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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 03, 2023 and August 14, 2024 and March 20 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities
Sensor 101 seems only to be found in figures 1A-1C. It does not appear to be found in the assemblies shown in later drawings as indicated in the specification.
Item number 102 seems to be used for both a computer system and also for a sensor, both in the specification and the drawings
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities
Item 102 is used for computer systems in Figures 1A-1C as well as sensors in figures 2A and 2C.
Item 101 is not shown in Figures 2A-2C although it is as indicated as such in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 4 and 11 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.
Claim 1 recites “the membrane”. The phrase is lacking antecedent basis since there was no mention of it prior in the claim. The specification seems to use the word “membrane” interchangeably with “diaphragm”. For the purpose of further claim analysis the term “the membrane” will be assumed to read “a membrane” in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the processor” and is dependent on claims 2 and 1. The phrase is lacking antecedent basis since there was no mention of it prior in the claims 1,2 and 4. For the purpose of further claim analysis the phrase “the processor” in claim 4 will be assumed to read “a processor” in claim 4.
Claim 11 recites the phrases “a connector connecting the voice coil component to the magnet component” and again “the connector”. These phrases are not explained clearly in the specification. Nor is the mentioned connector shown in the drawings. Nor is there any indication in the drawings of how this voice coil to magnet connection is implemented. The general configuration in the art for dynamic acoustic transducers is for the voice coil wiring to have flexible leads brought out from the voice coil and onto the transducer housing for an accessible external electrical connection to another device. This wiring is generally not attached on, connected to or otherwise in any contact with, a transducer magnet. For the purpose of further claim analysis the phrase “a connector connecting the voice coil component to the magnet component” will be read as “voice coil connection wiring” in claim 11. For the purpose of further claim analysis the phrase “the connector” will be read as “the voice coil connection wiring” in claim 11.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 17-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura (U.S Patent Application No. 2016/0234594A1) in view of Abeyratne (U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0073306 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ogura teaches: A system... the system comprising: a sensing device (Par 0124: “...the acoustic transducers 110a and 110b sense respective vibration of the diaphragm...”) comprising: a support member (Fig.5(b), Frame 108) defining an aperture (Fig.5(b), Frame 108 has an aperture on the top side.), a diaphragm extending across the aperture such that at least a portion of the diaphragm covers the aperture (Fig.5(b), Diaphragm 107 covers the aperture of Frame 108.), and a sensor connected to the support member (Fig.5 (b) Acoustic transducers 110a or 110b sensing sound and connected to Frame 108.) or the membrane (Figs.18(a) and 19, Microphone connected to front surface cover, also known as a membrane, through which sound waves pass.) and configured to convert movement of the diaphragm to electric signal data (Par 0108: “...the diaphragm vibrates to collect a sound. In the microphone according to the embodiment, the collected sound is converted into an electric signal by the acoustic transducer 3 accommodated inside the frame...”; Par 0124: “...the acoustic transducers 110a and 110b sense respective vibration of the diaphragm...”).
Ogura fails to teach: A system for non-contact monitoring of acoustic signals associated with a body.
However, Abeyratne teaches: A system for non-contact monitoring of acoustic signals associated with a body (Par 0162: “In this work, we recorded the cough from children in a pediatric ward in Indonesia using a non-contact sensor.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of ‘a system for non-contact monitoring of acoustic signals associated with a body’ in Ogura’s invention as taught by Abeyratne’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would be to simplify deployment of the sensor and to reduce infections (Abeyratne, Par 0162: “a non-contact sensor is preferable for this purposes because of the ease of deployment and infection control.”).
Regarding claim 3, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: The system of claim 1.
Abeyratne teaches: further comprising a computing system (Fig.1, Computer System 52), including a processor (Fig.1, Proc 70), communicatively coupled to the sensing device (Fig.1, Microphones 53 and 55 connected to processor system 51, 50, 68 and 70) and configured to execute a method for determining a bodily condition of the body (Par 0001: “...method and apparatus for diagnosing disease states from patient sounds such as cough sounds.”) based on the electric signal data (Par 0088: “The cough recording system consisted of low-noise microphones 53, 55...”; Note that microphones convert acoustic waves, such as from a person coughing, into electrical signal data).
Regarding claim 6, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: The system of claim 3.
Abeyratne teaches: wherein the method for determining a bodily condition based on the electric signal comprises executing a trained machine learning algorithm (Par 0033: “The step of classifying the segments may include training an artificial neural network with features of the data set of pre-recorded cough sounds...).
Regarding claim 7, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: ‘The system of’ claim 1.
Ogura teaches: ‘wherein the support member is a frame (Fig.5(b), Frame 108) having a first side (Fig.5(b), Frame 108 has a side on the top.) and a second side (Fig.5(b) Frame 108 has a side on the bottom.) and the aperture extends through the frame (Fig.5(b) Frame 108 has a aperture on top side extending through the frame through leak holes 114a and 114b) between the first side (Fig.5(b), Frame 108, side on the top.) and the second side (Fig.5(b) Frame 108, side on the bottom.), wherein the diaphragm covers the aperture (Fig.5(b), Diaphragm 107 covers aperture.) on one of the first side and the second side (Fig.5 (b) Diaphragm 107 covers aperture on the top side)’.
Regarding claim 8, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: The system of claim 7.
Ogura teaches: further comprising a back cover to cover the aperture on the other of the first side and the second side (Fig.6, Horizontal member of the bottom side of frame 115 covers the aperture on the bottom side, while the diaphragm 118a or 118b covers the aperture on the top side).
Regarding claim 9, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: The system of claim 7.
Ogura teaches: wherein the diaphragm is configured to seal the aperture (Fig.6, Diaphragm 118a or b, with sealing members 119a or b).
Regarding claim 10, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: ‘The system of’ claim 1.
Ogura teaches: ‘wherein the support member comprises a frame (Fig.6, Frame 115) having a first side (Fig.6, Frame 115 has a side on the top.) and a second side (Fig.6, Frame 115 has a side on the bottom.), wherein the aperture is formed in one of the first side and the second side (Fig.6, Frame 115 has an aperture in the top side.) and does not extend therethrough (Fig.6, Horizontal member of the bottom side of Frame 115 covers aperture on the bottom side with no aperture extension passing therethrough.)’.
Regarding claim 17, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: ‘The system of’ claim 1.
Ogura teaches: ‘further comprising a plurality of sensors (Par 0122: “A plurality of partition walls and a plurality of acoustic transducers may be configured to be disposed.”) arranged as an array relative to the support member (Fig.5(a), Transducers 110a and 110b shown arrayed within the frame 108)’.
Regarding claim 18, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: The system of claim 17.
Ogura teaches: wherein each sensor of the plurality of sensors is supported by a respective support member (Fig.5(b) and (a), Transducer 110a has a Support Member of Frame 108 on the left, and Transducer 110b has a Support Member of Frame 108 on right).
Regarding claim 19, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: The system of claim 17.
Ogura teaches: wherein each sensor of the plurality of sensors is configured to detect a different frequency range of acoustic signals (Par 0122: “A plurality of partition walls and a plurality of acoustic transducers may be configured to be disposed.” Generally, a plurality of transducers can consist of transducers with different characteristics. Such as each transducer having its own frequency range for the received acoustic signals; and this range then being different from the ranges of the other transducers.).
Regarding claim 20, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: The system of claim 17.
Ogura teaches: wherein the diaphragm is connected to each support member (Fig.6, Dia 118a or b connected to support members) to close (Fig.6, Dia 118a or b closing off each aperture.) or fluidly seal a respective aperture (Fig.6, Dia 118a or b fluidly sealing each aperture.).
Regarding claim 21, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: The system of claim 17.
Ogura teaches: wherein the diaphragm is connected to an outer mount (Fig.5(b), Diaphragm107 shown connected to the outer mount of Frame 108) which contains the support members (Fig.5(b), Frame 108) of the plurality of sensors (Fig.5(b), Transducers 110a and b.).
Regarding claim 22, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: ‘The system of’ claim 1.
Ogura teaches: ‘wherein the sensing device further comprises a front cover connected to the support member and covering the diaphragm (Fig.13(d) Cover 203 connected to Support Member 209 and covering Diaphragm 206)’.
Regarding claim 23, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: ‘The system of’ claim 1.
Ogura teaches: ‘wherein the sensor (Fig.4, Mic 3) is positioned relative to the diaphragm (Fig.4, Diaphragm 1) by one or more supports extending from the frame (Fig.4, Support for Microphone 3 extends from the frame and is positioned relative to Diaphragm 1)’.
Regarding claim 26, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: a system defined in claim 1.
Abeyratne teaches: ‘A method for non-contact monitoring of acoustic signals associated with a body (Par 0162: “In this work, we recorded the cough from children in a pediatric ward in Indonesia using a non-contact sensor.”), the method executed by a processor of (Fig.1, Processor 70)’ and ‘the method comprising: obtaining vibroacoustic data (Par 0090: “The microphones pick up sounds, e.g. cough sounds, from the subject 42 lying on bed 40.”) detected by the sensing device of claim 1 (Fig.1, Microphones 53 and 55.) operatively communicable with the processor (Fig.1, Microphones 53 and 55 connected to processor 70 through 51, 50, 68 and 70); extracting, from the detected vibroacoustic signal (Par 0090: “The microphones pick up sounds...”), a vibroacoustic signal component originating from the subject (Par 0022: “...extracting features from segments of said patient sounds...”); and characterizing presence or absence of a bodily condition of the body (Par 0001: “...method and apparatus for diagnosing disease states...”) based at least in part on the extracted vibroacoustic signal component (Par 0001: “...from patient sounds such as cough sounds.”)’.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura (U.S Patent Application No. 2016/0234594A1), in view of Abeyratne (U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0073306 A1) and in further view of Orenstein (2018/0292523A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is configured to detect acoustic signals.
Ogura fails to teach: having a frequency ranging from about 0.01 Hz to at least about 160 kHz.
Orenstein teaches: having a frequency ranging from about 0.01 Hz to at least about 160 kHz (Par 0084: “The ultrasonic waves 123 of the sonar module 120 are preferably in the frequency range of 40-200 KHz.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of ‘having a frequency ranging from about 0.01 Hz to at least about 160 kHz’ in Ogura’s invention as taught by Orenstein’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would be to have a reliable monitoring of medical indication while maintaining privacy and without harmful radiation exposure. (Orenstein, Par0008: “It would therefore be advantageous to have a monitoring system capable of a reliable, continuously remote monitoring of activity patterns and medical indications in a “noisy” environment, such that the subject privacy is not compromised and without exposure to harmful radiation.”).
Regarding claim 4, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, in further view of Orenstein, teaches the following: The system of claim 2.
Abeyratne teaches: wherein the processor (Fig.1, Processor 70) is configured to filter the electric signal data to remove electric data not associated with the body (Par 0101: “In order to reduce the background noise b[n9 , we processed r[n] through two different filters...”), the determining the bodily condition (Par 0001: “...method and apparatus for diagnosing disease states from patient sounds such as cough sounds.”) being based on the filtered electric signal data (Par 0090: “The microphones pick up sounds, e.g. cough sounds, from the subject 42 lying on bed 40.”).
Regarding claim 5, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, in further vies of Orenstein, teaches the following: The system of claim 4.
Abeyratne teaches: wherein the body is a human or animal subject (Par 0001: “...method and apparatus for diagnosing disease states from patient sounds...” Patients are generally understood to be human or animal.), and the filtering the electric signal data comprises the processor removing electric signal data which is not associated with a physiological parameter of the human or animal subject (Par 0101: “In order to reduce the background noise b[n9 , we processed r[n] through two different filters...”).
Regarding claim 24, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, in further vies of Orenstein, teaches the following: The system of claim 2.
Abeyratne teaches: further comprising at least one additional sensor communicatively coupled to the processor (Fig.1, Microphones 53 and 55, both connected to the processor 70).
Regarding claim 25, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, in further vies of Orenstein, teaches the following: The system of claim 24.
Ogura teaches: wherein the at least one additional sensor is selected from a heat sensor, a humidity sensor, a barometric pressure sensor, an ambient noise sensor (Par 0112: “...the acoustic transducer can perform signal processing such as noise suppression...”), an ambient light sensor, an ultrasound sensor, an altitude sensor, a camera, a volatile organic compound sensor, ACG, BCG, ECG, EMG, EOG, SCG, and UTI. (Abeyratne also discloses the inclusion of a number of patient sensors, Par 0094: “The computational device may also be interfaced to a number of patient sensors such as a movement sensor; EEG sensor; Oxygen level sensor, breathing detection sensor, temperature sensor for example.”).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura (U.S Patent Application No. 2016/0234594A1) in view of Abeyratne (U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0073306 A1) and in further view of Ugaji (U.S. Patent No. 4281223A).
Regarding claim 11, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: ‘The system of’ claim 1.
Ogura does not teach: ‘wherein the sensor comprises: a voice coil component comprising a coil holder supporting wire windings; a magnet component comprising a magnet supported by a magnet housing, the magnet having a magnet gap configured to receive at least a portion of the voice coil component in a spaced and moveable manner; a connector connecting the voice coil component to the magnet component, the connector being compliant and permitting relative movement of the voice coil component; wherein one of the voice coil component and the magnet component is connected to the diaphragm such that movement of the diaphragm induces a relative movement between the voice coil component and the magnet component’.
However Ugaji teaches: wherein the sensor (Col 3, Ln 50-51: “...the transducer can be a microphone...”) comprises: a voice coil component comprising a coil holder supporting wire windings (Fig.6, Voice Coil 46 on Bobbin 47); a magnet component comprising a magnet supported by a magnet housing (Fig.6, Magnet 43 and Magnetic Circuit 80 on Frame 40), the magnet having a magnet gap configured to receive at least a portion of the voice coil component in a spaced and moveable manner (Fig.6, Gap 45 provides space for the movement of Voice Coil 46 as is typical in a dynamic acoustic transducer.); a connector connecting the voice coil component to the magnet component (Fig.7, Shows voice coil connection wiring available to be brought out to a point on the speaker housing.), the connector being compliant and permitting relative movement of the voice coil component (Fig.7. Shows a flowing voice coil connection wiring, indicating flexible conductors, which are typical of dynamic acoustic transducers and allow for movement of the voice coil.); wherein one of the voice coil component and the magnet component is connected to the diaphragm (Fig.6, Coil 46 and Bobbin 47 are shown connected to the Diaphragm 42) such that movement of the diaphragm induces a relative movement between the voice coil component and the magnet component (Fig 6, Movement of Diaphragm 42 will cause a movement of Voice Coil 46 inside the Gap 45 and relative to fixed Magnet 43, as is typical of a dynamic acoustic transducer).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of ‘wherein the sensor comprises: a voice coil component comprising a coil holder supporting wire windings; a magnet component comprising a magnet supported by a magnet housing, the magnet having a magnet gap configured to receive at least a portion of the voice coil component in a spaced and moveable manner; a connector connecting the voice coil component to the magnet component, the connector being compliant and permitting relative movement of the voice coil component; wherein one of the voice coil component and the magnet component is connected to the diaphragm such that movement of the diaphragm induces a relative movement between the voice coil component and the magnet component’ in Ogura’s invention as taught by Ugaji’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would be to have a vibrating structure for the acoustic transducer that is light weight and heat resistant (Ugaji, Col 2, Ln 53-55: “...to provide an electro-acoustic transducer having an improved vibratory structure that is light weight and heat-resistant.”).
Regarding claim 12, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, and in further view of Ugaji, teaches the following: The system of claim 11.
Ugaji teaches: wherein the diaphragm is attached to the voice coil component (Fig.6, Diaphragm 42 attached to Bobbin 47 and Voice Coil 46) and the wire windings are spaced from the diaphragm (Fig.6, Voice Coil 46 is spaced from Diaphragm 42).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura (U.S Patent Application No. 2016/0234594A1) in view of Abeyratne (U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0073306 A1) and in further view of Smith (U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0028433 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: ‘The system of’ claim 1.
Ogura does not teach: ‘wherein the sensor comprises an electric potential sensor which is attached to the support member and spaced from the diaphragm’.
However Smith teaches: wherein the sensor comprises an electric potential sensor (Par 0044: “This field can then be detected by a transducer designed to detect voltage or electric field potentials.”) which is attached to the support member and spaced from the diaphragm (Fig. 20, Transducer 152 is spaced from Diaphragm 202 and attached to Housing 201).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of ‘wherein the sensor comprises an electric potential sensor which is attached to the support member and spaced from the diaphragm’ in Ogura’s invention as taught by Smith’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would be to have reduced noise (Smith, Par 0010: “The present invention provides for the cancellation of noise signals at the capacitive transducer...”).
Regarding claim 14, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne and in further view of Smith, teaches the following: The system of claim 13.
Smith teaches: wherein the electric potential sensor is positioned in a cavity of the aperture (Fig.20, Transducer Element is shown inside the cavity of the aperture), or outside of the cavity (Fig.20, Wiring can be pass through the housing 201 to allow Transducer Element to be outside of cavity).
Regarding claim 15, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne and in further view of Smith, teaches the following: The system of claim 13.
Smith teaches: further comprising a conductive layer on the diaphragm (Fig.1, Conductive Surface 4 on Diaphragm 2).
Regarding claim 16, Ogura, in view of Abeyratne, teaches the following: ‘The system of’ claim 1.
Smith teaches: ‘whereon the sensor is one or more selected from: a voice-coil type sensor, an electric potential sensor (Par 0044: “This field can then be detected by a transducer designed to detect voltage or electric field potentials.”), a capacitive sensor (Par 0085: “...diaphragm 2 forms one plate of a capacitive sensor...”), a magnetic field disturbance sensor, a photodetector and light source, a strain sensor, an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), and an acoustic echo doppler (Par 0117: “This invention covers capacitive, magnetic and optical transducer means...”)’.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andres Lavin whose telephone number is 571-272-7628. The examiner can normally be reached.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards, can be reached on 571-270-7136. 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.
/Andres Lavin/
Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights