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
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Double Patenting
The terminal disclaimer filed on November 20, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,475,781 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 14 and 18, the claims recite steps and similar language including:
inferring that a pedestrian is experiencing hearing impairment based on data collected by a user device of the pedestrian;
administering a hearing test to verify the hearing impairment of the pedestrian responsive to the inference; and
producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure responsive to verified hearing impairment of the pedestrian.
The limitation of inferring that a pedestrian is experiencing hearing impairment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.’
For example, “inferring” encompasses a person recognizing, estimating, or judging that a pedestrian may be experiencing hearing impairment based on observable behavior or environmental factors.
Similarly, the limitation of administering a hearing test to verify the hearing impairment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
For example, “administering a hearing test” encompasses a person presenting tones or other auditory stimuli and receiving indications of perception or response to assess hearing ability.
Similarly, the limitation of producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
For example, “producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure” encompasses a person providing guidance, warnings, or notifications to the pedestrian or surrounding drivers or infrastructure.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements including a processor and memory executing machine-readable instructions. However, the processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than generic computer components performing conventional functions. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they impose no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, recitation of a generic processor executing generic instructions to perform the inferring, testing, and countermeasure steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19-20, they are rejected based on the dependency of claims 1, 14 and 18, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Prior art made of record fails to teach,
As per claim 1, 14 and 18,
inferring that a pedestrian is experiencing hearing impairment based on data collected by a user device of the pedestrian;
administering a hearing test to verify the hearing impairment of the pedestrian responsive to the inference of impairment; and
producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure responsive to verified hearing impairment of the pedestrian as determined from the hearing test.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights