DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/27/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejections, the amendments resolve most of the issues. Regarding the 112 issue of sound and vibration, Examiner suggests just using the “sound” term. For example, reciting sensors configured to detect sound produced by one or more locations of a thorax of a patient including characteristic sounds caused by motion of a valve of a heart and configured to produce sound signals representative of the detected sound.
Regarding Darbari, Applicant asserts that since Darbari uses audio sensors to monitor each heart valve, Darbari does not disclose the plurality of sensors for detecting sound and vibration as recited. However, as noted below, sound and vibration are two ways to describe the same physical phenomenon (i.e. acoustic waves). The audio sensors of Darbari read on the recited sensors for detecting sound and vibration.
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 1-20 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 1, 10, 15: It is unclear to recite detecting sound and also vibration, since sound and vibration are two ways to describe the same physical phenomenon (i.e. acoustic waves).
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Darbari (US 2018/0116626).
PNG
media_image1.png
601
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 10, 15, Darbari discloses the same invention as claimed (Figure 14 shown above for example), including a system for monitoring blood flow (abstract) comprising a plurality of spatially separated sensors configured to detect sound produced by one or more locations of a thorax of a patient and characteristic vibration movement caused by motion of a valve leaflet of a valve of a heart of the patient (Paragraphs 46, 51, 52; see also claim 15 of Darbari publication) and configured to produce sound and vibration signals representative of the sound and the vibration that are detected (Figures 1, 14; abstract), a hardware processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a trained computer model for modeling a function of a healthy heart for analyzing the sound and vibration signals (Figure 2: 24, 25, 26; Figure 5; Paragraphs 49, 56), and a transmitter that transmits the sound and vibration signals from the plurality of spatially separated sensors (Figure 2: 20, 21; abstract: mobile device; Paragraph 33; transmitter is a broad term and could include wired transmission).
Regarding claims 2, 10, 16, Darbari discloses ECG sensors as recited (Paragraphs 32, 37).
Regarding claims 3, 17, Darbari discloses analyzing includes ECG as recited (Figures 2, 3).
Regarding claims 4, 14, 18, Darbari discloses a trained computer model as recited (Paragraphs 43, 49, 56; physics-based heart model as recited is broad since any practical training data would be based on a physical and physiological functioning of the heart; training data is considered representative of the physical and physiological functioning of the heart).
Regarding claims 5-7, 11, 12, Darbari discloses using a baseline of known healthy signals (e.g. Figure 10, lower middle section: check for abnormality/normality).
Regarding claims 8, 13, Darbari discloses monitoring abnormality of at least an artificial valve (abstract; Paragraph 53).
Regarding claims 9, 10, Darbari discloses the sensors are part of a fabric as recited (Figure 14).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darbari (US 2018/0116626) in view of Mittal (US 2016/0004837).
Regarding claim 19, Darbari shows analyzing blood flow in the heart to optimize the signal (Paragraph 35; claim 15). Darbari does not disclose using a gradient flow beamforming algorithm as recited. However, Mittal teaches ViCar3D is a known tool, in order to analyze the flow dynamics of the heart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Darbari as taught by Mittal to include using ViCar3D, in order to analyze the flow dynamics of the heart. Examiner notes Applicant’s specification discloses that ViCar3D is a known tool that uses the gradient flow solver (Paragraph 53).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darbari (US 2018/0116626) in view of Kale (US 2017/0188862).
Regarding claim 20, Darbari does not disclose using a four dimensional map as recited. However, Kale teaches using a four dimensional map (Paragraph 28, end) including two dimensions in the spatial domain (e.g. relations among channels), one dimension in the time domain (relative times), and one dimension in the frequency domain (spectral information), in order to localize sources in the heart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Darbari as taught by Kale to include using a four dimensional map as recited, in order to localize sources in the heart.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chang (US 2008/0009754), Chen (US 2018/0028144), Krimsky (US 2014/0378849), Nallathambi (US 2020/0077951) show using acoustic and ECG sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eugene T Wu whose telephone number is (571)270-5053. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/Eugene T Wu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights