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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Followings are Applicant’s argument and Examiner’s response:
Applicant argues that amended independent claims 1, 14, and 18 are patent eligible because the claims recite specific technological operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, including:
inferring hearing impairment based on sensor data collected by a user device;
administering a hearing test via the user device by outputting one or more audio signals; and
producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure responsive to verified hearing impairment.
Applicant further argues that the claims are directed to device-based collection and processing of sensor data, execution of a hearing test through audio output, and generation of responsive countermeasures, and therefore do not recite a mental process.
Applicant also argues that the claims improve pedestrian safety and are analogous to the claims found patent eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
These arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims cannot recite a mental process because a human mind cannot collect sensor data, output audio signals, or generate device-based countermeasures.
The Examiner agrees that the physical execution of certain claim elements, such as collecting data from a user device and outputting audio signals through a user device, is performed by electronic components and not by the human mind alone.
However, the §101 rejection is not based on the proposition that the entirety of the claimed system operation is literally performed by the human mind.
Rather, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are directed to the abstract concept of evaluating information regarding a pedestrian condition, determining whether hearing impairment exists, and generating a corresponding response.
The claimed limitations:
"infer that a pedestrian is experiencing hearing impairment"
and
"produce a pedestrian assistance countermeasure responsive to verified hearing impairment"
recite desired functional results without requiring a particular technical algorithm, rule set, or implementation methodology for achieving those results.
The claims do not specify:
how sensor data is processed;
how hearing impairment is mathematically or computationally inferred;
how the hearing test is dynamically generated;
how audio signals are selected or adjusted; or
how a countermeasure is technically generated.
Accordingly, the claims recite an information evaluation and decision-making process implemented using generic computing functionality.
The additional recitation of a user device does not remove the underlying abstract concept from the claims.
Applicant argues that amended claims recite:
"sensor data collected by a user device of the pedestrian"
and therefore are directed to a technological implementation rather than an abstract idea.
This argument is not persuasive.
The addition of sensor data narrows the source of information but does not change the character of the claimed invention.
The claims do not recite a particular sensor architecture, sensor arrangement, or improvement to sensor operation.
For example, the claims do not require:
a specific microphone array configuration;
a particular acoustic measurement technique;
a particular motion sensor arrangement;
a specific signal-processing operation; or
a particular improvement in sensor accuracy or efficiency.
Rather, the sensor data is merely collected and used as input for the claimed evaluation process.
Collecting information from various sources and analyzing the information to produce a result may remain abstract even when the information originates from technological sources.
Accordingly, the sensor data limitation does not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Applicant argues that amended claims now recite:
"administering, via the user device, a hearing test by outputting one or more audio signals"
and that such operation cannot be performed mentally.
The Examiner acknowledges that outputting electronic audio signals requires physical device operation.
However, the recitation of outputting audio signals does not, by itself, provide a technological improvement sufficient to confer patent eligibility.
The claims do not recite a particular improvement to audio generation or hearing testing technology.
For example, the claims do not require:
a particular frequency-selection algorithm;
adaptive adjustment based on environmental noise;
a specific acoustic calibration technique;
a particular waveform-generation process; or
a specialized hearing-test architecture.
Instead, the user device performs the conventional function of producing audio output.
The claimed audio output therefore represents the use of conventional device functionality to perform the claimed evaluation process.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they improve pedestrian safety by identifying hearing-impaired pedestrians and generating responsive countermeasures.
The Examiner acknowledges that the claimed invention is directed to a safety-related objective.
However, identifying a desired result or field of use does not alone integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not recite a particular technological improvement to pedestrian safety systems.
Rather, the claims broadly recite:
determining hearing impairment;
verifying hearing impairment; and
producing a countermeasure.
The claims do not specify how the countermeasure technically improves operation of:
a vehicle control system;
an autonomous driving system;
a roadway infrastructure system; or
the user device itself.
For example, the claims do not require a particular vehicle-to-vehicle communication protocol, vehicle-to-infrastructure communication operation, control signal, or feedback mechanism.
Accordingly, the claims recite the desired outcome of improving pedestrian safety rather than a particular technological implementation that improves computer or device functionality.
Applicant argues that the present claims are similar to McRO because the claims recite specific technological implementations rather than generalized abstract concepts.
This argument is not persuasive.
In McRO, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims were patent eligible because they recited specific rules that automated a technological process and replaced subjective human judgment.
The claims in McRO were directed to a particular process using defined morph-weight rules for generating lip synchronization in animated characters.
In contrast, the present claims do not recite specific rules or algorithms for:
analyzing sensor data;
identifying hearing impairment;
verifying hearing impairment;
selecting audio signals; or
generating a countermeasure.
Instead, the claims recite functional objectives:
"infer"
"verify"
and
"produce"
without claiming the particular technical means for achieving those results.
Therefore, the present claims are distinguishable from McRO.
Applicant argues that even if the claims recite an abstract idea, the additional elements amount to significantly more because they include:
collection of sensor data;
execution of a hearing test through audio output; and
generation of responsive countermeasures.
This argument is not persuasive.
The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, represent conventional functions of general-purpose computing devices.
The claims merely instruct a processor and user device to:
collect information;
evaluate the information;
output audio; and
provide a responsive result.
The claims do not recite an unconventional arrangement of components or a particular technological mechanism that improves computer functionality or another technology.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered.
Although amended claims 1, 14, and 18 add limitations concerning sensor data collection and audio signal output through a user device, these limitations do not change the fundamental nature of the claimed invention.
The claims remain directed to evaluating information concerning a pedestrian’s condition, determining hearing impairment, and generating a responsive action using generic computing components.
The claims do not recite:
a specific algorithm;
a particular signal-processing technique;
a technological improvement to sensors or audio systems;
a specific communication mechanism; or
an unconventional arrangement of computing components.
Therefore, the claims fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a system comprising a processor and memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (1) infer that a pedestrian is experiencing hearing impairment based on sensor data collected by a user device of the pedestrian; (2) administer, via the user device, a hearing test by outputting one or more audio signals to verify the hearing impairment responsive to an inference of hearing impairment; and (3) produce a pedestrian assistance countermeasure responsive to verified hearing impairment as determined from the hearing test.
The limitations of claim 1 are directed to the abstract concept of collecting information, analyzing information to determine a condition, verifying the condition, and generating a responsive action based on the determination. Such information analysis and decision-making processes constitute an abstract idea because they involve evaluating information and determining an appropriate response.
The limitation of inferring that a pedestrian is experiencing hearing impairment based on sensor data collected by a user device of the pedestrian recites analyzing information to determine whether a condition exists. Claim 1 does not require any particular sensor structure, sensor arrangement, signal-processing technique, machine-learning model, mathematical operation, or algorithm for transforming sensor data into a determination of hearing impairment.
The limitation of administering, via the user device, a hearing test by outputting one or more audio signals does not remove the claim from the abstract idea because it merely invokes the conventional capability of a user device to generate audio output. Claim 1 does not recite a particular audio-generation technique, adaptive hearing-test algorithm, frequency-selection process, or other improvement to audio testing technology.
The limitation of producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure responsive to verified hearing impairment recites a desired result without specifying the particular technical mechanism for generating, communicating, or implementing the countermeasure.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, including the processor, memory, user device, sensor data collection, audio output, and countermeasure generation, are recited at a high level of generality and merely apply generic computer and device functionality to perform the abstract information analysis and decision-making process.
The processor and memory perform generic computing operations. The user device merely performs conventional functions of collecting data and producing audio output. The sensor data collection is merely antecedent information gathering. The audio output is a conventional device operation. The generation of a countermeasure is recited only as a functional result.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea and fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 further fails to include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, merely instruct a generic processor and user device to perform information collection, information analysis, verification, and response-generation functions.
The claim does not recite a specific technological rule, algorithm, signal-processing operation, or technical mechanism that improves the operation of the user device, sensor system, hearing-test technology, vehicle system, or roadway infrastructure.
Unlike the claims found eligible in McRO, claim 1 does not recite specific automated rules that replace human judgment through a defined technological process. Instead, claim 1 recites functional results without reciting the particular technical means for achieving those results.
Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 and therefore incorporate all limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, claims 2-13 are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to the same abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-6 further recite machine-learning instructions that perform speech analysis, compare conversation data to baseline data, identify deviations, differentiate hearing impairment from pedestrian confusion, analyze speech data from another participant, and evaluate environmental conditions affecting hearing impairment.
These additional limitations remain directed to the abstract concept of collecting, analyzing, comparing, and evaluating information to determine a condition.
The limitation of claim 2 reciting speech analysis of conversation data collected by a microphone merely identifies the type of information being analyzed. The microphone and conversation data collection represent conventional data gathering.
The limitation of claim 3 reciting comparing conversation data associated with the pedestrian to baseline data to identify deviations constitutes information comparison and evaluation. The claim does not require a particular machine-learning architecture, training process, model structure, feature extraction technique, or algorithm.
The limitation of claim 4 reciting differentiating hearing impairment from pedestrian confusion based on speech analysis merely recites a desired classification result without specifying the technical rules used to perform the classification.
The limitation of claim 5 reciting speech analysis of conversation data from a non-pedestrian participant merely identifies an additional data source.
The limitation of claim 6 reciting evaluating environmental conditions surrounding the pedestrian that affect hearing impairment merely adds another category of information evaluated during the abstract analysis process.
These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely provide additional information sources and additional analytical inputs without improving the operation of the sensor, machine-learning system, user device, or another technology.
The additional machine-learning limitations also do not provide significantly more because they recite the desired use of machine learning without requiring a specific machine-learning technique, algorithm, model architecture, or technical improvement.
Accordingly, claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 7-13 further recite generating notifications, changing user-device operation, producing sequences of tones, receiving user perception indications, evaluating hearing impairment based on threshold tones, presenting hearing-test instructions, evaluating sound environment, triggering inference based on sound thresholds, using pedestrian movement, maintaining pedestrian stationary, and notifying vehicle operators, autonomous vehicle systems, or infrastructure elements.
These additional limitations remain directed to the abstract concept of obtaining information, evaluating information, and generating a responsive action based on the evaluation.
Claim 7 recites generating a notification or changing operation of the user device. These are conventional output operations of a computing device.
Claim 8 recites producing tones, receiving user perception information, and evaluating hearing impairment based on a threshold tone. These limitations merely describe a conventional hearing-test procedure implemented through a generic device.
Claim 9 recites presenting instructions regarding administration of the hearing test, which is merely providing information to a user.
Claim 10 recites evaluating sound environment and triggering inference based on a volume threshold. This is merely collecting and evaluating environmental information.
Claim 11 recites inferring hearing impairment based on physical movement of the pedestrian. This merely identifies another information source.
Claim 12 recites generating a notification instructing the pedestrian to remain stationary until a threshold tone is detected. This merely recites a desired responsive action.
Claim 13 recites producing a notification to a human vehicle operator, autonomous vehicle system, or infrastructure element. This merely recites transmitting information to a recipient.
These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely apply generic computing, communication, sensing, and notification functions to the abstract information-analysis process.
The claims do not recite a specific communication protocol, vehicle-control mechanism, infrastructure interaction technique, hearing-test algorithm, or technical improvement.
Accordingly, claims 7-13 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: (1) infer that a pedestrian is experiencing hearing impairment based on sensor data collected by a user device of the pedestrian; (2) administer, via the user device, a hearing test by outputting one or more audio signals to verify the hearing impairment responsive to the inference; and (3) produce a pedestrian assistance countermeasure responsive to verified hearing impairment as determined from the hearing test.
Although claim 14 is directed to a machine-readable medium rather than a system, the claimed instructions perform the same information-processing operations as claim 1. The claimed subject matter is directed to the abstract concept of collecting information, evaluating information to identify a condition, verifying the condition, and generating a responsive action.
The limitation of inferring hearing impairment based on sensor data recites analysis of information without requiring a particular technical process for performing the inference. The claim does not identify a specific sensor-processing algorithm, machine-learning architecture, mathematical model, or technical rule used to determine hearing impairment.
The limitation of administering a hearing test by outputting one or more audio signals via the user device merely uses conventional functionality of a user device to generate audio output. The claim does not recite a specific audio-testing protocol or technological improvement in audio signal generation or hearing evaluation.
The limitation of producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure recites a functional result without identifying the particular technical mechanism used to achieve the result.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the machine-readable medium and processor merely provide a generic computer environment for implementing the abstract information analysis and response-generation process.
The claimed medium stores instructions, and the processor executes those instructions, which are conventional computer operations. The user device collects information and outputs audio using conventional device capabilities. These elements do not improve computer functionality or another technology but merely apply generic computing components to the abstract idea.
Claim 14 does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed instructions merely direct a generic processor to perform the abstract process of collecting, analyzing, verifying, and responding to information.
The ordered combination of storing instructions, processing sensor data, outputting audio signals, and generating a countermeasure does not provide a specific technical solution or inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 14 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 15-17 depend from claim 14 and incorporate all limitations of claim 14. Claims 15-17 further recite machine-learning comparison of conversation data with baseline data, differentiation of hearing impairment from pedestrian confusion, and inference based on physical movement.
These limitations remain directed to information collection, comparison, classification, and evaluation.
Claim 15 does not recite a particular machine-learning model, training methodology, or algorithm.
Claim 16 does not recite specific classification rules or technical processing operations.
Claim 17 merely identifies physical movement as another source of information.
These additional limitations provide additional information inputs but do not improve a technological process. They do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 15-17 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent Claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 18 recites a method comprising: (1) inferring that a pedestrian is experiencing hearing impairment based on sensor data collected by a user device of the pedestrian; (2) administering, via the user device, a hearing test by outputting one or more audio signals to verify the hearing impairment responsive to the inference; and (3) producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure responsive to verified hearing impairment as determined from the hearing test.
The claimed method is directed to the abstract concept of obtaining information, analyzing the information to determine a condition, verifying the determination, and generating a corresponding response.
The limitation of inferring hearing impairment based on sensor data is an information evaluation step. The claim does not require any particular technical processing operation or algorithm for analyzing the sensor data.
The limitation of administering a hearing test by outputting audio signals through a user device merely recites using a conventional electronic device to perform a known function of producing audio output. The claim does not require a particular audio-processing technique, adaptive testing algorithm, or improvement to audio technology.
The limitation of producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure responsive to verified hearing impairment merely recites a desired outcome. The claim does not define how the countermeasure is technically generated, transmitted, or implemented.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed method merely uses generic devices and conventional operations to perform information collection, analysis, verification, and response generation.
The user device, sensor data collection, audio output, and countermeasure generation are additional elements that provide only a technological environment for applying the abstract idea. These elements do not improve the operation of the device, sensor technology, hearing-test technology, or pedestrian safety infrastructure through a particular technical mechanism.
Claim 18 does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, merely implement the abstract idea using conventional technology.
The claim does not recite specific technological rules, algorithms, or signal-processing operations comparable to the specific automated rules found eligible in McRO. Instead, the claim recites functional objectives without reciting the particular technical means for achieving those objectives.
Therefore, claim 18 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 19-20 depend from claim 18 and incorporate all limitations of claim 18.
Claim 19 further recites using machine learning to compare conversation data between the pedestrian and another user with baseline data and identify deviations.
Claim 20 further recites differentiating hearing impairment from pedestrian confusion based on speech analysis.
These limitations remain directed to the abstract concepts of comparing information, identifying patterns, and classifying information.
The claims do not recite a specific machine-learning architecture, training methodology, speech-processing algorithm, or technological improvement.
The additional limitations merely apply generic machine-learning and speech-analysis functionality to the abstract information analysis process.
Accordingly, claims 19-20 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, evaluating, and responding to information without additional elements sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claims recite generic computing, sensing, audio-output, machine-learning, and communication components performing their ordinary functions and do not recite a specific technological improvement or inventive concept sufficient to satisfy §101.
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, via the user device, a hearing test by outputting one or more audio signal 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
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 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