DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 4/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 116. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the drawing and specification are not in agreement, see drawing objections above.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Tektronix” “3M”, which each is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 15 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 9-12 are 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.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “The electronic stethoscope of claim 7, further comprising: (a) a low energy personal area network transmitter, coupled to the second circuit, that transmits data from the micro-controller; and (b) a remote device that receives the data from the low energy personal area network transmitter and that processes the data.” renders the claim indefinite. The claim is to a product of an electronic stethoscope and the attempt to limit the structure of such with a separate device “remote” from the actual device being claimed renders the product indefinite. The limitation is interpreted as a remote device being usable with the electronic stethoscope, but outside the scope, i.e. bears no patentable weight, for the claimed electronic stethoscope. The same holds for the dependent claims which depend from claim 9 which are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raj et al. (Raj, US 2019/0365263).
Regarding claim 1, Raj teaches an electronic stethoscope for wearing on a body of a user (see title and abstract), comprising:
(a) a skin-mountable first circuit that includes a micro-electronic microphone coupled thereto, the micro-electronic microphone configured to sense sounds from the body of the user and to generate an analog signal representative thereof (see at least Figures 1-2, 4A-C 412/436, [0038], [0041], [0043], [0053]);
(b) a skin-mountable second circuit that is not contiguous with the first circuit and spaced apart therefrom, that includes circuitry that processes the analog signal from the electronic microphone (see at least Figures 1-2, 4A-C 410/434, [0038], [0041], [0043], [0053], [0055]); and
(c) a flexible connector that electrically couples the first circuit to the second circuit (see at least Figures 4A-C 422, [0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Raj teaches wherein the first circuit comprises a first flexible printed circuit board and wherein the second circuit comprises a second flexible printed circuit board (see at least Figures 4A-C, [0030], [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Raj teaches wherein the first circuit, the second circuit and the flexible connector are encapsulated by a biocompatible elastomer envelope (see at least Figure 4C, [0047], [0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Raj teaches wherein the biocompatible elastomer envelope comprises a medical grade silicone rubber (see at least [0047], [0058]).
Regarding claim 5, Raj teaches wherein the biocompatible elastomer envelope defines a hole on one side disposed adjacent to the micro-electronic microphone to allow sound transmission therethrough (see at least Figure 4C, arrangement of 470 reads on the requirements).
Regarding claim 6, Raj teaches wherein flexible connector has an undulated form factor (see at least Figures 4A-B, [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Raj teaches wherein the second circuit comprises: (a) an analog-to-digital converter that converts the analog signal from the micro-electronic microphone into a digital representation thereof; and (b) a micro-controller that processes the digital representation (see at least [0043]).
Regarding claim 9, Raj teaches further comprising: (a) a low energy personal area network transmitter, coupled to the second circuit, that transmits data from the micro-controller (see at least [0055] Figure 1).; and (b) a remote device that receives the data from the low energy personal area network transmitter and that processes the data (this feature bears no patentable weight as addressed above, see also Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Raj teaches wherein the remote device is programmed with a convolutional neural network that determines a probability that the data received from the personal area network transmitter correlates to an item from a data set with which the convolutional neural network has been trained (further limits structures which bear no patentable weight, see rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, Raj teaches wherein the item from the data set corresponds to a selected one of known physiological phenomena (further limits structures which bear no patentable weight, see rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 12, Raj teaches wherein the selected one of the known physiological phenomena includes a phenomenon selected from a list consisting of: stridor, rhonchi, wheezing, crackling lung sounds, and combinations thereof (further limits structures which bear no patentable weight, see rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 13, Raj teaches wherein the second circuit comprises a preamplifier that amplifies a signal from the micro-electronic microphone and that filters out frequencies beyond at least one cut-off frequency therefrom (see at least [0043] 213 meets structure claimed and also capable of the intended use).
Regarding claim 14, Raj teaches wherein the second circuit includes a rechargeable battery that powers the first circuit and the second circuit (see at least [0036]).
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.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raj et al. (Raj, US 2019/0365263) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Pindado et al. (Pindado, US 2016/0228640).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations are met by Raj, except the features of wherein the second circuit includes a band pass filter for removing motion artifacts generated by the body of the user from the digital representation are not directly taught.
Pindado teaches a related system to Raj which uses islands for sensing and processing physiological data (see at least Figure 4), and includes a band pass filter to isolate heart rate data from other signals/noise, which reasonably teaches wherein the second circuit includes a band pass filter for removing motion artifacts generated by the body of the user from the digital representation (see at least [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including a band pass filter in order to isolate heart rate data from other signals/noise.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raj et al. (Raj, US 2019/0365263) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Li, US 2020/0138399).
Regarding claims 15-16, the limitations are met by Raj, except the limitations of further comprising a fabric layer adhered to an outside side of the first circuit and configured to prevent a clothing item worn by a user from sticking to the first circuit is not directly taught.
Li teaches a related system for a wearable stethoscope patch (see title and abstract), and teaches that an elastic layer above a circuit layer can be used which is made of known materials including fabric textile which reasonably teaches a fabric layer adhered to an outside side of the first circuit and configured to prevent a clothing item worn by a user from sticking to the first circuit (see at least [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a known material to cover patch circuits known to be covered by such as an obvious expedient to house and cover the circuits while allowing flexibility. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights