DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on November 24, 2025 has/have been acknowledged and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The Applicant is reminded to carefully review the drawing figures and the accompanying specification to ensure that all reference numerals present in the drawing figures are defined within the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13 recites that “the secondary criterion is a predetermined minimum slope of heart rate increase”, however claim 13 depends on claim 11 which does not mention heart rate. It is believed that claim 13 should depend on claim 12, which recites a heart rate sensor, and has been considered as such for the purposes of this communication. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally-filed disclosure fails to provide adequate written description for “monitoring ambient sound solely at a frequency at or above 100 Hz” or “monitoring of ambient sound and detecting a change in acoustic energy is conducted solely in a frequency-time domain at the frequency at or above 100 Hz”. While the disclosure does describe monitoring ambient sound at a frequency above 100 Hz and monitoring of ambient sound and detecting a change in acoustic energy in a frequency-time domain at a frequency above 100 Hz, the disclosure fails to limit these to “solely” at a frequency at or above 100 Hz. The claim now requires a single frequency due to the recitation “solely at a frequency” and requires that the single frequency be at or above 100 Hz, both limitations that do not have sufficient written description in the originally-filed disclosure. As such, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 9-14 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the possible cough event" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "analyzing ambient sound" in lines 4 and 6. It is unclear if the ambient sound being referenced in each line is the ambient sound set forth as being continuously recorded in line 3, or is a different ambient sound.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the cough event" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the data stream from the secondary sensor recorded simultaneously with the cough event" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "repeating steps (b) through (f) if further possible cough events are identified" in line 14. Step (b) is where the identification of a possible cough event happens and, therefore, it is unclear how to determine “if further possible cough events are identified” prior to performing step (b).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 refers back to claim 1 on lines 4 and 6, and thus is considered a dependent claim of claim 1. However, claim 3 fails to include all the limitations of claim 1 because claim 3 only requires steps b and d of claim 1. As such, claims 3-8 fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor et al. (U.S. 2023/0008906), herein Taylor. Regarding claim 9, Taylor discloses a method for automatically detecting and verifying cough events as originating from a target user, comprising the following steps: a. continuously recording ambient sound and a data stream from a secondary sensor (see step 101 in Figure 1 and “receiving 101 signals from a microphone module, said signals comprising audio. In one embodiment the microphone module comprises a first microphone and a second microphone each configured with a separate channel”, paragraph [0054]), b. identifying an onset of a possible cough by analyzing ambient sound (see step 102 in Figure 1 and “The audio signals or recordings are processed 102 and the processed signals or recordings stored 103 in memory thereafter. The processing of said received sound signals or sound recordings comprise of removing one or more speech components from speech segments to render the speech unintelligible and clipping said silent segments, wherein one or more speech components include vowel sounds.”, paragraph [0054]), c. classifying the possible cough event of step (b) as cough or non-cough based on analyzing ambient sound (“The energy ratio is a measure of the ratio of acoustic energy between the contact microphone and the non-contact microphone. This feature is advantageous in discriminating between cough events and third party speech.”, paragraph [0066]), d. in case the possible cough event is classified as the cough event in step (c), analyzing the data stream from the secondary sensor recorded simultaneously with the cough event using a predetermined secondary criterion (“The cough monitor further comprises an accelerometer operatively coupled to said processor to obtain the severity of cough from said accelerometer readings, wherein said accelerometer is mechanically coupled to the chest of the subject.”, paragraph [0029]), e. in case the secondary criterion is satisfied, identifying the cough as originating from the target user (“The cough monitor further comprises an accelerometer operatively coupled to said processor to obtain the severity of cough from said accelerometer readings, wherein said accelerometer is mechanically coupled to the chest of the subject.”, paragraph [0029]), f. in case the secondary criterion is not satisfied, discarding the cough event as not originating from the target user, g. repeating steps (b) through (f) if further possible cough events are identified, and h. compiling a record of all cough events originating from the target user and detected during the duration of continuously recording ambient sound in step (a) (“the processed signals or recordings stored 103 in memory thereafter”, paragraph [0054] and “store said processed signals in said memory 202”, paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 10, Taylor discloses that the secondary sensor is an accelerometer associated with the target user (“The cough monitor further comprises an accelerometer operatively coupled to said processor to obtain the severity of cough from said accelerometer readings, wherein said accelerometer is mechanically coupled to the chest of the subject.”, paragraph [0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth above, and because it is not known how Applicant will overcome such rejections, claims 1-8, 15, and 16 are not being indicated as including allowable subject matter at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dzhekiev et al. (U.S. 2022/0338756), Cinar et al. (WO 2023/239327), and Platt et al. (WO 2023/044541) each teach cough monitoring to identify cough events in a recording to ambient sound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMIE K MARLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8 am until 4 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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/TAMMIE K MARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights