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 Amendment filed October 14, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claims 1 recites, “a cuff having a portion… with the blood pressure measurement device attached to the wrist”, and claim 5 similarly recites, “a cuff having a portion… with the curler, the sensing cuff, and the cuff attached to the wrist,” which are claiming the human body.
Dependent claims are rejected as depending on a rejected base claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the second cuff is configured to be provided on a back of a hand of the wrist of the curler,”. It is understood that the second cuff is on a back surface of the curler, the back being relative to the wrist, however, the language, “the wrist of the curler” is unclear if the wrist belongs to the curler or to a subject. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sano et al. (US 2006/0129049 A1) (“Sano”).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Sano discloses A cuff structure provided in a curler of a blood pressure measurement device that includes a device body and the curler provided in the device body (Abstract and entire document; see FIG. 1-2 showing a blood pressure monitor and its cuff structure provided in a curler, “a curled elastic member 160”),
the curler configured to curve along a circumferential direction of a wrist (FIG. 1-2 “a curled elastic member 160” is designed to curl around a wrist, see [0058], “Curled elastic member 160 is elastic and curved to temporarily mount the cuff on the wrist.”), the cuff structure comprising:
a sensing cuff provided on a side of an inner circumferential surface of the curler, the sensing cuff configured to contact a region where an artery is present in the wrist (FIG. 5-10, [0060], “Air bag 150 is made of a member of bag shape that is formed using resin sheets identified as sheet-shaped members, and has an inflated/deflated space 157 therein. An inner peripheral surface of air bag 150 serves as a working face 158 for pressing the wrist.” Air bag 150 as the sensing cuff); and
a cuff having a portion provided between the curler and the sensing cuff, a portion of an other portion of the cuff being disposed in a region where the sensing cuff is present in an outer circumferential surface of the curler with the blood pressure measurement device attached to the wrist, the cuff configured to inflate to press the sensing cuff against the wrist (FIG. 5-10, see FIG. 5 showing Airbag 150A having portions 151 and 152 forming the cuff as claimed having a portion between the curler and the sensing cuff. See also FIG. 2 showing the device as it would be attached to a wrist and showing another portion at the outer portion of the curler.),
wherein both ends of the curler are spaced apart (FIG. 2 shows the curler 160 having 2 ends spaced apart), and
the portion of the other portion is configured in a shape that protrudes in the circumferential direction of the curler beyond an end of the curler (FIG. 5-10, see FIG. 5 showing Airbag 150A having portions 151 and 152 forming the cuff as claimed having a portion between the curler and the sensing cuff. See also FIG. 2 showing the device as it would be attached to a wrist and showing another portion at the outer portion of the curler.).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Sano discloses The cuff structure according to claim 1, wherein the cuff is configured to have a length such that the portion of the other portion is disposed in the region where the sensing cuff is present in the outer circumferential surface of the curler when the cuff is attached to the wrist having any circumference from an assumed shortest circumference to an assumed longest circumference of the wrist (FIG. 5-10, see FIG. 5 showing Airbag 150A having portions 151 and 152 forming the cuff as claimed having a portion between the curler and the sensing cuff. See also FIG. 2 showing the device as it would be attached to a wrist and showing another portion at the outer portion of the curler extending beyond the curler).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Sano discloses The cuff structure according to claim 1, wherein the cuff is configured to have a shape extending from the portion to the portion of the other portion (FIG. 5-10, see FIG. 5 showing Airbag 150A having portions 151 and 152 forming the cuff as claimed having a portion between the curler and the sensing cuff. See also FIG. 2 showing the device as it would be attached to a wrist and showing another portion at the outer portion of the curler extending beyond the curler).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Sano discloses The cuff structure according to claim 1, wherein the cuff includes a first cuff and a second cuff, the first cuff is provided between the curler and the sensing cuff, and the second cuff is configured to be provided on a back of a hand of the wrist of the curler (As shown in FIG. 8 and 10, the cuff is 2 cuffs and the sensing cuff is another cuff), and
a portion of the second cuff is configured to be disposed in the region where the sensing cuff is present in the outer circumferential surface of the curler with the blood pressure measurement device attached to the wrist (FIG. 5-10, see FIG. 5 showing Airbag 150A having portions 151 and 152 forming the cuff as claimed having a portion between the curler and the sensing cuff. See also FIG. 2 showing the device as it would be attached to a wrist and showing another portion at the outer portion of the curler extending beyond the curler).
Regarding claim 9, Sano discloses The blood pressure measurement device according to claim 5, wherein the curler has a first end that overlaps with a portion of another portion of the curler (FIG. 2, depending on the size of the wrist the curler would overlap).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano in view of Kuang (US 2023/0046240 A1) ("Kuang").
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sano discloses The cuff structure according to claim 4/8, Sano fails to disclose wherein the first cuff and the second cuff are arranged side-by-side in the circumferential direction of the curler.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kuang teaches wherein the first cuff and the second cuff are arranged side-by-side in the circumferential direction of the curler (Abstract, “The airbag (10) is long-strip-shaped, the airbag (10) has a fixed end (113) and a free end (115), the fixed end (113) is fixed in the cavity (20), a plurality of grooves (101) are distributed on a surface of the airbag (10) along a length extension direction, and the grooves (101) extend along a width direction of the airbag (10). Each groove (101) can divide the airbag (10) into a pressurized area (110) and a non-pressurized area (115) along the length direction when the pressing part (30) movably disposed in the cavity (20) is pressed against the groove (101).” The grooves form separate airbags side by side with each other).
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 cuff structure as taught by Sano to include wherein the first cuff and the second cuff are arranged side-by-side in the circumferential direction of the curler as taught by Kuang to improve accuracy (See at least the abstract, “This improves blood pressure signal collection stability and blood pressure measurement accuracy.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the arguments regarding the section 102 rejections under Sano, the arguments are not persuasive. See FIG. 2 and FIG. 5 of Sano. The airbag 150 is on the inner surface of the curler 160 and each end of the airbag 150 extends past the end of the curler 160. The sensing airbag is on the inner surface of the airbag 150. When curled around a wrist, as best shown in FIG. 2, the airbag 150 extends and curls around and to the outside of the curler 160, if the device is wrapped enough around the wrist. In other words, if the cuff is tightened in FIG. 2, the limitation is met. For example, see FIG. 3 of the present application with the curler and airbags straightened as in FIG. 5 of Sano.
The limitation of the cuff extending past the curler when attached to the wrist, i.e., the timing conditions requiring a wrist, is considered to be directed towards intended use of the claimed device, which does not further limit the structure of the claimed device. The limitation reciting, “a portion of an other portion of the cuff being disposed in a region where the sensing cuff is present in an outer circumferential surface of the curler with the blood pressure measurement device attached to the wrist,” As long as the prior art teaches that there is a mechanism to curl the cuff and curler as such, the prior art is considered capable of performing the function.
For the above consideration, see MPEP § 2114.II: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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.
/J.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791