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 .
Applicant Argument Response
The examiner addressed the applicant arguments in the remark filling on 03/16/2026, pages 6-7 and were responding as followings in regards to the Subject Matter Eligibility 35 U.S.C 101 framework:
Applicant argues that claim 1, particularly detect a magnitude of pressure, designate a coordinate in a depth direction, and perform sound field estimation, is a specific technological improvement in human-computer interaction for medical auscultation because pressure magnitude designates depth and simulates the physical behavior of a stethoscope, and therefore the § 101 rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because under proper broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 1 merely recites the mathematical concept of estimating biological information using generic data-gathering inputs. The record establishes that the claimed apparatus does not improve computer functionality, as the specification expressly defines the terminal apparatus as a wearable terminal such as a smartphone, a tablet, or a smart watch. Furthermore, utilizing pressure magnitude to designate a depth coordinate fails to integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because translating physical screen pressure into a z-axis depth parameter was a well-understood, routine, and conventional interface mechanism and claims are recite as only functionals. Specifically, EP 2241955 A1 expressly discloses an interface where a z-position corresponds to a direction down into or up from the screen based directly on how much pressure a user applies. Thus, the applicant’s position is not persuasive because Claim 1 merely uses established touch-screen pressure functionality to supply a spatial parameter for the abstract estimation, without reciting a specific technical mechanism that improves the terminal itself. Therefore, the rejection is maintained
The examiner addressed the applicant arguments in the remark filling on 03/16/2026, page 6, and were responding as followings in regards to the 35 U.S.C 112 framework:
Applicant argues that Claims 1-5, by deleting the term "operator," render the previous interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) moot.
The Examiner respectfully agrees because under proper BRI, Claims 1-5 no longer recite the disputed term "operator." The record shows the claims were amended to instead recite a "processor" configured to perform the recited functions. Thus, the applicant’s position is persuasive because the specific language that triggered the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation and rendered the claims indefinite has been entirely removed from the claim scope. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The examiner addressed the applicant arguments in the remark filling on 03/16/2026, pages 7 and were responding as followings in regards to the anticipation 35 U.S.C 102 framework:
Applicant argues that Claim 1, "detect a magnitude of pressure generated by a user operation at a position on a screen of the terminal apparatus; designate a coordinate in a depth direction of a body of a subject based on the detected magnitude of pressure; perform sound field estimation to estimate biological information at a three-dimensional position defined by the position on the screen and the coordinate in the depth direction", is not anticipated by Lahji under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because Lahji fails to disclose the amended pressure-magnitude, pressure-to-depth, and screen-plus-depth sound-field-estimation features, and requests withdrawal of the § 102 rejection of claims 1-5.
Examiner respect fully agrees in Regards of withdraw 35 U.S.C 102. Applicant's § 102 position is persuasive, and the § 102 rejection of claims 1-5 is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
However, the amendment does not place the claims in condition for allowance. Under MPEP 2141-2146, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is entered over Lahji in view of Van de Ven, US 2008/0094367 A1, which teaches the features the amendment added. Refer below for the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection Claims 1-5 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept amounting to significantly more than the exception itself.
Step 1: Statutory Categories Analysis
The claims are directed to statutory subject matter, encompassing the following statutory categories:
Machine (Claims 1-5 and 8 ): The language reciting "A terminal apparatus comprising:.." (Claim 1).
Having confirmed the claims are directed to statutory subject matter, the analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception Analysis
Step 2A, Prong One determines whether the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Independent Claim Analysis
Under BRI, claim 1 recites a terminal device that receives a screen position and pressure magnitude from user input, uses that input to designate a depth coordinate, performs sound field estimation for the three-dimensional position defined by the surface position and depth coordinate, and outputs the estimated biological information using information obtained from sensors whose positions are substantially fixed with respect to the body.
Here is the Claim 1, where non-bold represent the abstract idea and the bold represent the additional elements further evaluated in prong two and step 2B:
Claim 1.
A terminal apparatus comprising:
a memory;
and a processor connected to the memory.
wherein the processor is configured to:
detect a magnitude of pressure generated by a user operation at a position on a screen of the terminal apparatus;
designate a coordinate in a depth direction of a body of a subject based on the detected magnitude of pressure;
perform sound field estimation to estimate biological information at a three-dimensional position defined by the position on the screen and the coordinate in the depth direction;
output the estimated biological information based on biological information obtained by a plurality of sensors of which positions are substantially fixedly maintained with respect to the body of the subject.
Claim 1 therefore recites a mathematical concept. Because requires perform sound field estimation to estimate biological information at a three-dimensional position, which is a calculation-driven estimation step applied to sensor-derived information. Under MPEP 2106, a claim recites an abstract idea when the exception is set forth or described in the claim, and mathematical calculations and estimation operations fall within the mathematical concepts grouping.
Dependent Claims Analysis
The dependent claims 2-5 and 8 are also directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 2–5 and 8 also recite the same abstract idea. Claim 2 narrows the estimation by emphasizing information from selected sensors. Claim 3 narrows it by emphasizing information from a first direction over a second direction. Claim 4 narrows it by emphasizing information from a first region. Claim 5 narrows it by estimating information that would be captured at a region including the designated position. Each dependent claim remains within the same mathematical estimation framework and does not introduce a different abstract idea category. Claim 8 still recites the same mathematical concept identified in claim 1, and in substance adds more signal-processing logic rather than moving away from it. Under BRI, claim 8 requires the processor, in performing the sound field estimation, to adjust signal transmission characteristics of the biological information obtained by the plurality of sensors based on the designated coordinate in the depth direction. That is still value-based processing of signal information to derive an estimated result at a selected three-dimensional location.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are evaluated in the framework of Step 2A, Prong Two, because recited a judicial exception as explained above.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
Step 2A, Prong Two asks whether the additional elements integrate the recited mathematical concept into a practical application. Claims 1–5 and 8 do not, because those elements define the input source, processing environment, and result output, but do not recite the specific technical mechanism that improves the terminal, the sensors, or the estimation technique itself.
Evaluation of Independent Claim 1 Additional Elements
The recitation of the terminal apparatus, memory, and processor does not integrate the exception into a practical application because claim 1 does not recite a particular processor architecture, a particular estimation engine, or a claimed hardware arrangement that improves computer functionality. The specification confirms the breadth of these elements by stating that the terminal apparatus 20 may be configured by using a wearable terminal such as a smartphone, a tablet, or a smart watch, or a general-purpose information apparatus such as a game machine or a television receiver, or may be configured as a dedicated apparatus (par. 0018).
The recitation of detect a magnitude of pressure generated by a user operation at a position on a screen does not integrate the exception into a practical application because it supplies the user-selected parameter used for the later estimation. Claim 1 does not recite a particular pressure-sensing mechanism or an improvement in screen-input technology. The specification likewise describes the operator broadly as an existing input apparatus such as a keyboard, a pointing apparatus, a button, or a touch panel (par. 0020).
The recitation of a plurality of sensors of which positions are substantially fixedly maintained with respect to the body of the subject and output the estimated biological information also does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In claim 1, the sensors provide the information used by the estimation, and the output step reports the estimated result. Claim 1 does not recite a specific calibration technique, a specific beamforming protocol, a specific transfer-function protocol, or another specific technological mechanism that uses the fixed sensor positions in a technically particular way.
When viewed as a whole, the additional elements collect user and sensor inputs, set the spatial parameters for the estimation, perform the claimed estimation on a terminal device, and output the result. That is the mathematical concept carried out in the technological environment of biological sensing, not a practical application that meaningfully limits the exception.
Dependent Claims Analysis
Claims 2–5 and 8 do not add a new additional element beyond those already addressed. They only further define how the same estimated information is emphasized or estimated by sensor, direction, region, or assumed location. Those limitations narrow the same mathematical estimation framework and do not change the Prong Two result. Specify for claim 8 does not overcome Prong Two because, while it adds the limitation of adjusting signal transmission characteristics based on designated depth to simulate auscultation, it remains drafted at the result level rather than specifying the technical mechanism. The claim fails to recite which transmission characteristics are adjusted, how the adjustment occurs, or what concrete model or filter is used. Without these specifics, the claim merely describes a desired functional outcome simulating physical auscultation at varying depths rather than a technological improvement or particular process that achieves it. As a result, claim 8 applies the abstract idea in a technological context but does not integrate it into a practical application as required under MPEP 2106.
When viewed as a whole, the combination of elements in claims 1-5, and 8 not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not recite a specific technical mechanism that improves signal acquisition or estimation technology. They recite the estimation result at a high level and place it in the environment of biological sensing.
Because claims 1–5, and 8 fail Prong Two, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept Analysis
Step 2B asks whether the additional elements, individually and in ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the recited exception itself. Here they do not. The additional elements are broad computing, input, sensing, and output components used as the vehicle for the claimed estimation, not a claimed non-ordinary arrangement that changes the eligibility result. As relevant to claim 1, the record further shows that using pressure on a screen to supply a depth-like or z-axis input was already used in touch-interface technology before the filing date, so claim 1 does not supply an inventive concept by using pressure magnitude to designate body depth for the later estimation.
Evaluation of Independent Claim 1 Additional Elements
The recitation of the terminal apparatus, memory, and processor does not provide significantly more. The specification describes the terminal apparatus as a smartphone, tablet, smartwatch, game machine, television receiver, or dedicated apparatus, which shows that claim 1 uses broad computing hardware to carry out the estimation. Refer par. 0018
The recitation of detect a magnitude of pressure generated by a user operation at a position on a screen and then designate a coordinate in a depth direction of a body of a subject based on the detected magnitude of pressure does not provide significantly more. The prior art record establishes that mapping touch-screen pressure to a z-axis depth coordinate was standard industry practice at the time of the invention:
EP2241955A1 equates touch pressure with depth, disclosing an interface where position... is defined by means of a x-position, a y-position and a z-position wherein the z-position "corresponds to a direction down into or up from the screen" dictated entirely by how much pressure a user applies,(par.0044).
US20120105358A1 corroborates conventional z-axis selection, disclosing a touch screen display... that detects touch information in three-dimensions, i.e., along the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis (par. 0028) to differentiate between "a foreground object and a background object (Claim 35) based directly on the magnitude of force applied (par.0004).
US10222891B1 demonstrates conventional layered depth navigation, disclosing a 3D layered user interface where a user select[s] one of a plurality of display layers by applying a predefined level of contact pressure,(Col. 70, ll. 40-67" utilizing "3D depth cues (Col. 71, ll. 15-30) to visually indicate movement through those layers as pressure changes.
These references show that screen pressure being used to denote z-direction or layered depth was already in the art. Claim 1 uses that known pressure-to-depth input only to set the parameter for the recited sound-field estimation, not as a new input mechanism.
The recitation of the plurality of sensors whose positions are substantially fixedly maintained with respect to the body and the output step does not provide significantly more. The specification states that as the sensor 101, any sensor may be used as long as it can obtain information regarding the body of the subject (par. 0013). That disclosure confirms that the claims use broad sensing and output components as the source and destination of data for the estimation.
Considered together, these elements still do not amount to significantly more. The combination remains a terminal that receives user-selected screen position and pressure-derived depth, uses sensor-derived biological information to perform the recited estimation, and outputs the estimated result. The added pressure-to-depth feature does not change the Step 2B result because pre-filing interface art already used screen pressure as a z-axis or layered-depth selection input, and claim 1 uses that known input role only as part of the claimed estimation framework.
Dependent Claims Analysis
Claims 2–5 and 8 only further narrow the same estimation framework by specifying selected-sensor emphasis, directional emphasis, regional emphasis, or location-based estimation. They do not add new hardware or a new implementation detail that changes the Step 2B result. Specifically, Claim 8 lacks an inventive concept. The limitation to "adjust signal transmission characteristics" via depth coordinates applies a conventional control input. It recites no specific technical mechanism.
As a whole, claims 1–5 and 8 remain directed to a mathematical concept implemented with broad computing, input, sensing, and output components, and therefore do not add significantly more than the exception itself.
Claims 1–5 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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) 1-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20110137209A1-Lahiji et al. and further in view of US20080094367A1- Van De Ven et al.
Claim 1.
Lahji teaches, A terminal apparatus comprising: (Lahji, par. 0054)
a memory; (Lahji, par. 0054)
and a processor connected to the memory. (Lahji, par. 0042, 0054)
wherein the processor is configured to: (Lahji, par. 0042, 0044, 0054)
or medical professional, or remotely, such as from a remote server, or indirect such as when the various organs are sequentially scanned for sounds, par. 0018; auscultation function 46 which may be used by the patient or physician to indicate to the unit the desired sound to acquire, par. 0045.)
designate a coordinate; (Lahji, the beam gaze to be virtually steerable so as to focus on desired sounds from specific organs of the body, par. 0018; The entire three-dimensional space is scanned as desired, par. 0050.)
perform sound field estimation to estimate biological information at a three-dimensional position ; (Lahji, electronic spatial scanning, virtual focusing, noise rejection, feature extraction and de-convolution of different sounds, par. 0013-0018; the signals add constructively i.e., add up in the desired direction and destructively i.e., cancel each other in other directions, par. 0056; The entire three-dimensional space is scanned as desired, par. 0050.)
output the estimated biological information based on biological information obtained by a plurality of sensors of which positions are substantially fixedly maintained with respect to the body of the subject. (Lahji, plurality of microphones ... held in an array configuration by a support, par. 0014; adhesive 54 may be disposed to aid in the attachment or affixing of the device to the patient, par. 0046; wireless transmission circuitry sends information relating to the sounds in the body, par. 0017.)
The limitation requires the processor to output an estimated biological signal that is derived from multiple sensors whose positions are held stable against the subject's body during measurement. Lahji's plurality of microphones ... held in an array configuration by a support on a wearable adhesive patch, combined with wireless transmission circuitry that sends the processed sound information onward to the terminal, reads directly on outputting estimated biological information from a plurality of sensors whose positions are fixedly maintained on the body the adhesive patch is the exact fixation mechanism that meets the BRI.
Obvious Rationales:
Lahji teaches a terminal apparatus that receives local user-driven target selection, as shown by Target selection may be either direct, such as when input locally by the user or medical professional, par. 0018, and personal communication device 134, e.g., PDA, cell phone, graphics enabled display, tablet computer, par. 0054. Lahji's local user input at a PDA or tablet terminal functionally reads on the user-operation-at-a-position portion of the limitation because the handheld device receives user-driven coordinate selection for beam-steering targets.
However, Lahji does not teach detect a magnitude of pressure generated by a user operation at a position on a screen of the terminal apparatus. Van de Ven teaches this missing feature, as shown by Sensor 108 detects the magnitude of the pressure applied by user 110 to screen 106, par. 0016, and the touch screen is capable of processing input data representative of the touch location relative to the screen as well as input data representative of a force or pressure that the user exerts on the touch screen, par. 0005. Van de Ven's pressure sensor and pressure-sensitive touch screen jointly quantify both the touch location and the force magnitude, supplying the screen-plus-pressure input channel Lahji lacks.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before filing would have combined Lahji with Van de Ven to enrich Lahji's target-selection interface by implementing it on Van de Ven's pressure-sensitive touch screen positioned over display monitor 104, par. 0016, because Lahji's terminal is already a PDA, cell phone, graphics enabled display, tablet computer, par. 0054, and Van de Ven's screen is expressly accommodated in a cell phone, a remote control device or another handheld device, par. 0008, matching Lahji's form factor one-to-one. Doing so would have predictably added a continuous force-magnitude channel to Lahji's handheld target-selection interface without altering either reference's core function.
designate a coordinate
Lahji teaches designation of a 3D target coordinate within the body, as shown by the beam gaze to be virtually steerable so as to focus on desired sounds from specific organs of the body, par. 0018, and The entire three-dimensional space is scanned as desired, par. 0050. Lahji's steerable virtual focus already produces a selectable 3D target point inside the body, reading on the designate-a-coordinate-in-the-body portion of the limitation.
However, Lahji does not teach deriving that coordinate based on the detected magnitude of pressure; Lahji drives its target from progressive electronic phase shift, par. 0058, not user-applied force. Van de Ven teaches converting a detected pressure magnitude into a continuous parameter value, as shown by the image is being scaled dependent on a value of a pressure registered by the touch screen, par. 0006, abstract, and a specific range of pressure values determines a specific scale, par. 0017.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before filing would have combined Lahji with Van de Ven to assign the depth axis of Lahji's three-dimensional space, par. 0050, to Van de Ven's value of a pressure registered by the touch screen, par. 0006, because Lahji supports arbitrary 3D target selection and Van de Ven's pressure-to-scale mapping is a general, direction-agnostic rule that a POSITA applies to any selectable continuous range. Doing so would have predictably produced one-finger Z-axis control that complements the X-Y screen coordinates already available on the combined handheld terminal.
perform sound field estimation to estimate biological information at a three-dimensional position ;
Lahji teaches sound field estimation at a 3D target point inside the body, as shown by electronic spatial scanning, virtual focusing, noise rejection, feature extraction and de-convolution of different sounds, par. 0015, the signals add constructively i.e., add up in the desired direction and destructively i.e., cancel each other in other directions, par. 0056, and The entire three-dimensional space is scanned as desired, par. 0050. Lahji's constructive/destructive phase combination across the microphone array is sound field estimation in the BRI sense because the DSP computes the acoustic value at a selectable 3D location from the multi-sensor array data precisely the compute-sound-field-at-3D-point function the limitation requires.
However, Lahji does not teach that the 3D position is defined by the position on the screen and the coordinate in the depth direction;
Van de Ven teaches the missing dual-channel screen-plus-pressure input structure, as shown by the touch screen is capable of processing input data representative of the touch location relative to the screen as well as input data representative of a force or pressure that the user exerts on the touch screen, par. 0005, and Sensor 108 detects the magnitude of the pressure applied by user 110 to screen 106, par. 0016. Van de Ven's single touch interaction simultaneously produces a 2D screen coordinate and a scalar pressure value from the same finger contact, supplying the two input channels Lahji lacks for defining a 3D target point.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before filing would have combined Lahji with Van de Ven to parameterize Lahji's virtually steerable beam target, par. 0018, directly from Van de Ven's dual-channel touch the touch location, par. 0005, feeding Lahji's X-Y steering angles and the magnitude of the pressure, par. 0016, feeding the depth parameter because Lahji expressly invites user-driven target selection through input locally by the user or medical professional, par. 0018, on a PDA, cell phone, graphics enabled display, tablet computer, par. 0054, and Van de Ven's pressure-sensitive screen is accommodated in ... a cell phone, a remote control device or another handheld device, par. 0008, matching Lahji's terminal exactly. Doing so would have predictably produced a one-finger 3D selection interface that routes each touch's location into Lahji's XY beam-steering angles and each touch's pressure into Lahji's depth parameter, yielding a sound field estimate at the 3D point the combination defines.
Claim 2
Lahji with Van de Ven teaches The terminal apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
emphasize biological information in which biological information obtained by one or more sensors corresponding to the position in the body among the plurality of sensors more than biological information obtained by other sensors is output; Lahji, three inner microphones are arranged in an imaginary circle for detection of lung Sounds, whereas the three outer microphones are arranged in an imaginary circle for detection of heart sounds, par. 0049; the signals add constructively i.e., add up in the desired direction and destructively i.e., cancel each other in other directions, par. 0055-0056.
Claim 3
Lahji with Van de Ven teaches The terminal apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
generate and output biological information wherein biological information obtained from a first direction including the position designed by a user is emphasized more than biological information obtained from a second direction based on the biological information obtained by the plurality of sensors of which the positions are substantially fixedly maintained with respect to the body of the subject; Lahji, the beam gaze to be virtually steerable so as to focus on desired sounds from specific organs of the body, par. 0018; steering the beam in y-Z plane by changing the electronic phase φ from 0° to 60° in a three-element array, par. 0038; Target selection may be either direct, such as when input locally by the user, par. 0018.
The limitation requires the processor to produce a directional output that amplifies signals arriving from the user-designated direction and attenuates signals arriving from other directions. Lahji's virtually steerable beam gaze plus user-driven target selection is directional beamforming the phase-shift parameter φ rotates the array's sensitivity toward the chosen direction so that signals from that direction are emphasized while signals from other directions are rejected.
Claim 4
Lahji with Van de Ven teaches The terminal apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
generate and output biological information in which biological information having a first region including the position received as a first generation source is emphasized more than biological information having as a first generation source is emphasized more than biological information having based on the biological information obtained by the plurality of sensors of which the positions are substantially fixedly maintained with respect to the body of the subject; Lahji, De-convolver 110 serves to de-convolve the multiple sounds received from the body. The de-convolution may de-convolve heart sounds from lung sounds, or GI sounds, par. 0052; Sounds from a particular organ, e.g., the heart, may be even further de-convolved ... into the well know cardiac Sounds, including but not limited to first beat S1, second beat S2, sounds associated with the various valves, par. 0052; The entire three-dimensional space is scanned as desired, par. 0050.
The limitation required biological information whose source region contains the user-designated position more than biological information whose source lies outside that region. Lahji's de-convolver separates sounds by source region heart versus lung versus GI and further isolates sub-regions inside a single organ such as individual heart valves, which is region-based source emphasis keyed to a targeted location within the 3D body space that Lahji's array scans.
Claim 5
Lahji with Van de Ven teaches, The terminal apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
estimate and output in a case where a sensor is present in a region including the position in the body biological information to be captured by the sensor based on the biological information obtained by the plurality of sensors of which the positions are substantially fixedly maintained with respect to the body of the subject; Lahji, By using a DSP chip and combining the outputs from a multi-microphone array in any desired fashion, a single virtually-focused microphone with steerable gaze is achieved, par. 0044; the auscultation piece is placed in a single location and captures multiple sounds of interest ... rather than moving the piece regularly as is the case in prior art systems, par. 0055.
The limitation requires the processor to produce, from the real sensor array, an estimate of the signal that a sensor positioned at the target location would have captured. Lahji's single virtually-focused microphone is precisely this estimate the DSP combines the real microphone outputs to synthesize the signal a single stethoscope head would have captured had it been physically placed at the targeted body location, eliminating the need to physically move a sensor to that location.
Claim 8
Lahji with Van de Ven teaches, The terminal apparatus according to claim 1, wherein to perform the sound field estimation, the processor is configured to adjust signal transmission characteristics of the biological information obtained by the plurality of sensors based on the designated coordinate in the depth direction to simulate physical auscultation at varying depths within the body; Lahji, The number of the elements to be utilized and their respective phase shift is programmed as desired, par. 0059; electronic spatial scanning, virtual focusing, noise rejection, and deconvolution of different sounds, par. 0014-0015.
The limitation requires the processor to modify the signal's transmission characteristics for example, frequency response or sound transmission profile as a function of the pressure-derived depth coordinate, in order to mimic the acoustic behavior a physical stethoscope exhibits when pressed against the body with varying force.
Lahji teaches sound field estimation with programmable signal-characteristic adjustment, as shown by electronic spatial scanning, virtual focusing, noise rejection, feature extraction and de-convolution of different sounds, par. 0013-0015, and By using a DSP chip and combining the outputs from a multi-microphone array in any desired fashion, a single virtually-focused microphone with steerable gaze is achieved, par. 0044. Lahji's DSP already applies phase, gain, and filtering adjustments to the multi-sensor stream, performing the adjust-transmission-characteristics function the limitation requires.
However, Lahji does not teach keying those adjustments to the designated coordinate in the depth direction to simulate physical auscultation at varying depths within the body;
Van de Ven teaches parameter adjustment driven by a pressure-derived value, as shown by the system has an operational mode wherein a scale of the image is dependent on a value of a pressure registered by the touch screen, abstract, par. 0006. Van de Ven's generalized pressure-dependency rule supplies the linkage Lahji lacks one processing parameter made a function of the pressure-derived value.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before filing would have combined Lahji with Van de Ven to make Lahji's DSP parameter adjustments a function of Van de Ven's pressure-derived value, because Van de Ven expressly teaches that the image is being scaled dependent on a value of a pressure registered by the touch screen, abstract, par. 0006, and frames this as a general pressure-to-parameter rule where a specific range of pressure values determines a specific scale, par. 0017. Lahji in turn expressly discloses that The number of the elements to be utilized and their respective phase shift is programmed as desired, par. 0059, and that the DSP performs electronic spatial scanning, virtual focusing, noise rejection, feature extraction and de-convolution of different sounds, par. 0013-0015 a set of continuously tunable parameters ready to accept an external control value. A POSITA designing a handheld auscultation terminal has express motivation from Van de Ven at par. 0008 to accommodate the pressure-sensitive input in ... a cell phone, a remote control device or another handheld device, which is the exact Lahji terminal class disclosed at par. 0054. Routing Van de Ven's pressure-dependent parameter value into Lahji's already-programmable DSP filter and phase parameters is a direct application of known methods to known elements yielding a predictable result depth-dependent signal-characteristic adjustment on the combined handheld terminal.
Conclusion
Relevant Prior Arts:
Bell et al., US 9141259 B2, Teaches the pressure-magnitude-to-depth-coordinate mapping specifically within a body model (Col. 3, ll. 14-31)
US 20190104997- KANG, An apparatus for measuring bio-information includes a pulse wave measurer configured to measure a pulse wave signal from a first region of an object; a contact pressure extractor including a touch screen and configured to obtain a contact pressure signal, indicating a contact pressure between the first region and the pulse wave measurer, based on touch data that is generated based on a second region of the object being in contact with the touch screen; and a processor configured to measure bio-information of the object based on the pulse wave signal and the contact pressure signal. (abstract)
US 20140100469 Sagalovich, allow the physician better control the sensors located at various locations with respect to the patient's body. In accordance with another embodiment, a touch screen arrangement allows the physician to visualize the patient's body with the worn vest. The physician is then enabled to press on the various locations on the image corresponding to the sensors located on the corresponding positions on the patient's body. In accordance with another embodiment, the physician may change the pressure on the screen by pressing his fingers harder or softer on the screen so as to visually control the amount of pressure is being exerted by the bladders located in the vicinity of the pressure sensed on the display screen. (par. 0008), … At step 328 physician touches near a desired location that the detection of sounds are intended. At step 330 the corresponding bladders of vest 10 that are proximate to the location of the body corresponding to the areas the physician has touched on the display screen begin to inflate. As the inflation of the bladders continues, at step 332, the physician listens to the corresponding sounds generated by the stethoscope near the desired locations. As mentioned before, all the sounds retrieved from the vest are also stored in a database location for later retrieval, replay and analysis.(par. 0063)
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 JOSHUA DAMIAN RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0409. The examiner can normally be reached 0800-1800.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/JOSHUA DAMIAN RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights