Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/155,377

Pedal Pulse Monitoring Device

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 17, 2023
Examiner
MELHUS, BENJAMIN S
Art Unit
3791
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
234 granted / 381 resolved
-8.6% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+31.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
439
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
§103
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
§102
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 381 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . 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. Examiner notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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. Claim(s) 20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The term “rapidly” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapidly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what feature(s) could be encompassed by such a term in the context of the claim(s) absent a specific manner by which the speed / frequency of a flashing light is defined in the claim language. 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. Examiner notes: for brevity, economy, and clarity of reading, select of the claims are addressed jointly herein when instances of limitations with verbatim or near-verbatim similarity are recited in the body of differently numbered claims and/or when multiple different limitations are clearly addressed by a same/similar citation to/within a reference. Claim(s) 1, 3-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan (US 20210290161 A1). For claim(s) 1, 4, 7-9, 17, Pan teaches A pedal pulse monitoring device comprising: a display comprised of a processor, [47] a battery [53] and a fastener; [¶13] a pad [5] comprised of a temperature sensor [¶22] and a pulse sensor [cardiac (pulse) sensing is/are central inventive feature(s) detailed throughout the majority (if not the entirety) of the disclosure of Pan – see at least abstract] having an electrode [3-4] ; and a wire [6] connected to the pad and to the display, [¶64] wherein the wire places the pad in electrical communication with the display [¶47] a speaker; [¶85] a light; [¶47] a fastener; [Fig. 4 ¶13] a first transmitter; and a second transmitter. [Bluetooth module 54 with software portions for temperature and cardiac data in end of ¶71, end of ¶81] For Claim 3, Pan teaches The pedal pulse monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the pulse sensor communicates a pulse to the display, and further wherein the temperature sensor communicates a temperature to the display. [Fig. 6 in ¶71] For Claim 5, Pan teaches The pedal pulse monitoring device of claim 4, wherein the pulse sensor detects a pulse via the electrode, and further wherein the electrode produces an electrical signal from the pulse. [use of electrode for cardiac (pulse) data is/are central inventive feature(s) detailed throughout the majority (if not the entirety) of the disclosure of Pan – see at least ¶¶54-62] For Claim 6, Pan teaches The pedal pulse monitoring device of claim 5, wherein the electrical signal is relayed to the processor where it is converted into a beats per minute unit that is then displayed on the display. [Fig. 6] For Claim 10, Pan teaches The pedal pulse monitoring device of claim 9, wherein a bottom surface of the pad is comprised of an adhesive bottom surface. [¶58] For Claim 11, Pan teaches The pedal pulse monitoring device of claim 10, wherein the adhesive bottom surface is comprised of a skin safe adhesive. [¶58] For Claim 12, Pan teaches The pedal pulse monitoring device of claim 9, wherein the fastener is comprised of a clip, a clamp, hook and loop, a magnet, a suction cup, a threaded bolt, a hinge, or a swiveling fastener. [Fig. 4 ¶13] For Claim 13, Pan teaches The pedal pulse monitoring device of claim 9, wherein the display is comprised of a charging port. [rechargeable battery in ¶60 thus means at least some form of a rechargeable display] For Claim 14, Pan teaches The pedal pulse monitoring device of claim 13, wherein the charging port receives a reciprocating charging cord of a charger. [rechargeable battery in ¶60] For Claim 15, Pan teaches The pedal pulse monitoring device of claim 9, wherein the first transmitter and the second transmitter are in wireless electrical communication with the processor. [¶60, ¶67] For Claim 16, Pan teaches The pedal pulse monitoring device of claim 9, wherein the display is comprised of a first foot display area that displays a first pulse with a first pulse category from the pulse sensor and a first temperature from the temperature sensor. [Fig. 6 ¶71] For Claim 19, Pan teaches The pedal pulse monitoring device of claim 16, wherein the speaker and light are activated when the first pulse category is detected as an absent pulse, a weakened pulse, or a bounding pulse. [Fig. 6 ¶69 ¶85] For Claim 20, Pan teaches The pedal pulse monitoring device of claim 19, wherein the light rapidly flashes. [see § 112b rejection – consider at least Fig. 6] 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. Claim(s) 2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan. For claim(s) 2 and 18, Pan does not explicitly teach using an LED/LCD screen nor using Fahrenheit or Celsius for the temperature signal result. However, Examiner takes official notice that such features (LED/LCD and °F/°C units) were well-known and widely available at the time of filing and that such features would be well within the ordinary skill of the art for use in the system of Pan. Pertinent Prior Art Prior art made of record and not relied upon which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided in the Notice of References Cited (form PTO-892) herewith. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S MELHUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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 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. /BENJAMIN S MELHUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 14, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599333
MULTI-AXIAL JOINT LAXITY TESTING APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588837
CONTINUOUS ANALYTE SENSOR WITH MAGNETIC ACTIVATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12514468
PATIENT POSITION MONITORING METHODS AND SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12502142
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING WORSENING HEART FAILURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12484807
Wearable Sensor, Perspiration Analysis Device and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+31.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 381 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month