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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 12 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 10 and 11 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 08 June 2026.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claims 2, 7, 8, and 12 are further rejected due to their dependency to claim 1. Claim 1 recites “…positions the sensor on the auscultation subject” in lines 4-5, which is encompassing a human organism. Examiner suggests to amend the limitation to read as “…positions the sensor to contact the auscultation subject.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukustuka et al. ‘278 (US Pub No. 2021/0330278 – previously cited) in view of Smith ‘847 (US Pub No. 2003/0128847 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Fukutsuka et al. ‘278 teaches a stethoscope (Title, Abstract) comprising:
a sensor which collects a sound from an auscultation subject (Fig. 4 sound detector 33 and [0033]);
a circuit ([0032]-[0033]; “integrated control unit”);
an enclosure which stores the sensor and the circuit (Fig. 1 biological sound measurement device 1 and [0030]-[0032]) and has a contact surface which contacts to the auscultation subject (Fig. 3 pressure-receiving region 3a and [0035]) and positions the sensor on the auscultation subject ([0035]; “The pressure-receiving region 3a is a flat surface required for receiving pressure from the body surface S, and the extended region 3b is a flat surface formed around the pressure-receiving region 3a and provided to increase a contact area with the body surface S.”), an upper wall is opposed to the contact surface (Fig. 4 top of housing 32 and [0038]) and a side wall which extends from the upper wall to a direction toward the contact surface (Fig. 4 side of housing 43 and [0038]); and
Fukutsuka et al. ‘278 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for an earth plate which is for earthing and is provided at one or both of the side wall and the upper wall.
Smith '847 teaches a transducer for sensing body sounds (Title, Abstract) which includes a housing 1 (Figs. 1, 2). The housing is preferable placed at ground potential, to act as a shield. Shielding requires that the housing 1 be fabricated from an electrically conductive material, or that a conductive surface by applied to the housing 1. The housing 1 and diaphragm 2 therefore form a shielded cavity for the sensor and electronics ([0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stethoscope of Fukustuka et al. ‘278 to include an earth plate which is for earthing and is provided at one or both of the side wall and the upper wall as Smith '847 teaches that this will aid in forming a shielded cavity for the sensor and electronics.
Regarding claim 2, Fukutsuka et al. ‘278 teaches a substrate on which the circuit is mounted (Fig. 4 tapered surface 3c of sound measurement unit 3 and [0046]; [0032] mentions that the integrated control unit is provided inside the gripping portion 10. [0047] mentions that sound measurement unit 3 and gripping portion 10 partially overlap, indicating integrated control unit, interpreted as the circuit, is mounted on the tapered surface 3c, interpreted as the substrate.),
wherein the enclosure stores the substrate (Tapered surface 3c of sound measurement unit 3 is stored in the biological sound measurement device 1.),
the earth plate is provided at the enclosure which surrounds the circuit (Region 12c is on a side of the biological sound measurement device 1, which surrounds the integrated control unit, which is inside the gripping portion 10.).
Regarding claim 7, Fukustuka et al. ‘278 teaches wherein a signal from the sensor is input to the circuit ([0033]; “…the integrated control unit performs a process of analyzing the pulmonary sound detected by a sound detector 33…”).
Regarding claim 12, Fukustuka et al. ‘278 teaches wherein the sensor has a piezoelectric element ([0038]; “…micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) type microphone or a capacitive microphone…” One of ordinary skill would understand that a microphone is a piezoelectric sensor.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukustuka et al. ‘278 in view of Smith ‘847 further in view of Shue ‘501 (US Patent No. 4,878,501 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Fukustuka et al. ‘278 in view of Smith ‘847 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the circuit includes an amplifier which amplifies a signal from the sensor.
Shue ‘501 teaches an audio signal amplifying device in the circuitry of a electronic stethoscope in the area of conventional art and also self-explanatory for those skilled in the art (Figs. 5, 6 audio signal amplifying device 140 and Column 4 Line 65 – Column 5 Line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified circuit of Fukustuka et al. ‘278 in view of Smith ‘847 to include an amplifier which amplifies a signal from the sensor as Shue ‘501 teaches that this is conventional circuitry for those skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
