DETAILED ACTION
35 USC § 112 - 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.
Claim 1, 8 and 9 limitation “judgment unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 1-4 and 9 limitation “microphone control unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 7 limitation “sound information acquisition unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 7 limitation “gut score acquisition unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 7 limitation “terminal output unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 7 limitation “gut score output unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Terminal output unit – this unit correspond to the structure of an display [0061].
Gut score output unit – this unit correspond to the structure of an display [0061].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
35 USC § 112 - Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “judgment unit”, “microphone control unit”, “sound information acquisition unit” and “gut score acquisition unit”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In addition, Independent claim 9, recites “A program that enables a computer of a portable information terminal…to function as: a judgment unit…and a microphone control unit”. It is unclear, as to whether the claim is directed to a program or a computer configured to function as a judgment unit and a microphone control unit. Applicant is recommended to amend claim 9 to clearly claim what statutory class is claim 9, falls into.
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.
Claim 1, 5-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoko JP2022025395 in view of Chen US PG-Pub 2013/0216050.
Regarding claim 1 and 8-9, Yoko teaches a portable information terminal that has a microphones and is used to record a user's abdominal sounds in a state where a sound collecting portion near the microphone is in contact with the user's abdomen (Fig. 11 & [0029]: a smartphone that has a microphone to gather biological sounds like sounds coming from the stomach or intestine), the portable information terminal comprising: a judgment unit that judges whether or not a predetermined control condition related to recording of the abdominal sounds is satisfied (Fig. 7-103/104 & [0041]-[0042] & [0046]-[0047]: the smartphone has a unit that determines if the smartphone is within the correct range [control condition] to be able to detect the biological sound); and a microphone control unit that controls the microphone when the control condition is judged to be satisfied (Fig. 7-103/105 & [0041] & [0047]: when smartphone is outside the acceptable tilt range or the biological sound doesn’t satisfies a criteria then step 104 is a NG/not good and it goes to step 105 to say “Please tilt the terminal a little further” or “Please move to a quiet place” to then go to step 103 and restart the acquisition of sound data by the microphone [meaning that microphone sound acquisition was stopped]).
Yoko failed to teach two or more microphones, controlling one or more microphone among the two or more microphone.
However, Chen teaches two or more microphones, controlling one or more microphone among the two or more microphone (Fig. 2 & [0028]: a smartphone with two or more microphone and controlling which microphone from the two or more will be outputting audio signal based on criteria being satisfied).
Yoko and Chen are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because having two or more microphone and selecting a specific helps to make sure you are selecting the microphone that can capture audio signal best.
Regarding claim 5, Yoko teaches wherein the predetermined control condition is that the portable information terminal enters a predetermined preparation state for recording the abdominal sounds (Fig. 7-103/104 & [0041]-[0042] & [0046]-[0047]: the smartphone has a unit that determines if the smartphone is within the correct range [control condition] to be able to detect the biological sound).
Regarding claim 6, Yoko teaches wherein the predetermined control condition is that sound information acquired through the recording satisfies a predetermined interruption condition during the recording of the abdominal sounds ([0041]-[0042]: if the volume of the biological sound decrease so much that there is no biological sound/an interruption condition, then it is determine that you have a NG/no good condition).
Claim 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoko JP2022025395 in combination with Chen US PG-Pub 2013/0216050 in view of Daley US PG-Pub 2018/0358009.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches wherein the microphone control unit performs stopping acquisition control on the one or more microphones when the control condition is judged to be satisfied (Yoko, Fig. 7-103/105 & [0041] & [0047]: when smartphone is outside the acceptable tilt range or the biological sound doesn’t satisfies a criteria then step 104 is a NG/not good and it goes to step 105 to say “Please tilt the terminal a little further” or “Please move to a quiet place” to then go to step 103 and restart the acquisition of sound data by the microphone [meaning that microphone sound acquisition was stopped]) and suggest turn microphone on and off (Chen, [0027]: turning off microphones when not needed).
The combination failed to explicitly teach turn microphone on and off.
However, Daley teaches turn microphone on and off ([0041]: turning microphone ON and OFF).
The combination and Daley are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because turning a microphone ON and OFF is an alternate equivalent way to start/stop acquiring microphone audio signals.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the microphone control unit controls stopping acquisition of the one or more microphones when the control condition is judged to be satisfied (Yoko, Fig. 7-103/105 & [0041] & [0047]: when smartphone is outside the acceptable tilt range or the biological sound doesn’t satisfies a criteria then step 104 is a NG/not good and it goes to step 105 to say “Please tilt the terminal a little further” or “Please move to a quiet place” to then go to step 103 and restart the acquisition of sound data by the microphone [meaning that microphone sound acquisition was stopped]) and suggest turn microphone on and off (Chen, [0027]: turning off microphones when not needed).
The combination failed to explicitly teach parameters related to operation.
However, Daley teaches parameters related to operation ([0041]: turning microphone ON and OFF).
The combination and Daley are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because turning a microphone ON and OFF is an alternate equivalent way to start/stop acquiring microphone audio signals.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoko JP2022025395 in combination with Chen US PG-Pub 2013/0216050 in view of Henry US PG-Pub 2023/0270596.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the microphone control unit controls the one or more microphones (Yoko, Fig. 7-103/105 & [0041] & [0047]: when smartphone is outside the acceptable tilt range or the biological sound doesn’t satisfies a criteria then step 104 is a NG/not good and it goes to step 105 to say “Please tilt the terminal a little further” or “Please move to a quiet place” to then go to step 103 and restart the acquisition of sound data by the microphone [meaning that microphone sound acquisition was stopped]) and suggest turn microphone on and off (Chen, [0027]: turning off microphones when not needed).
The combination failed to teach control unit acquires an identifier identifying a model of the portable information terminal.
However, Henry teaches acquires an identifier identifying a model of the portable information terminal ([0071]: a control unit detects the brand or model of the electronic device with microphone and loudspeaker and selects a prefer microphone).
The combination and Henry are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because the model let’s the system known the location of the microphones, which helps the system decide the best microphone for the best situation/orientation.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoko JP2022025395 in combination with Chen US PG-Pub 2013/0216050 in view of Patwardhan US PG-Pub 2016/0106347.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the portable information terminal according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1); and an information processing apparatus capable of communicating with the portable information terminal (Yoko, Fig. 1 & [0043]: the user-terminal-2 and server-1 will communicate with each other, the server may analyze and determine the sound the determine result and transmit to user terminal-2),wherein the portable information terminal includes a terminal output unit that outputs sound information acquired by recording a user's abdominal sounds using the one or more microphones (Yoko, Fig. 7 & [0042] & [0089]: after capturing the audio data an analysis is done it is transmitted to the server).
The combination failed to teach information processing apparatus includes: a sound information acquisition unit that acquires the sound information; a gut score acquisition unit that acquires a gut score related to the user's gut condition, using input information containing the sound information acquired by the sound information acquisition unit and learning information prepared in advance; and a gut score output unit that outputs the gut score acquired by the gut score acquisition unit.
However, Patwardham teaches information processing apparatus includes: a sound information acquisition unit that acquires the sound information; a gut score acquisition unit that acquires a gut score related to the user's gut condition, using input information containing the sound information acquired by the sound information acquisition unit and learning information prepared in advance; and a gut score output unit that outputs the gut score acquired by the gut score acquisition unit (Fig. 1 & Fig. 4 & [0025] & [0040]: using acoustic response of the gut/bowel to determine a score based on using prior historical data; and sending health score to user-416).
The combination and Patwardham are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because using biological information to create a health score, is a way to provide complex information in a simplistic way to a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA whose telephone number is (571)270-5519. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-9am and 11am-6pm.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights