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 .
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.
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/are:
-“an environment detection unit that detects” in claim 1 and 17 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“a sound recording processing unit that performs processing” in claim 1 and 17 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“environment detection unit acquires…performs the detection” in claims 2 and 4 and 6 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“an environment detection unit detects” in claim 3 and 6 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“environment detection unit performs the detection” in claim 5 and 10 and 11 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“environment detection unit acquires” in claims 8 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“sound recording processing unit provides a notification” in claim 9 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“sound recording processing unit is configured to output” in claim 12 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“a sound recording processing unit is configured to perform predetermined processing” in claim 13 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“an information processing apparatus that can communicate” in claim 15 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“a terminal output unit that outputs” in claim 15 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“a sound information acquisition unit that acquires” in claim 15 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“a gut score acquisition unit that acquires” in claim 15 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“a gut score output unit that outputs” in claim 15 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“the environment detection unit to perform detection” in claim 16 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
-“the sound recording processing unit to perform processing” in claim 16 interpreted to be a computer/smartphone running software in light of the specification and equivalents thereof
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 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-17 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 1 recites the limitation "the abdominal sounds" in Lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the user’s abdominal sounds’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sound recording" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the abdomen" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the user’s abdomen’.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the acquired information” in Lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the acquired information” in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites ‘sound recording’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites ‘the sound recording’ making it unclear if the recitation in claim 5 is meant to refer to that in claim 1 or not.
Claim 5 recites ‘abdominal sounds’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites ‘a user’s abdominal sounds’ making it unclear if the recitation in claim 5 is meant to refer to that in claim 1 or not.
Claim 6 recites ‘a phone case’ multiple times in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 7 recites ‘sound recording’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites ‘the sound recording’ making it unclear if the recitation in claim 7 is meant to refer to that in claim 1 or not.
Claim 7 recites ‘a phone case’ and is dependent back to claim 6 which recites the same making it unclear if the recitation in claim 7 is meant to refer to that in claim 6 or not.
Claim 7 recites ‘information regarding whether or not a phone case’ and is dependent back to claim 6 which recites the same making it unclear if the recitation in claim 7 is meant to refer to that in claim 6 or not.
Claim 8 recites ‘a phone case’ and is dependent back to claim 6 which recites the same making it unclear if the recitation in claim 8 is meant to refer to that in claim 6 or not.
Claim 8 recites ‘sound recording’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites ‘the sound recording’ making it unclear if the recitation in claim 8 is meant to refer to that in claim 1 or not.
Claim 9 recites ‘a phone case’ and is dependent back to claim 6 which recites the same making it unclear if the recitation in claim 9 is meant to refer to that in claim 6 or not.
Claim 11 recites ‘housing’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites the same making it unclear if the recitation in claim 11 is meant to refer to that in claim 1 or not.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the abdomen" in Lines 7-8 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the user’s abdomen’.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the environment" in Lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites ‘sound recording’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites ‘the sound recording’ making it unclear if the recitation in claim 13 is meant to refer to that in claim 1 or not.
Claim 15 recites ‘a user’s abdominal sounds’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites the same making it unclear if the recitation in claim 15 is meant to refer to that in claim 1 or not.
The term “in advance” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in advance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the abdomen" in Lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the user’s abdomen’.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the abdominal sounds" in Lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the user’s abdominal sounds’.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the sound recording" in Line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 1 recites “the microphone is in contact with the user’s abdomen” thus positively reciting a human organism. Examiner suggests amending to recite “the microphone is configured to be in contact with the user’s abdomen” and in the interest of compact prosecution the following SME analysis is made assuming such an amendment is made. Similar issues arise in dependent claims 2 and 11 and claims 2 and 11 should also be amended in a similar manner. A further similar issue in claim 17 may be present depending on what statutory category claim 17 is amended to in light of the following 101.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 17 is directed to a program which is software and thus not one of the statutory categories of invention. For the purposes of compact prosecution the following SME analysis is provided including claim 17, assuming an amendment is made to claim 17 such that it falls within a statutory category of invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-17 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a system (claims 1-15) and a method (claim 16), (Examiner notes claim 17 is examined below assuming an amendment is made such that claim 17 is directed to statutory subject matter category)
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1, 15, 16, and 17, the recited steps are directed mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Specifically from claim 1:
1. A sound recording apparatus that has a microphone accommodated in a housing thereof and is used to record a user's abdominal sounds in a state where a sound collecting portion of the housing near the microphone is in contact with the user's abdomen, the sound recording apparatus comprising:
an environment detection unit that detects at least one of an inappropriate environment that is inappropriate for recording the abdominal sounds and an appropriate environment that is appropriate for recording the abdominal sounds; and
a sound recording processing unit that performs processing related to the sound recording based on a result of detection by the environment detection unit.
Specifically from claim 15:
15. An information processing system comprising: the sound recording apparatus according to claim 1; and an information processing apparatus that can communicate with the sound recording apparatus,
wherein the sound recording apparatus includes a terminal output unit that outputs sound information acquired by recording a user's abdominal sounds using the microphone, and
the 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.
Specifically from claim 16:
16. A sound recording method for recording a user's abdominal sounds using the sound recording apparatus according to claim 1, comprising:
a first step of bringing the sound collecting portion into contact with the user's abdomen in a state where the user is in a sitting position;
a second step of causing the environment detection unit to perform the detection in a state where the sound collecting portion is in contact with the abdomen; and
a third step of causing the sound recording processing unit to perform processing related to the sound recording based on a result of detection by the environment detection unit.
Specifically from claim 17:
17. A program that enables a computer of a sound recording apparatus that has a microphone accommodated in a housing thereof and is used to record a user's abdominal sounds in a state where a sound collecting portion of the housing near the microphone is in contact with the user's abdomen, to function as:
an environment detection unit that detects at least one of an inappropriate environment that is inappropriate for recording the abdominal sounds and an appropriate environment that is appropriate for recording the abdominal sounds; and
a sound recording processing unit that performs processing related to the sound recording based on a result of detection by the environment detection unit.
These underlined imitations describe a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental process steps.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exceptions (abstract ideas) in claims 1-17 are not integrated into a practical application because:
•The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for performing the abstract ideas merely invoke a computer as a tool.
•The data-gathering steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
•There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for performing the abstract ideas
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide a medical measurement.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer to perform the abstract ideas. The claims do not apply the obtained measurements to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Step 2B
The additional elements are identified as follows:
“A sound recording apparatus that has a microphone accommodated in a housing thereof and is used to record a user's abdominal sounds in a state where a sound collecting portion of the housing near the microphone is in contact with the user's abdomen, the sound recording apparatus”, “an environment detection unit”, “a sound recording processing unit” in claim 1, “An information processing system comprising: the sound recording apparatus according to claim 1; and an information processing apparatus that can communicate with the sound recording apparatus, wherein the sound recording apparatus includes a terminal output unit that outputs sound information acquired by recording a user's abdominal sounds using the microphone, and the information processing apparatus includes: a sound information acquisition unit…a gut score acquisition unit…a gut score output unit” in claim 15, “A sound recording method for recording a user's abdominal sounds using the sound recording apparatus according to claim 1, comprising: a first step of bringing the sound collecting portion into contact with the user's abdomen in a state where the user is in a sitting position;”, “the environment detection unit”, “the sound recording processing unit” in claim 16, “A program that enables a computer of a sound recording apparatus that has a microphone accommodated in a housing thereof and is used to record a user's abdominal sounds in a state where a sound collecting portion of the housing near the microphone is in contact with the user's abdomen, to function as: an environment detection unit…a sound recording processing unit that” in claim 17, “a smartphone”, “a phone case” in claim 6, “a phone case” in claims 7-9, “a smartphone” in claim 11, “a touch panel” in claim 11, “external apparatus” in claim 14.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant's specification (Paragraphs 0181 and 0194) which discloses that the processor and memory comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; and
The prior art provided by the Applicant in the IDS and by the Examiner in PTO-892 which disclose each of the elements as being known and conventional in the art elements;
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry or 3) further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art.
Claims 6-9, 11, and 14 recites additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art
Claims 2-14 are steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakura et al. (US 2021/0361255) in view of Verma (US 2018/0160907).
Regarding claim 1, Yakura teaches a sound recording apparatus (Abstract) that has a microphone (Paragraph 0079: “a micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) microphone or a capacitance-type microphone”) accommodated in a housing thereof (Figures 1-2) and comprising:
an environment detection unit that detects at least one of an inappropriate environment that is inappropriate for recording the abdominal sounds and an appropriate environment that is appropriate for recording the abdominal sounds (Paragraphs 0082-0084: “The contact state determination unit 41 determines whether or not the measuring unit 3 is in contact with the body surface S on the basis of the sound pressure level of the sound detected by the sound detecting element M1.”); and
a sound recording processing unit that performs processing related to the sound recording based on a result of detection by the environment detection unit (Paragraph 0085-0086 and 0090).
While Yakura would be capable of recording abdominal sounds in the interest of prosecution should Yakura not be found explicit enough on recording abdominal sounds, Verma teaches a sound recording system that can be used in multiple locations and thus is used to record a user's abdominal sounds in a state where a sound collecting portion of the housing near the microphone is in contact with the user's abdomen, the sound recording apparatus (Paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Verma because those are conventional locations for auscultation that would be considered routine for one of ordinary skill in the art during medical examination (Paragraphs 0016 and 0024 of Verma).
Regarding claim 2, Yakura teaches wherein the environment detection unit acquires information regarding a pressing force of the sound recording apparatus against the abdomen based on sound information acquired through sound recording performed using the microphone, and performs the detection based on the acquired information (Paragraph 0089).
While Yakura would be capable of recording abdominal sounds in the interest of prosecution should Yakura not be found explicit enough on recording abdominal sounds, Verma teaches a sound recording system that can be used in multiple locations and thus is used to record a user's abdominal sounds by being placed against the user’s abdomen (Paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Verma because those are conventional locations for auscultation that would be considered routine for one of ordinary skill in the art during medical examination (Paragraphs 0016 and 0024 of Verma).
Regarding claim 3, Yakura teaches wherein the environment detection unit detects noise in the sound information, and acquires information regarding the pressing force based on a result of the detection (Paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 4, Yakura teaches wherein the environment detection unit acquires information regarding a current pressing force based on past sound information and current sound information, and performs the detection regarding the current pressing force based on the acquired information (Paragraphs 0085-0089).
Regarding claim 5, Yakura teaches wherein the environment detection unit performs the detection based on a sound-to-noise ratio between abdominal sounds and noise in sound information acquired through sound recording performed using the microphone (Paragraph 0132).
While Yakura would be capable of recording abdominal sounds in the interest of prosecution should Yakura not be found explicit enough on recording abdominal sounds, Verma teaches a sound recording system that can be used in multiple locations and thus is used to record a user's abdominal sounds by being placed against the user’s abdomen (Paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Verma because those are conventional locations for auscultation that would be considered routine for one of ordinary skill in the art during medical examination (Paragraphs 0016 and 0024 of Verma).
Regarding claim 10, Yakura wherein the environment detection unit performs the detection based on information regarding an orientation of the sound recording apparatus (Paragraphs 0082-0084: “The contact state determination unit 41 determines whether or not the measuring unit 3 is in contact with the body surface S on the basis of the sound pressure level of the sound detected by the sound detecting element M1.”; contact or not constitutes an orientation).
Regarding claim 13, Yakura teaches wherein the sound recording processing unit is configured to perform predetermined processing to carry out sound recording using the microphone or to use sound information acquired through sound recording performed using the microphone when a fact that the environment is the appropriate environment or a fact that the environment is not the inappropriate environment is detected (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, Yakura teaches a program that enables a computer (Paragraph 0012) of a sound recording apparatus that has a microphone (Paragraph 0079: “a micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) microphone or a capacitance-type microphone”) accommodated in a housing thereof (Figures 1-2), to function as:
an environment detection unit that detects at least one of an inappropriate environment that is inappropriate for recording the abdominal sounds and an appropriate environment that is appropriate for recording the abdominal sounds (Paragraphs 0082-0084: “The contact state determination unit 41 determines whether or not the measuring unit 3 is in contact with the body surface S on the basis of the sound pressure level of the sound detected by the sound detecting element M1.”); and
a sound recording processing unit that performs processing related to the sound recording based on a result of detection by the environment detection unit (Paragraph 0085-0086 and 0090).
While Yakura would be capable of recording abdominal sounds in the interest of prosecution should Yakura not be found explicit enough on recording abdominal sounds, Verma teaches a sound recording system that can be used in multiple locations and thus is used to record a user's abdominal sounds in a state where a sound collecting portion of the housing near the microphone is in contact with the user's abdomen, the sound recording apparatus (Paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Verma because those are conventional locations for auscultation that would be considered routine for one of ordinary skill in the art during medical examination (Paragraphs 0016 and 0024 of Verma).
Claim(s) 6-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakura et al. (US 2021/0361255) in view of Verma (US 2018/0160907) in further view of Poplaw (US 2014/0163422).
Regarding claim 6, Yakura is silent on the usage of a smartphone. Poplaw teaches wherein the sound recording apparatus is a smartphone in which a phone case is attachable to the housing (Figure 1; Paragraph 0023), and the environment detection unit acquires information regarding whether or not a phone case is attached to the housing, and performs the detection based on the acquired information (Paragraphs 0060 and 0062-0063; as currently claimed the unit must be merely capable of performing this function and due to the connection to the microphone jack the smart phone would be able to detect whether the case is attached to the housing of the smartphone). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Poplaw since it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sound recording apparatus of Yakura with that of Poplaw and further because it leverages the computing power of a smart phone and also provides convenience in carriage, use, and storage (Paragraph 0008 of Poplaw).
Regarding claim 7, Yakura is silent on the usage of a smartphone. Poplaw teaches wherein the environment detection unit detects electromagnetic noise contained in sound information acquired through sound recording performed using the microphone, and acquires information regarding whether or not a phone case is attached to the housing based on a result of detection of the electromagnetic noise (Paragraphs 0060 and 0062-0063; as currently claimed the unit must be merely capable of performing this function and acquiring sound would inherently acquire electromagnetic noise as well). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Poplaw since it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sound recording apparatus of Yakura with that of Poplaw and further because it leverages the computing power of a smart phone and also provides convenience in carriage, use, and storage (Paragraph 0008 of Poplaw).
Regarding claim 8, Yakura is silent on the usage of a smartphone. Poplaw teaches wherein the environment detection unit acquires information regarding whether or not a phone case is attached to the housing when a predetermined condition regarding quality of sound information acquired through sound recording performed using the microphone is satisfied (Paragraphs 0060 and 0062-0063; as currently claimed the unit must be merely capable of performing this function and due to the connection to the microphone jack the smart phone would be able to detect whether the case is attached to the housing of the smartphone). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Poplaw since it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sound recording apparatus of Yakura with that of Poplaw and further because it leverages the computing power of a smart phone and also provides convenience in carriage, use, and storage (Paragraph 0008 of Poplaw).
Regarding claim 9, Yakura is silent on the usage of a smartphone. Poplaw teaches wherein when a fact that a phone case is attached to the housing is detected, the sound recording processing unit provides a notification to the user of the sound recording apparatus to prompt the user to remove the phone case (Paragraph 0060; as currently claimed the unit must be merely capable of performing this function). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Poplaw since it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sound recording apparatus of Yakura with that of Poplaw and further because it leverages the computing power of a smart phone and also provides convenience in carriage, use, and storage (Paragraph 0008 of Poplaw).
Regarding claim 11, Yakura is silent on the usage of a smartphone. Poplaw teaches wherein the sound recording apparatus is a smartphone whose housing has a plate shape and a touch panel is disposed on one surface thereof (Paragraphs 0024-0026), the sound collecting portion is located at an end portion of the housing (Paragraphs 0024-0026), and the environment detection unit performs the detection when the user is in a sitting position and the sound collecting portion is in contact with the abdomen, based on information regarding whether an angle between the touch panel and a line perpendicular to a plane that is in contact with a surface of the abdomen at a contact site is within a predetermined angle range (due to the when language, this limitation is considered conditional and thus not required to be taught by the prior art). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Poplaw since it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sound recording apparatus of Yakura with that of Poplaw and further because it leverages the computing power of a smart phone and also provides convenience in carriage, use, and storage (Paragraph 0008 of Poplaw).
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakura et al. (US 2021/0361255) in view of Verma (US 2018/0160907) in further view of Kahya et al. (US 2017/0071565).
Regarding claim 12, Yakura is silent on the guidance information. Kahya teaches wherein the sound recording processing unit is configured to output predetermined guidance information from the sound recording apparatus when a fact that the environment is the inappropriate environment or a fact that the environment is not the appropriate environment is detected (Paragraph 0063; Figure 4; Step 2031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Kahya because it enables better and higher quality data acquisition (Paragraph 0063 of Kahya).
Regarding claim 14, Yakura is silent on the transmitting of information to an external apparatus. Kahya teaches wherein the predetermined processing is to transmit the sound information to an external apparatus (Paragraphs 0036 and 0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Kahya because it allows for better data processing (Paragraph 0052 of Kahya).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakura et al. (US 2021/0361255) in view of Verma (US 2018/0160907) in further view of Momeni et al. (US 2019/0298295).
Regarding claim 15, Yakura teaches an information processing system (Abstract) comprising:
Yakura in view of Verma teaches the sound recording apparatus according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above); and
Verma teaches an information processing apparatus that can communicate with the sound recording apparatus (Figures 1-2),
wherein the sound recording apparatus includes a terminal output unit that outputs sound information acquired by recording a user's abdominal sounds using the microphone, and the information processing apparatus includes (Figures 1-2 and 5; Paragraph 0054):
a sound information acquisition unit that acquires the sound information (Figure 5);
Momeni teaches 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 (Figures 1-2); and
a gut score output unit that outputs the gut score acquired by the gut score acquisition unit (Figures 1-2; Figure 26; Paragraphs 0074-0085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Verma because those are conventional locations for auscultation that would be considered routine for one of ordinary skill in the art during medical examination (Paragraphs 0016 and 0024 of Verma) and further it would allow for remote patient care (Paragraph 0032 of Verma).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Momeni because it allows for analyzing and diagnosing gut state thus allowing for predictions and possibly treatment and information on the user’s state (Paragraph 0016 of Momeni).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakura et al. (US 2021/0361255) in view of Verma (US 2018/0160907) in further view of Okudaira (US 2021/0113405).
Regarding claim 16, Yakura in view of Verma teaches a sound recording method for recording a user's abdominal sounds using the sound recording apparatus according to claim 1 (Abstract of both references; further see rejection of claim 1 above), comprising:
Verma teaches a first step of bringing the sound collecting portion into contact with a user’s abdomen (Paragraph 0054).
Yakura teaches a second step of causing the environment detection unit to perform the detection in a state where the sound collecting portion is in contact with the abdomen (Paragraphs 0082-0084: “The contact state determination unit 41 determines whether or not the measuring unit 3 is in contact with the body surface S on the basis of the sound pressure level of the sound detected by the sound detecting element M1.”); and
a third step of causing the sound recording processing unit to perform processing related to the sound recording based on a result of detection by the environment detection unit (Paragraph 0085-0086 and 0090).
Yakura in view of Verma is silent on the step of bringing the sound collecting portion into contact with a user’s abdomen while they are sitting.
Okudaira teaches a first step of bringing the sound collecting portion into contact with the user's abdomen in a state where the user is in a sitting position (Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura with Verma because those are conventional locations for auscultation that would be considered routine for one of ordinary skill in the art during medical examination (Paragraphs 0016 and 0024 of Verma) and further it would allow for remote patient care (Paragraph 0032 of Verma).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura in view of Verma with Okudaira because it would have been “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I E), as it is recoding abdominal sounds from the abdomen in various positions/orientations of the patient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hussain (US 2016/0100817) and Vaitaitis (US 2016/0367190).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM EST.
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, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights