DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6, 8-10 are pending.
This action is Final.
Drawings
The prior drawing objections are partially repeated, but the issue is in the specification form as addressed below.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1” has been used to designate antenna, radar chip, radar board, radar, blood pressure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2” has been used to designate antenna, radar chip, radar board, radar, blood pressure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “3” has been used to designate blood pressure and person. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: person 1, person 2, person 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: due to the drawing objections previously made as presented above, amendments to the specification were made as well as amendments to the drawings, which appear to overcome the outstanding issues. However, the formatting of the clean/marked-up substitute specification use a formatting that has created issues and the substitute specification should be re-submitted with corrected form. The issue is that the formatting used carries over to the next line of each sentence and likely will create ambiguity in processing the specification should the application issue, which may create enormous amount of issues that could need to be corrected in the future. It is best to submit again now while prosecution is open a better form. Please see for example lines 9-10 of page 1, but the issue is present in all 20 pages of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
No claims are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1:
extracting a heartbeat signal from the radar signal (mental process including usage of pen and paper, mathematical concepts)
selecting one or more peak signals from the heartbeat signal (mental process)
normalizing a magnitude of each of the selected one or more peak signals (mental process including usage of pen and paper, mathematical concepts);
calculating an area under a curve (AUC) of each of the normalized one or more peak signals for an indication of a severity of a curvature of the selected one or more peak signals (mental process including usage of pen and paper, mathematical concepts)
calculating blood pressure from the calculated AUC based on a derived regression analysis between AUC and blood pressure (mental process including usage of pen and paper, mathematical concepts)
Claim 5:
extract a heartbeat signal from a radar signal reflected by at least one body part through the at least one radar (mental process including pen and paper, mathematical concepts)
calculate a parameter to be used for measuring blood pressure from the heartbeat signal and calculate the blood pressure from the parameter, for calculating the parameter to be used for measuring blood pressure: select one or more peak signals from the heartbeat signal, normalize a magnitude of each of the selected one or more peak signals; calculate an area under curve (AUC) of each of the normalized selected one or more peak signals for an indication of a severity of a curvature of the selected one or more peak signals, and calculate the blood pressure using the calculated AUC corresponding to the parameter and results from a derived regression analysis between AUC and blood pressure (mental processes including usage of pen and paper, mathematical concepts)
These claim limitations fall within the identified groupings of abstract ideas:
Mathematical Concepts:
mathematical relationships
mathematical formulas or equations
mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Under the step 2A, analysis is conducted on the additional features of the claim. Under this analysis, the additional features beyond the judicial exception are:
Claim 1:
using at least one radar in a blood pressure measurement apparatus (field of use in the preamble with generic structures)
measuring a radar signal for at least one body part (insignificant pre-solution data gathering limitations)
Claim 5:
a blood pressure measurement apparatus using at least one radar (field of use in the preamble with generic structures inferentially claimed as intended use as radar is outside the claimed product)
a memory storing at least one program instruction (generic computer structures with programming instructions)
a processor executing the at least one program instruction, wherein the processor is configured to (generic computer structures with programming instructions)
These features in the claim do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements in the claim do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Limitation concepts that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitation concepts that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Under Step 2B, the claim limitations are evaluated for an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Analyzing the additional claim limitations individually, the additional limitation that is not directed to the abstract idea are the same as those identified in step 2A above. Such limitations related to radar are recognized by the courts as routine data gathering in order to input data to the mathematical algorithm/mental processes, and thus, do not add a meaningful limitation to the method/product as it would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the mathematical algorithm/mental process. In addition, the radar structures are recited generically, and radar or non-contact radar is known to measure physiological signals such as evidenced through US 2020/0129078, US 2009/0203972, US 2015/0257653, US 2016/0228010, US 2016/0345845, US 2017/0065184, US 2017/0296093, US 2019/0298193, US 2019/0343407, US 2019/0365244, US 2020/0229716, US 2021/0199796, US 2021/0298607, US 2022/0142492, US 2022/0192510. The method does not contain any computing structure, such that the steps can all be analog/mental processing of from the data gathered which further supports that the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The computer structures cited above are claimed as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims are merely directed to further details of the claimed exceptions (A more specific abstraction is still an abstraction). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, analyzing the claims as an ordered combination under the Mayo/Alice analysis the features claimed are directed to patent ineligible limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 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 1-2, 4-5, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kanegae et al. (Kanegae, US 2020/0129078).
Regarding claim 1, Kanegae teaches a blood pressure measurement method using at least one radar in a blood pressure measurement apparatus (see at least [0053]), comprising:
measuring a radar signal for at least one body part (see at least [0049], [0053], for all aspects of the rejections, while the specific details are discussed in relations to contact sensor embodiments, the teaching that non-contact sensors can be used in place would imply the same processes being completed with non-contact obtained data or in the alternative, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process non-contact derived data on pulse information in the same manner suggested for contact derived data in order to determine blood pressure using PTT and AUC data);
extracting a heartbeat signal from the radar signal (see at least [0034], [0049], processing signals allows for pulse waves);
selecting one or more peak signals from the heartbeat signal (see at least [0011], [0035]-[0036], [0039] identifying peaks for use in calculating area);
normalizing a magnitude of each of the selected one or more peak signals (interpreted as forming a standard signal including effects to the magnitude by signal processing: see at least Figures 1-2 signals including magnitude aligned in common time, filtering data see at least [0055], [0062]);
calculating an area under a curve (AUC) of each of the normalized one or more peak signals for an indication of a severity of a curvature of the selected one or more peak signals (see at least [0011], [0035]-[0036], [0039] calculating area, where such are has includes the intended result as an indication of severity of curvature by the area itself); and
calculating blood pressure from the calculated AUC based on a derived regression analysis between AUC and blood pressure (see at least [0007], [0011], [0013], [0033]-[0039] calculations based on regression form of parameters and coefficients).
Regarding claim 2, Kanegae teaches wherein the calculating of the AUC includes calculating an average value of the calculated AUCs from the normalized one or more peak signals (see at least [0036] mean area).
Regarding claim 4, Kanegae teaches wherein the extracting of the heartbeat signal includes removing a signal related to breathing information and a noise signal from the radar signal (see at least [0055], [0062] filtering data).
Regarding claim 5, Kanegae teaches a blood pressure measurement apparatus using at least one radar (see at least [0049], [0053], for all aspects of the rejections, while the specific details are discussed in relations to contact sensor embodiments, the teaching that non-contact sensors can be used in place would imply the same processes being completed with non-contact obtained data or in the alternative, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process non-contact derived data on pulse information in the same manner suggested for contact derived data in order to determine blood pressure using PTT and AUC data), comprising:
a memory storing at least one program instruction (see at least Figure 7, [0055]-[0056]); and
a processor executing the at least one program instruction (see at least Figure 7, [0055]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
extract a heartbeat signal from a radar signal reflected by at least one body part through the at least one radar (see at least [0034], [0049], processing signals allows for pulse waves); and
calculate a parameter to be used for measuring blood pressure from the heartbeat signal and calculate the blood pressure from the parameter (see at least [0007], [0011], [0013], [0033]-[0039]),
wherein the processor is further configured to, for calculating the parameter to be used for measuring blood pressure:
select one or more peak signals from the heartbeat signal (see at least [0011], [0035]-[0036], [0039] identifying peaks for use in calculating area);
normalize a magnitude of each of the selected one or more peak signals (interpreted as forming a standard signal including effects to the magnitude by signal processing: see at least Figures 1-2 signals including magnitude aligned in common time, filtering data see at least [0055], [0062]);
calculate an area under curve (AUC) of each of the normalized selected one or more peak signals for an indication of a severity of a curvature of the selected one or more peak signals (see at least [0011], [0035]-[0036], [0039] calculating area, where such are has includes the intended result as an indication of severity of curvature by the area itself), and
calculate the blood pressure using the calculated AUC corresponding to the parameter and results from a derived regression analysis between AUC and blood pressure (see at least [0007], [0011], [0013], [0033]-[0039] calculations based on regression form of parameters and coefficients).
Regarding claim 8, Kanegae teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: extract phase information of a frequency component from a radar signal reflected by each of two body parts, calculates a pulse transit time (PTT) using the extracted phase information, and calculates the parameter by combining the calculated AUC and the calculated PTT (calculating PTT using two non-contact sensors, see at least [0013]-[0014] [0034]-[0039], [0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Kanegae teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: remove a signal related to breathing information and a noise signal from the radar signal (see entire document, especially [0055], [0062] filtering data).
Regarding claim 10, Kanegae teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: extract amplitude information of the heartbeat signal, calculates a PTT from a radar signal reflected by each of two body parts, and calculates the parameter by combining the calculated AUC, the extracted amplitude information, and the calculated PTT (amplitude information used in calculating PTT, see at least [0013]-[0014] [0034]-[0039]).
Claims 3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanegae et al. (Kanegae, US 2020/0129078) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2005/0251059).
Regarding claim 3, Kanegae teaches wherein the calculating the blood pressure includes: obtaining a first value by applying a first weight to the calculated AUC (see at least [0037]); obtaining a second value by applying a second weight to a pulse transit time (PTT) of the heartbeat signal (see at least [0037]); obtain a third value (see at least [0037]); and
calculating the blood pressure by summing the first value, the second value, and the third value, wherein the first weight, the second weight, and the third weight are obtained by the derived regression analysis between AUC and blood pressure (see at least [0007], [0011], [0013], [0033]-[0039] calculations based on regression form of parameters and coefficients);
however, the limitation of obtaining a third value by applying a third weight to an amplitude of the selected one or more peak signals is not directly taught.
Kim teaches a related system for measuring blood pressure (see at least title and abstract), and teaches that different parameters with constants may be used to calculate blood pressure, including an amplitude such as max, which reasonably teaches obtaining a third value by applying a third weight to an amplitude of the selected one or more peak signals (see at least [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of combining known parameters in a regression analysis to determine blood pressure using multivariate approach to increase indirect calculation accuracies.
Regarding claim 6, Kanegae teaches wherein the processor is, for calculating the blood pressure, further configured to: obtain a first value by applying a first weight to the calculated AUC (see at least [0037]); obtain a second value by applying a second weight to a pulse transit time (PTT) of the heartbeat signal (see at least [0037]); obtain a third value (see at least [0037]); calculate the blood pressure by summing the first value, the second value, and the third value, wherein the first weight, the second weight, and the third weight are obtained by the derived regression analysis between AUC and blood pressure (see at least [0007], [0011], [0013], [0033]-[0039] calculations based on regression form of parameters and coefficients);
however, the limitation of obtain a third value by applying a third weight to an amplitude of the selected one or more peak signals is not directly taught.
Kim teaches a related system for measuring blood pressure (see at least title and abstract), and teaches that different parameters with constants may be used to calculate blood pressure, including an amplitude such as max, which reasonably teaches obtain a third value by applying a third weight to an amplitude of the selected one or more peak signals (see at least [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of combining known parameters in a regression analysis to determine blood pressure using multivariate approach to increase indirect calculation accuracies.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s submission of amendments to claims, drawings, and specification filed 12/9/2025.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawing objections have been fully considered and are partially accepted due to the drawing amendments. However, due to the unacceptable form of the specification, some objections remain. It is noted the submission of the specification in acceptable form should overcome the outstanding objections and likely no further amended drawings need be submitted.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the specification objections have been fully considered but are not persuasive as the amendments have not been entered for the reasons explained above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim interpretations have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; no claims are invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims amount to an improvement to technology in electrical signal processing. However, the arguments are not persuasive as they amount to conclusory position where the exception itself provides the argued improvement. The rejections are respectfully maintained as presented above to account for the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims in view of prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the reference does not discuss an indication of severity of the curve, but this is claimed as an intended result of the AUC calculation and as such the intended result is necessarily taught in the art for such process being completed. The rejections are respectfully maintained as presented above to account for the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2009/0203972, US 2015/0257653, US 2016/0228010, US 2016/0345845, US 2017/0065184, US 2017/0296093, US 2019/0298193, US 2019/0343407, US 2019/0365244, US 2020/0229716, US 2021/0199796, US 2021/0298607, US 2022/0142492, US 2022/0192510 teach technology relevant to the recited improvement of contactless sensors.
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 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 MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
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 (Tse) Chen can be reached at (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 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791