DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The accompanying information disclosure statement (IDS) submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the positive recitation of "a respiratory manoeuvre" should apparently read “"a respiratory maneuver", or the like, in conformance with American English spelling. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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.
The term “optimum audio sample” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimum audio sample” 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. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what required quality and/or degree of resolution of audio sample is explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded by the scope of the claimed invention. Depending claims 2-8 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
Claim 1 positively recites the limitation "a respiratory manoeuvre" in lines 1-2, 5, and 19. The scope of the claim is indeterminate whether the "a respiratory manoeuvre" are the same and/or are separate and distinct and/or some combination thereof. In light of the instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention as it is ambiguous how many distinct "a respiratory manoeuvre"(s) are explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded. Depending claims 2-8 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “optimum period” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimum period” 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. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what required period of time is explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded by the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 positively recites the limitation "the audio sample" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “expected area of the throat” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “expected area of the throat” 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. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what expected area is explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded by the scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “expected respiratory manoeuvre” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “expected respiratory manoeuvre” 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. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what degree of or extent of “expected” respiratory manoeuvre is explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded by the scope of the claimed invention.
The term “optimum distance” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimum distance” 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. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what required distance may be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded by the scope of the claimed invention. Depending claims 10-16 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
Claim 9 positively recites the limitation "an optimum distance" in lines 1 and 9. The scope of the claim is indeterminate whether the "an optimum distance" are the same and/or are separate and distinct and/or some combination thereof. In light of the instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention as it is ambiguous how many distinct "an optimum distance"(s) are explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded. Depending claims 10-16 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “optimum audio sample” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimum audio sample” 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. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what required quality and/or degree of resolution of audio sample is explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded by the scope of the claimed invention. Depending claims 10-16 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
Claim 11 positively recites the limitation "an audio sample" in line 3. The scope of the claim is indeterminate whether the "an audio sample" are the same and/or are separate and distinct and/or some combination thereof with respect to the same recitations in claims 9 and 10. In light of the instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention as it is ambiguous how many distinct "an audio sample"(s) are explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded.
Claim 13 positively recites the limitation "the audio samples" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the alternative limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention since the potential alternatives can vary and ambiguity arises. See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
Claim 14 positively recites the limitation "the level" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 positively recites the limitation "an audio sample" in line 3. The scope of the claim is indeterminate whether the "an audio sample" are the same and/or are separate and distinct and/or some combination thereof with respect to the same recitations in claim 9. In light of the instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention as it is ambiguous how many distinct "an audio sample"(s) are explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the alternative limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention since the potential alternatives can vary and ambiguity arises. See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
Claim 17 positively recites the limitation "the electronic device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Depending claims 18-20 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “an optimum distance” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “an optimum distance” 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. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what required distance may be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded by the scope of the claimed invention. Depending claims 18-20 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “an optimum audio sample” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “an optimum audio sample” 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. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what required quality and/or degree of resolution of audio sample is explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded by the scope of the claimed invention. Depending claims 18-20 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
Claim 17 positively recites the limitation "a respiratory manoeuvre" in lines 1-2, 7, 10-11, and 16. The scope of the claim is indeterminate whether the "a respiratory manoeuvre" are the same and/or are separate and distinct and/or some combination thereof. In light of the instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention as it is ambiguous how many distinct "a respiratory manoeuvre"(s) are explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded. Depending claims 18-20 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the alternative limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention since the potential alternatives can vary and ambiguity arises. See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more, wherein the abstract idea comprises a mental process.
For independent claims 1, 9 and 17, the claim(s) recite(s) a process of using an electronic device to record distance and audio of a user’s head while ascertaining the proper alignment of mouth shape, audio quality, and/or distance in order to instruct the user to perform a respiratory maneuver upon proper distancing or mouth openness.
As broadly as claimed these steps may be reasonably considered as the judicial exception of a mental process performable within the human mind, including by observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion forming, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection III). For example, at least, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional capturing data, printing it out, and using the data to mentally extract, classify or learn from data features to determine if a threshold has been achieved to continue and/or proceed with respiratory assessment.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the process steps as broadly as claimed are not tied to nor required to be performed, executed, or programmed on a special purpose computer. Conversely, the claimed inventions are merely tied to a generic computer-implementation, wherein the human brain is a well-known, routine and conventional computational mechanism.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the preliminary steps of gathering generic audio or image data with a generic electronic device are well-known, routine and conventional amounting to insignificant data gathering as pre-solution activity.
Depending claims 2-7, 10-15, and 18-19 inherit and do not remedy the non-statutory deficiency noted above, despite further specifying steps distance and/or audio determination, the claims do not integrate into a practical application nor do they include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claims 8, 16, and 20, while referring to independent claims 1, 9, and 17 for completeness, additionally include computer-readable medium comprising instruction that when executed by a processor carry out the method. However, such broad software-like recitation does not preclude the claims from being an abstract idea reasonably completed within the human mind as for similar rationales set forth hereinabove.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vatanparvar et al. (US 2021/0244313 A1, hereinafter Vatanparvar).
For claim 1, Vatanparvar discloses a computer-implemented method of obtaining an audio sample of a respiratory maneuver for use in assessing the lung function of a user (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]), the computer- implemented method comprising inter alia:
determining a minimum area of an open mouth of the user required for providing an optimum audio sample of a respiratory maneuver for use in assessing the lung function of the user (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]);
receiving, from a user-facing camera in an electronic device, image data of the user's face including at least an open mouth of the user (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]);
identifying, from the image data, an area defined by the open mouth (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]);
determining whether the area of the open mouth from the image data is at least equal to the minimum area of the open mouth required for providing the optimum audio sample of the respiratory maneuver (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]); and
guiding the user to achieve the optimum open mouth shape, wherein guiding the user comprises providing an indication whether the area of the open mouth of the user is at least equal to the minimum area of the open mouth required for providing the audio sample of the respiratory maneuver (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]);
wherein upon determining, from the image data, that the area of the open mouth is at least equal to the minimum area of the open mouth required for providing the audio sample of the respiratory maneuver, instructing the user to perform a respiratory maneuver (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]); and
receiving, from an audio sensor in the electronic device, an audio sample of the respiratory maneuver (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 2, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the user-facing camera in the electronic device, further image data of the user's face including at least the open mouth of the user as the user performs the respiratory maneuver (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]); and
determining whether the minimum area of the open mouth is maintained for at least an optimum period of the audio sample (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 3, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the indication provides either:
a prompt to the user on the electronic device, the prompt comprising a visual or audio cue for indicating to the user whether the minimum area of the open mouth required for providing the audio sample of the respiratory maneuver is achieved (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]); or
an overlay on the image data displayed on the electronic device, wherein the overlay is based on the minimum area of the open mouth required for providing the audio sample of the respiratory maneuver (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 4, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the minimum area of the mouth is related to an expected area of the throat of the user, for example, the minimum area of the mouth is greater than the expected area of the throat of the user (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 5, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the area defined by the open mouth in the image is determined by segmenting the image into an open-mouth part and a non-open-mouth part by thresholding the image according to the relative brightness of the open-mouth part and the non-open-mouth part (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 6, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the area defined by the open mouth in the image is determined by locating eyes in the image data and identifying the open mouth relative to the location of the eyes (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 7, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the user-facing camera in the electronic device, further image data of the user's face including at least the open mouth of the user as the user performs the respiratory maneuver (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]);
identifying, from the further image data, a size of the user's head (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]); and
determining if the user is moving their head towards, or away from, the electronic device based on a change in the size of the user's head between successive frames of the further image data (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]); and
based on the determination, determining if the respiratory maneuver is an expected respiratory maneuver (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 8, Vatanparvar discloses a computer-readable medium, comprising instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to carry out the method of claim 1 (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 9, Vatanparvar discloses a computer-implemented method of determining an optimum distance between an electronic device and a user providing an audio sample of a respiratory maneuver for use in assessing the lung function of the user (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]), the computer-implemented method comprising inter alia:
receiving, from an audio sensor in the electronic device, an audio sample dataset comprising a plurality of audio samples of respiratory maneuvers performed by the user at a plurality of distances between the electronic device and the user (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]), wherein the audio sample dataset comprises at least one audio sample of a respiratory maneuver for each of the plurality of distances (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]); and
determining an optimum distance for a user to provide an optimum audio sample of a respiratory maneuver for use in assessing the lung function of the user based on the audio sample dataset (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 10, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the optimum distance is determined based on a signal-to-noise ratio and a distortion level for each of the plurality of audio samples in the audio sample dataset (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 11, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein either:
the optimum distance corresponds with an audio sample in the audio sample dataset having a signal-to-noise ratio above a noise threshold and/or a distortion level below a distortion threshold (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]); or
the optimum distance corresponds with a predicted optimum audio sample based on the audio sample dataset, wherein the predicted optimum audio sample is determined by fitting a function to the signal-to-noise ratio and/or distortion level of the audio sample dataset in order to predict an optimum audio sample where the signal-to-noise ratio is maximized and the distortion level is minimized (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 12, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein determining the signal-to-noise ratio comprises receiving, from an audio sensor in the electronic device, background audio data relating to background noise of the environment of the user and comparing each audio sample with the background audio data (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 13, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising:
receiving, from a user-facing camera in the electronic device, image data of the user's face corresponding with each of the audio samples (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]);
extracting a feature of the user's face from the image data associated with each of the audio samples (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]); and
determining a distance between the user and the electronic device of each audio sample based on the feature extracted from the image data associated with the respective audio sample; optionally wherein the feature comprises a distance between the eyes of the user (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 14, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, where the distortion level is based on the level of one or more of non-linear distortion, windshear, and clipping in an audio sample (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 15, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the respiratory maneuver is an inspiratory maneuver or an expiratory maneuver; optionally wherein the optimum distance for an inspiratory maneuver is different to the optimal distance for an expiratory maneuver (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 16, Vatanparvar discloses a computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to carry out the method of claim 9 (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 17, Vatanparvar discloses a computer-implemented method of recording an audio sample of a respiratory maneuver performed by a user for use in assessing the lung function of the user (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]), the computer-implemented method comprising inter alia:
receiving, from an audio sensor in the electronic device, an audio sample dataset comprising a plurality of audio samples of respiratory maneuvers performed by the user at a plurality of distances between the electronic device and the user (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]), wherein the audio sample dataset comprises at least one audio sample of a respiratory maneuver for each of the plurality of distances (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]);
determining an optimum distance for a user to provide an optimum audio sample of a respiratory maneuver for use in assessing the lung function of the user based on the audio sample dataset (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]);
instructing the user to position the electronic device such that a distance between the user and the electronic device is within a threshold distance of the optimum distance and, upon determining that the distance between the user and the electronic device is within the threshold distance of the optimum distance, instructing the user to perform a respiratory maneuver (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]); and
receiving, from an audio sensor in the electronic device, an audio sample of the respiratory maneuver (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 18, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein determining the distance between the user and the electronic device comprises:
receiving, from a user-facing camera in the electronic device, image data of the user's face (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]);
extracting a feature of the user's face from the image data (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]); and
determining the distance between the user and the electronic device based on the feature extracted from the image data; optionally wherein the feature comprises a distance between the eyes of the user (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 19, Vatanparvar discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein the respiratory maneuver is an inspiratory maneuver or an expiratory maneuver (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
For claim 20, Vatanparvar discloses a computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to carry out the method of claim 17 (Figs 1-8 & 10-15, especially Fig 3) ([0010-0019, 0062-0105 & 0134-0157, especially 0062-0073]).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record on the accompanying PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, relating to means for audio recording means for assessing lung function from respiration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-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, Charles A. Marmor II can be reached at (571)272-4730. 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.
Jeffrey G. Hoekstra
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights