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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 09/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-20. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19-20 and all subsequent dependent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 reads “identifying, based on applying the one or more predictive models to the one or more feature vectors, identify one or more changes in anatomic conditions associated with the patient body.” but should read “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”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The term “threshold distance” in claims 1, 12 and 19-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “threshold distance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms “threshold distance” are relative terms and it is unclear to what quantifications these terms encompass. The specification fails to clearly describe what is encompassed by these relative terms and therefore leaves the metes and bounds of the invention unclear to what range of numbers could and/or couldn’t perform the functions of the instant invention.
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, based on the one or more first listening vectors and the one or more second listening vectors, that the second patient listening site is with respect to a threshold distance from the first patient listening site (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), 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 that the second patient listening site is outside of a threshold from the first patient listening site, providing real-time haptic or tactile feedback.
Guo teaches that the second patient listening site is outside of a threshold from the first patient listening site, providing real-time haptic or tactile feedback. (Paragraphs 25-26, 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 that the second patient listening site is outside of a threshold from the first patient listening site, providing real-time haptic or tactile feedback 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, based on the first listening vector and the second listening vector, that the second patient listening site is with respect to a threshold distance of the first patient listening site, 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 that the second patient listening site is within the threshold of the first patient listening site, providing via the second recording device one or more of audio, visual, or tactile feedback.
Guo teaches that the second patient listening site is within the threshold of the first patient listening site, providing via the second recording device one or more of audio, visual, or tactile feedback. (Paragraphs 25-26, 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 that the second patient listening site is within the threshold of the first patient listening site, providing via the second recording device one or more of audio, visual, or tactile feedback 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 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 the constant sound source site.
Kruse teaches one or more second audio recordings associated with a second constant sound source placed at the constant sound source site. (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 second audio recordings associated with a second constant sound source placed at the constant sound source site 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 first listening vector comprises one or more distances between the first listening site and the first constant sound source and between the first listening site and one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body.
Kruse teaches wherein the first listening vector comprises one or more distances between the first listening site and the first constant sound source and between the first listening site and one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body. (Paragraph 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 first listening vector comprises one or more distances between the first listening site and the first constant sound source and between the first listening site and one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body 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 second listening vector comprises one or more distances between the second listening site and the second constant sound source and between the second listening site and one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body.
Kruse teaches wherein the second listening vector comprises one or more distances between the second listening site and the second constant sound source and between the second listening site and one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body. (Paragraphs 51, 69-70, 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 second listening vector comprises one or more distances between the second listening site and the second constant sound source and between the second listening site and one or more organs or anatomic components of the patient body 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 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 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 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 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 structures. (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 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, identify 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, identify 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, identify one or more changes in anatomic conditions associated with the patient body 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 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 in order to improve prediction accuracy and provide historical and baseline patient data to more accurately identify problems with the patient.
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 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/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights