Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2024 and 05/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16 and 185-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “whether” should be amended to read –when--, to avoid a potential of 112(b) rejection, as the phrase “whether” is a conditional term that may or may not happen/occur. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a snoring event” in lines 5 and 10 should be amended to read –the snoring event--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a snoring sound” in line 11 should be amended to read –the snoring event--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a snoring event” in line 2 should be amended to read –the snoring event--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a snoring event” in line 2 should be amended to read –the snoring event--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an RER threshold” in line 7 should be amended to read –the RER threshold--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a snoring event” in lines 4 and 9 should be amended to read –the snoring event--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a snoring sound” in line 10 should be amended to read –the snoring sound--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a snoring event” in line 2 should be amended to read –the snoring event--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a snoring event” in line 2 should be amended to read –the snoring event--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an RER threshold” in line 7 should be amended to read –the RER threshold--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a snoring event” in lines 5 and 10 should be amended to read –the snoring event--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a snoring sound” in line 11 should be amended to read –the snoring sound--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a snoring event” in line 2 should be amended to read –the snoring event--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a snoring event” in line 2 should be amended to read –the snoring event--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1: claim 1 recites an apparatus to determine sound/snoring event, and claims 8 and 15 recites a series of steps or acts to determine sound/snoring event. Thus, the claims are directed to a product and a process. which are ones of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: processing, based on a current step size of an audio stream segmenter, audio from an ambient environment, into an audio segment; determining whether the audio segment includes a snoring sound; and setting a next step size of the audio stream segmenter based on the determination whether the audio segment includes the snoring sound. These limitations recite a mental process, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, a caregiver can listen/monitor a sleeping patient and determine if the patient is snoring or not. Thus, the claims are drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human or using simple pen/paper.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: Claims 1, 8 and 15 does not recite additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the following additional elements beyond the judicial exception: A) electronic device, B) microphone, and C) processor.
Accordingly, the combination of the additional element/step A and B does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of a microphone in an electronic device is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Element C does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of a controller/processor amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, each of the additional elements or a combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: Claims 1, 8 and 15 does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, A) electronic device, B) microphone, and C) processor.
The combination of elements A and B of a microphone in an electronic does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of a microphone is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the elements A and B are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as is evidenced by Wood et al (US 2023/0240621), Derchak et al (US 2007/0287896) and Moussavi et al (US 2008/0243017) which all show microphone in an electronic to detect snoring as claimed in claims 1, 8 and 15 evidencing that these elements are well-understood, route, and conventional in the applanation arts.
Element C does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because adding a controller/processor is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)II).
Accordingly, the additional elements individual or in co do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-20 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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:
Limitation “audio stream segmenter” in claims 1-3, 8-10 and 16-17, the claims does not recite enough structure that corresponds to the claimed “audio stream segmenter”, the specification does not disclose enough structure/software that corresponds to the claimed “audio stream segmenter” (audio stream segmenter 410 is utilized to intelligently segment audio stream 405 into audio clips according to system overload and detection results, par.0053).
Limitation “finetuned snoring sound model” in claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16 and 17, the claims does not recite enough structure that corresponds to the claimed “finetuned snoring model”, the specification does not disclose any structure/software (par.78 and par.113) that corresponds to the claimed “finetuned snoring model”.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 16-17 recite the limitation audio stream segmenter”, and claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16 and 17, recite the limitation “finetuned snoring sound model” this limitation is not defined by the claims which renders the claims indefinite. The specification does not disclose any structural elements/software that corresponds to the claimed “audio stream segmenter” and “finetuned snoring sound model”. One with ordinary skilled in the art would not be able to know what structure and/or software the claimed “audio stream segmenter” and “finetuned snoring sound model” must or must not include. The scope of the claim remains indeterminate because of the claimed “audio stream segmenter” and “finetuned snoring sound model”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood et al (US 2023/0240621).
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, Wood teaches an electronic device (apparatus having microphone, par.95, apparatus 600, par.118 and/or apparatus 751, par.136, fig.1 and 8-10), method and non-transitory computer readable medium embodying a computer program (method involves processing a digital audio recording to identify segments of the recording containing particular sound events of interest, abstract, par.95, fig.1), the computer program comprising program code that, when executed by a processor (one or more processors, par.41, par.95 and par.136) of the electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises a microphone (microphone 4, microphone 601 and/or microphone 775, par.95-96, par.118 and par.136-139, fig.1, 8 and 9) coupled to the processor, causes the electronic device to:
process, based on a current step size of an audio stream segmenter, audio from an ambient environment of the electronic device received from the microphone, into an audio segment (processing a digital audio recording to identify segments of the recording containing particular sound events of interest, par.95, par.111, par.114-129 and par.133-136, fig.6-9);
determine whether the audio segment includes a snoring sound (the sound events of interest may be sounds of snoring, par.95, end of par.97, if the events of interest are snore sounds then the segments labelled as containing snores can then be processed, 117, par.121, par.133-134, and par.136); and
set a next step size of the audio stream segmenter based on the determination whether the audio segment includes the snoring sound (setting signal step size, par.107, fig.4 and event identification assembly 627 can either insert meta-data codes into a file 629 storing the original audio signal or alternatively it may write a file containing a sequence of time intervals which effectively label the segments of the audio signal containing the events of interest, par.129, fig.6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
