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 .
Amendment Entered
This Office action is responsive to the Amendment filed on September 8th, 2025. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 5-7, 11, and 12 as well as the cancellation of claims 2-4 and 8-10. Claims 1, 5-7, and 11-12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 8th, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed September 8th, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At page 9, Applicant argues that that claims are implemented by a particular machine in a practical application (e.g., a blood-pressure measuring device for presenting a trend in the results of blood pressure measurement). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The addition of the blood pressure measurement device including a display that is a set of seven-segment display, to present the blood-pressure trend interface, does not add a meaningful limitation to the method as it merely adds data-outputting to perform the abstract ideas. With or without the claimed abstract idea, the display outputs data the same. Furthermore, under step 2B, the claim utilizes a blood-pressure measuring device having a storage medium, a display that is a set of seven-segment displays, and a processor, which is generic and well-known in the industry – as evidenced by the cited non-patent literature herewith. See - Finnegan et al., "Automated method for detecting and reading seven-segment digits from images of blood glucose metres and blood pressure monitors." Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology, 43(6), pp.341-355, 2019; Shenoy et al., Utilizing Smartphone-Based Machine Learning in Medical Monitor Data Collection: Seven Segment Digit Recognition. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018 Apr 16;2017:1564-1570. PMID: 29854226; PMCID: PMC5977613; Puranik, Dipti Anil. 2016. “Runtime Reconfiguration of FPGA for Biomedical Applications.” Indian Journal of Science and Technology 9 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i47/106429.
At page 10, Applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement in the function of a conventional blood-pressure measuring device and that the claimed invention can apply the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” MPEP 2106.05(a). The blood-pressure measuring device, storage medium, display that is a set of seven-segment display, and processor appear to perform the same with or without the abstract idea. Therefore, any improvement resides solely within the abstract idea. “The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification).” MPEP 2106.05(a). “That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” Id.
“[I]n McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea.” MPEP 2106.05 (a). There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. Unlike McRO, the claimed system invokes a computer as a tool to perform a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
The blood-pressure measuring device, storage medium, display that is a set of seven-segment displays, and processor appear to perform the same with or without the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, it is unclear how the abstract idea can improve the standard functions of the additional elements.
At page 10, Applicant argues that the claims are recited in a detailed manner, require an ordered combination of elements that enables the blood-pressure measuring device to accomplish a desired result and are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The blood-pressure measuring device having storage medium, display that is a set of seven-segment displays, and a processor as recited in the claim is a generic blood-pressure measuring device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited hardware processors are generic processors configured to perform the Abstract Idea and pre-solution data gathering, the display device is a generic device configured to display values, and the memory device is a generic component system is configured to store values. As mentioned, according to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a conventional blood pressure monitoring device as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
At pages 10-11, Applicant argues that the claims as a whole is a combination of the aforementioned elements and provides a practical application in the technical field of blood-pressure measurement for presenting a trend in blood pressure on the blood-pressure measuring device. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites the additional steps of a blood-pressure measuring device, storing a plurality of entries of blood-pressure measurement data in chronological order, the blood-pressure measuring device comprising a display that is a set of seven-segment displays, a processor, presenting, via the display, a blood-pressure trend interface. The claim limitations fail to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 7 recites presenting, via the display, a blood-pressure trend interface, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The indication of a trend in blood pressure does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the displayed blood-pressure trend, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea. Furthermore, according to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non- statutory subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 8th, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
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, 5-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 11-12 are all within at least one of the four categories.
The independent claims recite:
calculating a plurality of blood-pressure index values based on the plurality of entries of data of blood-pressure measurement, respectively; and presenting, via the display, a blood-pressure trend interface that includes a plurality of index level regions which are associated respectively with a plurality of blood-pressure levels, which are arranged in a first direction, and which extend in parallel in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and for each of the plurality of blood-pressure index values, an index level marker that is associated with the blood-pressure index value and that is disposed in one of the plurality of index level regions, wherein the blood-pressure trend interface is presented in a manner that the index level markers corresponding respectively to the plurality of blood-pressure index values cooperatively indicate a trend in blood pressure, the index level marker that corresponds to a greatest one of the plurality of blood-pressure index values is presented in one of the plurality of index level regions that is associated with a greatest one of the plurality of blood-pressure levels and that is arranged to be last in the first direction, and the index level marker that corresponds to a smallest one of the plurality of blood-pressure index values is presented in one of the plurality of index level regions that is associated with a smallest one of the plurality of blood-pressure levels and that is arranged to be first in the first direction, before the step of presenting the blood-pressure trend interface, the method further comprising steps of: based on the plurality of blood-pressure index values, generating a statistical result that includes a plurality of index level values which correspond respectively to the plurality of blood-pressure index values and each of which indicates one of the plurality of blood-pressure levels, wherein the step of presenting the blood-pressure trend interface includes for each of the plurality of blood-pressure index values, presenting the index level marker that corresponds to the blood-pressure index value in one of the plurality of index level regions based on an index level value of the plurality of index level values corresponding to the blood-pressure index value, wherein the step of generating the statistical result includes sub-steps of: determining the greatest one and the smallest one of the plurality of blood- pressure index values calculating a level range based on the greatest one and the smallest one of the plurality of blood-pressure index values and a predetermined total number of the plurality of blood-pressure levels: and for each of the plurality of blood-pressure index values, determining the index level value of the plurality of index level values corresponding to the blood-pressure index value based on the level range, wherein the sub-step of calculating the level range includes sub-steps of: rounding the greatest one of the plurality of blood-pressure index values to obtain a first integer as a rounded maximum: rounding the smallest one of the plurality of blood-pressure index values to obtain a second integer as a rounded minimum; calculating a difference between the rounded maximum and the rounded minimum: and dividing the difference between the rounded maximum and the rounded minimum by the predetermined total number to obtain a first quotient as the level range, wherein for each of the plurality of blood-pressure index values, the sub-step of determining the index level value of the plurality of index level values includes sub-steps of: subtracting the rounded minimum from the blood-pressure index value to obtain an index difference dividing the index difference by the level range to obtain a second quotient; rounding down the second quotient to obtain a round number.
The above claim limitations (calculating, rounding, dividing, subtracting) constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ....” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, Il. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at ll. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at Il. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claimed steps of calculating, rounding, dividing, subtracting recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
The steps of calculating, rounding, dividing, subtracting in independent claims 1 and 7 is a mathematical relationship for calculating blood-pressure index values.
Referring to pages 8-10 of the specification calculating blood-pressure index values is computed from mathematical relationships of the entries of blood-pressure measurement data using summing, division, arithmetic means, multiplication, and weighted values to obtain the blood-pressure index value.
The claimed steps of (calculating, generating, determining, rounding, dividing, subtracting) can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
“[T]he ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The pending claims merely recite steps for calculating, generating, determining, rounding, dividing, subtracting blood-pressure index values.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
a claim to collecting and comparing known information, which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5-6 and 11-12 are directed to more abstract ideas, and further limitations on abstract ideas is already recited.
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in Claims 1, 5-7, and 11-12 is not integrated into a practical application because:
The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for calculating, generating, determining, rounding, dividing, subtracting merely invoke a computer/conventional blood pressure monitor as a tool.
The data-gathering step (storing) and the data-output step (presenting) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for calculating, generating, determining, rounding, dividing, subtracting.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to calculate blood-pressure index values.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer/conventional blood pressure monitor for calculating, generating, determining, rounding, dividing, subtracting. The claims do not apply the obtained calculation to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
The additional elements are identified as follows: blood pressure measuring device including a display that is a set of seven segments; storage medium; processor.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant’s specification (e.g., pages 5-7) which discloses that the processor/storage medium comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g., calculating, generating, determining, rounding, dividing, subtracting) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Applicant’s Background in the specification;
The prior art of record: Queva (US 20190280993 A1) discloses, in para. [0104], displaying data to a user of a mobile computing device using conventional image or webpage display.
The Non-Patent Literature of record;
Kabutoya et al., A home blood pressure monitor equipped with a graphic function facilitates faster blood pressure control than the conventional home blood pressure monitor. J Clin Hypertens. 2009;11(8):422–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2009.00150.x.
Koopman RJ, Canfield SM, Belden JL, et al. Home blood pressure data visualization for the management of hypertension: designing for patient and physician information needs. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020;20(195):1–15. doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-01194-y;
Finnegan et al., "Automated method for detecting and reading seven-segment digits from images of blood glucose metres and blood pressure monitors." Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology, 43(6), pp.341-355, 2019;
Shenoy et al., Utilizing Smartphone-Based Machine Learning in Medical Monitor Data Collection: Seven Segment Digit Recognition. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018 Apr 16;2017:1564-1570. PMID: 29854226; PMCID: PMC5977613;
Puranik, Dipti Anil. 2016. “Runtime Reconfiguration of FPGA for Biomedical Applications.” Indian Journal of Science and Technology 9 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i47/106429.
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional generic computer components as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the units associated with the steps do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. A control unit, processor, memory, or equivalent hardware is merely used as a tool for executing the abstract idea(s). The process claimed does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Boyer (US 20200170582 A1) directed to contextual patient representation and display (figs. 3A-C, para. [0065-0067]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ELI HOFFPAUIR whose telephone number is (571)272-4522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
A.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791