches wherein computing the second score comprises weighting the first score according to a reported pain value (Paragraphs 0004 and 0058; Claim 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view of Czernicki with Hirsch because Hirsch teaches it as being known in the art (Paragraph 0004) and being able to provide improved assessments (Paragraphs 0004-0005 of Hirsch).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the weighting of score based on a characteristic of a user (Page 721, Column 2, Paragraph 1) and Czernicki teaches wherein computing the second score comprises weighting the first score according to a characteristic of a subject (Paragraph 0089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim with Czernicki because it allows one to obtain additional diagnostic advantages and allows for carrying out investigations and diagnoses at a lower cost without being too invasive (Paragraphs 0010 and 0035 of Czernicki)
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the weighting of score based on a characteristic of a user (Page 721, Column 2, Paragraph 1) and Czernicki teaches wherein the characteristic comprises body mass index, age, gender, existing medical condition, or frequency of physical activity (Paragraph 0089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim with Czernicki because it allows one to obtain additional diagnostic advantages and allows for carrying out investigations and diagnoses at a lower cost without being too invasive (Paragraphs 0010 and 0035 of Czernicki).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10448919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant Application 18/381,910
Conflicting US Patent No. 10448919
1. A system comprising:
a contact microphone;
a processor operatively connected to the contact microphone;
a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
receiving from the contact microphone audio comprising sounds emanating from a human patellofemoral joint during knee flexion;
extracting a plurality of features from the audio;
providing the plurality of features to a trained classifier; and
obtaining from the trained classifier a first score indicative of patellofemoral joint health.
1. A system comprising:
a contact microphone;
a processor operatively connected to the contact microphone;
a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions configured to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
receiving from the contact microphone audio comprising sounds emanating from a human patellofemoral joint of a subject during knee flexion;
extracting a plurality of features from the audio by the processor;
providing the plurality of features to a trained classifier;
obtaining from the trained classifier a first numeric score indicative of patellofemoral joint health;
obtaining a pain value reported by the subject or a characteristic of the subject;
computing a second score indicative of joint health from the first score,
wherein computing the second score comprises weighting the first score according to the pain value reported by the subject or according to the characteristic of the subject,
wherein said weighting comprises applying a mathematical function to the first score; and
displaying the second score with an indication to perform follow-up when the second score is below a predetermined threshold.
16. A method comprising:
receiving audio comprising sounds emanating from a human patellofemoral joint during knee flexion;
extracting a plurality of features from the audio;
providing the plurality of features to a trained classifier; and
obtaining from the trained classifier a first score indicative of patellofemoral joint health.
13. A method comprising:
receiving from a contact microphone audio comprising sounds emanating from a human patellofemoral joint of a subject during knee flexion;
extracting a plurality of features from the audio by a processor;
providing the plurality of features to a trained classifier;
obtaining from the trained classifier a first numeric score indicative of patellofemoral joint health;
obtaining a pain value reported by the subject or a characteristic of the subject; computing a second score indicative of joint health from the first score,
wherein computing the second score comprises weighting the first score according to the pain value reported by the subject or according to the characteristic of the subject,
wherein said weighting comprises applying a mathematical function to the first score; and
displaying the second score with an indication to perform follow-up when the second score is below a predetermined threshold.
The difference between the rejected claims of the instant application and patented claims of the patent lies in the fact that the patented claims are more specific. Thus, the invention of patented claims is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of rejected claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since rejected claims are anticipated by patented claims, it is not patentably distinct from patented claims.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11844643. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant Application 18/381,910
Conflicting US Patent No. 11844643
1. A system comprising:
a contact microphone;
a processor operatively connected to the contact microphone;
a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
receiving from the contact microphone audio comprising sounds emanating from a human patellofemoral joint during knee flexion;
extracting a plurality of features from the audio;
providing the plurality of features to a trained classifier; and
obtaining from the trained classifier a first score indicative of patellofemoral joint health.
1. A system comprising:
a contact microphone;
a position sensor;
a processor operatively connected to the contact microphone and the position sensor;
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
receiving from the contact microphone audio comprising sounds emanating from a human joint of a subject during flexion;
receiving, from the position sensor, motion data of the human joint;
synchronizing the motion data with the audio;
extracting a plurality of features from the audio;
providing the plurality of features and the motion data to a trained classifier;
obtaining from the trained classifier a first score indicative of joint health; and
displaying the first score with an indication to perform follow-up when the first score is below a predetermined threshold;
updating one or more records associated with the subject with the first score while continuing to obtain at least one updated first score; and providing ongoing feedback of the first score, thereby forming a feedback loop based on continuous activity by the subject.
16. A method comprising:
receiving audio comprising sounds emanating from a human patellofemoral joint during knee flexion;
extracting a plurality of features from the audio;
providing the plurality of features to a trained classifier; and
obtaining from the trained classifier a first score indicative of patellofemoral joint health.
21. A method comprising:
receiving audio from a contact microphone, the audio comprising sounds emanating from a human joint during flexion;
receiving, from a position sensor, motion data of the human joint;
synchronizing the motion data with the audio;
extracting a plurality of features from the audio;
providing the plurality of features and the motion data to a trained classifier;
obtaining from the trained classifier a first score indicative of joint health; and
displaying the score with an indication to perform follow-up when the first score is below a predetermined threshold;
updating one or more records associated with the subject with the first score while continuing to obtain at least one updated first score; and
providing ongoing feedback of the first score, thereby forming a feedback loop based on continuous activity by the subject.
The difference between the rejected claims of the instant application and patented claims of the patent lies in the fact that the patented claims are more specific. Thus, the invention of patented claims is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of rejected claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since rejected claims are anticipated by patented claims, it is not patentably distinct from patented claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM 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, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791