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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to applicant’s filing date of June 27, 2024. Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to Application JP2021-213350, filed on December 27, 2021. The certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2025 and 6/27/2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority to Prior-Filed Application
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, PCT/JP2022/039018 filed on 10/17/2024, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is: generating unit in claims 6-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections -- 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 6 recites a single means, generating unit, to generate a comparative sound; the specification disclosed at most only those means known to the inventor which appears to be a PC body 12 with speaker like shown in Figure 1. Published Patent Applications, US-20230030911-A1 and US-20240013593-A1, appear to suggest that a comparative sound can be generated in the form of a “spectrogram”.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process with data gathering using generic computer components.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a person can complete the limitations themselves using generic computer components. Claims 1 & 6 recite the limitations of acquiring sound data, “calculating,” “identifying an abnormal sound,” “comparing … with a reference acoustic pressure level set in advanced,” and “changing a largest one of the acoustic pressure levels ...” These steps amount to data gathering. The remaining limitations of extracting a frequency range of pressure levels and making a diagnosis are nothing more than steps that can be done as a mental process using generic computer components.
The above claims, as well as dependent claims 2-5 and 7-9, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because applying an exception using a generic processor cannot provide an inventive step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu Ueda (US-20230012559-A1)(“Ueda”) and Takaaki Nakamura (US-20070032968-A1)(“Nakamura”).
As per claim 1, Ueda discloses a method of identifying an abnormal sound (Figure 6), the method comprising:
a generation step of generating comparative sound data (Ueda at Para. [0048] discloses reproducing/generating a comparative sound for a user:” the arithmetic device 12 reproduces the sound within the selected time range by the speaker 20. Therefore, by listening to the sound within the selected time range, the user can determine whether the abnormal sound is included in the time range.”) by (Ueda at Para. [0048] discloses generating a frequency based pressure level using a short-time Fourier transform (STFT) data:” the user can select a time range in which the sound pressure level (that is, the sound pressure level in all frequency bands) is high as the first time range T1, and select a time range in which the sound pressure level is lower than the first time range T1 as the second time range T2.”); and
an identification step of identifying an abnormal sound in the sound data by outputting each of the sound data and the comparative sound data as sound and auditorily comparing outputted sounds (Ueda at Para. [0048] discloses that a user identifies by listening (auditorily) and identifying a time range where the abnormal sound is present:” by listening to the sound within the selected time range, the user can determine whether the abnormal sound is included in the time range. As a result, the user can select the time range in which the abnormal sound is included as the first time range T1 and select the time range in which the abnormal sound is not included as the second time range T2. Further, when the abnormal sound for detection is present, the user can select the time range in which the abnormal sound for detection is present as the first time range T1, and select the time range in which the abnormal sound for detection is not present as the second time range T2.”).
Ueda does not disclose, but Nakamura discloses changing a prominent … acoustic pressure levels (Nakamura at Figure 2, extraction portion 32, and Para. [0054] discloses changing the sound data to select those components that are within a predetermined level:” acoustic pressure data is created by acquiring the acoustic pressure based on the size in amplitude of sounds of the frequency data and by calculating the acoustic pressure level which is a logarithm ratio in terms of the reference acoustic pressure (for example, the acoustic pressure of the entire sounds).”).
Nakamura is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of systems which identifies the source of abnormal sounds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda further in view of Nakamura to allow for identifying an abnormal sound of a machine such as a vehicle, as selected by a user/driver by having the user identifies a kind of the abnormal sound. Motivation to do so would allow for reducing negative effects caused by vibrations that can have a deleterious effect on the enjoyment and operation of a vehicle since matching with sensory inspection can be easily carried out, it becomes easy to check generation of abnormal sounds and vibrations and to identify the source of generation thereof (Nakamura at Para. [0013]).
As per claim 2, Ueda and Nakamura disclose a method of identifying an abnormal sound according to claim 1, wherein in the generation step, the comparative sound data is generated by comparing the frequency-by-frequency acoustic pressure levels with a reference acoustic pressure level set in advance and changing, as the prominent acoustic pressure level, a largest one of the frequency-by-frequency acoustic pressure levels relative to the reference acoustic pressure level (Nakamura at Para. [0098] discloses the use of speakers to generate sound levels for sensory inspection (Para. [0111]):” through the filter process and reproduction, it becomes possible to output sounds corresponding to a specified order and a specified frequency through the speaker 23 by carrying out a filter process on all sounds, it is possible to check for abnormal sounds that have been actually generated. In addition, since the sounds from which sounds corresponding to a specified order are eliminated are outputted from the speaker 23, it is possible to foresee a subsequent state after the gears 7, 8 and 10 (the object) were replaced.”).
As per claim 3, Ueda and Nakamura disclose a method of identifying an abnormal sound according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the abnormal sound fails to be identified in the identification step, the comparative sound data is used as the sound data and the generation step and the identification step are performed again (Ueda at Para. [0011] discloses using the comparative sound as the sound data to be identified by a user:” the arithmetic device causes the output device to output a kind of the first abnormal sound with the kind not matching a kind of the second abnormal sound among the first abnormal sounds. Since it is highly possible that no abnormal sound is generated in the second time range, it is highly possible that the second abnormal sound is an abnormal sound that is not recognized by a person. Therefore, it is highly possible that the first abnormal sound with a kind matching that of the second abnormal sound among the first abnormal sounds is also an abnormal sound that is not recognized by the person. Since the arithmetic device causes the output device to output the kind of the first abnormal sound with the kind not matching the second abnormal sound among the first abnormal sounds, it is possible to display the abnormal sound recognized by a person on the output device.”).
As per claim 4, Ueda and Nakamura disclose a method of identifying an abnormal sound according to claim 1, wherein in the generation step, the comparative sound data is generated by reducing the acoustic pressure level (Nakamura at Para. [0006] discloses that is known to select pressure levels within a certain sound volume by using a tuned microphone which under broadest interpretation can be used to attenuate the acoustic pressure levels:” picks up running sounds as data by attaching a sound collecting microphone and a recorder to a motorcycle, and identifies sounds of an already known volume, degree or order, whose ratio is comparatively high, among all sounds, using an order filter. In accordance with the analyzing apparatus, evaluation can be carried out based on the order of the sounds.”).
As per claim 5, Ueda and Nakamura disclose a method of identifying an abnormal sound according to claim 1, wherein in the generation step, the comparative sound data is generated by increasing the acoustic pressure level (Nakamura at Para. [0051] discloses amplifying the sound signal:” speaker 23 includes an amplification circuit for amplifying digital signals and a converter for converting the same to analog signals, and so on.”).
As per claim 6, Ueda discloses an abnormal sound identification device comprising:
a generating unit configured to generate comparative sound data (Ueda Figure 1, device 12, and Para. [0048] discloses generating sound data for a user to hear:” the playback button 90 is pressed with the time range selected, the arithmetic device 12 reproduces the sound within the selected time range by the speaker 20. “) by calculating frequency-by-frequency acoustic pressure levels based on sound data (Ueda at Para. [0048] discloses generating a frequency based pressure level using a short-time Fourier transform (STFT) data:” the user can select a time range in which the sound pressure level (that is, the sound pressure level in all frequency bands) is high as the first time range T1, and select a time range in which the sound pressure level is lower than the first time range T1 as the second time range T2.”), comparing the calculated frequency-by-frequency acoustic pressure levels with a reference acoustic pressure level set in advance (Ueda at Para. [0048] discloses that a user identifies by listening (auditorily) and identifying a time range where the abnormal sound is present:” by listening to the sound within the selected time range, the user can determine whether the abnormal sound is included in the time range. As a result, the user can select the time range in which the abnormal sound is included as the first time range T1 and select the time range in which the abnormal sound is not included as the second time range T2. Further, when the abnormal sound for detection is present, the user can select the time range in which the abnormal sound for detection is present as the first time range T1, and select the time range in which the abnormal sound for detection is not present as the second time range T2.”), and one of the acoustic pressure levels relative to the reference acoustic pressure level (Ueda at Para. [0048] discloses reproducing/generating a comparative sound for a user:” the arithmetic device 12 reproduces the sound within the selected time range by the speaker 20. Therefore, by listening to the sound within the selected time range, the user can determine whether the abnormal sound is included in the time range.”).
Ueda does not disclose, but Nakamura discloses changing a largest … acoustic pressure levels (Nakamura at Figure 2, extraction portion 32, and Para. [0054] discloses changing the sound data to select those components that are within a predetermined level:” acoustic pressure data is created by acquiring the acoustic pressure based on the size in amplitude of sounds of the frequency data and by calculating the acoustic pressure level which is a logarithm ratio in terms of the reference acoustic pressure (for example, the acoustic pressure of the entire sounds).”).
Nakamura is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of systems which identifies the source of abnormal sounds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda further in view of Nakamura to allow for identifying an abnormal sound of a machine such as a vehicle, as selected by a user/driver by having the user identifies a kind of the abnormal sound. Motivation to do so would allow for reducing negative effects caused by vibrations that can have a deleterious effect on the enjoyment and operation of a vehicle since matching with sensory inspection can be easily carried out, it becomes easy to check generation of abnormal sounds and vibrations and to identify the source of generation thereof (Nakamura at Para. [0013]).
As per claim 7, Ueda and Nakamura disclose an abnormal sound identification device according to claim 6, wherein the generating unit is configured to, in response to an abnormal sound failing to be identified, use the comparative sound data as the sound data and generate the comparative sound data again (Ueda at Para. [0011] discloses using the comparative sound as the sound data to be identified by a user:” the arithmetic device causes the output device to output a kind of the first abnormal sound with the kind not matching a kind of the second abnormal sound among the first abnormal sounds. Since it is highly possible that no abnormal sound is generated in the second time range, it is highly possible that the second abnormal sound is an abnormal sound that is not recognized by a person. Therefore, it is highly possible that the first abnormal sound with a kind matching that of the second abnormal sound among the first abnormal sounds is also an abnormal sound that is not recognized by the person. Since the arithmetic device causes the output device to output the kind of the first abnormal sound with the kind not matching the second abnormal sound among the first abnormal sounds, it is possible to display the abnormal sound recognized by a person on the output device.”).
As per claim 8, Ueda and Nakamura disclose an abnormal sound identification device according to claim 6, wherein the generating unit is configured to generate the comparative sound data by reducing the acoustic pressure level (Nakamura at Para. [0006] discloses that is known to select pressure levels within a certain sound volume by using a tuned microphone which under broadest interpretation can be used to attenuate the acoustic pressure levels:” picks up running sounds as data by attaching a sound collecting microphone and a recorder to a motorcycle, and identifies sounds of an already known volume, degree or order, whose ratio is comparatively high, among all sounds, using an order filter. In accordance with the analyzing apparatus, evaluation can be carried out based on the order of the sounds.”).
As per claim 9, Ueda and Nakamura disclose an abnormal sound identification device according to claim 6, wherein the generating unit is configured to generate the comparative sound data by increasing the acoustic pressure level (Nakamura at Para. [0051] discloses amplifying the sound signal:” speaker 23 includes an amplification circuit for amplifying digital signals and a converter for converting the same to analog signals, and so on.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:.
PARK; Jun Young (US-20240013593-A1) Service system of an intelligent performance inspection for a used car, and method thereof;
Ueda; Yu (US-20230067447-A1) ABNORMAL SOUND SPECIFYING DEVICE, METHOD OF SPECIFYING ABNORMAL SOUND, AND NONTRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING COMPUTER-READABLE INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARITHMETIC DEVICE;
CHEN; TAIRONG (US-20230030911-A1) ABNORMAL SOUND DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS;
IBARAGI; Tadashi (US-20220238133-A1) METHOD OF SPECIFYING GENERATION POINT OF ABNORMAL SOUND AND APPLICATION PROGRAM;
SHINDO; Yoshitaka (US-20220230483-A1) VEHICLE DIAGNOSIS SYSTEM;
Sudo; Yui (US-20190295568-A1) ABNORMAL SOUND DETERMINATION APPARATUS AND DETERMINATION METHOD;
MITSUHASHI; Tomoyuki et al. (US-20170185501-A1) DIAGNOSTIC DEVICE, DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM, DIAGNOSTIC METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLIS B. RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8920. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 5:00pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 571-270-5744. 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.
/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights