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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's amendments and arguments/remarks filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant has amended the claims to recite that “the first belt and second belt are separate from the inflatable air bag, and the first belt has the buckle prong, which is insertable into any of the plurality of the holes of the second belt” and makes the following arguments:
The combination of Kawaguchi and Yoshihide fails to disclose or suggest “a second belt including a belt body and an insert, the insert being disposed in the belt body, the insert being constituted by a plate-shaped member, and the insert being formed of a homogeneous material having a higher tensile strength in a circumferential direction of the living body than the resin material of the belt body” or “that the first belt and the second belt are separate from the inflatable air bag, and that the first belt has the buckle prong, which is insertable into any of the plurality of the holes of the second belt”; and
Because Yoshihide discloses the reinforcing layer is sandwiched between the fluid bag and the outer peripheral layer, and the fluid bad is integrally fixed to the living body side of the reinforcing layer and outer peripheral layer; then a hole for inserting a prong cannot be formed in the fluid bag. Therefore, the configuration of Yoshihide is different from the claimed second belt in which the holes for inserting the prong art formed as recited in claim 1.
Yoshihide only describes hardness and does not disclose a configuration in which a material of an insert has a higher tensile strength in the circumferential direction of a living body than a resin material.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments with regards to argument A, the examiner finds the arguments to be non-persuasive in view of the modified rejections below and the response provided here. First, in light of the amendments to the claims that the first and second belt are separate from the inflatable air bag, independent claim 1 and its dependents are now rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation of “having an inflatable air bag that is provided on a living body side” is referring to the belt, or to the blood pressure measurement device, which in turn affect the interpretation of the claims. Either the claim is drawn to only the belts which is for use with a blood pressure measurement device having an inflatable air bad; or if the claim is drawn to the belts having an inflatable air bag, which are for a blood pressure measurement device. In light of this 112(b) rejection below and stated herein, the examiner is interpreting independent claim 1 as only drawn to the belt which is for use with a blood pressure measurement device which has an inflatable airbag. Accordingly, the examiner emphasizes that independent claim 1 is only drawn to the belt having a first and second belt and the accompanying limitations of claim 1, and not to the system of the blood pressure measurement device having an inflatable air bag. As such, in view of the modified rejection below, the examiner contends that the combination of Kawaguchi and Yoshihide meets the BRI of the claims as recited because it teaches the belts of Kawaguchi with the reinforcement layer of Yoshihide.
With regards to the applicant’s argument B, the examiner finds the argument to be non-persuasive as the examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kawaguchi for closing attachment in the same manner as taught by Yoshihide to arrive at the claimed invention. The examiner notes that "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. (see MPEP 2141.03). As such, the examiner contends that one of ordinary skill and creativity at the time of filing would have been capable and motivated to fit the pieces of Kawaguchi and Yoshihide together like a puzzle, and in this case by further modifying the belt connection means to be similar to Yoshihide’s connection means which utilize a buckle prong (elements 32 of Yoshihide) which are insertable into any of the plurality of holes (elements 25 of Yoshihide) of the second belt of a Kawaguchi/Yoshihide combination.
Regarding applicant’s argument C, the examiner finds the argument to be non-persuasive as it does not address the examiner’s position that Yoshihide’s translated disclosure considers the tensile strength of the insert element 24. Specifically, the examiner’s rejection in the final paragraph of page 3 which goes into page 4 which states “while the translation mentions hardness of the reinforcing layer element 23 is greater than the peripheral layer element 24 and fluid bag element 22, it is readily apparent in context of the paragraph that the reference means the tensile strength in order to restrict the air bag inflation to press it against the living body…”. Furthermore, the examiner has provided further explanation in the rejection below further stating that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the insert material would have to have a tensile strength higher than the resin material in a circumferential direction in order to restrict outward expansion due to air bag inflation and thus improve compression efficiency (said another way, the if the insert did not have a higher tensile strength in the circumferential direction than he resin, then the inflatable airbag would not be restricted as claimed). Further, the insert wouldn’t be called a “reinforcing layer” is if wasn’t providing reinforcement to the resin material. Accordingly, the argument is found to be non-persuasive.
Accordingly, the applicant’s amendments and arguments/remarks have been fully considered, but are found to be non-persuasive in view of the rejection provided herein.
Finally, the examiner invites the applicant to set up an interview to discuss possible amendments to the claims to help differentiate from the prior art used in rejections herein and move the case towards allowability.
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 1, 5-8 and 10-12 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 claims 1 and 5-7; the scope of the claim is indefinite as it is unclear if the inflatable air bag is being recited as part of the belt that is wrappable around a living body for a blood pressure measurement device; or, if the inflatable air bag is being recited as included with the blood pressure measurement device that the belt that is wrappable around a living body is for use with. The current structure of the preamble and the later recitation within the body of the claims to recite “the first belt and the second belt are separate from the inflatable air bag” makes it unclear if said inflatable air bag is required within the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim. Accordingly, the claim 1 and its dependents claims are indefinite.
For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner is interpreting claim 1 as only reciting the belt and that the inflatable air bag is part of the blood pressure measurement device that the belt is for use with.
Regarding claims 8 and 10-12; the scope of the claim is indefinite for similar reasons as to claim 1, as it is unclear if the inflatable air bag is part of the belt or if it is part of the cuff structure of the blood pressure measurement device of claims 8 and 10-12. Specifically, claims 8 and 10-12 recite a blood pressure measurement device, and “a cuff structure provided on an inner side of the belt and configured to be inflated with a fluid.” However, as claim 1 set that the belts are for an inflatable air bag, and claims 8 and 10-12 refer to a cuff structure, it is unclear if the inflatable air bag is part of the cuff structure provided on the inner side of the belt and configured to be inflated with a fluid; if the inflatable air bag is synonymous with the cuff structure provided on the inner side of the belt; or if the inflatable air bag is a separate element from the cuff structure provided on an inner side of the belt. As such, the claims 8 and 10-12 are deemed indefinite as the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim are indefinite.
For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the indefinite limitations as the cuff structure of the blood pressure measurement device comprises the inflatable air bag of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi (US 2021/0060825 A1) in view of Yoshihide (WO 2017/119384), as best understood.
Regarding claims 1, 5-8, and 10-12; Kawaguchi discloses a belt (Figure 1, pointed side band body 3, buckle-side band body 4) that is wrappable around a living body (Paragraph 0039) for a blood pressure measurement device (Figure 1, electronic device E, Paragraph 0004), comprising: a first belt constituted in a band shape (Figure 1, buckle-side band body 4); a second belt (Figure 1, point side band body 3) including a belt body (Figure 2, outer sheath 6) and an insert (Figure 2, resin portion 5), the belt body being constituted in a band shape using a resin material (Paragraph 0051) and including a plurality of holes formed along a longitudinal direction (Figure 2, length adjustment holes 32), the insert being disposed in the belt body with the plurality of the holes (Figure 2); and a connector adapted to connect the first belt and the second belt (Figure 2, buckle 42, buckle tongue 43), the connector having a buckle prong (Figure 2, buckle tongue 43), wherein the insert is constituted by a plate-shaped member (Figure 2, resin portion 5) and has a plurality of hole reinforcing portions each disposed between the holes of the belt body (Modified Figure 4, reinforcing portions), and the insert including the plurality of hole reinforcing portions is arranged within the belt body (Figure 4); the first belt (element 4) has the buckle prong (element 43), which is insertable into any of the plurality of holes (elements 32) of the second belt (element 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4
However, Kawaguchi fails to teach an inflatable air bag provided on a living side; and the insert being formed of a homogeneous material having a higher tensile strength in a circumferential direction of the living body than the resin material.
Yoshihide teaches a belt (element 20) for blood pressure monitoring device (abstract) that has a separate inflatable air bag (element 22) from the belt provided on an inner side of the belt (figure 13d, 14d-f) and an insert (element 23) wherein the insert is formed of a homogeneous material having a higher hardness than a resin material (element 24) of the belt body wherein structure of the inflatable air bag, homogeneous insert and the outer resin layer improves compression efficiency at the measurement site when the airbags are inflated which help increase measurement accuracy (page 2 final paragraph through 3rd paragraph of page 3 of the English translation; figures 13d, 14d-f). Furthermore, although Yoshihide teaches that the homogeneous insert material has a high hardness than the resin material, it is clear and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the homogenous insert material (element 23) would have a higher tensile strength in a circumferential direction of the living body than the resin material as Yoshihide’s translation specifically discloses the element 23 is a reinforcing layer and that the belt outer layers suppress the expansion of the outside of the fluid bag and thus restrict the air bag inflation to press it against the living body in order to improve compression efficiency which in turn improves the blood pressure measurement accuracy, see page 2 final paragraph through paragraph 3 of page 3 of English translation of Yoshihide. Thus, In order to resist expansion due to inflation, the reinforcing layer (element 23) and peripheral layer (element 24) would have to have a higher tensile strength, and further since the reinforcing layer (element 23) is providing reinforcement to the belt, then the reinforcement layer (homogenous insert element 23) would have to have a high tensile strength than the peripheral layer which is the resin material and inflatable bag or else the outward inflation of the inflatable bag would not be suppressed and the insert element 23 would not be referred to as a reinforcement layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kawaguchi’s belt to include a homogeneous insert having a higher tensile strength in a circumferential direction and to modify for use with a separate inflatable air bag provided on the body side of the belt as taught by Yoshihide in order increase measurement accuracy by improving compression efficiency at the pressure measurement site (page 2 final paragraph through 3rd paragraph of page 3 of the English translation).
Further regarding claim 5; the Kawaguchi/Yoshihide combination described above teaches a cross section (Kawaguchi, Figure 2, line IV-IV) of each of the hole reinforcing portions (Kawaguchi, Modified Figure 4, reinforcing portions) orthogonal to a width direction of the belt body (Kawaguchi, Figure 2, outer sheath 6) is constituted as a rectangle (Kawaguchi, Figure 4).
Further regarding claim 6; the Kawaguchi/Yoshihide combination described above teaches a center of the cross section (Kawaguchi, Figure 2, line IV-IV) of each of the hole reinforcing portions (Kawaguchi, Modified Figure 4, reinforcing portions) coincides with a center of a cross section (Kawaguchi, Figure 2, line IV-IV) of a part between two adjacent holes (Kawaguchi, Figure 5, length adjustment holes 32) of the belt body (Kawaguchi, Figure 2, outer sheath 6), the cross section of the part between the two adjacent holes being orthogonal to the width direction and a thickness direction of the belt body (Kawaguchi, Figure 4).
Further regarding claim 7, the Kawaguchi/Yoshihide combination described above teaches the cross section (Kawaguchi, Figure 2, line IV-IV) of the part between the two adjacent holes (Kawaguchi, Figure 5, length adjustment holes 32) being orthogonal to the width direction and a thickness direction of the belt body (Kawaguchi, Figure 2, outer sheath 6, Figure 4). The examiner notes that it would have been routine optimization to position the hole reinforcing portion biased toward a side opposite to the connector with respect to a center of a cross section of a part between two adjacent holes. This is supported by the disclosure of Kawaguchi where it states that the distance between the holes of the insert can vary (Kawaguchi, Paragraph 0050)(MPEP 2144.05(ll)).
Regarding claims 8 and 10-12; Kawaguchi discloses a blood pressure measurement system (Kawaguchi electronic device element E used to obtain blood pressure, paragraph [0004]). The Kawaguchi/Yoshihide combination belt is described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the belt of Kawaguchi’s blood pressure measurement system with the belt of the Kawaguchi/Yoshihide combination as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 5-7 above, in order to improve compression efficiency and effectively improve measurement accuracy as taught by Yoshihide.
Furthermore, regarding claims 8 and 10-12; Yoshihide teaches providing a cuff structure (element 22) provided on an inner side of the belt (elements 23 and 24) and configured to be inflated with a fluid (Yoshihide figures 12d and 13d-f and page 2 final paragraph through 3rd paragraph of page 3 of the English translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify the Kawaguchi/Yoshihide combination to include a cuff structure provided on an inner side of the belt and configured to be inflated with a fluid as taught by Yoshihide in order to measure blood pressure and improve compression efficiency and measurement accuracy.
Further regarding claims 10-12; the Kawaguchi/Yoshihide combination blood pressure measurement device described in the rejection of claim 8 would also use the belts as described in the rejections of claims 5-7 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J EISEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:00 AM - 4:00 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791