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 Amendment
The amendments filed 19 March 2026 have been entered. Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection to the specification previously applied in the office action dated 20 November 2025. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every objection to the claims previously-applied in the office action dated 20 November 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typographical spelling error at [0094] of “indecate”, rather than “indicate”. Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The “physical button” of Claim 22 (and 17) is described at [0095] with “Or the measurement start control may not only the virtual buttons in the interface, but also be physical buttons such as buttons set on the device body or buttons set on a blood pressure measurement accessory.” Neither the device body, nor the buttons, nor the blood pressure measurement accessory are shown in a figure.
Therefore, the “physical buttons” on the “device body” or “blood pressure measurement accessory” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
regarding the term “at least two position information icons, at least two position information icons are configured to…”: it is suggested to revise the term to be “at least two position information icons, wherein the at least two position information icons are configured to…” for readability of the claim.
Regarding the term “…lying position, the first measurement position and the second measurement position each comprise”: it is suggested to revise the term to be“…lying position, and the first measurement position and the second measurement position each comprise” for readability of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: regarding “start control in the at least two measurement start controls” in line 6, it is suggested to revise the term to be “start control of the at least two measurement start controls” (“of” instead of “in”) for readability and consistency in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first blood pressure measurement accessory” and “second blood pressure measurement accessory” to “collect a first blood pressure parameter value” in claims 1 and 2 and their dependent claims.
The claim limitation is interpreted according to paragraph [0020] “A blood pressure measurement accessory that is used to collect the target blood pressure parameter value of a monitored object. “; [0051] “each measurement start controls corresponds to different blood pressure measurement accessory”; and [0100] “the user wears the blood pressure measurement accessory on the right hand of the monitored object in the lying position”. There is no particular disclosed structure in Applicant’s specification associated with the first or second blood pressure accessories. The blood pressure measurement accessory is shown as a generic box element 502 in Figure 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 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.
Claim 1 (lines 19 – 21) recites the term “determining, by the processor, whether an actual position information is consistent with the first position information”, and similarly in (lines 41 – 43), “determining, by the processor, whether an actual position information is consistent with the second position information”.
Similarly, Claim 2 (lines 25 - 26) recites the term “wherein the processor is configured to…determine whether an actual position information is consistent with the first position information”, and in Claim 2 (lines 42 - 43), “wherein the processor is configured to…determine whether an actual position information is consistent with the second position information”.
The specification notes general examples at [0098] that the “actual position information…can be determined in various ways”, including “internal identification data of the blood pressure measurement accessory”, obtaining “image data of the monitored object” and “identify the actual position information of the monitored object through image recognition technology”, “position information of the monitored object detected by other device such as smart beds…”. There is provide no description of the steps or hardware that is critically necessary for the processor itself to make the determination of what deems “actual position information” to be “consistent”. It is not specified it this is a software or hardware component of the processor itself, a particular algorithm or decision tree, or if it is possibly obtaining additional information from sensors outside of the device to evaluate the measured object or subject’s position. It is not specified when or how often this check is performed relative to blood pressure measurement or how it is performed. Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed. Claims 3 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 2.
Claim 1 (lines 22 – 23) recites the term “establishing, by the processor, the first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information” (and also included within Claim 1 (lines 18 – 20) “before establishing…position information”), and similarly Claim 1 (lines 44 – 45) “establishing, by the processor, the second correspondence relationship between the second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information” (and also included within Claim 1 (lines 40 – 41) “before establishing…position information”).
Similarly, Claim 2 (lines 27 – 28) recites the term “wherein the processor is configured to…establish the first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information” (and also included within Claim 2 (lines 24 - 25) “before establishing…position information”),and in Claim 2 (lines 44 - 45), “wherein the processor is configured to… establish the second correspondence relationship between the second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information (and also included within Claim 2 (lines 41 - 42) “before establishing…position information”)
The specification refers generally throughout, including at [0075], [0076], [0080], [0087], to establishing one more correspondence relationships between a blood pressure parameter value and position information. However, it does not appear to specify what in particular the “correspondence relationship” entity actually is, whether it is “established” by an icon that is displayed, whether it is a paragraph description that is stored somewhere, whether it is some other algorithmic or physical correspondence, etc. As such, there is also no description of how the processor itself establishes this (these) correspondence relationship(s). It is not specified it this is a software or hardware component of the processor itself, a particular algorithm or decision tree, or if it is possibly obtaining additional information from sensors outside of the device to evaluate the measured object or subject’s position or the obtained blood pressure value. Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed. Claims 3 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 2.
Claim 1 (lines 33 – 34) recites the term “determining, by the processor…wherein the second position information is different than the first position information.”
Similarly, Claim 2 (lines 34 - 35) recites the term “wherein the processor is configured to…determine…wherein the second position information is different than the first position information.”
There is no particular description of how the processor makes this determination to distinguish that the first position information is “different” form the second position information. It is not specified it this is a software or hardware component of the processor itself, a particular algorithm or decision tree, or if it is possibly obtaining additional information from sensors outside of the device to evaluate the measured object or subject’s position. It is not specified when or how often this check is performed relative to blood pressure measurement or how it is performed. Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed. Claims 3 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 2.
Claim 1 (lines 59 - 61) and Claim 2 (lines 55 – 57) each recite the term “obtaining modified position information in response to a modification instruction to modify the first position information or the second position information.”
The specification describes at [0096] that the user can input an instruction to “modify the target position information” by clicking a target position icon to modify. Then in response to an instruction to modify, something obtains the modified position information. It is not particularly disclosed how the position information is actually modified, whether than means that blank fields in a graphical user interface are stored as something else, whether a sensor system is updated, or what the modification entails. It is not specified it this is a software or hardware component of the processor itself, a particular algorithm or decision tree, or if it is possibly providing information to sensors outside of the device that evaluate the measured object or subject’s position or the obtained blood pressure value. Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed. Claims 3 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 2.
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 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 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 1 (line 6) recites the term “collect blood pressure parameters”. It is unclear if these blood pressure parameters are intended to be the same or different than the “physiological parameter” recited in the preamble of the claim. There is no “physiological parameter” recited elsewhere in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the term in the preamble “for measuring physiological parameter” is deemed to claim “for measuring blood pressure parameters”, and the term “collect blood pressure parameters” is deemed to claim “collect the blood pressure parameters”.
Claim 1 (lines 8 – 14) recites the term “in response to a first triggering operation input by the user through a first measurement start control of the at least two measurement start controls, determining, by a processor, first position information corresponding to the first measurement start control”. As previously-recited in lines 5 – 7, the start controls are configured to instruct the interface to collect blood pressure parameters. As such, it is unclear what in particular the “position information” is and how it is being determined from instructions to collect blood pressure parameters. It is also unclear how position information “corresponds” to a first measurement control, whether it is some identification that is inherently assigned to the button (as with a label), or if the button itself is doing some sensing action to determine a position. Looking to Applicant’s specification, it is unclear how this “determination step” is being performed by the processor such that “position information” is positively being correlated to the particular start control. More specifically, it is not clear if this is an algorithmic step by the processor, if this is an identification by the user into a text box on a graphical user interface, if this is a hardware identification, a software identification, the name of the button (such as, The Dedicated Right Arm, Lying Down Button), or if it is indexing information that has previously been assigned by a user relative to this button. It is unclear if the information that the user must maintain a given position and posture originates from the button (having stored instructions thereon), a calculation performed by the processor, a user prompt supplied to the user by the processor to label the user interface, or some other means. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claim 1 (lines 11 – 14) recites the term “first position information corresponding to the first measurement start control, wherein the first position information is configured to indicate a first posture that needs to be maintained by a monitored object and a first measurement position of the monitored object during blood pressure measurement”.
With the use of “first position information”, such that it encompasses both “first measurement position” and also a “first posture”, it is unclear what differentiation is intended to be made my posture vs position. It is unclear if the posture is intended to also be a type of position, in which case, would it also be a first measurement position? Looking to the specification at [0085], “monitored object” appears to intend to refer to either a human subject themself or their arm with “instructs the monitored object to be in a lying position according to the measurement requirements, wears a blood pressure measurement accessory to the left hand of the monitored object”. Looking to the specification, at [0003] there is a “lying posture” described, but at [0087] there is a “left-hand lying position”. It is unclear what constitutes a position or a posture, such that the metes and bounds of what is being claimed by each relative to “first position information” cannot be ascertained.
“configured to indicate a first posture that needs to be maintained”. As recited, it is unclear if it is the indication that is intended to be maintained by the monitored object, or if it is the posture. Further, it is unclear if the “need” is being determined by the processor, the button, the user, or the monitored object itself. As described above, “posture” is unclear if it refers to an orientation of the object (where the “monitored object” is potentially a body part or an entire human subject). the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. It is unclear how and to whom the position information is “indicating”, whether it is transmitting assignment information for the processors from a medical professional (as in, “POSITION INFORMATION” is a blank on a graphical user interface that a user can type in, or “indicate”, position information), if it is an active visual “indication” on a graphical interface to the user and the monitored object after the information is known by the processor or interface, or it “indicating” is using the colloquial to recite that “the first position information is a first posture information that needs to be maintained…and a first measurement position…”.
The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claim 1 (lines 18 – 21) recites the term “before establishing a first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information, determining, by the processor, whether an actual position information is consistent with the first position information” and similarly the “before establishing a second correspondence relationship…second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information…” limitation of Claim 1, lines 40 – 43.
Similarly Claim 2 recites (lines 24 - 26), “wherein the processor is configured to…before establishing a first correspondence relationship…first position information” and the “before establishing a second correspondence relationship…second position information” limitation of Claim 2, lines 41 – 43.
“actual position information” is unclear, as it is not apparent what makes a position “actual” position information or not. Looking to Applicant’s specification, there are general examples at [0098] that the “actual position information…can be determined in various ways”, including “internal identification data of the blood pressure measurement accessory”, obtaining “image data of the monitored object” and “identify the actual position information of the monitored object through image recognition technology”, “position information of the monitored object detected by other device such as smart beds…”. There is provided no description of the steps or hardware that is critically necessary for the processor itself to make the determination of what deems “actual position information” to be “actual” vs. not-actual.
Given that the “actual position information” is unclear, it is also unclear how the processor is determining this relationship. Is it referencing particular sensor information, receiving a confirmation from a user, checking hardware connections, or some other method. Looking to the specification, the particulars of how the “determining” is made is not apparent.
The term “consistent” in is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “consistent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how “consistent” the information must be to be considered “consistent”, in example, whether all of the information should exactly match, whether it is only the same type of information, whether it differs in a way that is documented/expected by trends, etc.
Based on these clarity issues, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. Claims 3 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 2.
Claim 1 (lines 22 – 24) recites the term “establishing, by the processor, the first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information”, and similarly the “establishing…the second correspondence relationship…the second position information…” in Claim 1 (lines 44 – 46).
Similarly Claim 2 recites (lines 27 – 29), “wherein the processor is configured to…establish the first correspondence relationship…first position information”, and similarly “establish the second correspondence relationship…second position information” in Claims 2 (lines 44 – 46).
It is unclear what is particularly meant by “correspondence relationship”. Is the correspondence relationship merely that the measurement has been obtained? The first position information is based in some part by the first measurement start control, which is recited to obtain the first blood pressure parameter value. So is the correspondence relationship that it has been obtained by that accessory? In which case, it is unknown how this correspondence relationship could only be established after the position information is obtained from the button press. Looking to Applicant Fig. 2, it appears that a “correspondence relationship” is established before the measurement start control is pressed, and it is between the start control and the position icons (top panel of Fig. 2), and not the blood pressure value itself. In light of later-recited Claim 4, which recites “determine a display area, corresponding to the first position information” in which the “first blood pressure parameter value” and the “first position information” are displayed, the “correspondence relationship” established is that they are displayed in the same display area. It is unclear what form the “correspondence relationship” takes, how it is made, and what elements are involved in establishing the relationship. The metes and bound of the claim cannot be ascertained. Claims 3 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 2.
Claim 1 (lines 25 – 26) recites the term “outputting, by the processor, prompt information when the actual position information is inconsistent with the first position information” and similarly the “outputting…second position information” limitation in Claim 1 (lines 47 – 48).
Similarly Claim 2 recites (lines 27 – 29), “wherein the processor is configured to…output prompt information…first position information” and similarly the “output prompt information…second position information” limitation in Claim 2 (lines 47 – 48).
As described above, it is unclear where the first position information comes from (whether it is measured by sensors, an input from the user to assign a button, etc.), and it is unclear what constitutes “actual position information”. As such, it is unclear what gives the processor information to output this prompt information. The metes and bounds cannot be ascertained. Claims 3 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 2.
Claim 1 (lines 27 - 30) recites the term “displaying the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information in the vital signs monitoring interface, so as to indicate the first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information”. As the “first correspondence relationship” is unclear as described above, it is unclear if this is referring to indicating a relationship by displaying position and blood pressure values close together (as appearing in Applicant’s drawings, Figure 4), if there is a literal arrow and indicator that says “correspondence relationship” displayed (as appearing in the top part of Applicant’s Fig. 4), or what is intended to be displayed for the correspondence relationship (as it is unclear what embodies the correspondence relationship, as described above). The metes and bounds cannot be ascertained.
Claim 1 (lines 32 – 35) recites the term “determine the second position information…wherein the second position information is different from the first position information”. The term “different” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “different” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since “second position information” and “first position information” both include both posture and measurement position information, it is unclear if it is enough to be “different” if 1 aspect is identified unlike the other (1st Posture = A, 2nd Posture = A, 1st Position = B, 2nd Position = C), or that 2 aspects must be identified unlike the other identifiers (1st Posture = A, 2nd Posture = D, 1st Position = B, 2nd Position = C), or merely that the “first position information” is always different that “second position information” by virtue as being assigned as “first” and “second” by the processor through some identification means. The metes and bounds of the intent of “different” cannot be ascertained relative to the unclear “position information term”, as described above.
Claim 1 (lines 44 – 48) and Claim 2 (lines 44 – 48) lines each recite the terms “establishing…when the actual position information is consistent with the second position information” and “output…when the actual position information is consistent with the second position information.” Given the previously-recited limitations of “establishing…when the actual position information is consistent with the first position information” and “output…when the actual position information is consistent with the first position information”, and that the “second position information is different than the first position information”, it appears that either first or second position information can be consistent with “actual position information” but not both, if the intent is that they are “different”. As such, it is unclear what “consistent” is intended to mean, and if there is only one “actual position information” to which everything is compared, or if there are two instances “actual position information”. In combination with the aforementioned lack of clarity regarding “actual position information”, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained, whether all of the ”establishing…” and “output…” steps positively occur. Claims 3 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 2.
Claim 1 (line 56 – 57) and Claim 2 (lines 52 – 53) each recite the term “to remind the user that the blood pressure value difference is abnormal”. It is unclear if there was a previous alert or information to the user of the abnormal blood pressure value difference such that this is a reminder. For the purposes of examination, the term “to remind the user that the blood pressure value difference is abnormal” is deemed to claim “to inform the user that the blood pressure value difference is abnormal”. Claims 3 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 2.
Claim 1 (line 59 – 61) and Claim 2 (line 55 - 57) each recite the term “obtaining modified position information in response to a modification instruction to modify the first position information or the second position information.” It is unclear what constitutes “modified position information” as opposed to position information, and it is unclear to who or what the “modification instruction” is being conveyed. Looking to Applicant’s specification at [0096], the user can input an instruction to “modify the target position information” by clicking a target position icon to modify. Then in response to an instruction to modify, something obtains the modified position information. It is not particularly disclosed how the position information is actually modified, whether than means that blank fields in a graphical user interface are stored as something else, whether a sensor system is updated, or what the modified information entails. The metes and bounds of the intent of “modified position information” cannot be ascertained relative to the unclear “position information term”, as described above. Claims 3 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 2.
Claim 1 (lines 62 – 63) and Claim 2 (lines 58 - 59) recites the term “replacing the first position information or the second position information with the modified position information”. It is unclear what constitutes “replacing”, when the form of “position information” is unclear. Whether this is “replacing” as in a user is deleting text in a text field on a graphical user interface, or if it is obtaining some new measurement from the measurement accessory or start control. In combination with the aforementioned lack of clarity regarding the meaning of “position” in “position information”, the metes and bounds cannot be ascertained. Claims 3 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim
Claim 5 (line 6) recites the term “different measurement start controls”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited “at least two measurement start controls”, “first measurement start control”, or “second measurement start control”. For the purpose of examination, the term “different measurement start controls” is deemed to claim “each of the at least two measurement start controls”.
Claim 5 (lines 3 – 4) recites the term “at least two position information icons are configured to indicate position information that needs to be maintained during blood pressure measurement”. It is unclear if the “position information that needs to be maintained during blood pressure measurement” is intended to be a measurement position of the monitored object, if it is first or second position information (or both), or if it is a position for icons on the screen that does not change during measurement. Further, as described above for Claim 1, the “needs to be maintained” is unclear. As recited, it is unclear if it is the indication that is intended to be maintained by the monitored object or the icon on the screen, or if it is the position itself that is maintained. Further, it is unclear if the “need” is being determined by the processor, the button, the user, or the monitored object itself. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claim 5 (lines 5 – 6) recites the term “between different position information icons and different measurement start controls”. The term “different” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “different” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is also unclear if these are intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited “at least two position information icons”. It appears that “different” is possibly intended to indicate that each individual measurement start controls has an individually-assigned position information icon. For the purposes of examination and given the interpretation above, the term “between different position information icons and different measurement start controls” is deemed to claim “there are pre-set correspondence relationships between the at least two position information icons and each of the at least two measurement start controls”. Claim 6 is similarly rejected due to its dependence on Claim 5.
Claim 5 (lines 5 – 8) recites the term “wherein the first posture and the second posture each comprise a standing position or a lying position”. In the context of Claim 2, from which this claim depends, it is unclear if a “standing position” would encompass all of the requirements of the first (or second) position information, with the position information being “a first (or second) posture…and a first (or second) measurement position”. “Standing” is broadly a posture, and is described as both a posture and position, indicating that “a first (or second) posture” could be the “first (or second) position information” on its own, without a second set of information. For the purposes of examination, the term “wherein the first posture and the second posture each comprise a standing position or a lying position” is deemed to claim “wherein the first posture and the second posture each comprise either a standing posture or a lying posture”. Claim 6 is similarly rejected due to its dependence on Claim 5.
Claim 6 (lines 3 – 4) recites the term “a measurement start control”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited “at least two measurement start controls”, “first measurement start control”, or “second measurement start control”. For the purpose of examination, the term “a measurement start control” is deemed to claim “the one of the at least two measurement start controls”.
Claim 6 (lines 3 – 4) recites the term “obtain the pre-set correspondence relationship between a measurement start control and position information”. There in insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previously-recited pre-set correspondence relationship between a measurement start control and position information. The limitation of Claim 5, from which this claim depends, recites that there are multiple pre-set correspondence relationships between the position information icons and measurement start controls. For the purposes of examination, the term “obtain the pre-set correspondence relationship between a measurement start control and position information” is deemed to claim “obtain a pre-set control position correspondence relationship between the at least two measurement start controls and the first or the second position information”.
Claim 7 (lines 2 – 3) recites the term “the at least two measurement start controls comprise common measurement start control, common position information icon and measurement start increase control”. It is unclear how “common position information icon” is a measurement start control. As recited, the “at least two measurement start controls” appear to actively control blood pressure accessories, which is not a known function of an icon on its own. For the purposes of examination, the term “the at least two measurement start controls comprise a common measurement start control that is associated with a common position information icon, and a measurement start increase control”.
Claim 7 (line 4 – 6) recites the “the common position information icon is used to indicate a pre-set conventional position information that needs to be kept during measuring blood pressure measurement”. As recited, it is unclear if it is the indication that is intended to be maintained by the monitored object or the icon on the screen, or if it is the position itself that is maintained. Further, it is unclear if the “need” is being determined by the processor, the button, the user, or the monitored object itself. For the purposes of examination, the term “the common position information icon is used to indicate a pre-set conventional position information that needs to be kept during measuring blood pressure measurement” is deemed to claim “the common position information icon visually represents a pre-set conventional position information for blood pressure measurement”. Claim 8 is similarly rejected due to its dependence on Claim 7.
Claim 8 (line 6) recites the term “receive the position information set by the user”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited “first position information” and “second position information.” For the purposes of examination, the term “receive the position information set by the user” is deemed to claim “receive user-modified position information in the position information setting interface.” As a result of this interpretation, the term “determine the set position information” in line 9 is deemed to claim “determine the user-modified position information”. Claim 9 is similarly rejected due to its dependence on Claim 8.
Claim 8 (lines 3 – 8) recites the term “when the first measurement start control or the second measurement start control is the measurement start control, display a position information setting interface, receive the position information set by the user for the first measurement start control or the second measurement start control based on the position information setting interface,.” With the addition of “the first measurement start control or the second measurement start control” being the measurement start increase control, there is a situation that the first measurement start control is the measurement start increase control, the position information setting interface is displayed. Then it is unclear if position information set by the user can be set for either the first or the second measurement start control, rather than, reset the first position information when the first control is the measurement start increase control, or reset the second position information when the second control is the measurement start increase control. Further, the language of “start increase” is generally unclear for what the control is intended to do. For the purposes of examination, the term “when the first measurement start control of the second measurement start control is the measurement start control, display a position information setting interface, receive the position information set by the user for the first measurement start control or the second measurement start control based on the position information setting interface” is deemed to claim “when the first measurement start control or the second measurement start control is the measurement start control, display a position information setting interface, receive position information set by the user for the measurement start control as input to the position information setting interface.” Claim 9 is similarly rejected due to its dependence on Claim 8.
Claim 10 (line 4) recites the term “the correspondence relationship” in line 3. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited “first correspondence relationship”. For the purposes of examination, the term “the correspondence relationship” is deemed to claim “the first correspondence relationship.”
Claim 11 (line 3) recites the term “the blood pressure alarm condition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this Is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited alarm condition. For the purposes of examination, the term “the blood pressure alarm condition” is deemed to claim “the alarm condition”.
Claim 16 (line 2) recites “each measurement start control” and (line 4 – 5) “between each measurement start control”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited at least two measurement start controls and first and second measurement start controls. For the purposes of examination, the term “each measurement start control” is deemed to claim “each measurement start control of the at least two measurement start controls”, and “between each measurement start control” is deemed to claim “between the each measurement start control of the at least two measurement start controls”.
Claim 16 (line 2 – 3) recites “a respective blood pressure measurement accessory”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited at least one blood pressure measurement accessory or first or second blood pressure measurement accessory. For the purposes of examination, the term “a respective blood pressure measurement accessory” is deemed to claim “a respective blood pressure measurement accessory of the at least one blood pressure measurement accessory”.
Claim 16 (line 4) recites the term “indicating the correspondence relationship”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously recited first or second correspondence relationships. For the purposes of examination, the term “indicating the correspondence relationship” is deemed to claim “for indicating a respective accessory control correspondence relationship between.”
Claim 18 (line 6 - 7) recites the term “the correspondence relationship between the first measurement start control and the first position information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same, different, or in addition to the previously-recited first correspondence relationship. The previously-recited correspondence relationship recited in Claim 2 was between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information, not the start control and the position information. For the purposes of examination, the term “the correspondence relationship between the first measurement start control and the first position information” is deemed to claim “a start control correspondence relationship between the first measurement start control and the first position information”.
Claim 18 (line 7 - 8) recites the term “the correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure measurement accessory and the first position information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same, different, or in addition to the previously-recited first correspondence relationship. The previously-recited correspondence relationship recited in Claim 2 was between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information, not the start control and the position information. For the purposes of examination, the term “the correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure measurement accessory and the first position information” is deemed to claim “a measurement accessory correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure measurement accessory and the first position information”.
Claim 21 (line 3 - 4) recites the term “after establishing the correspondence relationship between the second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same as the previously-recited second correspondence relationship. For the purposes of examination, the term “after establishing the correspondence relationship between the second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information” is deemed to claim “after establishing the second correspondence relationship”.
Claim 23 (line 6 - 7) recites the term “the correspondence relationship between the second measurement start control and the second position information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same, different, or in addition to the previously-recited second correspondence relationship. The second correspondence relationship recited in Claim 2 was between the second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information, not the start control and the position information. For the purposes of examination, the term “the correspondence relationship between the second measurement start control and the second position information” is deemed to claim “a start control correspondence relationship between the second measurement start control and the second position information”.
Claim limitations “first blood pressure measurement accessory” and “second blood pressure measurement accessory” each invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no particular disclosed structure in Applicant’s specification associated with the first or second blood pressure accessories, as discussed in the 112f claim interpretation above, including paragraphs [0020]. [0051], and [0100]. The blood pressure measurement accessory is shown as a generic box element 502 in Figure 5. There is no clear structure described to perform the function of collecting blood pressure parameters. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites "an act or step, or series of acts or steps" for measuring physiological parameter, and is therefore a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1). The claims are then analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Each of Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23 recites at least one step or instruction for observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involves making observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are concepts performed in the human mind under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Independent Claims 1 and 2 recite (underlined are observations, judgements, evaluations, or opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) (additional elements bolded, see Step 2A, prong 2);
Claim 1
A method for measuring physiological parameter, comprising:
displaying a vital signs monitoring interface on a display, the vital signs monitoring interface comprising at least two measurement start controls, wherein the at least two measurement start controls each are configured to instruct the vital signs monitoring interface to collect blood pressure parameters upon being trigged by a user;
in response to a triggering operation input by the user through a first measurement start control, of the at least two measurement start controls, determining by a processor, first position information corresponding to the first measurement start control, wherein the first position information is configured to indicate a first posture that needs to be maintained by a monitored object and a first measurement position of the monitored object during blood pressure measurement;
obtaining, by the processor, a first blood pressure parameter value of the monitored object collected by a first blood pressure measurement accessory;
before establishing a first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information, determining, by the processor, whether an actual position information is consistent with the first position information
establishing, by the processor, the first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information when the actual position information is consistent with the first position information; and
outputting, by the processor, prompt information when the actual position information is inconsistent with the first position information
displaying the first blood pressure parameter value, and the first position information, in the vital signs monitoring interface, so as to indicate the first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information.
in response to a second triggering operation input by the user through a second measurement start control, determining, by the processor, second position information corresponding to the second measurement start control, wherein the second position information is different than the first position information, and the second position information is configured to indicate a second posture and a second measurement position of the monitored object;
obtaining, by the processor, a second blood pressure parameter value of the monitored object collected by a second blood pressure measurement accessory;
before establishing a second correspondence relationship between the second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information, determining, by the processor, whether the actual position information is consistent with the second position information;
establishing, by the processor, the second correspondence relationship between the second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information when the actual position information is consistent with the second position information
outputting, by the processor, prompt information, when the actual position information is inconsistent with the second position information;
displaying the second blood pressure parameter value, and the second position information in the vital signs monitoring interface, so as to indicate the second correspondence relationship between the second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information
calculating, by the processor, a blood pressure value difference between the first blood pressure parameter value and the second blood pressure parameter value; and
in response to the blood pressure value difference meeting an alarm condition, triggering, by the processor, an alarm in the vital signs monitoring interface to remind the user that the blood pressure value difference is abnormal;
wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining modified position information in response to a modification instruction to modify the first position information or the second position information, and
replacing the first position information or the second position information with the modified position information.
Claim 2
A device for monitoring vital sign, comprising:
a display configured to display a vital signs monitoring interface, and the vital signs monitoring interface comprises at least two measurement start controls, wherein the at least two measurement start controls each are configured to instruct the vital signs monitoring interface to collect blood pressure parameters upon being triggered by a user, and in the vital signs monitoring interface, a first blood pressure parameter value and a first position information are displayed so as to indicate a first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first target position information, and a second blood pressure parameter value and second position information are displayed so as to indicate a second correspondence relationship between the second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information;
at least one blood pressure measurement accessory, wherein a first blood pressure measurement accessory of the at least one blood pressure measurement accessory is configured to collect the first blood pressure parameter value of a monitored object; and
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine the first position information corresponding to a first measurement start control of the at least two measurement start controls in response to a first triggering operation input by the user through the first measurement start control, wherein the first position information is configured to indicate a first posture and a first measurement position of the monitored object;
obtain the first blood pressure parameter value of the monitored object collected by the first blood pressure measurement accessory; and
before establishing a first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information, determine whether an actual position information is consistent with the first position information;
establish the first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first target position information when the actual position information is consistent with the first position information.
output prompt information when the actual position information is inconsistent with the first position information;
determine the second position information corresponding to a second measurement start control in response to a second triggering operation input by the user through the second measurement start control, wherein the second position information is different than the first position information, and the second position information is configured to indicate a second posture and a second measurement position of the monitored object;
obtain the second blood pressure parameter value of the monitored object collected by a second blood pressure measurement accessory of the at least one blood pressure measurement accessory;
before establishing a second correspondence relationship between the second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information, determine whether the actual position information is consistent with the second position information;
establish the second correspondence relationship between the second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information when the actual position information is consistent with the second position information;
output prompt information when the actual position information is inconsistent with the second position information;
display the second blood pressure parameter value in the in the vital sign monitoring interface,
calculate a blood pressure value difference between the first blood pressure parameter value and the second blood pressure parameter value; and
in response to the blood pressure value difference meeting an alarm condition, trigger an alarm in the vital signs monitoring interface to remind the user that the blood pressure value difference is abnormal; and
wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain modified position information in response to a modification instruction to modify the first position information or the second position information, and
replace the first position information or the second position information with the modified position information.
(observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
These underlined limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps. For example, in Independent Claims 1 and 2, these limitations include:
In response to a triggering operation input by the user through a first (or second) measurement start control, of the at least two measurement start controls, Observation and judgment of first (or second) position information corresponding to the first (or second) measurement start control
before Observation and judgment to establish a first (or second) correspondence relationship between the first (or second) blood pressure parameter value and the first (or second) position information, Observation and judgment of whether an actual position information is consistent with the first (or second) position information
Observation and judgment to establish the first (or second) correspondence relationship between the first (or second) blood pressure parameter value and the first (or second) position information when the actual position information is consistent with the first (or second) position information;
Observation and judgment to evaluate a blood pressure value difference between the first blood pressure parameter value and the second blood pressure parameter value
in response to the blood pressure value difference meeting an alarm condition, Observation and judgment to trigger an alarm in the vital signs monitoring interface to remind the user that the blood pressure value difference is abnormal;
Observation and judgment to obtaining modified position information in response to a modification instruction to modify the first position information or the second position information
Observation and judgment to replace the first position information or the second position information with the modified position information.
all of which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG.
indicate a first (or second) posture that needs to be maintained by a monitored object and a first measurement position of the monitored object during blood pressure measurement;
communicate an instruction to a human of their body position to maintain during the measurement
which is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
Similarly, the Dependent Claims include the following abstract limitations, in addition the aforementioned limitations in Independent Claims 1 and 2 (underlined observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG):
determine a display area, corresponding to the first position information, in the vital sign monitoring interface
observation and judgment of a display area, corresponding to the first position information, in the vital sign monitoring interface
indicate position information that needs to be maintained during blood pressure measurement
Observation and judgment to communicate an instruction to a human body position information that needs to be maintained during blood pressure measurement
obtain the pre-set correspondence relationship between a measurement start control and position information
observation and judgment of the pre-set correspondence relationship between a measurement start control and position information
determine, according to the pre-set correspondence relationship, the target position information corresponding to the first measurement start control.
observation and judgment of, according to the pre-set correspondence relationship, the target position information corresponding to the first measurement start control.
the common position information icon is used to indicate a pre-set conventional position information that needs to be kept at the time during measuring blood pressure measurement
communicate visually an instruction to a human of a pre-set conventional position information that needs to be kept at the time during measuring blood pressure measurement
determine the set position as the first position or the second position information corresponding to the measurement start increase control.
Observation and judgment of the set position information as the first position or the second position information corresponding to the measurement start increase control.
determine a display area corresponding to the first (or second) position information in the vital signs monitoring interface
observation and judgment of a display area corresponding to the first (or second) position information in the vital signs monitoring interface
determine the first (or second) position information associated with a pre-set blood pressure difference calculation rule after establishing the correspondence relationship between the first (or second) blood pressure parameter value and the first (or second) target position information
evaluate the first (or second) position information associated with a pre-set blood pressure difference calculation rule after observation and judgment of the correspondence relationship between the first (or second) blood pressure parameter value and the first (or second) target position information
display a last collected blood pressure parameter value and a target position information corresponding to the last collected blood pressure parameter value in a different display font style than a font style of other blood pressure parameter value being displayed in the vital sign monitoring interface when there are multiple blood pressure parameter values and each blood pressure parameter value corresponds to respective target position information
communicate a last collected blood pressure parameter value and a target position information corresponding to the last collected blood pressure parameter value in a different display font style than a font style (such as writing with a different color marker, a different size, or in cursive) of other blood pressure parameter value being displayed in the vital sign monitoring interface when there is observation and judgment that there are multiple blood pressure parameter values and each blood pressure parameter value corresponds to respective target position information
before determining the first position information corresponding to the first measurement start control in response to the first triggering operation input by the user through the first measurement start control in the at least two measurement star controls,
before observation and judgment that the first position information corresponding to the first measurement start control in response to the first triggering operation input by the user through the first measurement start control in the at least two measurement star controls
execute the physiological parameter measurement mode in response to an instruction to invoke the physiological parameter measurement mode,
execute physiological parameter measurement in response to an instruction to invoke the physiological parameter measurement mode (as with starting collecting blood pressure with a blood pressure device in response to an instruction from the hospital protocols to obtain bp readings at the beginning of an appointment.)
determining the second position information corresponding to the second measurement start control in response to the second triggering operation input by the user through the second measurement start control in the at least two measurement start controls,
observation and judgment of the second position information corresponding to the second measurement start control in response to the second triggering operation input by the user through the second measurement start control in the at least two measurement start controls
generate and store a physiological parameter measurement mode
observation and judgment to write and store a physiological parameter measurement mode (as in a hospital best practices protocol for measuring blood pressure)
all of which are grouped as mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract ideas in each of Independent Claims 1 and 2 (and their respective Dependent Claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in Independent Claims 1 and 2), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of:
at least one blood pressure measurement accessory;
first blood pressure measurement accessory
second blood pressure measurement accessory
processor
memory
display
physical button
Additional elements recited include an “at least one blood pressure measurement accessory”, “first blood pressure measurement accessory” and “second blood pressure measurement accessory” to collect and obtain; a “processor” to determine, obtain, establish, display, and calculate; a “memory” to store; and a ”display” to display in the independent claims 1 and 2 their dependent claims. These components are recited at a high level of generality, , i.e., as a generic blood pressure accessory performing a generic function of collecting blood pressure signals (the collecting and obtaining); a processor performing a generic function of processing data (the determining, obtaining, establishing, displaying, and calculating); a memory performing a generic function of storing data (the storing), and a display performing the generic function of displaying. These generic hardware component limitations for “at least one blood pressure measurement accessory”, “first blood pressure measurement accessory”, “second blood pressure measurement accessory”, “processor”, “memory”, ”display”, and “physical button” are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. As such, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further additional elements from Independent Claims 1 and 2 include extra-solution activity limitations, such as:
displaying a vital signs monitoring interface on a display, the vital signs monitoring interface comprising at least two measurement start controls, wherein the at least two measurement start controls each are configured to instruct the vital signs monitoring interface to collect blood pressure parameters upon being trigged by a user;
obtaining, by the processor, a first (or second) blood pressure parameter value of the monitored object collected by a first blood pressure measurement accessory;
outputting, by the processor, prompt information when the actual position information is inconsistent with the first (or second) position information
displaying the first (or second) blood pressure parameter value, and the first (or second) position information, in the vital signs monitoring interface, so as to indicate the first (or second) correspondence relationship between the first (or second) blood pressure parameter value and the first (or second) position information.
a display configured to display a vital signs monitoring interface, and the vital signs monitoring interface comprises at least two measurement start controls, wherein the at least two measurement start controls each are configured to instruct the vital signs monitoring interface to collect blood pressure parameters upon being triggered by a user, and in the vital signs monitoring interface, a first blood pressure parameter value and a first position information are displayed so as to indicate a first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first target position information, and a second blood pressure parameter value and second position information are displayed so as to indicate a second correspondence relationship between the second blood pressure parameter value and the second position information;
at least one blood pressure measurement accessory, wherein a first blood pressure measurement accessory of the at least one blood pressure measurement accessory is configured to collect the first blood pressure parameter value of a monitored object
wherein the processor is further configured
In addition the aforementioned extra-solution activity limitations in Independent Claims 1 and 2, additional extra-solution activity limitations recited in the dependent claims include:
receive the position information set by the user for the first measurement start control based on the position information setting interface
display the target position information icon
display the blood pressure value difference according to a pre-set alarm pattern when the blood pressure difference meets the blood pressure alarm condition.
a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store the first blood pressure parameter value, the first position information, and the first correspondence relationship between the first blood pressure parameter value and the first position information.
the vital signs monitoring interface comprises at least two position information icons
there are pre-set correspondence relationships between different position information icons and different measurement start control, wherein the first posture and the second posture each comprise a standing position or a lying position, wherein the first measurement position and the second measurement position each comprise a left hand or right hand or left leg or right leg.
the at least two measurement start controls comprise common measurement start control, common position information icon and measurement start increase control, wherein the common measurement start control is associated with the common position information icon
when the first measurement start control or the second measurement start control is the measurement start increase control, display a position information setting interface;
when the first (or second) measurement start control corresponding to the first (or second) position information is the measurement start increase control, generate a target position information icon for representing the first (or second) position information;
wherein the display is further configured
each measurement start control corresponds to a respective blood pressure measurement accessory, and the vital sign monitoring interface comprises prompt information for indicating the correspondence relationship between each measurement start control and the respective blood pressure measurement accessory.
wherein the first (or second) triggering operation is generated by tapping a physical button for blood pressure measurement by the user.
wherein the physiological parameter measurement mode comprises at least one of: the vital signs monitoring interface, the correspondence relationship between the first measurement start control and the first (or second) position information, and the correspondence relationship between the first (or second) blood pressure measurement accessory and the first (or second) position information.
receive the second triggering operation input by the user through the second measurement start control of the at least two measurement start controls
display the second blood pressure parameter value in the display area corresponding to the second position information.
wherein the display is further configured to display the blood pressure value difference in the vital signs monitoring interface.
These pre-solution measurement elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, setting up the parameters of the system, and serve as data-gathering for the subsequent steps.
The “at least one blood pressure measurement accessory”, “first blood pressure measurement accessory”, “second blood pressure measurement accessory”, “processor”, “memory”, ”display”, and “physical button” as recited in independent Claims 1 and 2 and their dependent claims are generically recited computer and hardware elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in independent Claims 1 and 2 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer processor as claimed. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 2 (and their dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, Independent Claims 1 and 2 (and their dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B –
None of Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “at least one blood pressure measurement accessory”, “first blood pressure measurement accessory”, “second blood pressure measurement accessory”, “processor”, “memory”, ”display”, and “physical button” as recited in independent Claims 1 and 2 and their dependent claims.
The additional elements of the “at least one blood pressure measurement accessory”, “first blood pressure measurement accessory”, “second blood pressure measurement accessory”, “processor”, “memory”, ”display”, and “physical button” in Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “at least one blood pressure measurement accessory”, “first blood pressure measurement accessory” and “second blood pressure measurement accessory”, are described generically as black box elements, blood pressure measurement accessory 502 and sensor accessory 611.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “processor” is described generically in [0164], with optional exemplars including a “front-end signal processor” (single chip-microcomputer or other semiconductor devices, ASIc, or FPGA). The processor is presented as interchangeable generic black box computing units in embodiments.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “memory” is described generically as black box element memory 617. In [0170], the storage options included “Any tangible, non - transitory computer - readable storage medium”, including “magnetic storage devices ( hard disks , floppy disks , etc. ) , optical storage devices ( CD - ROM , DVD , Blu Ray disks , etc. ) , flash memory and / or the like”.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “physical button” is described generically as [0095] with “Or the measurement start control may not only the virtual buttons in the interface, but also be physical buttons such as buttons set on the device body or buttons set on a blood pressure measurement accessory.” Neither the device body, nor the buttons, nor the blood pressure measurement accessory are shown in a figure.
Per applicant’s specification, the “display” is described generically in [0157], as a “monitor” and in [0158] as a “multi-parameter monitor” with a housing. It is shown as “Display” 501 in Figure 5.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “at least one blood pressure measurement accessory”, “first blood pressure measurement accessory”, “second blood pressure measurement accessory”, “processor”, “memory”, ”display”, and “physical button” are reasonably construed as a generic computing and hardware devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the “at least one blood pressure measurement accessory”, “first blood pressure measurement accessory”, “second blood pressure measurement accessory”, “processor”, “memory”, ”display”, and “physical button”. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus and method of Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general-purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements for Step 2A Prong 2 in independent Claims 1 and 2 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23 apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 - 23 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 19 March 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Examiner notes that overall for Claims 1 and 2 as recited a whole, relative to arguments presented and the 112 rejections applied herein above, it is unclear if the scope of the claims as recited is
delineating the process for assigning display screen locations for where user-input information is displayed on a graphical user interface (GUI), such as the displayed areas on Applicant’s Fig. 2,
if the “establishing…”, “determining…” and relationships are intended to apply mathematical algorithms to sensor data using a physical device to actively determine an orientation of a person while blood pressure is measured, with the processor checking that the sensed orientations match the instructions given to the user on the graphical user interface, or
if there is an alternative overall scope of the invention that is intended to be claimed.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
The applicant argues at [Page 12, Top] that the invention has been tied to specific machine of a displayer and a processor. As described in the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis above, the display is recited as a generic display, performing the usual display function of displaying an image of a user interface (as with a graphical user interface, GUI). The processor is recited as a generic processor performing the usual processor functions of processing data (including calculating differences between blood pressure value inputs and outputting prompt information). There is nothing recited about the display or processor themselves that indicate particular unique structure that deem the display or processor a specific machine, nor are there recited technical performance improvements to how the display itself displays an image or how a processor uses processing power to process data. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues at [Page 12, Paragraph 2] - [Page 12, Paragraph 3] that the claimed invention amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea because it solves a known problem in physiological parameter monitoring, that current vital signs monitoring apparatus can only obtain a physiological parameter value in one situation in one measurement process, and physiological parameter values in other situation need to be manually input by medical staff, which is inconvenient.
As described in the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis above, obtaining each the first and second blood pressure values themselves are pre-solution data-gathering steps for the subsequent recited data processing abstract ideas. This pre-solution data-gathering is then used for the subsequently-recited abstract ideas in the claim, those abstract ideas being the aspects that can be performed in the human mind. Further, documenting data information based on inputs from one or more pieces of medical equipment is routine function performed by medical professionals observing vital sign monitoring interfaces in hospitals, for example that are displaying concurrent numeric blood pressure information, pulse oximeter information from a plugged in pulse oximeter, temperature information from a connected thermometer, etc. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues at [Page 12, Paragraph 4] - [Page 13, Bottom] and [Page 14, Paragraph 4] that the claims embody a non-conventional, ordered combination of limitations that are analogous to Bascom, because the claims recite a particular way of measuring physiological parameters by “automatically associating the collected blood pressure parameter value with the position information”. Applicant further argues that the system verifies that the monitored object’s actual position matches the required position, ensuring data accuracy. There is nothing particularly claimed in the claims that indicates that the system itself is verifying that the monitored object’s actual position matches a required position, as with accomplished with particular sensor measurements of position or the like. As currently-claimed, the “associating” limitation is recited as the abstract idea of “determine whether an actual position information is consistent with the first position information”, which encompasses the routine error-checking that a medical profession might “automatically” (without delay) perform when they are checking an output for patient records, ensuring that the position that is recorded for a patient during a blood pressure measurement matches how they visually perceived the patient while they obtained their blood pressure (which the human performs to ensure patient record accuracy).
Regarding the order of the limitations relative to Bascom, looking to Applicant’s specification at [0169] “The terms "first", "second", etc. in the specification and claims herein and the above-mentioned drawings are used to distinguish different objects, rather than to describe a specific order.” Looking to BASCOM, the claims therein recite a particular filter implementation for network technology by associating individual accounts with their own filtering scheme and elements while locating the filtering system on an ISP server, improving the known technical concept of “filtering content on the Internet” with a flexible, individualized filter implementation that can be installed remotely in a single location (Pages 16 and 17 of BASCOM decision). This provided a meaningful improvement. This is a level of detail and device improvement that is not reflected in the instant, broadly-recited claims. In the instant claims, merely including the abstract ideas including broadly determining a broad correspondence relationship between information, making observation and comparisons of body position with recorded data, comparing by subtracting numeric values of blood pressure, and determining if input information is broadly different than input information does not improve the performance of the processor, display, or recited blood pressure accessories. There is nothing particular claimed about the arrangement of the processor, display, recited blood pressure accessories, or interface in claims 1 or 2 that is non-conventional and non-generic. The claims recite a series of limitations that encompass an abstract idea of manipulating variables obtained from electronic components used in a usual way, and that variable manipulation as claimed can be routinely accomplished with the aid of education, background, experience, time, equations, and paper. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues at [Page 14, Paragraph 1] that the system calculates a difference between blood pressure values to trigger an alarm if the difference is abnormal, providing actionable clinical insights. The calculation step is an abstract idea which is routinely performed by medical professionals, with an example of taking a blood pressure measurement of 210/150 for a patient, subtracting a “standard” 120/80 measurement, noting the 90 systolic and 70 diastolic difference, and flagging it as concerning in the patient’s record (or seeking additional medical attention for a high blood pressure emergency). From MPEP 2106.05(a): It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). The argument is not persuasive. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues at [Page 14, Paragraph 2] that users can set or modify position information to replace the information, or store position information, with system-generated icons and display areas allowing for intuitive visualization. This ability to set of modify information in a graphical user interface is routine functionality, as it is what allows the user to interface with devices. Further, modifying, rewriting, storing information, generating icons, and display areas based on user input is routine, well-understood, and conventional operation of a processor. As described above, the limitations to “modify” and “replace” data indicate that these are human-centered abstract ideas of making a decision to enter new data into the user interface. From MPEP 2106.05(a): It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues at [Page 14, Paragraph 3] that Claim 4 recites that the blood pressure parameter is displayed with its corresponding position information, which facilitates clear association for the information. Looking to MPEP 2106.05(a), “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to computer-functionality” include “viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” Arranging icons on a vital signs monitoring interface to be near each other for user interpretation ease does not show improvement to the processor functionality. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues at [Page 14, Paragraph 3] that Claims 7 – 8 recite a customized user interface with at least two measurement start controls, with user-defined position settings, which is a feature absent from generic monitoring systems. From MPEP § 2106.05 I: Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”). The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues at [Page 14, Paragraph 5] - [Page 15, 1st Full Paragraph] that the claims do not recite insignificant extra-solution activity because establishing a measurement start-control position information blood pressure parameter correspondence relationship is not necessary gathering for an abstract idea, since dynamic position information management and customized user interfaces are not required for every application of measuring blood pressure. Applicant further argues that these are technical choices that enable the invention’s technical improvement of automatic measurement of the physiological parameter in a variety of different positions, reducing manual operation of medical staff, and improving measurement convenience. As described in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above, the limitations regarding “establishing a first (or second) correspondence relationship between the first (or second) blood pressure parameter value and the first (or second) position information” are not labeled as extra-solution data gathering, but as abstract ideas of observing blood pressure values and judging whether they broadly correspond to information about position. Looking to MPEP 2106.05(a), “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to computer-functionality” include “iii. Mere automation of manual processes…”. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues at [Page 15, 2nd Full Paragraph] that the Office has not provided evidence that “establishing a measurement start control-position information-blood pressure parameter correspondence relationship” amounts to necessary data gathering of the abstract idea. As described in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above, the limitations regarding “establishing a first (or second) correspondence relationship between the first (or second) blood pressure parameter value and the first (or second) position information” are not labeled as extra-solution data gathering, but as abstract ideas of observing blood pressure values and judging whether they broadly correspond to information about position. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues at [Page 15, Bottom] – [Page 16, that the claims do no preempt the apparent alleged abstract idea because they do not preempt measuring blood pressure or associating data with positions in general. Rather, they are a monitoring system with automatic position validation, dual-position correlation, dynamic position management, and customized user interface. Third parties are free to measure blood pressure or associate data with positions using other methods that do not incorporate the claimed technical features, and this aligns with Bascom and the findings for that case. Looking to MPEP 2106.04 I, "It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible." The argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
The arguments have been considered. However, in light of the current 112(b) rejections, no prior art rejection is currently able to be applied to Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23. The arguments are moot.
Conclusion
In light of the current 112(b) rejections, no prior art rejection is currently able to be applied to Claims 1 – 12, 16 – 18, and 20 – 23.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA J MONTGOMERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:00 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272 - 4233. 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.
/MELISSA JO MONTGOMERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights