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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023, 01/03/2024 and 01/03/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-11 are directed toward a method, claim 12 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium to implement said, claim 13 is directed toward a device with which to implement said method, and claim 14 is directed toward a system to implement the method of claim 13.
Claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and does not include additional elements that amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1
Claims 1 is directed toward a “method”, and thus falls within a statutory category under the most recent guidelines of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 recites the steps of “… obtaining voice data obtained by collecting a voice of an evaluatee uttering a syllable or a fixed phrase that includes (i) two or more morae including a change in a first formant frequency or a change in a second formant frequency or (ii) at least one of a flap, a plosive, a voiceless sound, a double consonant, or a fricative”; “extracting a prosody feature from the voice data obtained”; “calculating an estimated value of an oral function of the evaluatee, based on the prosody feature extracted and an oral function estimating equation calculated based on a plurality of training data items”; and “evaluating an oral function deterioration state of the evaluatee by assessing the estimated value using an oral function evaluation indicator.” These limitations collectively recite the collection and evaluation of linguistic information and language evaluation. As characterized by the USPTO guidance and case law, such activities fall within the abstract-idea groupings of mental processes (e.g. observations, evaluations, and judgments that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper) and organizing /transmitting information. Reference can be made to latest patent eligibility guidelines. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claim is implemented on a “computer.” The use of a generic computer components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of storing and executing instructions, receiving requests, and sending content.
The claim does not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality (e.g., a particular translation algorithm, model architecture, data structure, memory organization, caching mechanism, latency-reduction technique, or network protocol that improves the operation of the computer or network). Nor does it effect a transformation of a physical article or use the abstract idea in any other manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements are the generic “computer,” “device”(s) performing their conventional functions. Implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components does not amount to significantly more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24).
The ordered combination of limitations mirrors the abstract idea itself performed using routine computer operations. There is no recited unconventional hardware, no technical improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and no nonconventional arrangement of known components etc.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not include an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Therefore , claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Claim 1 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims 2-11, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium to implement said, claim 13 is directed toward a device with which to implement said method, and claim 14 is directed toward a system to implement the method of claim 13, and are similar in scope and content of method claim 1 and rejected under similar rationale above.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant submitted prior art of (Japan Dental Association, “For dentists at dental clinics, Oral Frailty Manual”, (hereinafter JDA), 2019 Edition, pages 50-86) over Abramovitz et al., (US 10,019,995 B1).
As per claims 1, 12, 13 and 14, JDA teaches a method/non-transitory computer readable medium to implement said method/device/system for an oral function evaluation method comprising:
obtaining voice data obtained by collecting a voice of an evaluatee uttering a syllable or a fixed phrase that includes (i) two or more morae including a change in a first formant frequency or a change in a second formant frequency (JDA, page 70, Fig. III-30);
extracting a prosody feature from the voice data obtained (JDA, page 70, Fig. III-30);
calculating an estimated value of an oral function of the evaluatee, based on the prosody feature extracted and an oral function estimating equation calculated based on a plurality of training data items (JDA, page 70, Fig. III-30); and
evaluating an oral function deterioration state of the evaluatee by assessing the estimated value using an oral function evaluation indicator(JDA, page 70, Fig. III-30).
JDA, however does not explicitly teach the claimed “a voice of an evaluatee uttering a syllable or a fixed phrase that includes (i) two or more morae including a change in a first formant frequency or a change in a second formant frequency or (ii) at least one of a flap, a plosive, a voiceless sound, a double consonant, or a fricative”. However, Abramovitz et al., do teach a voice of an evaluatee uttering a syllable or a fixed phrase that includes (i) two or more morae including a change in a first formant frequency or a change in a second formant frequency or (ii) at least one of a flap, a plosive, a voiceless sound, a double consonant, or a fricative (Col.15, lines 31-38, “… using acoustic attributes from the group of volume, pitch, tone, stress, intonation, voiced, voiceless, consonants, vowels, plosive, nasal, trill, flap, fricative, lateral fricative, approximant, lateral approximant, bilabial, labiodental, dental, alveolar, post-alveolar, retroflex, palatal, velar, uvular, pharyngeal, glottal, to yield a time-based correspondence from said audio recording to said words.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Abramovitz et al., in the method of JDA because this would effectively let the evaluator, evaluate and map the “Evaluatee’s” oral frailty using oral expressions. (Abramovitz et al., Col. 11).
As per claim 2, JDA in view of Abramovitz et al., teach the oral function evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein the oral function estimating equation includes a coefficient corresponding to an element of an oral function and a variable that is substituted by the prosody feature extracted and is multiplied by the coefficient (Abramovitz et al., Col.15, lines 31-38).
As per claim 3, JDA in view of Abramovitz et al., teach the oral function evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein in the calculating, the estimated value is calculated for each of elements of the oral function of the evaluatee, and in the evaluating, an oral function deterioration state of the evaluatee is evaluated for each of the elements of the oral function by assessing, using an oral function evaluation indicator determined for each of the elements of the oral function, the estimated value calculated for each of the elements of the oral function (Abramovitz et al., Col.15, lines 31-38).
As per claim 4, JDA in view of Abramovitz et al., teach the oral function evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein elements of the oral function include at least one of tongue fur, oral dryness, occlusal force, tongue pressure, cheek pressure, a remaining number of teeth, swallowing function, or mastication function of the evaluate (Abramovitz et al., Col.15, lines 31-38).
As per claim 5, Abramovitz et al., teach the oral function evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein the prosody feature includes at least one of a speech rate, a sound pressure difference, a change over time in the sound pressure difference, the first formant frequency, the second formant frequency, an amount of change in the first formant frequency, an amount of change in the second formant frequency, a change over time in the first formant frequency, a change over time in the second formant frequency, or a time length of a plosive (Abramovitz et al., Col.15, lines 31-38).
As per claim 6, JDA in view of Abramovitz et al., teach the oral function evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein in the extracting, a plurality of prosody features are extracted from the voice data obtained by collecting a voice of the evaluatee uttering two or more types of the syllable or two or more types of the fixed phrase, and in the calculating, the estimated value is calculated based on the plurality of prosody features extracted and the oral function estimating equation (Abramovitz et al., Col.15, lines 31-38).
As per claim 7, JDA in view of Abramovitz et al., teach the oral function evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein the syllable or the fixed phrase includes a combination of two or more vowels or a vowel and a consonant, the combination involving mouth opening and closing or back and forth tongue movement for utterance (Abramovitz et al., Col.15, lines 31-38).
As per claim 8, JDA in view of Abramovitz et al., teach the oral function evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein the voice data is obtained by collecting a voice of the evaluatee uttering the syllable or the fixed phrase at least twice at different speech rates.
As per claim 9, JDA in view of Abramovitz et al., teach the oral function evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein the fixed phrase includes repetition of syllables including a flap and a consonant different from the flap (Abramovitz et al., Col.15, lines 31-38).
As per claim 10, JDA in view of Abramovitz et al., teach the oral function evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein the syllable or the fixed phrase includes at least one combination of a vowel and a plosive (Abramovitz et al., Col.15, lines 31-38).
As per claim 11, JDA in view of Abramovitz et al., teach the oral function evaluation method according to claim 1, further comprising: providing a suggestion regarding the oral function of the evaluatee by checking the estimated value against predetermined data Abramovitz et al., Col.15, lines 31-38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
The following is closest applicable prior art.
Chang et al., (US 2022/0208173 A1) teach methods and systems of encoding and decoding speech from a subject using articulatory physiology. Methods of the present disclosure include receiving a physiological feature signal associated with a spatiotemporal movement of a vocal tract articulator, generating a speech pattern signal in response to the physiological feature signal, and outputting speech that is based on the speech pattern signal. Methods of the present disclosure further include acquiring one or more of a linguistic signal and an acoustic signal; associating a physiological feature with the linguistic or acoustic signal; generating a speech pattern signal in response to the physiological feature; and outputting speech that is based on the speech pattern signal.
Pingali (US 202/0381116 A1) teaches a system and method for providing personal health advice based on multimodal oral sensing data obtained from a plurality of user(s). The system comprises a handheld multimodal oral scanning device (101) for scanning and collecting oral health data which is transmitted to a user interface device (102) through a wireless network infrastructure. Further, an oral scanning and feedback module (103) provides real-time guidance and feedback to user(s) regarding the optimum usage of the multimodal oral scanning device (101). The collected oral health data is stored in a dynamic oral data aggregation module (104) and pre-processed by a disease classifier module (105) to detect the presence or absence of one or more disease(s) after which a personal health advice generation module (106) provides a personalized primary level advice to the user(s).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY B CHAWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7601. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Monday thru Thursday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/VIJAY B CHAWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights