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 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 1-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of identifying at least one measurement segments as abnormal, removing a pulse waveform, generating a second pulse wave signal, calculate a third pulse wave signal and calculating a blood pressure based on the third pulse wave signal.
The limitation of identifying at least one measurement segments as abnormal, removing a pulse waveform, generating a second pulse wave signal, calculate a third pulse wave signal and calculating a blood pressure based on the third pulse wave signal, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” and “a display”, which are generic computer elements, the claims are direct to concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or analogous to human mental work and nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor, communications interface and output language, “identify” “remove” and “generate” steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing the data and replacing a point with an average value. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a pressure sensor and a photosensor. These detectors involve mere data gathering and amount to insignificant extra-solutional activity, specifically pre-solutional activity. Additionally, the processor and display device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
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) 1-12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukkamala et al US 2019/0008399 in view of Kawamoto et al. US 2017/0273582.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Mukkamala discloses a display device, comprising:
a display panel comprising a plurality of pixels ([¶42] display panel 104);
a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure applied from outside of the display device ([¶46] pressure sensor 324 in unit 108);
a photosensor configured to detect a light ([¶46] PPG sensor 320 in unit 108); and
a processor configured to receive a pressure signal sensed by the pressure sensor in each of a plurality of measurement segments, and a first pulse wave signal sensed by the photosensor in each of the plurality of measurement segments ([¶45] processor 300. [¶44,69-72] the pressure signal and pulse signal are analyzed over a plurality of segments or pulse cycles),
calculate a blood pressure based on pulse wave signal ([¶42,47,62] the systolic, diastolic and mean pressure are determined from the pressure sensor and PPG sensor readings).
Mukkamala discloses the plurality of measurement segments comprises first to nth measurement segments, and the first pulse wave signal has one cycle in each of the first to nth measurement segments, and wherein n is a positive integer.
Mukkamala does not specifically disclose identifying, removing and generate a second pulse waveform. Kawamoto teaches a similar handheld blood pressure device that is configured to identify at least one of the measurement segments as an abnormal measurement segment when a magnitude of the pressure signal sensed in the at least one of the measurement segments does not lie in a predetermined first threshold range ([¶36] when an abnormal pulse is detected); remove a pulse waveform from the first pulse wave signal in the abnormal measurement segment; generate a second pulse wave signal by interpolating the pulse waveform from one or more of the measurement segments adjacent to the abnormal measurement segment; calculate a third pulse wave signal based on the pressure signal sensed by the pressure sensor and the second pulse wave signal ([¶36] an abnormal pulse can be ignored or replaced with an interpolation of preceding and subsequent pulses). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Mukkamala with the teachings of Kawamoto in order to get a more accurate determination.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Kawamoto teaches a threshold of some type for the unstable waveform but does not specifically disclose the first threshold range comprises an upper limit pressure, a lower limit pressure, and a pressure width, and the pressure width is within 10 mmHg ([¶36]).
Regarding claim 3, Mukkamala discloses the upper limit pressure and the lower limit pressure increases in successive ones of in the plurality of measurement segments ([¶44] the pressure increases as the measurement goes on).
Regarding claim 4, Mukkamala discloses the processor controls the pressure sensor to measure the pressure signal again when the magnitude of the pressure signal sensed in the at least one of the measurement segments does not lie within a predetermined second threshold range ([¶54] when the calculations are done if the signals are outside an acceptable range new measurements can be taken).
Regarding claim 5, Mukkamala discloses the processor receives the first pulse wave signal from the photosensor a plurality of times ([FIG6] many measurements are taken over the testing period).
Regarding claim 7, Mukkamala discloses the plurality of measurement segments comprises first to nth measurement segments, wherein each of the first to nth measurement segments includes one pulse wave cycle the first pulse wave signal, and wherein n is a positive integer ([FIG.2C] the pulse wave signal has many pulse cycles over the measurement period).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kawamoto teaches wherein when a kth measurement segment is the abnormal measurement segment, the processor generates the second pulse wave signal by calculating an average value of an amplitude of a (k-1)th measurement segment and an amplitude of a (k+1)th measurement segment as an amplitude of the pulse waveform, and wherein k is a positive integer ([¶36]).
Regarding claim 9, Mukkamala discloses the processor generates a peak detection signal based on an amplitude corresponding to a peak of each cycle of the third pulse wave signal ([¶47,69,70] the peaks are determined for the envelope function and the peaks are used to determine blood pressure).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Mukkamala discloses the processor calculates a peak value of the peak detection signal and a pressure value corresponding to the peak value of the peak detection signal, a diastolic blood pressure lower than the pressure value corresponding to the peak value of the peak detection signal, a systolic blood pressure higher than the pressure value corresponding to the peak value of the peak detection signal, and an average blood pressure based on the pressure value corresponding to the peak value of the peak detection signal ([¶69,70] the peak of the envelope, or peak signal, is used to determine blood pressure).
Regarding claim 12, Mukkamala discloses a first pressure value smaller than a pressure value of about 60% to about 80% of the peak value in the peak detection signal and a second pressure value greater than the pressure value corresponding to the peak value of the peak detection signal, calculates the first pressure value is calculated as the diastolic blood pressure and calculates the second pressure value is calculated as the systolic blood pressure ([¶70] these values are the standard fixed ratio).
Regarding claim 19 and 20, Mukkamala discloses the processor generates a peak detection signal based on an amplitude corresponding to a peak of each cycle of the third pulse wave signal ([¶47,69,70] the peaks are determined for the envelope function and the peaks are used to determine blood pressure) and the processor calculates a peak value of the peak detection signal and a pressure value corresponding to the peak value of the peak detection signal, a diastolic blood pressure lower than the pressure value, a systolic blood pressure higher than the pressure value, and an average blood pressure depending on the pressure value ([¶69,70] the peak of the envelope, or peak signal, is used to determine blood pressure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 12-13, filed 6/17/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 and 17-20 under 35 USC 103 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 Kawamoto.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 6/17/26 with regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the pressure sensor and photosensor collect signals that a human could not mentally do, these are pre-solutional data gathering steps using routine physiological sensors. The processing steps of identifying a measurement segment, removing a pulse, generating a second pulse by interpolating, calculating a third pulse signal and calculating a blood pressure are all steps that can be performed mentally or calculated by hand other than that the claim recites a processor executes these steps.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical technological application, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims only nominally link the abstract mental process to the field of pulse sensing. The claims are merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to PPG. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific technological improvement in physiological signal correction, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Interpolation is a common statistical technique. Similarly, removing abnormal or erroneous components of a physiological signal is routine. Using the two together is common in other physiological sensing applications as well. Interpolating using previous and following measurements is not a technological improvement either as Kawamoto and Muzet US 2014/0088378 disclose it for PPG signals specifically, and Pougatchev et al. US 2005/0251051 and Lerner et al. US 2016/0029968 in broader physiological sensing.
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 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 ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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 at 5712723672. 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 A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights