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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks”, filed 10/03/2025, with respect to rejection under objections to the Claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the Claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks”, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Englebrecht and Pekander.
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. The limitation “setter” does not provide structure and only is limited by its function/functional language. Pg. 7, Line 28 indicates that the setting device is intended to be a processor/part of a processor system, so prior art will be applied similarly.
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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 20140073951 awarded to Englebrecht et al, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20180078158 awarded to Pekander.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Englebrecht teaches Regarding Claim 1, Englebrecht teaches a setting device for a physiological parameter monitoring device for measuring a physiological parameter of a patient (abstract), the setting device comprising: a data input for obtaining one or more of: senor or transducer information indicating one or more of type, attachment location or intended patient population of a sensor or transducer use in the physiological parameter monitoring (Para. 0132), a heart rate estimator (Englebrecht also teaches heart rate ranges they’ve determined based on patient age in Para. 0112, with Para. 0268 showing that different heart rate ranges for a given age require a selection of different waveform processing) for, prior to measuring the physiological parameter of the patient, determining an estimated expected range of a heart rate of a patient based on the obtained sensor or transducer information, and assigning an expected range of the heart rate of the patient based on the estimated expected range of the heart rate of the patient (Para. 0132, “In some embodiments, encoder 42 may contain information about sensor 12, such as sensor type (e.g., whether the sensor is intended for placement on a forehead or digit), the wavelengths of light emitted by emitter 16, power requirements or limitations of emitter 16, or other suitable information. This information may be used by monitor 14 to select appropriate algorithms, lookup tables and/or calibration coefficients stored in monitor 14 for calculating the subject's physiological parameters”, Para. 0133, “In some embodiments, encoder 42 may contain information specific to subject 40, such as, for example, the subject's age, weight, and diagnosis. Information regarding a subject's characteristics may allow monitor 14 to determine, for example, subject-specific threshold ranges in which the subject's physiological parameter measurements should fall and to enable or disable additional physiological parameter algorithms”, the Examiner notes that while it is not explicitly stated the information is collected pre-signal collection, the information is static information about a patient that will not change (i.e. age/weight/diagnosis), and information necessary to determine before a sensor is used (i.e. the placement, wavelengths/power used by the emitter), and are used to eliminate unnecessary processing steps, so it is clear this is done before the additional processing steps set forth in Fig. 4 that occur after receiving the signal), a setter for generating one or more settings of a filter based on the expected range of the heart rate of the patient (Para. 0159, “In some embodiments, initialization parameters may include one or more settings of a filter such as, for example, a high and low frequency cutoff value of a band pass filter (e.g., a frequency range), a representative frequency value, a set of one or more coefficients (e.g., weights for filter weighting), one or more settings of a threshold calculation, any other suitable parameters, or any combination thereof. The initialization parameters may be determined based on the received physiological signal of step 402. Some illustrative techniques of step 408, referred to herein as "Search Techniques", will be described in further detail during the discussion of FIGS. 5-37 of the present disclosure”) and for configuring the filter to filter a sensor signal measured by the physiological parameter monitoring device based on the generated settings (Para. 0168, “It will be understood that FIG. 4 is merely illustrative and that various modifications can be made to FIG. 4 that are within the scope of the present disclosure. For example, while the rate calculation of FIG. 416 is described as using one or more initialization parameters, the initialization parameters may also be used or instead be used to influence the signal conditioning performed at step 414”), wherein the setter is configured to: retrieve the one or more settings of the filter from a lookup table that stores filter settings (Para. 0137) correlating with at least one of: the expected range of heart rate of the patient, (Para. 133), the sensor or transducer information (Para. 0132), and configure the filter based on the retrieved settings, prior to the acquisition of the physiological parameter of the patient (Para. 0132-0133, the same arguments applied above regarding pre-signal setting apply here as well). Englebrecht also teaches determining the appropriate sensor information for a blood pressure monitor (Para. 0133), but does not teach wherein the size or shape of the transducer is the data input obtained.
However, in the art of blood pressure monitoring, Pekander teaches wherein the transducer is a blood pressure cuff, the size of the blood pressure cuff detectable by the system (Para. 0051), wherein upon detection of a particular size the blood pressure device is set to only inflate to a given volume to prevent improper filling of the cuff (Para. 0055, “As an extra precaution, additional instructions may be executed to prevent a potential hazardous situation, such as overinflating a cuff on a neonate or an infant and causing injury. In the depicted embodiment, an inflation monitoring protocol is started at step 120 where the amount of air pumped into the blood pressure cuff is monitored to ensure that an expected fill amount based on the expected range of cuff sizes is not exceeded. A fill amount is received at step 122, which in various embodiments could be a volume of gas pumped into the blood pressure cuff 16, or a gas pressure and time increment”) using a valve (Para. 0055, valve 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use size or shape of the transducer as taught by Pekander in the device of Englebrecht in order to ensure a potential hazardous situation is prevented.
Regarding Claim 2, Englebrecht modified by Pekander makes obvious the setting device as claimed in Claim 1. Pekander further teaches wherein the data input is configured to further obtain patient category information via user input (Para. 0137, “User inputs 56 may be used to enter information about the subject, such as age, weight, height, diagnosis, medications, treatments, and so forth”) or from a database holding patient data (Para. 0133, “These equations may contain coefficients that depend upon a subject's physiological characteristics as stored in encoder 42. Encoder 42 may, for instance, be a coded resistor which stores values corresponding to the type of sensor unit 12 or the type of each sensor in the sensor array, the wavelengths of light emitted by emitter 16 on each sensor of the sensor array, and/or the subject's characteristics. In some embodiments, encoder 42 may include a memory on which one or more of the following information may be stored for communication to monitor 14: the type of the sensor unit 12; the wavelengths of light emitted by emitter 16; the particular wavelength each sensor in the sensor array is monitoring; a signal threshold for each sensor in the sensor array; any other suitable information; or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, encoder 42 may include an identifying component such as, for example, a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag that may be read by decoder 74”).
Regarding Claim 4, Englebrecht modified by Pekander makes obvious the setting device as claimed in Claim 1. Englebrecht further teaches wherein the data input is configured to additionally obtain a second expected range of the heart rate of the patient via user input (Para. 0465, “In some embodiments step 8304 may include receiving user input to user inputs 56 of system 10. For example, a user may indicate that the received physiological signal is from a neonate, has a dicrotic notch, and/or likely includes a pulse rate in a particular range”) and wherein the heart rate estimator is configured to determine the second expected range of the heart rate of the patient from a comparison of the estimated range and the expected range obtained via user input (Para. 0406, “Physiological pulse rates may generally fall into a particular range (e.g., 20-300 BPM for humans), and accordingly signal conditioning may be used to reduce the presence or effects of signal components outside of this particular range. Further, a narrower pulse range may be expected for a subject, based on previous data for example, and a signal may be conditioned accordingly”).
Regarding Claim 5, Englebrecht modified by Pekander makes obvious the setting device as claimed in Claim 1. Englebrecht further teaches wherein the setter is configured to, based on the expected range of the heart rate of the patient, select one or more of a digital filter (Para. 0141) or an adaptive filter (Para. 0146) or to select a filter from a group of predefined filters (Para. 0146) or to select a set of settings from a group of sets of settings based on the expected range of the patient’s heart rate (Para. 0426).
Regarding Claim 6, Englebrecht modified by Pekander makes obvious the setting device as claimed in Claim 1. Englebrecht further teaches wherein the setter is configured to generate as one or more settings one or more of corner filter type or adaptation algorithm (Para. 0146, “Processor 312 may perform any suitable signal processing of signal 316 to filter signal 316, such as any suitable band-pass filtering, adaptive filtering, closed-loop filtering, any other suitable filtering, and/or any combination thereof”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 12, Englebrecht teaches the inventions of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the physiological parameter monitoring device is a blood pressure monitoring device configured to measure blood pressure of a patient (Para. 0137, “In an embodiment, microprocessor 48 may determine the subject's physiological parameters, such as pulse rate, SpO.sub.2, and/or blood pressure, using various algorithms and/or look-up tables based on the value of the received signals and/or data corresponding to the light received by detector 18”). Englebrecht does not teach wherein the transducer is a cuff, the transducer information includes cuff size information indicating cuff size of a cuff, and the filter is configured to filter a cuff pressure signal measured by the blood pressure monitoring device, and wherein the data input is configured to detect the size of the cuff by monitoring the change in cuff pressure in response to a particular volume of air pumped into the cuff or by identifying the size from an identifier arranged in or at the cuff, the physiological parameter monitoring device further comprises a pressure generator configured to inflate the cuff that is configured to be attached to a patient’s body part and a valve configured to deflate the cuff, and the processor is configured to control the pressure generator and the valve and to determine the patient’s blood pressure based on the filtered cuff pressure signal.
However, in the art of blood pressure monitoring, Pekander teaches wherein the transducer is a blood pressure cuff, the size of the blood pressure cuff detectable by the system (Para. 0051), wherein upon detection of a particular size the blood pressure device is set to only inflate to a given volume to prevent improper filling of the cuff (Para. 0055, “As an extra precaution, additional instructions may be executed to prevent a potential hazardous situation, such as overinflating a cuff on a neonate or an infant and causing injury. In the depicted embodiment, an inflation monitoring protocol is started at step 120 where the amount of air pumped into the blood pressure cuff is monitored to ensure that an expected fill amount based on the expected range of cuff sizes is not exceeded. A fill amount is received at step 122, which in various embodiments could be a volume of gas pumped into the blood pressure cuff 16, or a gas pressure and time increment”) using a valve (Para. 0055, valve 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use size or shape of the transducer as taught by Pekander in the device of Englebrecht in order to ensure a potential hazardous situation is prevented.
Regarding Claim 9, Englebrecht modified by Pekander makes obvious the setting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the setter is configured to use the sensor or transducer information to generate one or more settings of the filter (Englebrecht Para. 0168, “It will be understood that FIG. 4 is merely illustrative and that various modifications can be made to FIG. 4 that are within the scope of the present disclosure. For example, while the rate calculation of FIG. 416 is described as using one or more initialization parameters, the initialization parameters may also be used or instead be used to influence the signal conditioning performed at step 414”).
Regarding Claim 10, Englebrecht teaches a method for a physiological parameter monitoring device configured to measure a physiological parameter of a patient (abstract), the method comprising: obtaining senor or transducer information indicating one or more of type, attachment location or intended patient population of a sensor or transducer use in the physiological parameter monitoring (Para. 0132), determining, prior to measuring the physiological parameter of the patient, an estimated expected range of the heart rate of the patient from the sensor or transducer information and assigning an expected range of the heart rate of the patient based on the estimated expected range of the heart rate of the patient (Para. 0132, “In some embodiments, encoder 42 may contain information about sensor 12, such as sensor type (e.g., whether the sensor is intended for placement on a forehead or digit), the wavelengths of light emitted by emitter 16, power requirements or limitations of emitter 16, or other suitable information. This information may be used by monitor 14 to select appropriate algorithms, lookup tables and/or calibration coefficients stored in monitor 14 for calculating the subject's physiological parameters”, Para. 0133, “In some embodiments, encoder 42 may contain information specific to subject 40, such as, for example, the subject's age, weight, and diagnosis. Information regarding a subject's characteristics may allow monitor 14 to determine, for example, subject-specific threshold ranges in which the subject's physiological parameter measurements should fall and to enable or disable additional physiological parameter algorithms”, the Examiner notes that while it is not explicitly stated the information is collected pre-signal collection, the information is static information about a patient that will not change (i.e. age/weight/diagnosis), and information necessary to determine before a sensor is used (i.e. the placement, wavelengths/power used by the emitter), and are used to eliminate unnecessary processing steps, so it is clear this is done before the additional processing steps set forth in Fig. 4 that occur after receiving the signal), generating one or more settings of a filter based on the expected range of the heart rate of the patient (Para. 0159, “In some embodiments, initialization parameters may include one or more settings of a filter such as, for example, a high and low frequency cutoff value of a band pass filter (e.g., a frequency range), a representative frequency value, a set of one or more coefficients (e.g., weights for filter weighting), one or more settings of a threshold calculation, any other suitable parameters, or any combination thereof. The initialization parameters may be determined based on the received physiological signal of step 402. Some illustrative techniques of step 408, referred to herein as "Search Techniques", will be described in further detail during the discussion of FIGS. 5-37 of the present disclosure”) retrieving the one or more settings of the filter from a lookup table that stores filter settings (Para. 0137) correlating with at least one of: the expected range of the heart rate of the patient (Para. 133), the patient category information (Para. 0132-0133, “age, weight, diagnosis”), the sensor or transducer information (Para. 0132), and for configuring the filter to filter a sensor signal measured by the physiological parameter monitoring device based on the generated settings (Para. 0168, “It will be understood that FIG. 4 is merely illustrative and that various modifications can be made to FIG. 4 that are within the scope of the present disclosure. For example, while the rate calculation of FIG. 416 is described as using one or more initialization parameters, the initialization parameters may also be used or instead be used to influence the signal conditioning performed at step 414”), , prior to the acquisition of the physiological parameter of the patient (Para. 0132-0133, the same arguments applied above regarding pre-signal setting apply here as well). Englebrecht also teaches determining the appropriate sensor information for a blood pressure monitor (Para. 0133), but does not teach wherein the size or shape of the transducer is the data input obtained.
However, in the art of blood pressure monitoring, Pekander teaches wherein the transducer is a blood pressure cuff, the size of the blood pressure cuff detectable by the system (Para. 0051), wherein upon detection of a particular size the blood pressure device is set to only inflate to a given volume to prevent improper filling of the cuff (Para. 0055, “As an extra precaution, additional instructions may be executed to prevent a potential hazardous situation, such as overinflating a cuff on a neonate or an infant and causing injury. In the depicted embodiment, an inflation monitoring protocol is started at step 120 where the amount of air pumped into the blood pressure cuff is monitored to ensure that an expected fill amount based on the expected range of cuff sizes is not exceeded. A fill amount is received at step 122, which in various embodiments could be a volume of gas pumped into the blood pressure cuff 16, or a gas pressure and time increment”) using a valve (Para. 0055, valve 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use size or shape of the transducer as taught by Pekander in the device of Englebrecht in order to ensure a potential hazardous situation is prevented.
Regarding Claim 11, Englebrecht modified by Pekander makes obvious a physiological parameter monitoring system comprising: a sensor to acquire a sensor signal from the patient (Englebrecht sensor unit 12); a filter configured to filter the measured sensor signal (Englebrecht Para. 0146, “Processor 312 may perform any suitable signal processing of signal 316 to filter signal 316, such as any suitable band-pass filtering, adaptive filtering, closed-loop filtering, any other suitable filtering, and/or any combination thereof”); a processor configured to determine a physiological parameter of the patient based on the filtered sensor signal (Englebrecht Para. 0146, “Processor 312 may calculate physiological information. For example, processor 312 may compute one or more of a pulse rate, respiration rate, blood pressure, or any other suitable physiological parameter”); and the setting device as claimed in Claim 1 configured to configured the filter (see rejection to Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 13, Englebrecht modified by Pekander makes obvious the physiological parameter monitoring system as claimed in Claim 11. Englebrecht further teaches wherein the sensor is a physiological parameter sensor that is configured to be attached to a patient’s body part (Para. 0140, “For example, the contact between the detector and the skin, or the emitter and the skin, can be temporarily disrupted when movement causes either to move away from the skin. In addition, because blood is a fluid, it responds differently than the surrounding tissue to inertial effects, thus resulting in momentary changes in volume at the point to which the oximeter probe is attached”).
Regarding Claim 14, Englebrecht modified by Pekander makes obvious the physiological parameter monitoring system as claimed in Claim 11. Englebrecht further teaches wherein the transducer is a photoplethysmoraphic transducer (Para. 0111, “For example, a physiological monitor may analyze photoplethysmographic (PPG) signals for oscillometric behavior characterized by a pulse rate, a respiration rate, or both”).
Regarding Claim 15, Englebrecht modified by Pekander makes obvious a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores therein a computer program product, which, when executed on a processor, causes the method as claimed in Claim 10 (Englebrecht Para. 0135, see rejection to Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 17, Englebrecht modified by Pekander makes obvious the physiological parameter monitoring system as claimed in Claim 13. Englebrecht further teaches wherein the sensor is a heart rate sensor, a respiration rate sensor, or a pulse oximetry sensor (Para. 0111, “For example, a physiological monitor may analyze photoplethysmographic (PPG) signals for oscillometric behavior characterized by a pulse rate, a respiration rate, or both”, Para. 0116, “pulse oximeter”).
Claim 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englebrecht et al, in view of Pekander as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20120157791 awarded to Hersh.
Regarding Claim 7, Englebrecht modified by Pekander makes obvious the setting device as claimed in Claim 1. Pekander further teaches wherein the sensors detect blood pressure (Para. 0137). Englebrecht does not teach wherein the setter is configured to generate as a setting an upper conner frequency of the filter in a range of 4-5 Hz if the patient category is adult, and the sensor or transducer size exceeds a size threshold; or to generate as a setting an upper corner frequency of the filter in a range above 5 Hz if the patient category is adult and the sensor or transducer size is below a size threshold. However, Applicant’s Specification describes starting in Line 29 of Pg. 10 that this is due to the sensor size difference between adult and neonate blood pressure sensors, Englebrecht does teach a difference of 1 Hz in filtering between neonate and adult filtering based on the increased resting heartrate of 130 BPM in neonates and 50-80 BPM in adults (Para. 0112).
Further, in the art of filtering blood pressure measurements, Hersh teaches a system wherein a higher heartrate of 120 BMP is given an upper corner frequency of 8 Hz (Para. 0044, “As an example, if three harmonics were used and the patient's heart rate was 120 bpm, the low pass cutoff frequency would be 8 Hz, rather than the 6 Hz low pass cutoff frequency described above when only two harmonics are used”, the Examiner notes that a low pass cutoff frequency is another phrasing for a upper corner frequency), whereby the second low pass filter is 4 Hz to cover the lower frequencies (Para. 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Englebrecht by Hersh, i.e. by adapting Englebrecht’s filtering system with the additional system of Hersh as shown above, for the predictable purpose of combining known prior art elements in similar systems to predictably improve the filtering system of Englebrecht.
Further, in the art of blood pressure monitoring, Pekander teaches wherein the system detects a difference between an adult blood pressure sensor and a neonate blood pressure sensor (Para. 0051) for ensuring a reliable blood pressure measurement (Para. 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Englebrecht modified by Hersh further by Pekander, i.e. by using a blood pressure cuff and alerting the system of Englebrecht to the size of the cuff selected as in Pekander, and assigning the appropriate filter as in Hersh, for the predictable purpose of combining known prior art elements to improve the blood pressure detection of Englebrecht in the same way to account for the need set forth in Englebrecht Para. 0112.
.
Regarding Claim 16, Englebrecht teaches the setting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the patient category is neonatal (Para. 0112 states that a neonate resting heartrate is around 130 BPM, and would need different filtering than an adult as the resting heartrate is lower). Englebrecht does not teach wherein the setter is configured to generate as setting an upper corner frequency of the filter in a range above 5 Hz if the patient category is neonatal or toddler.
However, in the art of filter settings for physiological devices, Hersh teaches adjusting the upper corner frequency to above 5 Hz if the subject is a neonate based on the neonate’s higher heartrate (Para. 0044, “As an example, if three harmonics were used and the patient's heart rate was 120 bpm, the low pass cutoff frequency would be 8 Hz, rather than the 6 Hz low pass cutoff frequency described above when only two harmonics are used”, the Examiner notes that a low pass cutoff frequency is another phrasing for an upper corner frequency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Englebrecht by Hersh, i.e. by adapting Englebrecht’s filtering system with the additional system of Hersh as shown above, for the predictable purpose of combining known prior art elements in similar systems to predictably improve the filtering system of Englebrecht.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jess Mullins whose telephone number is (571)-272-8977. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST M-F.
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, Unsu Jung, can be reached at (571)-272-8506. The fax 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.
/JLM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights