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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JAPAN on 09/209/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/JP2022/024005 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2024 and 05/01/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention (I) and species (3) drawn to claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-11 in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 8 and 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/24/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “facing a living body” in line 2 should be amended to read –configured for facing a living body--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “contactable” in line 6 should be amended to read –configured to be contactable--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “measure” in line 6 should be amended to read –configured to measure--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “contactable” in line 5 should be amended to read –configured to be contactable--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “operable” in line 5 should be amended to read –configured to be operable--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a first rigid portion” in line 2 should be amended to read –the first rigid portion--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a living body” in line 3 should be amended to read –the living body--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “structured” in line 6 should be amended to read –configured to be structured--. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sasaki et al (US 2022/0142604) in view of Qu et al (CN 111297393, an English translated version is relied on herein).
As to claim 1, Sasaki teaches a biological information acquisition device (stethoscope 10, par.37, abstract, fig.1) comprising:
a main body including a facing surface facing a living body when mounted (contact surface 24 and elastic members 52P, 52M, and 52R having bottom skin contacting surfaces, par.37-38, as best seen in fig.2-5);
a first biosensor (piezoelectric film 30, par.37, fig.1-5) provided in the main body such that at least a portion of the first biosensor protrudes from the facing surface of the main body (sensor 30 protrudes from bottom surface 24, par.65, as bet seen in fig.4) and including a first contact surface contactable with the living body (lower portion of sensor 30, as best seen in fig.4-5);
a first rigid portion (support base 20 that supports sensor 30, par.65, fig.1-5) that supports the first biosensor; and
a lid (upper/rear portion 26 of base 20, par.38, fig.1-5) that is attachable to and detachable from the first rigid portion (portion 26 is more than capable of being attachable to base 20).
Sasaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, but failed to explicitly teach the lid is attachable to and detachable from the first rigid portion by being rotated in a direction along the periphery of the first biosensor and configured to surrounds a periphery of the first biosensor. However, Qu teaches an analogous stethoscope having piezoelectric sensing film (end of page 3 to page 4, fig.1-4), wherein the stethoscope has a rotating cover (cover-like structure 12 by rotating the cover like structure 12, par.9 in page 5, fig.1-4).
Since stethoscope rotatable covers are well-known in the art, so at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a rotating cover to the stethoscope taught by Sasaki’ invention similar to rotatable cover taught by Qu’s invention because the Applicant has not disclosed that a rotatable cover and the provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the stethoscope taught by Sasaki and Qu and the Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the cover taught by Sasaki and Qu or the claimed cover because both stethoscopes would perform the same function of detecting body sounds.
As to claim 2, Sasaki teaches the biological information acquisition device, wherein the first biosensor includes a bio-acoustic sensor (par.36, par.39 and par.71) that includes a vibration plate including the first contact surface and of which at least a portion protrudes from the facing surface of the main body (protective layer 40 over piezoelectric layer, par.64 and par.84, fig.4-5), and a piezoelectric element (piezoelectric layer 32, par.70, fig.4 and 7) to detect vibration of the vibration plate and to measure a sound emitted from the living body (piezoelectric layer 32 generates the expansion and contraction in the in-plane direction in response to the body sound that is emitted from the living body 12, par.71).
As to claim 3, Sasaki teaches the biological information acquisition device, further comprising: a second biosensor (positive electrode 50P, a negative electrode 50M, and a reference electrode 50R are disposed, respectively, as an example of an electrocardiographic electrode, par.37, fig.1-5) that is provided in the main body such that at least a portion of the second biosensor protrudes (electrodes 50 protrudes from elastic members 52P, 52M, and 52R, as best seen in fig.1-5) from the facing surface and includes a second contact surface contactable (the three skin contact surfaces, as best seen in fig.1-5) with the living body.
Sasaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, but failed to explicitly teach the distance from the facing surface to the first contact surface of the first biosensor is larger than a distance from the facing surface to the second contact surface of the second biosensor.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the distance between sensor 30 and contact surface 24 larger that the distance between electrodes 50 and elastic members 52P, 52M, and 52R because the Applicant has not disclosed that the sensor spacing from the contact surfaces provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the stethoscope taught by Sasaki’s invention and the Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the sensors distances taught by Sasaki’s invention or the claimed sensors distances because both stethoscopes would perform the same function of detecting sounds emitting from living body.
As to claim 4, Sasaki teaches the biological information acquisition device, wherein the second biosensor includes an electrocardiographic sensor that includes a plurality of electrodes each including the second contact surface and operable to acquire an electrocardiographic waveform of the living body (plurality of electrocardiographic electrodes 50, measures electrocardiographic signals, par.37, par.44, par.49 and par.71); and the plurality of electrodes of the second biosensor are provided in the main body such that the first biosensor is located between the plurality of electrodes (sensor 30 is located between the three electrodes 50, as best seen in fig.1-5).
As to claim 6, Sasaki teaches the biological information acquisition device, wherein the main body includes a first rigid portion that supports the first biosensor, a plurality of second rigid portions that support the plurality of respective electrodes of the second biosensor (electrocardiographic electrode 50 and the elastic member 52 may be provided with a pair of coupling members (for example, a snap coupling member), par.45), and a deformable portion that supports the first rigid portion and the plurality of second rigid portions and is softer than the first rigid portion and the plurality of second rigid portions (area around opening 22 in surface 24 and elastic members 52 holding electrodes 50, par.42-45).
As to claim 7, Sasaki teaches the biological information acquisition device, wherein the first biosensor protrudes more than the plurality of second rigid portions from the facing surface of the main body to a living body side (as best seen in fig.1-5, sensor 30 protrudes more from surface 24 than the snaps coupling members holding electrodes 50, par.45).
As to claim 9, Sasaki teaches the biological information acquisition device, wherein the biological information acquisition device is structured and operable to detect a lung sound waveform, an electrocardiographic waveform, a heart sound waveform or an intestinal peristalsis sound (measuring cardiac electrical activity and the body sound, par.36-37, par.39, par.49 and par.71).
As to claim 10, Sasaki teaches the biological information acquisition device, wherein each of the plurality of electrodes has a rectangular or circular shape (electrodes 50 are circular, as best seen in fig.1-5).
As to claim 11, Sasaki teaches the biological information acquisition device, wherein the angle of elastic members holding electrodes 50 is an obtuse angle (par.60, fig.4-5), but failed to explicitly teach angular positions of the plurality of electrodes with respect to the first biosensor are different by 90 or 180 degrees.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the angular positions of electrodes 50 with respect to sensor 30 are different by 90 or 180 degrees because the Applicant has not disclosed that this specific angle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the angle of sensor 30 and electrodes 50 taught by Sasaki’s invention and the Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either sensors and electrodes angles taught by Sasaki’s invention or the claimed angles because both sensors and electrodes angles would perform the same function of being pressed against the living body to accurately measure sounds emitted from the living body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights