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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 01, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed November 18, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 6-8 and 10-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6-8 and 10-20 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 recites the limitation “a signal transmitted by the hydrodynamic filter” is unclear if the same as “a signal measuring a difference between the measurement port and the reference port” as previously recited. Further recitations of a signal is unclear. Such as, “an absolute reference for the signal and to calibrate the signal” it is unclear which signal is referred to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims are rejected as depending on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 depends from a cancelled claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rometsch (US 5570694 A) (“Rometsch”) in view of Waterson et al. (US 5137026 A) (“Waterson”).
Regarding claim 1, Rometsch discloses A non-invasive pressure pulse waveform measurement system comprising (Abstract and entire document):
a blood pressure cuff (FIG. 1 “cuff 40”);
an air pump to inflate the blood pressure cuff to specific pressure levels (FIG. 2 “Diaphragm pump 41”);
a first pressure sensor configured to perform signal acquisition at a specified pressure level, the first pressure sensor including a measurement port and a reference port, and the first pressure sensor configured to output a signal measuring a difference between the measurement port and the reference port (FIG. 2 “differential pressure sensor 61” having “pressure inputs 65, 66” as a measurement port and a reference port);
a hydrodynamic filter configured as an input to the reference port and regulating air flow into the reference port to maintain a mean pressure signal at the reference port by attenuating a selected frequency range of a signal transmitted by the hydrodynamic filter, the hydrodynamic filter comprising a resistive component, the resistive component comprising resistive tubing configured to impose a resistance to air flow (FIG. 2, “reduced-diameter tubular member 60” as the resistive tubing imposing resistance to air flow and entering the reference port of the differential pressure sensor at the mean and reduced air flow signal,);
a second pressure sensor configured to measure an absolute reference for the signal and to calibrate the signal (FIG. 2, “pressure sensor 42” which is configured as an absolute reference pressure, measuring the real pressure in the cuff); and
pneumatic tubing connecting the air pump, the first pressure sensor, and the second pressure sensor with the blood pressure cuff (FIG. 2, “flexible tubes 45” shown connecting the cuff to the sensors and the diaphragm pump and the cuff.).
Rometsch fails to disclose a hydrodynamic filter configured as an input to the reference port and regulating air flow into the reference port to maintain a mean pressure signal at the reference port by attenuating a selected frequency range of a signal transmitted by the hydrodynamic filter, the hydrodynamic filter comprising a resistive component in series with a capacitive component, the resistive component comprising resistive tubing configured to impose a resistance to air flow, the capacitive component configured to reduce pressure changes by storing air volume, and the capacitive component comprising tubing that connects the resistive component to the reference port;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Waterson teaches a hydrodynamic filter configured as an input to the reference port and regulating air flow into the reference port to maintain a mean pressure signal at the reference port by attenuating a selected frequency range of a signal transmitted by the hydrodynamic filter, the hydrodynamic filter comprising a resistive component in series with a capacitive component, the resistive component comprising resistive tubing configured to impose a resistance to air flow, the capacitive component configured to reduce pressure changes by storing air volume, and the capacitive component comprising tubing that connects the resistive component to the reference port (FIG. 5 showing a differential pressure sensor 44, with a connection 36 and 36’ to tubing 16 having an orifice, not numbered, the orifice acts as a physical filter, or resistive tubing, and an input to the reference port 36, 36’ are controlled by the resistive tubing, the tubing then goes back to normal right after the orifice, interpreted as compliant tubing, see also col. 5 discussing the principle of measurement and theory of operation, describing the orifice and pressure difference);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as taught by Rometsch to include a hydrodynamic filter configured as an input to the reference port and regulating air flow into the reference port to maintain a mean pressure signal at the reference port by attenuating a selected frequency range of a signal transmitted by the hydrodynamic filter, the hydrodynamic filter comprising a resistive component in series with a capacitive component, the resistive component comprising resistive tubing configured to impose a resistance to air flow, the capacitive component configured to reduce pressure changes by storing air volume, and the capacitive component comprising tubing that connects the resistive component to the reference port as taught by Waterson to have proper flow (Col. 5 principle of measurement and theory of operation,).
Regarding claim 6, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Rometsch fails to explicitly disclose wherein the resistive tubing comprises rigid tubing with an internal diameter in a range of 10-200 pm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization, to determine the diameter, including an internal diameter in the range of 10-200 um. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since applicant has not disclosed that this limitation solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the diameter in this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Regarding claim 7, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 4, Rometsch fails to explicitly disclose wherein an elasticity of the capacitive component is in the range of 0.2-2.0 MPa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization, to determine the elasticity, including an elasticity of the capacitive element is in the range of 0.2-2.0 MPa. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since applicant has not disclosed that this limitation solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the diameter in this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Regarding claim 8, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Rometsch further discloses wherein the blood pressure cuff is synchronized with an ECG device, smartphone, tablet, laptop computer, or desktop computer, thereby allowing the transmission of wired or wireless data (FIG. 2, “computer 44”).
Regarding claim 10, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 2, Rometsch as modified further discloses wherein the resistive tubing and the capacitive component are combined (Waterson FIG. 5 showing a differential pressure sensor 44, with a connection 36 and 36’ to tubing 16 having an orifice, not numbered, the orifice acts as a physical filter, or resistive tubing, and an input to the reference port 36, 36’ are controlled by the resistive tubing, the tubing then goes back to normal right after the orifice, interpreted as compliant tubing, see also col. 5 discussing the principle of measurement and theory of operation, describing the orifice and pressure difference).
Regarding claim 11, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 2, Rometsch further discloses wherein the resistive tubing comprises resistive elements including an orifice or a physical filter (FIG. 2, “reduced-diameter tubular member 60” and “pressure inputs 65, 66” as a physical filter and can be interpreted as an orifice at the narrowing of the tube).
Regarding claim 13, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 2, Rometsch as modified further discloses wherein the capacitive component comprises a compliant elastic tube, a tube having a small damper, or a tube having a piston cylinder (Waterson FIG. 5 showing a differential pressure sensor 44, with a connection 36 and 36’ to tubing 16 having an orifice, not numbered, the orifice acts as a physical filter, or resistive tubing, and an input to the reference port 36, 36’ are controlled by the resistive tubing, the tubing then goes back to normal right after the orifice, interpreted as compliant tubing, as compliant elastic tube).
Regarding claim 14, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 11 Rometsch further discloses wherein the resistive tubing comprises the physical filter (FIG. 2, “reduced-diameter tubular member 60” and “pressure inputs 65, 66” as a physical filter and can be interpreted as an orifice at the narrowing of the tube).
Regarding claim 15, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 11 Rometsch as modified further discloses wherein the resistive tubing comprises the orifice (Waterson FIG. 5 orifice).
Regarding claim 18, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 13, Rometsch as modified further discloses wherein the capacitive component comprises the compliant elastic tube (Waterson FIG. 5 showing a differential pressure sensor 44, with a connection 36 and 36’ to tubing 16 having an orifice, not numbered, the orifice acts as a physical filter, or resistive tubing, and an input to the reference port 36, 36’ are controlled by the resistive tubing, the tubing then goes back to normal right after the orifice, interpreted as compliant tubing, as compliant elastic tube).
Regarding claim 19, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Rometsch further discloses wherein the blood pressure cuff is synchronized with an ECG device, iPhone, tablet, computer, or other device, thereby allowing the transmission of wireless data (FIG. 2, “computer 44”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rometsch in view of Waterson in further view of Poliac et al. (US 2006/0052714 A1) (“Poliac”).
Regarding claim 12, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 2, Rometsch as modified fails to disclose wherein the resistive tubing comprises an adjustable orifice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Poliac teaches wherein the resistive tubing comprises an adjustable orifice ([0047], “Pressure can be decreased in a number of ways, such as by decreasing the pressure supplied by the micro-diaphragm pump 88 or by adjusting the orifice size of the variable orifice valve 96. In one embodiment, the size of the variable orifice valve 96 is utilized to adjust the applied pressure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as taught by Rometsch as modified to include wherein the resistive component comprises an adjustable orifice as taught by Poliac to adjust the pressure variably and at a linear rate ([0047], “The orifice size of the variable orifice valve 96 changes in order to maintain a generally linear decrease in pressure applied to the operative pressure cuff. A fixed orifice valve would exhibit an exponential bleed rate, whereas a generally linear bleed rate is desired. Size of the orifice can be controlled with software operative through the CPU 70. Use of the variable orifice valve 96 to control applied pressure at an operative pressure applicator permits pressure readings to be obtained quickly.”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rometsch in view of Waterson in further view of Wolfe et al. (US 2016/0345860 A1) (“Wolfe”).
Regarding claim 16, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 13, Rometsch as modified fails to disclose wherein the capacitive component comprises the tube having the piston cylinder.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wolfe teaches wherein the capacitive component comprises the tube having the piston cylinder ([0022] discussing the piston cylinder and shown in the airflow design).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as taught by Rometsch as modified to include wherein the capacitive component comprises the tube having the piston cylinder as taught by Wolfe to help air flow properly ([0022]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rometsch in view of Waterson in further view of Inoue (US 2010/0324430 A1) (“Inoue”).
Regarding claim 17, Rometsch as modified discloses The system of claim 13, Rometsch as modified fails to disclose wherein the capacitive component comprises the tube having the small damper.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Inoue teaches wherein the capacitive component comprises the tube having the small damper ([0034], “The third tube 213 is preferably further connected to a damper device 218 (indicated by broken lines) that increases the volume in proportion to the pressure and smoothes the pressure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as taught by Rometsch as modified to include wherein the capacitive component comprises the tube having the small damper as taught by Inoue to smooth the pressure ([0034]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6-8 and 10-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH A TOMBERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791