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 (IDS) submitted on May 28, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Appllicant is required to insert all patent numbers of all related application into the specification.
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.
Claims 11-24 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.
As per claim 11, applicant is required to clarify what is “first information” being stored in the “first terminal”
As per claim 11, applicant is required to clarify where the “first information” being located?
As per claim 14, applicant is required to clarify what is “second information” being stored in the “second terminal”
As per claim 14, applicant is required to clarify where the “second information” being located?
As per claim 16, applicant is required to clarify what data being obtained by a second terminal?
As per claim 17, applicant is required to clarify the relationship between the first terminal and the second terminal and how control the first signal to be sent to the first terminal based on the acoustic event being identified based on data obtained by a second terminal?
As per claims 12-13 and 15, and 18-22 should have been rejected for the same reason for their dependency.
As per claims 23-24, refer to claim 11 above.
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) 11-15 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(10 as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2016/0150338).
As per claim 11, Kim et al. disclose a notification system (100, figures 1-3) comprising:
at least one memory (139, figure 3) storing instructions; and
at least one processor (135, figure 3) configured to execute instructions to:
store first information (a phone number that is registered in advance) associated with a first terminal (external device, 20, paragraph 0226),
determine an acoustic event related to physical condition (crying) has been detected (paragraphs 0075-0076),
control a first signal to be sent to the first terminal based on the acoustic event being detected (paragraphs 0078).
As per claim 12, Kim et al. disclose the first signal being configured to control the first terminal to display a text message regarding the acoustic event (paragraph 0078).
As per claim 13, Kim et al. disclose the first signal being configured to control the first terminal to emit a sound (paragraphs 0027 0258, 0272).
As per claim 14, Kim et al. disclose the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: store second information (phone number of a police station) associated with a second terminal (10, figure 1) and control a second signal to be sent to the second terminal (paragraph 0240).
As per claim 15, Kim et al. disclose the first signal being configured to control the first terminal to provide a notification regarding the acoustic event (see abstract and paragraph 0078).
As per claim 22, Kim et al. disclose the acoustic event being identified using machine learning (paragraph 0153) and the first signal being for a user of the first terminal to make a decision relating to the acoustic event (paragraphs 0077-0078).
As per claims 23-24 refer to claim 11 above.
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) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Aarts (US 2011/0087079).
As per claims 19-21, Kim et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the acoustic event comprises coughing or snoring. Aarts discloses a patient monitoring system (10, figure 1) comprising a microphone array (12) to sense sound generated by a patient (11, paragraph 0016), wherein the acoustic event being coughing and snoring from the patient (see abstract and paragraphs 0018-0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the patient monitoring system as taught by Aarts in a system as disclosed by Kim et al. for the purpose of sensing the patient cough or snore in order to monitoring health condition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAI T. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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 ttps://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.
/TAI T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 September 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights