DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the objection to claim 17. Accordingly, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1, 12 and 19-20. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants argument to claim 1, applicant states “However, Guo fails to teach or suggest "determining that the one or more first listening vectors and the one or more second listening vectors do not match," and, responsive thereto, "providing real-time haptic or tactile feedback."”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner relies upon on Yamamoto to teach the providing real-time haptic or tactile feedback (the sound sensor 420 may be configured to vibrate in correspondence with desirability of the attachment position. In these cases, the light-emitting device, the display section 409, or the sound sensor 420 is the notifying section) limitation and Examiner relies upon on Guo to teach the newly amended limitation determining that the one or more first listening vectors and the one or more second listening vectors do not match. Specifically, Guo teaches multiple microphones system (e.g., a processor) can analyze sounds by comparing the sound difference listened to or detected by microphones at different locations and this system, based on these sounds, can also be used as feedback. Furthermore, Guo teaches all the sensors will receive sounds with different strength, so that the rough position where the body is hit can be determined. For example, sound from sensor 138A can be compared to sound from sensor 138C, J, H or other sensors to determine that the location of the left arm has been hit. (See Paragraphs 90, 99, Fig.5 of Guo)
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.
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) 1, 12-13, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 20130131465 A1) in view of Guo (US 20160324487 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a system (100) comprising one or more processors and memory storing processor executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving a first biometric recording data structure (2-6, 8) associated with a first patient listening site associated with a patient body, wherein the first biometric recording data structure is derived from an original audio file captured (sound data from acoustic sensor 2a) by a first recording device (biometric sensor (2 to 6 and 8)). (Paragraphs 105-108, 126, Figs.1-2)
Yamamoto also teaches receiving a second biometric recording data structure (2-6, 8) associated with a second patient listening site associated with the patient body, wherein the second biometric recording data structure is captured by a second recording device (2b) and subsequent to the original audio file being captured by the first recording device (2a). (Paragraphs 105-108, 126, Figs.1-2)
Yamamoto also teaches generating one or more first listening vectors based on the first biometric recording data structure and one or more second listening vectors based on the second biometric recording data structure. (Paragraphs 108-115, 143, Figs.1-2, 19)
Yamamoto also teaches responsive to determining that, the one or more first listening vectors and the one or more second listening vectors, (carrier intensity of a wireless signal which each of the acoustic sensors 202a through 202d receives from the analysis device 201 depends on a physical distance between the each of the acoustic sensors 202a through 202d and the analysis device 201) (The attachment position estimating section 252 estimates, as an attachment position for the sound data obtained from the acoustic sensor 202, an attachment position corresponding to a position estimating algorithm by which the highest correlation coefficient has been obtained. That is, the attachment position estimating section 252 estimates a position to which the acoustic sensor 202 which has gathered the sound data is attached), and providing real-time haptic or tactile feedback (the sound sensor 420 may be configured to vibrate in correspondence with desirability of the attachment position. In these cases, the light-emitting device, the display section 409, or the sound sensor 420 is the notifying section) via the second recording device to direct the second recording device to move toward the first patient listening site for obtaining a subsequent biometric recording data structure. (Paragraphs 502, 242, 395, 672, 479-485, 702-708, Figs.26, 48, 62, 64) Yamamoto teaches wherein an essential biometric sensor is in an inactive state (NO in S3), the information obtaining section 20 preferably notifies the user via the display section 15 that the biometric sensor is in the inactive state and cannot carry out measurement (S4) and the user is notified which position is an appropriate attachment position. Yamamoto also teaches the quality assessing section 223 may cause the display section 215 to display an error message notifying the user that the acoustic sensor 202 is not attached to an appropriate position or in an appropriate state, thereby prompting the user to attach the acoustic sensor 202 again (S108).
Yamamoto does not explicitly teach determining that the one or more first listening vectors and the one or more second listening vectors do not match.
Guo teaches determining that the one or more first listening vectors and the one or more second listening vectors do not match. (Paragraphs 90, 99, Fig.5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate determining that the one or more first listening vectors and the one or more second listening vectors do not match as taught by Guo in order to alert a user or medical professional of an issue or problem with respect to a patient.
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto teaches wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to determining that, the one or more first listening vectors and the one or more second listening vectors, providing via the second recording device one or more of audio, visual, or tactile feedback to direct the second recording device to remain at or near the second patient listening site. (Paragraphs 143, 395, 345, 672, 372, 444-445)
Yamamoto does not explicitly teach determining that the one or more first listening vectors and the one or more second listening vectors match.
Guo teaches determining that the one or more first listening vectors and the one or more second listening vectors match. (Paragraphs 90, 99, Fig.5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate determining that the one or more first listening vectors and the one or more second listening vectors match as taught by Guo in order to alert a user or medical professional of an issue or problem with respect to a patient.
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto teaches wherein the tactile feedback comprises one or more of haptics or vibrations. (Paragraph 672)
Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto teaches wherein the recording device is one or more of a stethoscope, a mobile computing device, a remote monitoring device, one or more audio capture devices, one or more video capture devices, or a computing device. (Paragraphs 105-106, 126, Figs.1-2)
Regarding claims 19-20, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 1. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 19-20, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 19-20 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Guo and Kruse (US 20170100092 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto teaches wherein the first biometric recording data structure comprises one or more first audio recordings associated with the patient body. (Paragraphs 106-110, Figs.1-2)
Yamamoto does not explicitly teach one or more first audio recordings associated with a first constant sound source placed at a constant sound source site relative to the patient body.
Kruse teaches one or more first audio recordings associated with a first constant sound source placed at a constant sound source site relative to the patient body. (Paragraphs 69-70, 51, 131)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate one or more first audio recordings associated with a first constant sound source placed at a constant sound source site relative to the patient body as taught by Kruse in order to image or apply ultrasonic treatment to target volumes within structures.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto teaches wherein the second biometric recording data structure comprises one or more second audio recordings. (Paragraphs 106-110, Figs.1-2)
Yamamoto does not explicitly teach one or more second audio recordings associated with a second constant sound source placed at a constant sound source site relative to the patient body.
Kruse teaches one or more second audio recordings associated with a second constant sound source placed at a constant sound source site relative to the patient body. (Paragraphs 69-71, 51, 131)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate one or more second audio recordings associated with a second constant sound source placed at a constant sound source site relative to the patient body as taught by Kruse in order to image or apply ultrasonic treatment to target volumes within structures.
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto teaches wherein the one or more first audio recordings are associated with one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body. (Paragraphs 106-110, Figs.1-2)
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto teaches wherein the one or more second audio recordings are associated with one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body. (Paragraphs 106-110, Figs.1-2)
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more first listening vectors comprise one or more distances between the first patient listening site and the first constant sound source and between the first patient listening site and one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body.
Kruse teaches wherein the one or more first listening vectors comprise one or more distances between the first patient listening site and the first constant sound source and between the first patient listening site and one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body. (Paragraph 51, 70-71, Figs.2A-2B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate wherein the one or more first listening vectors comprise one or more distances between the first patient listening site and the first constant sound source and between the first patient listening site and one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body as taught by Kruse in order to enable the focusing on a point in the target region determine the information contained in the returning echoes.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more second listening vectors comprise one or more distances between the second patient listening site and the second constant sound source and between the second patient listening site and one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body.
Kruse teaches wherein the one or more second listening vectors comprise one or more distances between the second patient listening site and the second constant sound source and between the second patient listening site and one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body. (Paragraphs 51, 69-71, 131, Figs.2A-2B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate wherein the one or more second listening vectors comprise one or more distances between the second patient listening site and the second constant sound source and between the second patient listening site and one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body as taught by Kruse in order to enable the focusing on a point in the target region determine the information contained in the returning echoes.
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the second recording device comprises one or more transducers.
Kruse teaches wherein the second recording device comprises one or more transducers. (Paragraphs 69-70, 51, Figs.2A-2B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate wherein the second recording device comprises one or more transducers as taught by Kruse in order to image or apply ultrasonic treatment to target volumes within structures.
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the first constant sound source comprises one or more sound emitters.
Kruse teaches wherein the first constant sound source comprises one or more sound emitters. (Paragraphs 69-70, 51, Figs.2A-2B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate where wherein the first constant sound source comprises one or more sound emitters as taught by Kruse in order to image or apply ultrasonic treatment to target volumes within structures.
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the second constant sound source comprises one or more sound emitters.
Kruse teaches wherein the second constant sound source comprises one or more sound emitters. (Paragraphs 69-70, 51, Figs.2A-2B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate where wherein the second constant sound source comprises one or more sound emitters as taught by Kruse in order to image or apply ultrasonic treatment to target volumes within structures.
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the constant sound source site is a sternal notch of the patient body.
Kruse teaches wherein the constant sound source site is a sternal notch of the patient body. (Paragraphs 69-70, 51, Figs.2A-2B) Kruse teaches the transmitting transducer (constant sound source) is configured to various sizes and/or curvatures tailored to a particular body region.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate wherein the constant sound source site is a sternal notch of the patient body as taught by Kruse in order to image or apply ultrasonic treatment to target volumes within structures.
Claim(s) 16-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Guo and Roh (US 11515044 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Yamamoto wherein the operations further comprise: extracting one or more feature vectors from the second biometric recording data structure. (Paragraphs 110-113, 131-132)
Yamamoto does not explicitly teach applying one or more predictive models to the one or more feature vectors.
Roh teaches applying one or more predictive models to the one or more feature vectors. (Col.28, line 46-Col.29, line 38, Fig.5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate applying one or more predictive models to the one or more feature vectors as taught by Roh in order for a large volume of data points to be captured, aggregated, processed, and stored.
Regarding claim 17, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise: identifying, based on applying the one or more predictive models to the one or more feature vectors, one or more changes in anatomic conditions associated with the patient body.
Roh teaches wherein the operations further comprise: identifying, based on applying the one or more predictive models to the one or more feature vectors, one or more changes in anatomic conditions associated with the patient body. (Col.28, line 46-Col.29, line 38, Fig.5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate wherein the operations further comprise: identifying, based on applying the one or more predictive models to the one or more feature vectors, one or more changes in anatomic conditions associated with the patient body as taught by Roh in order to improve prediction accuracy.
Regarding claim 18, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more predictive models are trained based on historical anatomic data associated with a plurality of patient bodies.
Roh teaches wherein the one or more predictive models are trained based on historical anatomic data associated with a plurality of patient bodies. (Col.28, line 46-Col.29, line 38, Fig.5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate wherein the one or more predictive models are trained based on historical anatomic data associated with a plurality of patient bodies as taught by Roh in order to improve prediction accuracy.
Regarding claim 21, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the anatomic conditions are associated with one or more of a lung, a heart, or an artery of the patient body.
Roh teaches wherein the anatomic conditions are associated with one or more of a lung, a heart, or an artery of the patient body. (Col.23, lines 45-50, Col.28, line 46-Col.29, line 38, Fig.5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate wherein the anatomic conditions are associated with one or more of a lung, a heart, or an artery of the patient body as taught by Roh in order to improve prediction accuracy and provide historical and baseline patient data to more accurately identify problems with the patient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights