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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10-12 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended. Claims 3-6 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, and 7 have been amended to overcome the objections, claim 1 has been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, and claim 1 has been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on 05 February 2026. Claims 3, 4, and 6 have been cancelled to render the objections and claims 4 and 5 have been cancelled to render the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the Final Office Action moot.
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.
Claim 1 is 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. Claims 2, 7, 8, and 10-12 are further rejected due to their dependency to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the term “a place” in lines 5-6. It is unclear what “a place” is. [0018] of the PGPUB recites “a place” but does not provide further clarification of what “a place” is. Clarification is requested. To aid in prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation “positions a place corresponding to the sensor” as “position the sensor on the auscultation subject.”
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 2, 10, 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.
Claims 2, 10, and 11 recite “a substrate” and “a GND layer.” [0023] of the PGPUB recites that the earth plate, as mentioned in claim 1, is a GND plate. It is unclear if claims 2, 10, and 11 are reciting that the substrate is the earth plate or if the substrate, which is also the GND layer, is different from the earth plate. It is noted that if the substrate/GND layer is different from the earth plate, there may be a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection applied as the specification does not provide support for the substrate/GND layer and the earth plate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukutsuka et al. ‘278 (US Pub No. 2021/0330278 – 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 a place corresponding to the sensor ([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 recessed portion 12 and [0036]; Recessed portion 12 is opposed to the pressure-receiving region 3a.) and a side wall which extends from the upper wall to a direction toward the contact surface (Fig. 4 tapered surface 3c and [0046]; Tapered surface 3c extends from the recessed portion 12 to pressure-receiving region 3a.); and
an earth plate which is provided at one or both of the side wall and the upper wall and exposes to an outside (Fig. 4 region 12c and [0044]; It is noted that because of the “or” language, the claim does not require the earth plate to be provided at both the side wall and the upper wall.).
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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukustuka et al. ‘278 in view of Shue ‘501 (US Patent No. 4,878,501 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Fukustuka et al. ‘278 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 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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukustuka et al. ‘278 in view of Smith ‘847 (US Pub No. 2003/0128847 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Fukustuka et al. ‘278 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the substrate includes a ground (GND) layer.
Smith '847 teaches a transducer for sensing body sounds (Title, Abstract) which includes a housing 1 (Figs. 1, 2). Diaphragm 2 is placed at ground reference potential 55 in a preferred embodiment, since this provides electromagnetic shielding as well as functioning as a capacitive plate ([0076], [0084]).
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 substrate of Fukustuka et al. ‘278 to include a GND layer as Smith '847 teaches that this will aid in providing electromagnetic shielding as well as functioning as a capacitive plate.
Regarding claim 11, Fukustuka et al. ‘278 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for a substrate on which the circuit is mounted and which has a ground (GND) layer,
wherein the earth plate is connected to the ground (GND) layer of the substrate.
Smith '847 teaches a transducer for sensing body sounds (Title, Abstract) which includes a housing 1 (Figs. 1, 2). Diaphragm 2 is placed at ground reference potential 55 in a preferred embodiment, since this provides electromagnetic shielding as well as functioning as a capacitive plate ([0076], [0084]).
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 substrate on which the circuit is mounted of Fukustuka et al. ‘278 to include a GND layer, wherein the earth plate is connected to the ground (GND) layer of the substrate as Smith '847 teaches that this will aid in providing electromagnetic shielding as well as functioning as a capacitive plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Fukustuka et al. ‘278 fails to teach the claimed “earth plate.” However, Applicant fails to distinguish why the region 12c of Fukustuka et al. ‘278 is different from the claimed earth plate. The term “earth plate” is interpreted broadly by the Examiner. It is noted that that the earth plates, as described in [0021] of the PGPUB, is provided at recessed parts, which Fukustuka et al. ‘278 teaches. However, [0023] of the PGPUB provides details as to what the claimed “earth plate” does. Examiner suggests to provide more detail to the earth plate in the independent claim to possibly overcome the art rejections. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection for claim 1 have been maintained.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights