Ex Parte Jaiswal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2018

13017968 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/017,968 01/31/2011 Peeyush Jaiswal END920080070US2 7684
37945 7590 02/20/2018
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. PARK, HYUN D
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PEEYUSH JAISWAL and NAVEEN NARAYAN
Appeal 2017-005974
Application 13/017,968
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
rejection of claims 1—6, 9—14 and 17—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a method, computer program product and
computer system for consumer device acoustic monitoring and fault
reporting. Claim 1 is illustrative:
Appeal 2017-005974
Application 13/017,968
1. A method for consumer device acoustic monitoring and fault
reporting, the method comprising:
a computer receiving sounds from a plurality of acoustically
monitored consumer devices via a network, wherein the computer is
connected to a network of computers and the plurality of acoustically
monitored consumer devices via the network, and wherein monitoring of
the plurality of acoustically monitored consumer devices uses
non-intrusive acoustic monitoring;
the computer identifying a sound received via the network from a
consumer device in the plurality of acoustically monitored consumer
devices;
responsive to identifying the sound received via the network from
the consumer device, the computer converting the sound to an acoustic
signal;
responsive to converting the sound to an acoustic signal, the
computer converting the acoustic signal using one of predetermined
transforms including a Fourier transformation, a digital transformation,
and a hash to generate a current acoustic fingerprint as a compact
representation of the acoustic signal, wherein the current acoustic
fingerprint is a real-time or near-real-time spectral representation of the
acoustic signal under current operating conditions of the consumer
device;
responsive to generating the current acoustic fingerprint as the
compact representation of the acoustic signal using the one of
predetermined transforms including the Fourier transformation, the
digital transformation, and the hash, the computer identifying, using
characteristics of a transformed acoustic signal, whether the current
acoustic fingerprint contains an ideal acoustic fingerprint as bounded by
a threshold differential that is an amount of statistical variance that the
current acoustic fingerprint can differ from the ideal acoustic fingerprint
during operation of the consumer device without triggering an event
handler, wherein the characteristics of the transformed acoustic signal are
isolated from the transformed acoustic signal, and wherein the ideal
acoustic fingerprint is a compact representation of an acoustic signal
under normal operating conditions of the consumer device;
responsive to identifying that the current acoustic fingerprint does
not contain the ideal acoustic fingerprint as bounded by the threshold
differential that is the amount of statistical variance that the current
2
Appeal 2017-005974
Application 13/017,968
acoustic fingerprint can differ from the ideal acoustic fingerprint during
the operation of the consumer device without triggering the event
handler, the computer starting a timer included in the event handler that
measures a particular time duration and the computer monitoring the
current acoustic fingerprint of the consumer device during the particular
time duration to identify whether the ideal acoustic fingerprint is
contained within the current acoustic fingerprint prior to expiration of
the particular time duration of the timer;
responsive to identifying that the ideal acoustic fingerprint is not
contained within the current acoustic fingerprint of the consumer device
prior to the expiration of the particular time duration of the timer, the
computer triggering the event handler to provide notification that the
current acoustic fingerprint does not contain the ideal acoustic
fingerprint, wherein the event handler provides the notification by
triggering an auditory alarm;
further responsive to identifying that the current acoustic
fingerprint does not contain the ideal fingerprint, the computer
determining an operating condition of the consumer device in a
non-acoustic diagnostic;
responsive to determining the operating condition of the consumer
device, the computer determining whether the operating condition is
contained within a grammar for the consumer device, wherein the
grammar is a file that contains a list of acoustic fingerprints, including the
ideal acoustic fingerprint and other acoustic fingerprints that an acoustic
signature engine recognizes; and
responsive to determining that the operating condition is contained
within the grammar for the consumer device, the computer associating the
current acoustic fingerprint with the operating condition, wherein the
operating condition of the consumer device has one or more associated
acoustic fingerprints.
The Rejection
Claims 1—6. 9—14 and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection and, under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), enter a new
ground of rejection.
3
Appeal 2017-005974
Application 13/017,968
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101
“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.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court stated in
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010) that “[t]he Court’s precedents
provide three specific exceptions to § 101 ’s broad patent-eligibility
principles: Taws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.’
[Diamond v.] Chakrabarty, [447 U.S. 303,] 309, 100 S. Ct. 2204 [(1980)].”
The Court further stated that limiting an abstract idea to a particular
technological environment does not make the concept patentable. See Bilski,
561 U.S. at 610-611. Determining whether a claimed invention is patent-
eligible subject matter requires determining whether the claim is directed
toward a patent-ineligible concept and, if so, determining whether the
claim’s elements, considered both individually and as an ordered
combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible
application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355
(2014).
The Appellants argue the claims as a group (App. Br. 11—17). We
therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1. Claims 2—6, 9—14,
and 17—20 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2012).
Claim 1 claims the abstract idea of using a computer to receive
consumer device sounds during a time period, convert the sounds to an
acoustic signal, compress the acoustic signal to form a current acoustic
fingerprint, compare the current acoustic fingerprint to an ideal acoustic
4
Appeal 2017-005974
Application 13/017,968
fingerprint,1 trigger an auditory alarm if the current acoustic fingerprint does
not include the ideal acoustic fingerprint, determine an operating condition
of the consumer device in a non-acoustic diagnostic, determine whether the
operating condition is within a grammar that contains a list of acoustic
fingerprints, and if the operating condition is within the grammar, associate
the current acoustic fingerprint with the operating condition. Those claim
elements, as an ordered combination, do not transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application but, rather, merely set forth
individual steps for carrying out the abstract idea of using a computer to
determine whether a sound from a consumer device is abnormal. See
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 61A F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Simply
adding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept,
without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.”).
The Appellants argue (Reply Br. 13):
The recited features, when implemented by a computer, provide
a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve
a desired outcome that was otherwise not available. Therefore,
the combination of a generic computer with the recited features
provides a nonconventional and non-generic arrangement of
elements. Furthermore, this nonconventional and non-generic
arrangement, which provides an improvement to an existing
technological process, also improves computer-related
technology by enabling the computer to perform a function not
previously performed by a computer.
Every generic computer programmed with a program that differs from
others arguably has a nonconventional and non-generic arrangement of
1 The ideal acoustic fingerprint is a spectral representation of the acoustic
signal under the consumer device’s normal operating condition (Spec. 145).
5
Appeal 2017-005974
Application 13/017,968
elements and enables the computer to perform a function the computer
otherwise could not perform. The Appellants’ argument “incorrectly
assumes that if a process application implements a principle in some specific
fashion, it automatically falls within the patentable subject matter of § 101
and the substantive patentability of the particular process can then be
determined by the conditions of §§ 102 and 103.” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.
584, 593 (1978).
The Appellants argue that the computer “converts or transforms a
sound to an acoustic signal and then converts or transforms the acoustic
signal to an acoustic fingerprint as a compact representation of the acoustic
signal” (Reply Br. 7) and, therefore, “transforms both the sound and the
acoustic signal to a different state or thing” {id.), and “[t]he compact spectral
representation of the acoustic signal improves the computing environment
by using less space in memory and less time to process than raw sounds or
acoustic signals previously consumed” (App. Br. 14).
The conversion of sound to an acoustic signal is conventional, as
indicated by the Appellants’ lack of disclosure of any technique for
performing that conversion (Spec. 145), and the memory space reduction is
the result of data compression using standard mathematical techniques {id.).
The sound conversion and data compression, therefore, do not render the
claimed method non-abstract.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection.
New ground of rejection
Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) we enter the following new ground of
rejection.
6
Appeal 2017-005974
Application 13/017,968
Claims 1—6, 9—14, and 17—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
written description requirement if it conveys with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in
possession of the invention. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In reKaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
1983); In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 (CCPA 1978); In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d257, 262 (CCPA 1976).
For written descriptive support of “non-acoustic diagnostic” the
Appellants rely upon their Specification’s paragraph 61 and Figure 4,
item 440 (App. Br. 5, 8, 10), but that paragraph and figure item do not
mention “non-acoustic diagnostic.” Nor does the remainder of the
Appellants’ Specification. The Specification, therefore, fails to convey with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought,
the inventor was in possession of the invention.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1—6, 9-14 and 17—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
failing to claim patent eligible subject matter is affirmed. We enter a new
rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
In addition to affirming the Examiner's rejection, this decision
contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) which
provides that "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall
not be considered final for judicial review."
7
Appeal 2017-005974
Application 13/017,968
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED: 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
8