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 Amendment
In the amendments filed September 16th, 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-15 have been amended; claims 2, 4, and 7 have been cancelled; claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-15 remain pending in this application; Applicant’s amendments have overcome all 35 U.S.C. 112 and 101 rejections applied in the office action mailed June 16th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 20200152084 A1, “Kumar”) in view of Omata (US 20040079155 A1, “Omata”) and Chien et al. (US 20200229830 A1, “Chien”).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a processing unit configured to: determine hardness of a physical body based on the received ultrasonic response signal, wherein the physical body is in the space; The user is at a distance from the physical body.(Implicit, [0039] pocket computer receives signal from head mounted device and starts to process the signal in order to calculate the wavelength and frequency to generate size, shape color, and hardness information to communicate to the user through coded sound which is output by the speaker)(It is the examiner’s interpretation that the signal processing is completed by a processing unit).
Kumar may not explicitly teach wherein the ultrasonic response signal corresponds to a signal from a space based on radiation of a pulse signal towards the space, and the pulse signal is in an ultrasonic frequency band; estimate, for the received ultrasonic response signal, a frequency characteristic of a hardness filter, wherein the frequency characteristic of the hardness filter is estimated based on the determined hardness of the physical body, and the estimated frequency characteristic is in an audible frequency band; change a first plurality of frequency components of a specific reproduction sound to update the specific reproduction sound, wherein the first plurality of frequency components of the specific reproduction sound is changed via the hardness filter including the estimated frequency characteristic; and generate notification information to present the generated notification information to a user, wherein the notification information is generated based on the updated specific reproduction sound, the generated notification information indicates that causes the hardness of the physical body, the notification information is perceptible by the user.
Omata teaches receive an ultrasonic response signal ([0006] navigation aid is integrated with sensors such as ultrasound sensors), wherein the ultrasonic response signal corresponds to a signal from a space based on radiation of a pulse signal towards the space, and the pulse signal is in an ultrasonic frequency band([0009] pulse wave is sent out towards a material to be measured. The incident and reflected wave undergo frequency component and phase analysis in order to determine hardness of the material)([0022] sensor is an ultrasonic probe)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic signal processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Kumar, to include the ultrasonic hardness determination of Omata with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining the hardness of a material to be measured [0009].
Kumar, as modified in view of Omata may not explicitly teach change a first plurality of frequency components of a specific reproduction sound to update the specific reproduction sound, wherein the first plurality of frequency components of the specific reproduction sound is changed via the hardness filter including the estimated frequency characteristic; and generate notification information to present the generated notification information to a user, wherein the notification information is generated based on the updated specific reproduction sound, the generated notification information indicates that causes the hardness of the physical body, the notification information is perceptible by the user.
Chien change a first plurality of frequency components of a specific reproduction sound to update the specific reproduction sound, wherein the first plurality of frequency components of the specific reproduction sound is changed via the hardness filter including the estimated frequency characteristic; and generate notification information to present the generated notification information to a user, wherein the notification information is generated based on the updated specific reproduction sound, the generated notification information indicates that causes the hardness of the physical body, the notification information is perceptible by the user(Implicit, [0064], frequency of the original signal can be shifted by the control unit. At least two or more pure tone outputs of the original signal may be used to represent ranges of the frequency from the original signal. the two pure or mixed tone outputs may represent the hardness indication/identification to be played for the surgeon)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as the sensor discriminates between hardness values and shifts frequencies of the original signal based on the ranges of frequencies present in the original signal in order to generate a corresponding pure tone output to the user, it indicates that the notification is a specific reproduction sound that is updated based on the hardness of the physical body as a result of shifting a plurality of frequency components in a hardness filter. Additionally it is the examiner’s interpretation that the first pure tone output may correspond to a first plurality of frequency components, while a second pure tone output corresponds to a second plurality of frequency components).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic signal processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Kumar, to include the hardness dependent notification of Chien with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of notifying a user of a potential material they may be encountering [0064].
Regarding claim 3, Kumar, as modified in view of Omata and Chien, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Chien teaches wherein the estimated frequency characteristic of the hardness filter corresponds to a frequency spectrum of the received ultrasonic response signal. (Implicit, [0064], frequency of the original signal can be shifted by the control unit. At least two or more pure tone outputs of the original signal may be used to represent ranges of the frequency from the original signal. the two pure or mixed tone outputs may represent the hardness indication/identification to be played for the surgeon)
Regarding claim 5, Kumar, as modified in view of Omata and Chien teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Kumar further teaches wherein the generated notification information is perceptible an acoustic sense of the user. ([0039] pocket computer receives signal from head mounted device and starts to process the signal in order to calculate the wavelength and frequency to generate size, shape color, and hardness information to communicate to the user through coded sound which is output by the speaker)
Regarding claim 6, Kumar, as modified in view of Omata and Chien teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Kumar further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to update the specific reproduction sound based on an acoustic effect according to the hardness of the physical body.([0039] pocket computer receives signal from head mounted device and starts to process the signal in order to calculate the wavelength and frequency to generate size, shape color, and hardness information to communicate to the user through coded sound which is output by the speaker)
Regarding claim 11, Kumar, as modified in view of Omata and Chien teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6. Kumar further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to generate the notification information to cause perception, of a position of the physical body as a position of a sound image, by the user.([0049], 3-D acoustic speakers are arranged in order to produce acoustic sound signals representing pixels transformed codes in an optical image. The user would perceive the front space in day to day life via this stereo-acoustic matrix system.)([0049] the 3-D matrix constitutes an acoustic image)
Regarding claim 14, the claim is a method corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is a product claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 9-10 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Omata, Chien, and Bermudo et al. ("Developing an Assistive Device for the Visually Impaired Using Ultrasonic Sensors for Distance and Solidity Determination." (2020), “Bermudo”).
Regarding claim 9, Kumar, as modified in view of Omata and Chien teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7. Kumar, as modified in view of Omata and Chien may not explicitly teach wherein the processing unit is further configured to change a magnitude of a specific frequency component in the frequency characteristic of the hardness filter based on the hardness of the physical body.
Bermudo teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to change a magnitude of a specific frequency component in the frequency characteristic of the hardness filter based on the hardness of the physical body.([pg. 2], strength of the reflection at any point then be a proxy for the hardness of the materials surface)([pg. 5], results from sensor characterization illustrated that there is a directly proportional relationship between hardness of a material and it’s amplitude. As for sensor interfacing, a peak detection circuit was designed for wave amplification and rectification)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic signal processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Kumar, as modified in view of Omata and Chien to include the hardness dependent amplification of Bermudo with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of alerting users of the obstacles in order to avoid them [pg. 5].
Regarding claim 10, Kumar, as modified in view of Omata, Chien, and Bermudo, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 9. Bermudo further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to increase the based on a degree of the hardness of the physical body increases ([pg. 2], strength of the reflection at any point then be a proxy for the hardness of the materials surface)([pg. 5], results from sensor characterization illustrated that there is a directly proportional relationship between hardness of a material and it’s amplitude. As for sensor interfacing, a peak detection circuit was designed for wave amplification and rectification)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the amplification process is equivalent to increasing the predetermined frequency component. Due to the correlation between increased hardness and increased amplitude, a harder object would generate a frequency component that is amplified to a greater degree)
Claim(s) 12-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Omata, Chien, and Hyde et al. (US 20170216125 A1, “Hyde”).
Regarding claim 12, Kumar, as modified in view of Omata and Chien teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Kumar, as modified in view of Omata and Chien may not explicitly teach wherein the processing unit is further configured to generate the notification information to cause perception of vibration by the user.
Hyde teaches wherein the processing unit generates the notification information that causes the user to perceive vibration ([0114], In an aspect, the warning system includes a vibrator and circuitry configured to vibrate at least a portion of the walking aid in response to receiving a warning signal from the controller.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic signal processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Kumar, as modified in view of Omata and Chien, to include the vibration notification of Hyde with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing haptic vibrations to the user [0114]
Regarding claim 13, Kumar, as modified in view of Omata, Chien, and Hyde teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 12. Chien further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to change a second plurality of frequency components of a signal of the vibration to update the signal of the vibration, wherein the second plurality of frequency components are changed via the hardness filter including the estimated frequency characteristics; and generate the notification information based on the signal of the vibration including the changed second plurality of frequency components. (Implicit, [0064], frequency of the original signal can be shifted by the control unit. At least two or more pure tone outputs of the original signal may be used to represent ranges of the frequency from the original signal. the two pure or mixed tone outputs may represent the hardness indication/identification to be played for the surgeon)( it is the examiner’s interpretation that as the sensor discriminates between hardness values and shifts frequencies of the original signal based on the ranges of frequencies present in the original signal in order to generate a corresponding pure tone output to the user, it indicates that the notification is a specific reproduction sound that is updated based on the hardness of the physical body as a result of shifting a plurality of frequency components in a hardness filter. Additionally it is the examiner’s interpretation that the first pure tone output may correspond to a first plurality of frequency components, while a second pure tone output corresponds to a second plurality of frequency components)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, Kumar discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 6 wherein the processing unit is further configured to generate: determine an impulse response of the hardness filter based on the hardness of the physical body; and update the specific reproduction sound based on a convolution integral of the specific reproduction sound and the determined impulse response of the hardness filter.([0039] pocket computer receives signal from head mounted device and starts to process the signal in order to calculate the wavelength and frequency to generate size, shape color, and hardness information to communicate to the user through coded sound which is output by the speaker, however Kumar nor any other identified prior art teaches the reproduction sound is generated by convolution integral of the reproduction sound and an impulse response of a hardness filter according to the hardness of a physical body. No other identified prior art teaches these limitations or provides sufficient motivation to combine)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed September 16th, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections applied to claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed September 16th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 10-12 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that none of Kumar, Omata, or Chien teach the limitations of amended claims 1, 14, and 15 for the following reason:
the feature of "estimate, for the received ultrasonic response signal, a frequency characteristic of a hardness filter, wherein the frequency characteristic of the hardness filter is estimated based on the determined hardness of the physical body, and the estimated frequency characteristic is in an audible frequency band; change a first plurality of frequency components of a specific reproduction sound to update the specific reproduction sound, wherein the first plurality of frequency components of the specific reproduction sound is changed via the hardness filter including the estimated frequency characteristic," is not taught by Kumar, Omata, or Chien
With respect to (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees that none of Kumar, Omata, or Chien teaches the limitation"estimate, for the received ultrasonic response signal, a frequency characteristic of a hardness filter, wherein the frequency characteristic of the hardness filter is estimated based on the determined hardness of the physical body, and the estimated frequency characteristic is in an audible frequency band; change a first plurality of frequency components of a specific reproduction sound to update the specific reproduction sound, wherein the first plurality of frequency components of the specific reproduction sound is changed via the hardness filter including the estimated frequency characteristic,", as the limitation is implicitly taught by Chien at [0064]. The cited portion of Chien describes a process in which the received original signal’s frequency is shifted by the control unit in order to generate two pure tones which indicate a range of frequencies present in the original signal which are indicative of the hardness of the measured body. This means that a received ultrasonic signal is analyzed to determine an estimated frequency corresponding to a determined hardness of a physical body and a plurality of frequency components are filtered out to generate a first pure tone output indicative of a hardness value, as well as a second pure tone output corresponding to a second plurality of frequency components, and that both pure tone outputs establish a hardness range of the physical body. The pure tones serve the purpose of notifying the user of the hardness of the physical body; thus Chien satisfies the limitation. Therefore the rejection of Claims 1, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kumar in view of Omata and Chien is maintained.
On pg. 13-14 of Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claim 1, claims 3, 12, and 13 are in condition for allowance. In the response to arguments with respect to claim 1, above, the rejection is maintained and similarly so are the rejections of claims 3, 12, and 13.
On pg. 13-14 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that claims 9 and 10 are in condition for allowance for the following reason:
there is insufficient teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the prior art.
In response to (1), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, while Chien may be directed towards a surgical tool that collects acoustic/vibrational information during direct contact with a tissue, the underlying problem to be solved is still the same as the current application. Both Chien and the present application are directed to solving the problem of notifying a user of a hardness value that would otherwise be imperceptible (See Chien at [0064]). Further both Chien and the present application utilize acoustic signals in order to determine the frequency components corresponding to the hardness of the physical body under observation in order to generate notification information to the user (See Chien at [0064]). Kumar, who also utilizes ultrasonic sensors to determine hardness of physical bodies in order to aid the navigation of a visually impaired person, would be motivated to look at the disclosure of Chien due to Chien’s use of acoustic information to ascertain and notify a user hardness values of physical body that would otherwise be imperceptible to a user, regardless of whether the user is a surgeon or a visually impaired person. Therefore the rejections of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kumar in view of Omata, Chien, and Bermudo are maintained.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Villamizar et al. ("A necklace sonar with adjustable scope range for assisting the visually impaired." 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). IEEE, 2013.) which discloses a necklace sonar that has the ability to discriminate object hardness
Iwasaki et al. ("Ground material distinction method using reflection intensities obtained by ultrasonic sensor." 2012 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII). IEEE, 2012.) which discloses a method and system for ultrasonic hardness determination based on reflected intensities
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645