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 .
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-10 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-10 recites at least one step or instruction for observing, judging or evaluating data, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-10 recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
1. An electronic stethoscope (additional element) comprising: a biological sound sensor (additional element) that detects a biological sound and outputs an analog-format biological sound signal (observation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG); an analog system (additional element) that processes the biological sound signal without converting the biological sound signal into a digital signal and outputs the biological sound signal to an outside (judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and a digital system (additional element) that converts the biological sound signal into the digital signal and outputs the biological sound signal (judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-10 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent Claims 2-10) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: electronic stethoscope, biological sound sensor, an analog system, a digital system are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.,memory and at least one computer processor as claimed). In other words, independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity related to a sensing unit collecting data. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-10 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: an electronic stethoscope, a biological sound sensor, a digital system, an analog system, a first preamplifier (claims 3-4), a second preamplifier (claim 3-4), wired or wireless communication (claim 10).
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term an electronic stethoscope, a biological sound sensor, a digital system, an analog system, a first preamplifier (claims 3-4), a second preamplifier (claim 3-4), wired or wireless communication (claim 10) are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers or computer components, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the electronic stethoscope, a biological sound sensor, a digital system, an analog system, a first preamplifier (claims 3-4), a second preamplifier (claim 3-4), wired or wireless communication (claim 10).. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Furthermore, Baekgaard (US 6134331) discloses an electronic stethoscope, a biological sound sensor, a digital system, an analog system, a first preamplifier, a second preamplifier, wired or wireless communication (col 3, lines 25-67, col. 4, lines 44-67).
Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-10 amounts to mere instructions to collect data with extra-solution activity and implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system of Claims 1-10 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-10 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-10 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-10 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-10 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a(1)) as being anticipated by Lee (US 6339719)
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses An electronic stethoscope (10) comprising:
a biological sound sensor (20) that detects a biological sound and outputs an analog-format biological sound signal (col. 2, line 59); an analog system that processes the biological sound signal without converting the biological sound signal into a digital signal and outputs the biological sound signal to an outside (col. 2, lines 60-65); and a digital system (70) that converts the biological sound signal into the digital signal and outputs the biological sound signal (col. 2, lines 65-66).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the electronic stethoscope according to claim 1, wherein the analog system includes an analog output terminal through which the analog-format biological sound signal is output and to which an acoustic device that converts the biological sound signal into a sound wave is connected, and the digital system includes an analog-to-digital converter that converts the biological sound signal into the digital signal (col. 2, lines 59-67, col. 3, lines 55-65).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Chae (JP 3109598 English translation)
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses all of the limitations of the claim except the electronic stethoscope according to claim 1, further comprising: a first preamplifier (30) that amplifies the biological sound signal (col. 3, lines 40-45); and a second preamplifier (50), wherein an output signal of the second preamplifier is distributed to the analog system and the digital system (col. 3, lines 57-65). Lee discloses all of the limitations of the claim except attenuates a high-frequency component included in the biological sound signal. Chae teaches attenuates a high-frequency component included in the biological sound signal (paragraph 0010). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to attenuate a high-frequency component included in the biological sound signal as taught by Chae for the purpose of easily targeting the sound the user wants to focus on such as a fetal sound by filtering by the appropriate frequency type.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses all of the limitations of the claim except the electronic stethoscope according to claim 9, wherein the analog system includes an adjustment circuit that adjusts an amplitude of the biological sound signal, and the digital system includes a communication circuit that transmits the digital signal to the outside via wired or wireless communication. Chae teaches the electronic stethoscope according to claim 9, wherein the analog system includes an adjustment circuit that adjusts an amplitude of the biological sound signal, and the digital system includes a communication circuit that transmits the digital signal to the outside via wired or wireless communication (paragraph 0010-0011). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to process the biological sound signal by adjusting the amplitude and having a digital system with a communication circuit as taught by Chae for the purpose of easily targeting the sound the user wants to focus on such as a fetal sound by filtering and amplifying the signal effectively.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Fujii (US 20210244379)
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all of the limitations of the claim except The electronic stethoscope according to claim 1, wherein the biological sound sensor contains a polymer-based piezoelectric composite material obtained by dispersing piezoelectric particles in a viscoelastic matrix consisting of a polymer material having viscoelasticity at room temperature. Fujii teaches wherein the biological sound sensor contains a polymer-based piezoelectric composite material obtained by dispersing piezoelectric particles in a viscoelastic matrix consisting of a polymer material having viscoelasticity at room temperature (paragraph 0057-0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee as taught by Fujii for the purpose to ensure peak performance, handleability, and appropriate mechanical strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASMEEN S WARSI whose telephone number is (571)272-9942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am to 5 pm.
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.
/YASMEEN S WARSI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791