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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/09/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-2, 5, 8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain (US 2016/0100817) as noted in Applicant IDS dated 10/27/2020 as evidenced by Andries (US 3,790,712) in view of Barnes et al (US 2004/0236233) (“Barnes”).
Regarding Claim 1, while Hussain teaches an enclosure for a wearable acoustic monitoring device (Abstract, Figs. 1-6, [0132], [0146] acoustic monitoring device / stethoscope [0209] the head of a stethoscope outlined throughout the disclosure may be placed in a wearable electronic device), the enclosure comprising:
A hollow body portion defined by a sidewall and top wall (Figs. 1-6, [0146] hollow body 9 and knob 11 / hollow body portion defined by a hollow body 9 / sidewall and knob 11 / top wall);
a body portion comprises an engagement surface, for engagement with a body surface (Figs. 1-6, [0146], [0167] base 13 / base portion comprises flexible wall with outer wall 49 and inner wall 50 which acts as an engagement surface, for engagement with a body surface as it is noted in [0012], [0158], [0162], [0181] that the distal surface of the stethoscope is contact with the body), and an acoustic port though the engagement surface, for acoustic communication from the body surface to an acoustic sensor and conditioning circuitry thereof housed with the cavity (Figs. 1-6, 8, [0168] central aperture 32 / acoustic port is through the flexible inner wall 50 / engagement surface by way of the opening 13c, [0162] “The base 13 can have a central opening 13c formed in a distal surface thereof. The central opening 13c can be configured to facilitate microphone pickup and can be aligned with the central aperture 32 of the circuit board 19 to further facilitate microphone pickup.” [0168] “The central aperture 32 can be configured to facilitate microphone pickup by helping sound from outside the stethoscope 10, e.g., sound from a subject on which an exterior distal surface of the stethoscope 10 (e.g., an exterior distal surface of the base 13) is placed, be picked up by the first and second microphones 19M, 19N.” acoustic communication occurring within the chamber caused by the stethoscope skin contact, to the central opening 13c, to the central aperture 32, then to circuit board 19 / conditioning circuitry with microphones 19M, 19N),
wherein, the acoustic port is located within a depression in, or elongate channel through, the flat engagement surface of the base portion such that the acoustic sensor is spaced apart from the body surface (Figs. 1-6, the flexible inner wall 50 portion with the acoustic port is depressed relative to the engagement surface portion. This acts to keep the microphones 19M, 19N, connected to the circuit board, apart from the body surface. Even further, one can understand the central opening 13c as acting as another depression in the engagement surface),
wherein the acoustic port is configured to directly interface with the acoustic sensor such that, in use, the depression in, or the elongate channel through, the flat engagement surface of the planar base portion forms a sealed chamber between the acoustic sensor and the body surface (Figs. 1-6, [0162] central aperture 32 / acoustic port is configured to direct interface with the microphones 19M, 19N such that, in use, the depression in the engagement surface of the flexible inner wall 50 / base portion forms a chamber between the acoustic sensor / microphones 19M, 19N and the body surface, [0146]-[0168] show a stethoscope head without a diaphragm, corresponding to a bell stethoscope configuration known in the art as evidenced by [0003]. And bell stethoscopes are known in the art to function by creating sealed chambers between acoustic sensors and body surfaces to use the body surfaces as diaphragms as evidenced by Andries: Col. 4, L. 63 – Col. 5, L. 10), and
wherein the hollow body portion and the planar base portion are secured together to prevent access to the acoustic sensor and to the conditioning circuitry thereof ([0170]), that are configured to be housed within the cavity formed between the hollow body portion and the planar base portion (Figs. 1-6, the acoustic sensor / microphones 19M, 19N and conditioning circuitry / circuit board 19 are housed within the cavity created between the knob 11, hollow body 9, and base 13).
Hussain fails to teach the base portion is a planar base portion comprising a flat engagement surface.
However Barnes teaches a physiological monitoring probe (Abstract) that measures by skin contact and with an acoustic window at the skin contact location, where the skin contacting area may be flat to allow movement along the skin of the patient and prevent patient discomfort ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the contact structure of Hussain as flat as taught by Barnes as Barnes teaches that flat contacting surfaces “allow movement along the skin of the patient and prevent patient discomfort.” Further Hussain has not given a specific desired shape for the contacting surface so Barnes teachings provide a reasoning from which to set a standardized construction, ensuring consistent results and benefits are seen across applications of the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Hussain, Andries, and Barnes teach the enclosure according to claim 1, wherein the depression in the flat engagement surface of the planar base portion comprises a recess having a perimeter or circumference larger than the acoustic port (See Claim 1 Rejection, Hussain: depressed flexible inner wall 50 at the distal surface of base 13 has a wider perimeter than the acoustic port / central aperture 32).
Regarding Claim 4, Hussain, Andries, and Barnes teach the enclosure according to claim 1, wherein the depression in the planar flat engagement surface of the base portion comprises inwardly projecting sidewalls configured to engage with a part of the hollow body portion (See Claim 1 Rejection, depression in the planar flat engagement surface of the base portion 13 comprises the flexible inner wall 49 which also acts as inwardly projecting sidewall configured to engage with a part of the hollow body portion / distal portion 17 for coupling purposes).
Regarding Claim 5, Hussain, Andries, and Barnes teach the enclosure according to claim 1, wherein the planar base portion comprises a mounting projection extending therefrom and the hollow body portion comprises an internal mounting groove co-operable with the mounting projection (Fig. 6, [0167] planar base portion / base 13 comprises a mounting projection / flexible outer wall 49 extending therefrom and the hollow body portion / hollow body 9 comprises an internal mounting groove / distal portion 17 co-operable with the flexible outer wall 49).
Regarding Claim 8, while Hussain, Andries, and Barnes teach the enclosure according to claim 1, and Hussain teaches a first portion and a second portion (Fig. 7, first portion 44, second portion 46) joined together by an internal key projecting vertically from the sidewall thereof and the second portion further comprises a location socket co-operable with the key ([0149], Fig. 7, internal key/peripheral rib 45 engages a recess/location socket 16), their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the hollow body portion further comprises an internal key projecting vertically from the sidewall thereof and the planar base portion further comprises a location socket co-operable with the internal key of the hollow body portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also utilize the mounting projections that cooperate with a first portion by an internal key and co-operating socket as taught by Hussain with the hollow body portion and base portion of Hussain as additional form of engagement to securely attach two parts of the system.
Regarding Claim 17, Hussain, Andries, and Barnes teach a wearable acoustic monitoring device, comprising:
an enclosure according to claim 1 (See Claim 1 Rejection); and
Hussain further teaches
one or more acoustic transducer within the enclosure and acoustically coupled to the acoustic port (Figs. 1-6, microphones 19M, 19N);
a fastener arranged to secure the wearable acoustic monitoring device to a user (See Claim 1 Rejection, stethoscope applied to wearable smart device, the band of the shown smart watch acting as the fastener).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain as evidenced by Andries in view of Barnes and further in view of Long (US 5,548,651).
Regarding Claim 3, while Hussain, Andries, and Barnes teach the enclosure according to claim 1, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the channel through the planar base portion comprises an internally facing projection having a channel therethrough.
However Long teaches an electronic stethoscope (Abstract) comprising a base portion connection to a hollow body portion to generate an acoustic port with an acoustic sensor spaced apart from the body surface (Figs. 1-3, Col. 2, L. 44 - Col. 3, L. 12, skin contacts 10, 12 / base portion connect to tubing 14, 16 / hollow body portion to generate an acoustic port with microphones 18, 20 at the end of the acoustic port), where the acoustic port is created in a sealed manner (Figs. 1-3, no diaphragm is present, thus indicating that the skin and the base portion contact to create a sealed chamber, in communication with the acoustic port).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the depressed portion of Hussain reflecting a uniform cylinder to instead utilize an elongate channel and tapered portion to interface with the surface of the patient’s body, reflecting a cylinder atop a pyramid, as an alternate base as a simple substitution of one form of directing sound within an enclosed chamber (Hussain, Fig. 6) for another form of directing sound within an enclosed chamber (Long, Fig. 2) to obtain predictable results of consistent sampling of body sounds. Furthermore, Hussain recognized that other base constructions could be applied for the overall stethoscope to optimize for different sounds ([0170]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain as evidenced by Andries in view of Barnes and further in view of Callahan (US 6,438,238).
Regarding Claim 7, while Hussain, Andries, and Barnes teach the enclosure according to claim 1, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the planar base portion comprises a plurality of internal support members projecting radially from a central hub.
However Callahan teaches a sound measuring stethoscope (Abstract) and further teaches using radially extending structure for support within a hollow cavity (Fig. 9, Col. 13, L. 54 – Col. 14, L. 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the base portion of Hussain comprise radially projecting support members as Callahan teaches that radial legs provide structural support to a transducer (Fig. 9, Col. 13, L. 54 – Col. 14, L. 29).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain as evidenced by Andries in view of Barnes and further in view of Katarow et al (US 2013/0096389) (“Katarow”).
Regarding Claim 9, while Hussain, Andries, and Barnes teach the enclosure according to claim 1, their combined efforts fail to teach to teach wherein the hollow body portion and the planar base portion interface by way of a one-way snap fit interface, or by way of surface bonding, that allows assembly only but which requires destruction of, or damage to, the enclosure to separate the hollow body portion and the planar base portion once the enclosure is assembled.
However Katarow teaches a physiological monitoring system (Abstract) comprising attaching of portions of a medical device by a one-way snap fit interface that allows assembly only but which requires destruction of, or damage to, the enclosure to separate the body portion and the base portion once the enclosure is assembled ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have body portion and base portion of Hussain, Andries, and Barnes connected by a one-way snap fit interface as taught by Katarow as specific teaching on these portions achieve the non-removable connection outlined in Hussain ([0170]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain as evidenced by Andries in view of Barnes and further in view of Drukier et al (US 2014/0136135) (“Drukier”) and further in view of Park (US 2017/0079612).
Regarding Claim 16, while Hussain, Andries, and Barnes teach a wearable acoustic monitoring device comprising a primary enclosure, wherein the primary enclosure is an enclosure according to claim 1 (See Claim 1 Rejection), their combined efforts fail to teach a transportation apparatus for a wearable acoustic monitoring device comprising:
the primary enclosure; and
a secondary enclosure comprising a top part and a bottom part hingedly connected to one another, wherein an insulating layer provided in each of the top part and the bottom part of the secondary enclosure and recessed to receive a portion of the primary enclosure.
However Drukier teaches an audio monitor ([0025]-[0027]) comprising an initial step of setting up an audio monitor is placing the audio monitor in an insulated enclosure ([0025]-[0027] place sensor in insulated enclosure for initialization to prevent incorrect readings during set up).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the device of Hussain, Andries, and Barnes to include a secondary enclosure as taught by Druiker with an insulating layer as a step in preventing noise from reaching the device before it is calibration at the desired environment (Druiker).
Yet their combined efforts fail to teach the transportation apparatus for a wearable acoustic monitoring device comprising a secondary enclosure comprising a top part and a bottom part hingedly connected.
However Park teaches a stethoscope accessory (Abstract) and teaches that enclosure may utilize a hinge to control opening and closing ([0037] hinge 14 for enclosure within lid 12 and base 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the device of Hussain, Andries, and Barnes to include a hinge as taught by Park as a way to provide reliable opening and closing of an enclosure.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain as evidenced by Andries in view of Barnes and further in view of Pryor et al (US 2013/0267813) (“Pryor”) and further in view of Reiseneder et al (US 2013/0108507) (“Reiseneder”) as noted in Applicant IDS dated 10/27/2020).
Regarding Claim 18, while Hussain, Andries, and Barnes teach the wearable acoustic monitoring device according to claim 17, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the fastener comprises an adhesive article, the adhesive article comprising
a planar pad having a first side coated with an adhesive and a second side coated with an adhesive,
a first removable liner covering the first side and a second removable liner covering the second side,
wherein each of the first and second removable liners comprise a tab that extends beyond the pad, and wherein the tabs are orientated such that they do not substantially overlap.
However Pryor teaches an adhesive article comprising a planar pad having a first side coated with an adhesive and a second side coated with an adhesive (Fig. 3A, [0148]-[0149] planar pad/adhesive patch 485 with adhesives on both sides to connect to hort and to connect to applicator base 465), a first removable liner covering the first side and a second removable liner covering the second side ([0148] both sides may be covered with a first liner and second liner, both removable), wherein each of the first and second removable liners comprise a tab that extends beyond the pad (Fig. 3A, liners shown to have a tab).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the strap fastening of Lam and utilize an adhesive article as taught by Mansy with the adhesive article teachings of Pryor as a simple substitution of one form of adhering a medical device to a patient (with a strap) for another (with an adhesive patch) to obtain predictable results of reliable coupling of a medical device to the subject.
Yet their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the tabs are orientated such that they do not substantially overlap.
However Reiseneder teaches a sound measuring device (Abstract) comprising liners with tabs ([0028]-[0030]) wherein the tabs are orientated such that they do not substantially overlap (Figs. 2A and 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have tabs of the two liners of Pryor as perpendicular as shown in Reisender so that the desired grasping of a tab by will be have minimal interference from a second tab.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain as evidenced by Andries in view of Barnes and further in view of Telfort (US 2014/0081175).
Regarding Claim 19, while Hussain, Andries, and Barnes teach the wearable acoustic monitoring device according to claim 17, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the one or more acoustic transducer comprises at least two acoustic transducers housed within the enclosure, wherein a first acoustic transducer of the at least two acoustic transducers is configured to identify and record a target acoustic signal and a second acoustic transducer of the at least two acoustic transducers is configured to identify and record background acoustic signals.
However Telfort teaches an acoustic patient sensor (Abstract) comprising at least two acoustic transducers, wherein one acoustic transducer is configured to identify and record a target acoustic signal and one acoustic transducer is configured to identify and record background acoustic signals ([0083], [0154]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the device of Hussain, Andries, and Barnes to comprise at least two acoustic transducers housed within an enclosure, wherein one acoustic transducer is configured to identify and record a target acoustic signal and one acoustic transducer is configured to identify and record background acoustic signals as Telfort teaches this can be used to remove background noise from the target acoustic signal.
Regarding Claim 20, Hussain, Andries, Barnes, and Telfort teach the wearable acoustic monitoring device according to claim 19 further comprising a processor for removing background acoustic signals and isolating the target acoustic signal (See Claim 19 Rejection, [0156]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain as evidenced by Andries in view of Barnes and further in view of Kallio (WO 94/25835)
Regarding Claim 6, while Hussain, Andries, and Barnes teach the enclosure according to claim 1, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the planar body portion comprises one or more internal support members projecting radially from the top of the hollow body portion and/or one or more internal support members projecting vertically from the sidewall of the hollow body portion.
However Kallio teaches an enclosure for an acoustic monitoring device (Abstract), the enclosure comprising: one or more internal support members projecting vertically from the sidewall of the hollow body portion (Fig. 1a-1c, frame 7 / planar body portion, hollow body portion / outermost passive shield 8, where the inner passive shields 8 act as one or more internal support members projecting vertically from the sidewall of the outermost passive shield 8 / hollow body portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the device of Hussain, Andries, and Barnes to include the internal support members / passive shields as taught by Kallio as construction to support the stability of the internal circuitry and acoustic sensor while also suppressing interference signals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 12/30/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) is/are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hussain, Andries, and Barnes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIRO H PORTILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:15 pm.
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 (571)272-5596. 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.
/JAIRO H. PORTILLO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791