DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner acknowledges that claims 16-24 have been cancelled, and therefore, the previous rejections are now moot.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the Applicant’s arguments made on pages 6-13 of Remarks in regards to amended claims 25-35, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments. However, the Examiner disagrees that the claims are in condition for allowance as asserted on page 14 of Remarks. The new rejections, as necessitated by the amended, new claims, are detailed in the rejections in the Response to Amendment section below.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 25-34 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.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites, “noun-type words.” The term “noun-type” is indefinite since words can either be a noun or not a noun. It is unclear what words fall into the category of “noun-type.” It should be clearly defined what word types are extracted and changed. Claims 31 and 32 are rejected for the same issue.
Claims 26-30, 33, and 34 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 25.
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 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed
towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Is the claim to a statutory category of invention?
Claim 25 is directed to a machine (i.e., a device). Claim 31 is directed to a method. Claim 32 is directed to an article of manufacture (i.e., a non-transitory computer readable medium). Therefore, the claims are to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1 – Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
Claim 25 recites, “patient voice feature data extracted by comparing and analyzing voice features of normal people with voice features of patients with cognitive impairment, and dementia information for each examinee…generate an adapted story based on an original story consisting of a plurality of sentences by extracting some of noun-type words included in the original story and changing the extracted noun-type words to other noun-type words of a same or similar type…request the examinee to recall and speak content of the adapted story…allow a certain period of time to elapse before requesting the examinee to speak, to interrupt a recall by the examinee…allow a certain period of time to elapse before requesting the examinee to speak, to interrupt a recall by the examinee through a recall interruption unit; analyze voice features from the collected voice of the examinee through a voice feature analysis unit, wherein the voice features comprise one or more of a fundamental frequency, an utterance rate, a pause, a shimmer, a jitter, a formant, and a spectrum of a voice; and compare the analyzed voice features of the examinee with patient voice feature data through a dementia determination unit to determine whether a cognitive function is impaired and/or a state of cognitive impairment, wherein the patient voice feature data is generated based on voice features of a patient with cognitive impairment, which are extracted through a comparative analysis of voice features of a normal person and voice features of the patient with the cognitive impairment..”. The recited limitations are considered to be a mental process abstract idea. As recited, comparing and analyzing voice features, generating a story, replacing nouns in a story, requesting a recall of a story, analyzing voice features from a story (e.g., a pause detected), and comparing the voice to a normal voice are steps in a method claimed as such that one of ordinary skill in the art could perform these steps in their head. Citing MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978).” As recited, the steps in the method of claim 25 could be performed in an individual’s head, and are therefore directed towards an abstract idea mental process.
Claim 31 recites, “generating an adapted story based on an original story consisting of a plurality of sentences by extracting some of noun-type words included in the original story and changing the extracted noun-type words to other noun-type words of a same or similar type, and converting the generated adapted story into audio data; outputting the audio data of the adapted story to an outside through a voice outputter to provide the audio data to an examinee; after the output of the adapted story is completed, requesting the examinee to recall and speak the content of the adapted story; allowing a certain period of time to elapse before requesting the examinee to speak, to interrupt a recall by the examinee…analyzing voice features from the collected voice of the examinee, wherein the voice features comprise one or more of a fundamental frequency, an utterance rate, a pause, a shimmer, a jitter, a formant, and a spectrum of a voice, and comparing the analyzed voice features of the examinee with patient voice feature data to determine whether a cognitive function is impaired and/or a state of cognitive impairment, wherein the patient voice feature data is generated based on voice features of a patient with cognitive impairment, which are extracted through a comparative analysis of voice features of a normal person and voice features of the patient with the cognitive impairment.” The recitation is an abstract idea mental process. Generating a story, replacing nouns in the story, outputting the story, requesting a recitation of the story, analyzing voice features (e.g., a pause), and comparing the voice to a normal voice are mental processes that can be performed in an individual’s mind.
Claim 32 recites, “generate an adapted story based on an original story consisting of a plurality of sentences by extracting some of noun-type words included in the original story and changing the extracted noun-type words to other noun-type words of a same or similar type, and convert the generated adapted story into audio data; output the audio data of the adapted story to an outside through a voice outputter to provide the audio data to an examinee; after the output of the adapted story is completed, request the examinee to recall and speak the content of the adapted story; allow a certain period of time to elapse before requesting the examinee to speak, to interrupt a recall by the examinee… analyze voice features from the collected voice of the examinee, wherein the voice features comprise one or more of a fundamental frequency, an utterance rate, a pause, a shimmer, a jitter, a formant, and a spectrum of a voice, and compare the analyzed voice features of the examinee with patient voice feature data to determine whether a cognitive function is impaired and/or a state of cognitive impairment, wherein the patient voice feature data is generated based on voice features of a patient with cognitive impairment, which are extracted through a comparative analysis of voice features of a normal person and voice features of the patient with the cognitive impairment.” The recitation is an abstract idea mental process. Generating a story, replacing nouns in the story, outputting the story, requesting a recitation of the story, analyzing voice features (e.g., a pause), and comparing the voice to a normal voice are mental processes that can be performed in an individual’s mind.
Step 2A prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application?
Claim 25, in addition to the abstract idea mental process, recites the additional limitations, “a data storage configured to store diagnostic voice data including story data for diagnosing cognitive impairment…a controller configured to control the device and connected to the data storage, wherein the controller is further configured to…” A data storage and controller are merely generic computer structures and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, the claim recites, “collect a voice uttered by the examinee through a voice receiver.” The claimed recitation is merely extra-solution activity data gathering, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the preamble of the claim merely defines the field of use for the claimed invention and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 31 recites the additional limitations of “collecting a voice uttered by the examinee through a voice receiver…”. The recited limitation is merely extra-solution activity data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the preamble of the claim merely links the abstract idea mental process to a field of use, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 32 recites the additional limitations of “collecting a voice uttered by the examinee through a voice receiver…”. The recited limitation is merely extra-solution activity data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the preamble of the claim merely links the abstract idea mental process to a field of use, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Lastly, the preamble of the claim recites generic computer structure, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Do the additional elements add significantly more to the judicial exception?
Claim 25, in addition to the abstract idea mental process, recites the additional limitations, “a data storage configured to store diagnostic voice data including story data for diagnosing cognitive impairment…a controller configured to control the device and connected to the data storage, wherein the controller is further configured to…” A data storage and controller are merely generic computer structures and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Additionally, the claim recites, “collect a voice uttered by the examinee through a voice receiver.” The claimed recitation is merely extra-solution activity data gathering, and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Further, the preamble of the claim merely defines the field of use for the claimed invention and does add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claim 31 recites the additional limitations of “collecting a voice uttered by the examinee through a voice receiver…”. The recited limitation is merely extra-solution activity data gathering and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Additionally, the preamble of the claim merely links the abstract idea mental process to a field of use, and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claim 32 recites the additional limitations of “collecting a voice uttered by the examinee through a voice receiver…”. The recited limitation is merely extra-solution activity data gathering and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Additionally, the preamble of the claim merely links the abstract idea mental process to a field of use, and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Lastly, the preamble of the claim recites generic computer structure, and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims
Claim 26 further limits an abstract idea mental process (“providing a question”), as well as data gathering (“collecting”).
Claim 27 further limits an abstract idea mental process (“generating a story”).
Claims 28 and 29 further recite abstract idea mental processes (analyzing and comparing), as well as extra-solution activity data gathering (“collect”).
Claim 30 further limits the abstract idea mental process (types of voice features analyzed).
Claim 33 recites an abstract idea mental process (converting text into speech).
Claim 34 recites an abstract idea mathematical concept (converting a voice signal into digital data is a mathematical concept of signal analysis/processing that relies on mathematical concepts).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Abbas et al. (WO 2021046412 A1) is considered to be the most similar prior art. However, Abbas does not recite the limitation “an adapted story based an original story consisting of a plurality of sentences by extracting noun-type words…”. Abbas does not disclose extraction or replacement of words in an adapted story.
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 OWEN LEWIS MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-8584. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am – 5pm (M-Th), 8am – noon (F).
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/O.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights