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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final office action is in response to the application filed on January 4, 2024 and the amendments to the claims filed on July 7, 2026.
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
The recitation, “detecting a plurality of peak timings” in lines 1-2 of Claim 18 renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the “plurality of peak timings” set forth in Claim 18 are the same plurality of peak timings set forth in line 6 of Claim 1, or if applicant is attempting to set forth a different plurality of peak timings. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 16 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 17. Claim 16 recites the limitations of acquiring a sound emitted by a device; analyzing a sampling result of the sound and calculating a total sound pressure of a sound of each frequency included in each timing of the sampling result; extracting a plurality of peak timings from the total sound pressure, each of the plurality of peak timings being associated with a respective one of a plurality of prominence values of the total sound pressure; clustering the plurality of peak timings based on the plurality of prominence values to generate at least one cluster including two or more of the peak timings; identifying a cycle of a sound included in the at least one cluster based on the two or more of the peak timings; identifying at least one component that emits a sound having a cycle close to the cycle of the sound; and displaying the at least one identified component.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as Mental Processes / Mathematical Concepts. Diagnosing a sound emitted by a device recites concepts performed in the human mind / mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concepts performed in the human mind / mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mental Processes / Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The device and display in Claim 1 and device in Claims 16 and 17 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The total sound pressure calculator in claim 1 and the analyzing, calculating, and identifying steps in Claims 1, 16, and 17 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 17 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite device and display in Claim 1 and device in Claims 16 and 17, total sound pressure calculator in claim 1, and the analyzing, calculating, and identifying in Claims 1, 16, and 17. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 16, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0012, 0016] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 16, and 17 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-15 and 18 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 16, and 17 and thus correspond to Mental Processes / Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2 and 3 further describe the calculation of the total sound pressure; Claims 4-7 add further details to the extracting of the plurality of peak timings; Claims 8-10 further detail the peak classifier; Claims 12 and 13 further define the region identifier; Claims 14 and 15 further define the device without adding significantly more; Claim 18 further details the mathematical calculations used in detecting a plurality of peak timings without adding significantly more. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-15 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-18 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 7-9) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the, “claim features can provide a specific improvement over a prior art system”. However, the claims are clearly focused on the abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. In the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
8/20/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights