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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the first paragraph of the specification should be updated to indicate the present status of the priority application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/15/26 (2); 11/5/25; 10/22/25; 5/28/25 has/have been acknowledged and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-14 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gavriely (U.S. Pat. 6,168,568).
Regarding claim 1, Gavriely discloses a method for medical diagnosis, comprising: recording voice signals (e.g. 12) due to sounds spoken by a patient and propagating out through a nose and mouth of the patient into a voice microphone (e.g. Col. 31, l. 66 to Col. 32, l. 11); recording acoustic signals output (e.g. 4), simultaneously with the voice signals, by an acoustic transducer in contact with a thorax of the patient (e.g. Col. 11, ll. 25-31); computing a transfer function between the recorded voice signals and the recorded acoustic signals or between the recorded acoustic signals and the recorded voice signals (e.g. Col. 32, ll. 54-65); evaluating the computed transfer function in order to detect a change in a medical condition of the patient (e.g. Col. 31, l.50 to Col. 32, l. 26); and issuing an alert in response to the change indicated by the computed transfer function (e.g. Col. 4, ll. 57-60).
Regarding claim 2, Gavriely further discloses wherein evaluating the computed transfer function comprises: evaluating a deviation between the computed transfer function and a baseline transfer function; and detecting a change in the medical condition of the patient responsively to the evaluated deviation (e.g. Col. 31, l.50 to Col. 32, l. 26).
Regarding claim 5, Gavriely further discloses wherein evaluating the computed transfer function comprises assessing an interstitial lung disease in the patient (e.g. Col. 31, l.50 to Col. 32, l. 26).
Regarding claim 7, Gavriely further discloses wherein recording the acoustic signals comprises eliminating heart sounds from the acoustic signals output by the acoustic transducer before computing the transfer function (e.g. Col. 29, ll. 44-56; “Filter”).
Regarding claim 8, Gavriely further discloses wherein eliminating the heart sounds comprises detecting intervals of occurrence of extraneous sounds, including the heart sounds, in the acoustic signals, and eliminating the intervals from the acoustic signals that are used in computing the transfer function (e.g. Col. 29, ll. 44-56; “Filter”).
Regarding claim 9, Gavriely further discloses wherein eliminating the heart sounds comprises filtering the heart sounds out of the recorded acoustic signals before computing the transfer function (e.g. Col. 29, ll. 44-56; “Filter”).
Regarding claim 10, Gavriely further discloses wherein recording the acoustic signals comprises receiving at least first and second acoustic signals, respectively, from at least first and second acoustic transducers in contact with the thorax, and wherein filtering the heart sounds comprises applying a delay in arrival of the heart sounds in the second acoustic signal relative to the first acoustic signal in combining the first and second acoustic signal while filtering out the heart sounds (e.g. Col. 7, ll. 25-31).
Regarding claim 11, Gavriely further discloses wherein computing the transfer function comprises computing respective spectral components of the recorded voice signals and the recorded acoustic signals at a set of frequencies, and calculating a set of coefficients representing a relation between the respective spectral components (e.g. Col. 24, ll. 44-67).
Regarding claim 12, Gavriely further discloses wherein the coefficients are a representation of a cepstrum (e.g. Col. 9, ll. 31-38; “inverse fourier”).
Regarding claim 13, Gavriely further discloses wherein computing the transfer function comprises calculating a set of coefficients representing a relation between the recorded voice signals and the recorded acoustic signals in terms of an infinite impulse response filter (e.g. Col. 29, ll.44-56).
Regarding claim 14, Gavriely further discloses wherein computing the transfer function comprises calculating a set of coefficients representing a relation between the recorded voice signals and the recorded acoustic signals in terms of a predictor in a time domain (e.g. Col. 7, l. 64 to Col. 8, l. 16).
Regarding claim 17, Gavriely further discloses wherein computing the transfer function comprises calculating a set of time-varying coefficients representing a temporal relation between the recorded voice signals and the recorded acoustic signals (e.g. Col. 20, ll. 21-28).
Regarding claim 18, Gavriely further discloses wherein calculating the set of time-varying coefficients comprises identifying a pitch of the spoken voice signals, and constraining the time-varying coefficients to be periodic, with a period corresponding to the identified pitch (e.g. Col. 1, ll. 29-40).
Regarding claim 19, Gavriely discloses an apparatus for medical diagnosis, comprising: a memory (e.g. 22), which is configured to store recorded voice signals due to sounds spoken by a patient and propagating out through a nose and mouth of the patient into a voice microphone and recorded acoustic signals output (e.g. Col. 31, l. 66 to Col. 32, l. 11), simultaneously with the voice signals, by an acoustic transducer in contact with a thorax of the patient (e.g. 4,12; Col. 11, ll. 12-25; Col. 12, ll. 16-21; Col. 31, l. 66 to Col. 32, l. 11; Col. 32, ll. 33-40); and a processor (e.g. 20; Col. 11, ll. 34-41), which is configured to compute a transfer function between the recorded voice signals and the recorded acoustic signals or between the recorded acoustic signals and the recorded voice signals, and to evaluate the computed transfer function in order to detect a change in a medical condition of the patient (e.g. 32, ll. 33-40, Col. 32, ll. 54-65), and to issue an alert in response to the change indicated by the computed transfer function.
Regarding claim 20, Gavriely discloses a computer software product, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium in which program instructions are stored, which instructions, when read by a computer, cause the computer to receive voice signals (e.g. 12) due to sounds spoken by a patient and propagating out through a nose and mouth of the patient into a voice microphone (e.g. Col. 31, l. 66 to Col. 32, l. 11); acoustic signals output (e.g. 4), simultaneously with the voice signals, by an acoustic transducer in contact with a thorax of the patient (e.g. Col. 11, ll. 25-31); to compute a transfer function between the recorded voice signals and the recorded acoustic signals or between the recorded acoustic signals and the recorded voice signals (e.g. Col. 32, ll. 54-65); and evaluate the computed transfer function in order to assess a medical condition of the patient (e.g. Col. 31, l.50 to Col. 32, l. 26).
Regarding claim 21, Gavriely further discloses wherein the baseline transfer function is derived from one or more transfer functions that were computed for the patient during a preceding period (e.g. Col. 31, l.50 to Col. 32, l. 26).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriely as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7-14 and 17-21 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2009/0036777 hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 3, Gavriely discloses the claimed invention except for the system being used for determining edema in the thorax. However, Zhang discloses a similar system that utilizes acoustic recordings to sense edema as set forth in Paragraphs 3 and 6 to provide a known means for sensing edema using acoustic waves to determine status of congestive heart failure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Gavriely, with edema analysis as taught by Zhang, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of analyzing the acoustic signals for edema to determine severity and status of congested heart failure.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriely as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7-14 and 17-21 above, and further in view of Dines et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0166279 hereinafter “Dines”).
Regarding claim 15, Gavriely discloses the claimed invention except for the system applying a prediction error using adaptive filter coefficients. However, Dines discloses a similar system that utilizes adaptive filter coefficients as set forth in Paragraphs 108 and 111 to provide a known means for decreasing the influence of noise in the signal for enhanced analysis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Gavriely, with adaptive noise filtering as taught by Dines, since such a modification would provide the predictable results providing a known means for decreasing the influence of noise in the signal for enhanced analysis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-15 and 17-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-13 and 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,484,211. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed toward the same subject matter, specifically recording voice signals, recording acoustic signals and computing a transfer function of the signals and evaluating the function for a medical condition. See the chart below for the corresponding claims.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-15 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14, 18 and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,903. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed toward the same subject matter, specifically recording voice signals, recording acoustic signals and computing a transfer function of the signals and evaluating the function for a medical condition. See the chart below for the corresponding claims.
Current Claims
11,484,211
12,207,903
1
1
1
2
1
2
5
3
3
7
5
4
8
6
5
9
7
6
10
8
7
11
9
8
12
10
9
13
11
10
14
12
11
15
13
12
17
15
13
18
16
14
19
17
18
20
18
35
21
19
22
20
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mo et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0005491) – discloses a dual microphone system using a transfer function to determine health data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on (571) 270-3061. 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.
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights