DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the addition of a microphone and a processor makes the invention not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The processor and microphone are recited at a high level of generality and merely use the computer elements (the processor and microphone) as a tool. When analyzed under step 2a, prong 2, the processor and microphone perform generic computer functions like receiving, storing and processing data. Further, when the analysis is extended to step 2b, the processor and microphone are considered to use the computer elements as tools, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Finally, obtaining an audio recording of a heartbeat using generic elements, determining a pattern, determining a window based on the audio pattern and excluding windows that do not have a pattern can easily be done in the human mind with modeling done using pen and paper. Thus, the claims are considered to be patent ineligible subject matter. Therefore, the rejections stand. It is noted that the claims are directed toward a system that only finds a window length and then does not use it for anything. The system provides no prophylaxis or treatment. The fact that the claims are directed toward a digital stethoscope provides not patentable weight as the processor is external and the claims are only directed toward data manipulation using the external processor.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/30/25, with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 and 103 rejections of the prior action have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claim 1
Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-17 are drawn to a device and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2a (prong 1) - Claim 1
Claims 1 recites the step of “determining audio patterns” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step covers a concept capable of being performed in the human mind, and thus falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the method is “computer-implemented” in the preamble, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2a (prong 2) – Claim 1
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
receiving an audio signal is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering),
Determining audio patterns is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering),
Determining a window length is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering).
These steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2b- Claim 1
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, providing a (window length) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data). Further, receiving an audio signal comprising the acoustic signal is considered data gathering. It is noted that the first and second electrodes are recited at a high level of generality.
The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional when considered individually and in combination with evidence provided. Specifically:
Obtaining, by use of a microphone, an audio signal is well understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Determining, by use of a processor, the audio patterns is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Determining, by use of a processor, a window length of the acoustic signal is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Windowing a signal is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 1 is thus consider to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-17 depend from claim 1. The type of data analyzed as stated in claims 2-4 and 6-17 is considered extra solution activity. Claim 5 is directed to the extra solution activity of presenting the data. Thus, the dependent claim do not change the overall analysis that claims 2-17 are also directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 20 and 21
Independent claims 20 and 21 contain limitations similar to claims 1 and 18 and is rejected as patent ineligible subject matter.
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 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 phrase “the processor is an external processor or a processor of a smart device” renders the claim indefinite because the claim is directed toward a digital stethoscope that includes a microphone and a processor, but then states that the processor is an external processor or a processor of a smart device. It is suggested to rephrase the claim as a digital stethoscope system.
Claims 2-8 and 10-17 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/REX R HOLMES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796