DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 03/26/2026 (“Amendment”). Claims 2-12 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claim 2.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “an inspiration pulse, a second noise pulse” should instead read –an inspiration pulse, and a second noise pulse--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,261,238 (“Gavriely”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2004/0243016 (“Sanderson”), and US Patent Application Publication 2010/0179438 (“Heneghan”).
Regarding claim 2, Gavriely teaches [a] system for noninvasively monitoring a user (all the sensors in Fig. 1 are external, and thus noninvasive - also see Fig. 2, showing identification of snoring, coughing, etc.), said system comprising: a first sensor configured to detect a physiological sound signal from a user (the sensors of Fig. 1, shown in Fig. 2 as obtaining BS (breath sound) data); …; and one or more hardware processors (Figs. 1 and 2, CPU 20) configured to: convert the detected sound signal from an analog signal to a digital signal (Fig. 2, analog signal conditioner/digitizer 18); determine one or more sound signatures corresponding to a stressed breathing in the digital signal (Fig. 2, snoring detectable by unit 48, breathing rhythms by unit 50, and breath sound analyzer 52 detects adventitious sounds such as wheezes - see col. 18, lines 45-57. Also see col. 21, lines 48-63, describing a reference catalog for detecting wheezes, secretion sounds, etc.); generate an alarm based on the determined one or more sound signatures (Fig. 2, alarms/alerts from second post processor 60 - see col. 18, lines 58-61, as well as lines 45-57 which describe various alarm conditions); …; and transmit the [] sound signal[] to a remote speaker in response to a user input (col. 16, line 55 to col. 17, line 5 describe using a user interface to select a channel/sensor to listen to, the sound output being at remote earphones or a loudspeaker).
Gavriely does not appear to explicitly teach the system comprising a second sensor configured to detect an optical signal from the user, and the hardware processor configured to: generate a first sound signal that combines a first noise pulse corresponding to an inspiration pulse, a second noise pulse corresponding to an expiration pulse; generate a second sound signal simultaneously with the first sound signal, wherein the second sound signal includes a beeping sound corresponding to an occurrence of a pulse as determined from the optical signal; and transmit the first and the second sound signals to a remote speaker in response to a user input (although transmission of a sound signal to a remote speaker via user input is taught).
Sanderson teaches a respiratory monitoring apparatus (as described in e.g. the Abstract) being used alongside a pulse oximetry system (¶¶s 0033 and 0057, such a system requiring an optical sensor). The apparatus generates a first sound signal that includes noise pulses for both inspiration and expiration (¶¶s 0019-0021, 0064, 0069, Fig. 4, etc.). Sanderson also teaches generating a second sound signal simultaneously with the first sound signal, the second sound signal corresponding to occurrence of a pulse as detected by the oximetry system (¶¶s 0112, 0115, etc., pulse oximetry sonification of HR and O2).
Heneghan teaches providing audio feedback as a tone whose frequency varies with breathing, or a beep with every detected heart beat (¶ 0013). Heneghan also notes that pulse oximetry measures changes in reflected/transmitted light through blood vessels (i.e., it is optical – see ¶ 0009).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to make the sound signal of Gavriely include noise pulses for both inspiration and expiration, as in Sanderson, for the purpose of being able to monitor changes in respiration (Sanderson: ¶¶s 0019-0021, 0064, 0069, Fig. 4, etc.). It would have been obvious to incorporate an optical/oximetry sensor into Gavriely, and to generate a second sound signal simultaneously with the respiratory signal, the second sound signal corresponding to cardiac pulses detected by the oximetry sensor, as in Sanderson, for the purpose of enabling a user to track multiple parameters at once (Sanderson: ¶¶s 0033, 0057, 0112, 0115, etc.), maintain high levels of awareness of patient state, and perform other tasks more effectively (Sanderson: ¶¶s 0115, 0117). It would have been obvious to make the cardiac sonification a beep, as in Heneghan, as the simple substitution of one sonification (a generic one) for another (a beep) with predictable results (providing audio feedback).
Regarding claim 3, Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan further teaches wherein the one or more sound signatures correspond to coughing (Gavriely: col. 21, lines 48-63, cough).
Regarding claim 4, Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan further teaches wherein the one or more sound signatures correspond to wheezing (Gavriely: col. 18, lines 45-61, col. 21, lines 48-63, wheezes).
Regarding claim 7, Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan further teaches wherein the sensor is configured to be worn by the user (Gavriely: as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan further teaches wherein the determination comprises identifying signal deviations in amplitude (Gavriely: Fig. 12, steps 356, 358; Fig. 20, step 570, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan further teaches wherein the determination comprises identifying a slope in the detected sound signal (Gavriely: Fig. 12, step 372).
Regarding claim 10, Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan further teaches wherein the determination comprises comparing the sound signal with one or more stored sound signatures (Gavriely: col. 21, lines 48-63, reference catalog - also see col. 9, lines 9-16, templates).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0118054 (“Pinhas”).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Regarding claims 5 and 6, Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the one or more sound signatures correspond to gasping or choking (although Gavriely does teach detecting aspiration, which is very similar, in col. 2, lines 27-63. It also describes detecting obstructive apnea in col. 2, lines 44-52, col. 11, lines 57-65, col. 21, lines 48-63 (apnoea/snores), etc.).
Pinhas teaches that choking and gasping are associated with obstructive apnea (¶ 0334).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detecting gasping and choking in the combination, as part of Gavriely’s apnea detection and as already contemplated by the discussion with respect to aspiration, for the purpose of being able to distinguish between different types of sounds (Gavriely: col. 21, lines 48-63, using the reference catalog; Pinhas: ¶ 0334).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan in view of US Patent 5,737,367 (“Wuppermann”).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Gavriely-Sanderson-Heneghan does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to generate digital tags corresponding to the determined sound signatures, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to transmit the digital tags over a network in lieu of some or all of the sound signal.
Wuppermann teaches transforming the envelope of a signal into a code/digital tag, and then transmitting the digital tag over a network (col. 4, lines 19-44 describe an envelope generator 30 using an identification code of a selected reference envelope for signal reconstruction after transmission - also see Abstract, Figs. 1A, and 1B, and col. 2, lines 21-34, as well as the discussion of synthesis filter 38).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate tags for the sound signatures of the combination, and to transmit the tags over a network, as in Wuppermann, for the purpose of reducing memory requirements and calculation complexity (Wuppermann: Abstract and col. 2, lines 33-42), as well as for the purpose of reducing transmission bandwidth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered. The amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112 are persuasive, and the rejections are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 are not persuasive. Sanderson teaches generation of simultaneous cardiac and respiratory sonifications. ¶¶s 0033 and 0057 describe the respiratory monitoring apparatus being used together with the pulse oximetry system. Thus, the sonifications occur together/simultaneously. ¶¶s 0112 and 0115 do not suggest anything to the contrary. ¶ 0112 teaches use of an HR sonification based on a pulse oximetry system, and ¶ 0115 suggests monitoring respiratory and cardiovascular status with respective sonifications.
Applicant is also directed to the teachings of US Patent 5,730,140 (“Fitch”), which describe simultaneous sonification (Abstract).
All claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,098,610 (“the reference patent”) in view of Gavriely, Sanderson, Heneghan, Pinhas, and/or Wupperman. Claim 2 of the reference patent teaches all features of the present claims 2-12, except for those made up by Gavriely, Sanderson, Heneghan, Pinhas, and/or Wupperman as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 am - 3 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached on (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights