I looked at this patent and it seems (to me) most claims are too vague and that prior art apply for a lot of them.
Having a microphone in a stethoscope, sound capturing device or alike in not new, having electronics involving micro-controllers and DSP to do signal processing is not either. It seems also some inventors have also thought about having a central monitoring system. I found the patents below that might be interesting to consider:

US4086917 : Featl Heart Monitoring System (multiple systems connected to central monitoring stations) (May 1978)
US5932849 : Stethoscope having microphone therein (Aug. 1999)
US6002777 : Electronic stethoscope (Dec. 1999)
US7818050 : Passive Phonography Heart Monitor (Oct. 2010)
CN2525940 (Y) - Domestic electronic audio monitoring measurer for fetal heart rate

I also found an interesting publication:

Development of a low cost fetal heart sound monitoring system for home care application (Arun Kumar Mittra1, Nitin K. Choudhari2 - October 26, 2009)

Maybe someone could have a more expert reading of this application than mine and share the outcome.


Google link: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011137930A1

2 Answers 2


Download the International Preliminary Report on Patentability Chapter I from patentscope. Claim 1 lacks novelty in light of four prior art documents.

  • As a matter of fact, the European Patent Office has already found ALL claims to lack novelty. I think it would be helpful for people asking questions here to check the online file wrapper of the patent office concerned, so that nobody wastes effort trying to duplicate the work of the offices. Commented Dec 28, 2014 at 15:17
  • Also, the application has not entered any national phase according to WIPO, more than four years after the original filing. In fact, EP register explicitly states "Application deemed to be withdrawn": register.epo.org/application?number=EP10718571&tab=main. I think it is therefore safe to assume the application is dead for good. Commented Dec 28, 2014 at 15:23

Just to be clear, WO2011137930A1 is not a patent. It's a publication of an "international" application for a patent.

I would agree that the independent claims appear to be broad (although not necessarily vague) and likely anticipated by prior art.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .