DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-8, 10-22 are pending.
This action is Final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 210. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of claim 1 (including “a first MEMS piezoelectric acoustic transducer positioned inside the mechanical amplifier at the proximal end to sense acoustic signals from a target surface and amplified by the mechanical amplifier,”) including when read in view of the requirements of claims 7 and 10 (“wherein the mechanical amplifier has a side wall with stepped or ribbed features on the side wall configured to amplify acoustic signals.” and “wherein the mechanical amplifier includes an audio port at the proximal end of the bell shape or truncated cone shape where the first MEMS piezoelectric transducer is placed so that the mechanical amplifier and the first transducer form a continuous portion of a sealed chamber.”) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Figure elements and specification paragraph 26 as numbered in the substitute specification are not in agreement, see drawing objections above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: abbreviations should be defined prior to usage, claim 1 should define “MEMS”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations:
“a mechanical amplifier having a bell shape or truncated cone shape with a smaller proximal end and a larger distal end;
a first MEMS piezoelectric acoustic transducer positioned inside the mechanical amplifier at the proximal end to sense acoustic signals from a target surface and amplified by the mechanical amplifier, the first acoustic transducer configured to generate a first set of electrical signals based on the sensed acoustic signals;”
are rejected for being new matter. The response does not explain where support can be found/gleaned from the disclosure as filed either expressly or implicitly for the amended features in the form presented. Applicant is requested to explain where the amended features can be directly found, including citations to such source material. However, in review of the specification as filed, there appears to be no express recitation that the first MEMS piezoelectric acoustic transducer has a configuration which meets the requirement of positioned inside the mechanical amplifier at the (smaller) proximal end. The issue here is with the specificity that the first sensor is positioned both inside and at the proximal end. While such a configuration could be possible, such undisclosed design possibilities are not directly supported for the distinct scope being claimed, including either by expressly or inherently, based on the description as filed, and thus do not meet the written description requirement to show applicant had possession of such claimed invention.
Such claimed requirements appear to be at odds with most embodiments in the drawings, and there does not appear to be any Figure which captures this claimed feature. These features appear to be at odds with the attempt being claimed in amended claim 10 (addressed subsequently). There appears to be only one similar aspect to positioning within and it is merely the discussion that such sensors (offset sensors, i.e. both first and second) may be within the chamber, but this is not an illustrated or preferred embodiment:
“In some example embodiments, the mechanical amplifier 102 has a bell or truncated conical shape that tapers outward from a narrower proximal end to a wider distal end. A chamber is formed between the proximal end and distal end of the mechanical amplifier 102, and the offset acoustic transducers 104 may be within or near the chamber formed by the mechanical amplifier 102.” (emphasis added)
Yet the chamber is not the entire mechanical amplifier structure, but the chamber is the space between a membrane and internal structure of the mechanical amplifier portion formed within or inside the structures, connecting to a hole or port through (not part of the chamber) such as exemplified by element 404 in Figure 4.
However, as plainly evident, there is no recitation that such sensor is inside and placed at the proximal end (inside the chamber). The support for claim 1 is at most that the transducer is positioned within the mechanical amplifier (chamber). However, such claimed feature is at odds with all other descriptions of the preferred embodiments including reference to figures 2 and 4.
In further reference to claim 10 as amended, the features:
“The wearable of claim 1,wherein the mechanical amplifier includes an audio port at the proximal end of the bell shape or truncated cone shape where the first MEMS piezoelectric transducer is placed so that the mechanical amplifier and the first transducer form a continuous portion of a sealed chamber.” (bolded emphasis added, underlining are the amendments)
are additionally new matter. These additional features with the features of claim 1 do not make sense. In the disclosure as filed, the audio port is a hole that allows acoustic communication from inside the mechanical amplifier (chamber) to outside the mechanical amplifier. There is no discussion of a “continuous portion of a sealed chamber” anywhere to glean proper meaning, and such would not make sense with the requirement of the transducer being required to be within/inside the mechanical amplifier as set forth in claim 1. At best, claim 10 appears to be an attempt to move the general limitations of claim 1 into the embodiments of figures 2 and 4, but such is again trying to claim features disclosed as both the sensor locations to be both inside and outside the mechanical amplifier simultaneously. This is both indefinite and new matter.
Lastly, the features of claim 7:
“The wearable of claim 1, wherein the mechanical amplifier has a side wall with stepped or ribbed features on the side wall configured to amplify acoustic signals.”
in view of claim 1 requirements are new matter for similar reasons as already explained. There does not appear to be support for the claimed features including the transducer to be positioned within and at the proximal end in view of Figure 3. How is the transducer positioned to allow for such arrangement?
For these reasons one of skill in the art would not have recognized applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Furthermore, claim 22, recites the limitation “wherein the other sensor data includes ECG signal data and blood oxygenation signal data” which is new matter. While ECG data finds clear support, there is no mention to any blood oxygenation signal data and this feature must be rejected for being new matter. One of skill in the art would not have recognized applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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 1-8, 10-22 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations:
“a mechanical amplifier having a bell shape or truncated cone shape with a smaller proximal end and a larger distal end;
a first MEMS piezoelectric acoustic transducer positioned inside the mechanical amplifier at the proximal end to sense acoustic signals from a target surface and amplified by the mechanical amplifier, the first acoustic transducer configured to generate a first set of electrical signals based on the sensed acoustic signals;”
are rejected for being inconsistent with the description as filed, MPEP 2173.03:
“The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification. Glossaries of terms used in the claims are a helpful device for ensuring adequate definition of terms used in claims. If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See MPEP § 608.01(o) and MPEP § 2181, subsection IV. Applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the claim.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). For example, a claim with a limitation of “the clamp means including a clamp body and first and second clamping members, the clamping members being supported by the clamp body” was determined to be indefinite because the terms “first and second clamping members” and “clamp body” were found to be vague in light of the specification which showed no “clamp member” structure being “supported by the clamp body.” In re Anderson, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 167 (Fed. Cir. January 6, 1997) (unpublished). In Cohn, a claim was directed to a process of treating an aluminum surface with an alkali silicate solution and included a further limitation that the surface has an “opaque” appearance. Id. The specification, meanwhile, associated the use of an alkali silicate with a glazed or porcelain-like finish, which the specification distinguished from an opaque finish. Cohn, 438 F.2d at 993, 169 USPQ at 98. Noting that no claim may be read apart from and independent of the supporting disclosure on which it is based, the court found that the claim was internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification relating to the appearance of the surface after treatment, and therefore indefinite. Id. In addition, inconsistencies in the meaning of terms or phrases between claims may render the scope of the claims to be uncertain. Tvngo Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Elecs. Inc., 861 Fed. Appx. 453, 459-60, 2021 USPQ2d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("The issue is not breadth of the dependent claims but their use of the disputed phrase in a way that contradicts the independent claims. The dependent claims state that 'said overlay activation criterion includes . . . a user command information,' which conflicts with the independent claim's use of this same phrase."). "When faced with this unknown and undefined phrase, a skilled artisan would look for clarification not only in the specification but also in '[o]ther claims of the patent in question,' which 'can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.'" Id. at 460 (quoting Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
As discussed prior, the response does not explain where support can be found/gleaned from the disclosure as filed either expressly or implicitly for the amended features in the form presented. Applicant is requested to explain where the amended features can be directly found, including citations to such source material. However, in review of the specification as filed, there appears to be no express recitation that the first MEMS piezoelectric acoustic transducer has a configuration which meets the requirement of positioned inside the mechanical amplifier at the (smaller) proximal end. The issue here is with the specificity that the first sensor is positioned both inside and at the proximal end.
Such claimed requirements appear to be at odds with most embodiments in the drawings, and there does not appear to be any Figure which captures this claimed feature. These features appear to be at odds with the attempt being claimed in amended claim 10 as well (addressed subsequently). There appears to be only one similar aspect to positioning within and it is merely the discussion that such sensors (offset sensors, i.e. both first and second) may be within the chamber, but this is not an illustrated or preferred embodiment:
“In some example embodiments, the mechanical amplifier 102 has a bell or truncated conical shape that tapers outward from a narrower proximal end to a wider distal end. A chamber is formed between the proximal end and distal end of the mechanical amplifier 102, and the offset acoustic transducers 104 may be within or near the chamber formed by the mechanical amplifier 102.” (emphasis added)
Yet the chamber is not the entire mechanical amplifier structure, but the chamber is the space between a membrane and internal structure of the mechanical amplifier portion formed within or inside the structures, connecting to a hole or port through (not part of the chamber) such as exemplified by element 404 in Figure 4.
However, as plainly evident, there is no recitation that such sensor is inside and placed at the proximal end (inside the chamber). The support for claim 1 is at most that the transducer is positioned within the mechanical amplifier (chamber). However, such claimed feature is at odds with all other descriptions of the preferred embodiments including reference to figures 2 and 4.
In further reference to claim 10 as amended, the features:
“The wearable of claim 1,wherein the mechanical amplifier includes an audio port at the proximal end of the bell shape or truncated cone shape where the first MEMS piezoelectric transducer is placed so that the mechanical amplifier and the first transducer form a continuous portion of a sealed chamber.” (bolded emphasis added, underlining are the amendments)
are additionally not described. These additional features with the features of claim 1 do not make sense. In the disclosure as filed, the audio port is a hole that allows acoustic communication from inside the mechanical amplifier (chamber) to outside the mechanical amplifier. There is no discussion of a “continuous portion of a sealed chamber” anywhere to glean proper meaning, and such would not make sense with the requirement of the transducer being required to be within/inside the mechanical amplifier as set forth in claim 1. At best, claim 10 appears to be an attempt to move the general limitations of claim 1 into the embodiments of figures 2 and 4, but such is again trying to claim features disclosed as both the sensor locations to be both inside and outside the mechanical amplifier simultaneously. This is both indefinite and new matter.
For these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear which renders the claims indefinite. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
The limitations of claim 6, including “wherein the data set includes acoustic data synchronized with other sensor data for disease/physiological-state diagnosis purposes where relative timing and synchronization analysis of the multiple sensor data are required” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation previously set forth an intended result of the dataset generated from claim 1, but now includes features of intended use with what appears to be further intended uses with conclusion “are required”. This claim makes no sense. What is attempting to be further limited in the required wearable? The wearable only includes mechanical amplifier, acoustic sensors, microcontroller, and a transmitter, what structures of the wearable are being further limited and what features are desired? It appears that claim 6 is attempting to try to limit the invention to be a system, but the claim is only to the wearable itself, where the wearable does not include any structures or functions for receiving data from other sources to allow for generation of the claimed dataset parameters, and for any further potential functional or intended use. Again it is not clear what applicant intends to limit, thus for examination purposes, the amended features are interpreted as mere intended use of inference features and do not further limit any aspects of the microcontroller of claim 1. Claim 22 is rejected for depending on claim 6.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-13, 19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copt et al. (Copt, US 2017/0188989) in view of Syed et al. (Syed, US 2021/0298623).
Regarding claim 1, Copt teaches a wearable, comprising: a mechanical amplifier having a bell shape or truncated cone shape with a smaller proximal end and a larger distal end (see at least Figures, element 10); a first transducer positioned inside the mechanical amplifier at the proximal end to sense acoustic signals from a target surface and amplified by the mechanical amplifier, the first acoustic transducer configured to generate a first set of electrical signals based on the sensed acoustic signals (see at least Figure 7 element 20 capable of the intended use, [0049]-[0051], especially [0050] “In addition, and with further reference to FIG. 1, the transducer 20 is disposed at least partially within the primary resonance chamber 30. However, the transducer 20 is not limited to disposition within the primary resonance chamber. Accordingly, it is contemplated that various other embodiments in accordance with the present invention comprise a transducer disposed at least partially in a corresponding one of the chambers 10, 30, 40.” meets the claimed positioning); a second MEMS piezoelectric acoustic transducer offset from the first acoustic transducer and positioned to sense ambient acoustic noise, the second acoustic transducer configured to generate a second set of electrical signals (see at least Figure 7 element 22 offset from 20 and capable of the intended use, [0049]-[0051]); a microcontroller coupled to the first and second acoustic transducers and configured to prepare a data set based on a digitized version of the first and second sets of electrical signals (see at least Figure 3, [0017] elements 200-400, [0054]-[0056]); and
However, the limitations of the first transducer is a MEMS piezoelectric acoustic transducer, and the second transducer is a MEMS piezoelectric acoustic transducer, a transmitter coupled to the microcontroller and configured to: receive the data set from the microcontroller; and transmit the data set to another device are not directly taught.
Syed teaches a related system for measuring acoustic signals and including more than one transducer, where a second transducer is offset from the first allowing for noise cancellation (see at least title, abstract, Figures, [0013]-[0014], [0070]), where the sensors include MEMS piezoelectric transducers (see [0084]), and a transmitter coupled to the microcontroller and configured to: receive the data set from the microcontroller; and transmit the data set to another device (see at least [0021]-[0022], [0068]-[0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including using MEMs transducers as the acoustic transducers in order to measure sounds in desired locations/environments using known sensing mechanism for achieving such, and including a transmitter to allow communication of processed data to be sent to different devices in order to allow for review of data acquired/processed by the user or another individual.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Copt teaches wherein the data set includes a time interval of auscultation audio obtained from a patient (see at least [0006]-[0007], [0056], [0061]-[0065] meets intended use of data source such as patient).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Copt teaches wherein the data set includes a time interval of audio signals obtained from a pipe (see at least [0006]-[0007], [0056], [0061]-[0065] meets intended use of data source such as blood vessels or wind pipe).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Copt teaches wherein the data set includes an alert based on audio pattern recognition (see at least [0056] meets intended use of data).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Syed further teaches wherein the data set includes acoustic data synchronized with other sensor data for disease/physiological-state diagnosis purposes where relative timing and synchronization analysis of the multiple sensor data are required (see at least [0015]-[0018], [0039]-[0040] different parameters measured and assessed in time with other sensor data meets the claimed intended use). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including multiple sensor types with acoustic sensors in a device in order to measure various parameters and make qualitative and/or quantitative assessments on the user’s health.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Syed further teaches wherein the mechanical amplifier has a side wall with stepped or ribbed features on the side wall configured to amplify acoustic signals (see at least Figures 5-6, 8-11 where a stepped configuration is present, and the amplification is an intended result of such shape). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious substitution of one element for another to obtain predictable results of capturing acoustic data by using a stepped shape in place of a tapered shape.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Copt teaches wherein the mechanical amplifier includes an audio port at the proximal end of the bell shape or truncated cone shape where the first MEMS piezoelectric transducer is placed so that the mechanical amplifier and the first transducer form a continuous portion of a sealed chamber (see at least Figures 7-9, opening at proximal of 10, sealed with cap 90, [0050], [0063] reasonably meets the claimed structures and intended use as the chambers are sealed via cap 90).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Copt teaches wherein the audio port is a first audio port, the wearable device further comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) assembly that includes a first PCB and a second PCB, the first PCB having a second audio port aligned with the first acoustic transducer, and the second PCB having a third audio port aligned with the second acoustic transducer as Copt does teach wherein the transducers 20 and 22 are positioned at different sides of the resonance chamber 40 that is connected to the first audio port as seen as the opening at the top of the acoustic capturing chamber 10, and that 20 can be partially within 10, therefore the transducers pick up acoustic signals traveling out of the opening at the top of the acoustic capturing chamber 10 by a second audio port within the circuit of the first transducer 20 and a third audio port within the circuit of the second transducer 22 (Copt, figures 7, 8; paragraph [0049]-[0051], [0060]), and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify auscultation device of Copt to provide the first PCB having a second audio port aligned with the first acoustic transducer, and the second PCB having a third audio port aligned with the second acoustic transducer, in order to have separate ports in which acoustic waves can travel to each transducer at different directions/pathways within the device. While circuits are broad form, Copt does not directly teach PCB being the “circuits”. However, Syed teaches such circuits and such circuit design is common and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of building transducer circuits on a PCB (see Syed [0086], [0092], [0097], [0100]).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Syed further teaches a battery (see [0085]); a voltage regulator between the battery and the microcontroller (see [0085]); and a digitizer coupled to the first acoustic transducer, the second acoustic transducer and the microcontroller (see [0085]), wherein the digitized is configured to: receive the first set of electrical signals from the first acoustic transducer; receive the second set of electrical signals from the second acoustic transducer; and provide the digitized version of the first and second sets of electrical signals to the microcontroller (see [0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including battery, voltage regulator, A/D converter in order to provide regulated power source and circuitry to convert analog data to digital data for further processing by digital processing elements of gathered data.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Syed further teaches wherein the microcontroller is configured to perform active-noise cancellation based on the digitized version of the first and second sets of electrical signals (see at least [0013]-[0014], [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of using two acoustic sensor to cancel ambient noise using known protocols in order to reduce extraneous signals from desired signals present in recorded audio data.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Syed further teaches wherein the first acoustic transducer and the second acoustic transducer are microelectromechanical system (MEMS) piezoelectric microphones (see [0084]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of using MEMs transducers as the acoustic transducers in order to measure sounds in desired locations/environments using known sensing mechanism for achieving such.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Copt teaches wherein the larger distal end is configured to contact with the target surface (see at least Figures, [0042]).
Regarding claim 22, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Syed further teaches wherein the other sensor data includes ECG signal data and blood oxygenation signal data (further limits intended use, see at least [0012], [0015]-[0018], [0039]-[0040] different parameters measured and assessed in time with other sensor data meets the claimed intended use. Applicant admission is that ECG is well-known metric to be measured and cites to prior art device capable of such, and it is well-known that ECG can be used to derive heart rate data and its inclusion of such data with other data is within the realm of obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill to synchronize patient data [0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including multiple sensor types with acoustic sensors in a device in order to measure various parameters and make qualitative and/or quantitative assessments on the user’s health.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copt et al. (Copt, US 2017/0188989) in view of Syed et al. (Syed, US 2021/0298623) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sels et al. (Sels, US 2019/0029563).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, except the limitations of wherein the transmitter is part of a wireless transceiver configured to transmit the data set to the other device via a wireless communication channel is not directly taught. However, using a transceiver in place of a transmitter for data transmission is an obvious variant as evidence from the teachings of Sels ([0048] “a communicator 222 (e.g., a transmitter, a receiver, a transceiver, a modem, etc.)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious substitution of one known wireless communication element for another to obtain predictable results of transmitting data wirelessly.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copt et al. (Copt, US 2017/0188989) in view of Syed et al. (Syed, US 2021/0298623) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Callahan (US 6,438,238).
Regarding claim 8, Copt teaches the device may be made with materials including aluminum (see [0067]), but does not directly teach wherein the mechanical amplifier is made from aluminum or an aluminum alloy.
Callahan teaches such amplifier can be made of aluminum (see at least col. 7 lines 52-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select aluminum as the material of the mechanical amplifier as prima facie obviousness in selection known materials for known use.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Claims 14-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copt et al. (Copt, US 2017/0188989) in view of Syed et al. (Syed, US 2021/0298623) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ueda (US 3,868,954).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, except the limitations of further comprising a membrane positioned along a base of the mechanical amplifier, wherein the mechanical amplifier and the membrane form a chamber are not directly taught.
Ueda teaches a related system for measuring blood sound data (see abstract/title), and teaches usage of a membrane in the form of a flexible diaphragm located at a mase of a mechanical amplifier (see Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including a diaphragm in a mechanical amplifier in order to aid in recording sounds from within a body caused by blood flow.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed and Ueda, where Ueda teaches wherein the membrane has stepped or ribbed configuration features (see Figure 2 2 and 2a form a step configuration).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed and Ueda, where Ueda teaches a filler material within the chamber, wherein the filler material is selected based on its acoustic frequency response (see Figure 2, air meets the filler material and presumed selection for the intended use/result).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copt et al. (Copt, US 2017/0188989) in view of Syed et al. (Syed, US 2021/0298623) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greenberger (US 5,492,129).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Copt teaches further comprising a user interface coupled to the microcontroller, the user interface having a button and indicators (see Copt Figure 3, [0056]), but does not directly teach such user interface has a button.
Greenberger teaches a related device for measuring sound (see title and abstract), and teaches a usage of a user interface button which allows for playback of stored data (see Figure 1b, 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including buttons and programming to allow for stored data to be played back as desired in order to allow for on-demand review of sensed data.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copt et al. (Copt, US 2017/0188989) in view of Syed et al. (Syed, US 2021/0298623) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Durand et al. (Durand, US 5,602,924).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where the combination teaches usage of filtering except the limitations of further comprising a frequency tuning circuit configured to amplify or attenuate frequencies of the first and second sets of electrical signals are not directly taught.
Durand teaches a related system for measuring sound (see title and abstract), and teaches further comprising a frequency tuning circuit configured to amplify or attenuate frequencies of the first and second sets of electrical signals (see col. 5-6, gain and attenuations for particular frequencies desired. Such as band pass filter 31 configured produce an attenuation at given frequencies resulting from electrical signals; column 9, lines 44-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including filtering to attenuate or gain signals for frequency ranges desired in order to capture desired physiological signals.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copt et al. (Copt, US 2017/0188989) in view of Syed et al. (Syed, US 2021/0298623) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raj et al. (Raj, US 2019/0365263).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are met by Copt in view of Syed, where Copt teaches enclosing the structures in a housing (see [0049]-[0054], [0061]-[0062] Figures) and mentions different materials (see [0067]), but is silent to silicon such that the limitations of further comprising a flexible silicon housing that encloses the mechanical amplifier, the first acoustic transducer, the second acoustic transducer, and the microcontroller are not directly taught.
Raj teaches a related system for measuring sound (see title and abstract), and teaches a flexible silicon housing that encloses the mechanical amplifier, the first acoustic transducer, the second acoustic transducer, and the microcontroller (see at least [0047], [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of having a flexible housing in order to for comfort of a device placed on skin.
Selecting silicon as the material for the housing is also prima facie obvious for the selection of a known material for the intended purpose. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applications submission of amendments to the claims and specification filed 1/5/2026; and IDS filed 1/9/2026.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the specification and drawing objections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive due to the amendments to the drawings and specification. However, after further review, there is at least one more objection to each as set forth above, where some are necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims in view of prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are updated above to account for the amendments to the claims, and any new ground of rejection is necessitated by the amendments to the claims. Applicant argues that the amplifier features, as amended, distinguish over the art of record as the art does not explicitly/expressly state the structures are for the intended use/result of amplification. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed configured to amplify is a result of the claimed structures themselves. As such, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the structures present in the art which read on the claimed structures will inherently result in the same claimed amplification features recognized by applicant. Perhaps there is a more specific structure or structures that result in the difference which can be claimed more than the generic structures set forth if this is the point of novelty. However, for the scope claimed, the art reasonably teaches the claimed features. Regarding the synchronization arguments in claim 6, these are not found persuasive as the features argued for novelty amount to intended use of data and functions claimed outside of the required structures, i.e. mere inference such data can be obtained and the use of such data. In addition, Syed reasonably teaches such features in the passages cited in the rejection. Regarding the arguments for claims 14-16, again the amplification is a result recognized by applicant for the claimed structures that are present in the art and the arguments are thus not persuasive. Again, is there a specific configuration of such which reads over the art of record that can be amended into the claims if this is the point of novelty? The rejections are respectfully maintained as presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights