DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 16, 2026 has been entered. Applicant has cancelled claim 7.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending.
The double patenting rejection is held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
“Baruch does not disclose receiving an optical pulse wave signal from a display device, nor does Baruch disclose determining a pressure-based measurement section that is used to extract a corresponding portion of an optical pulse wave signal for blood pressure calculation. Instead, Baruch derives blood pressure information directly from cuff-based pressure measurements and pressure oscillation profiles, without synchronizing extraction of an optical pulse wave signal to a pressure-defined measurement section:”
In both Hong and Baruch, there are pressure-applying surfaces and sensors which are configured to obtain a signal after pressure is applied. In Hong, the pressure-applying surface is the screen of the display device that a user presses manually, and the sensor comprises pixels of the display itself. In Baruch, the pressure-applying surface is a finger cuff, and the sensor is a pressure sensor in communication with the pressure cuff. In both cases, time-varying signals are obtained in response to an application of pressure. In the Non-Final Rejection dated December 29, 2025, the pressure-applying part of Hong is replaced with that of Baruch, with motivation provided. Thus, Applicant’s argument appears to view particulars of Baruch not incorporated in the rejection while not considering the structural elements of both Hong and Baruch in combination.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
“Accordingly, even when Hong and Baruch are considered together, the cited art does not disclose or suggest a main processor that determines a measurement section in a first pressure signal where the pressure measurement value varies, determines a second pressure signal corresponding to the measurement section, extracts a second pulse wave signal from a first pulse wave signal corresponding to the measurement section, and calculates blood pressure based on the second pulse wave signal and the second pressure signal, as recited in amended claim 1.”
See updated rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 and cited portions of Baruch involving pressure application of the incorporated cuff – signals which are obtained are derived from the pulse wave sensor of Hong. Examiner has provided the following annotated figures of Baruch to identify interpretations of “first pressure signal,” “second pressure signal,” and “second pulse wave signal:”
PNG
media_image1.png
407
1069
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-6, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Hong et al. (US 20210067618 A1) (hereinafter -- Hong) in view of
Baruch et al. (US 20190059825 A1) (hereinafter – Baruch).
Re. Claim 1: Hong teaches an electronic device comprising:
a display device (Abstract: “A display device includes a display panel to display an image, and a blood pressure measuring module…”); and
wherein the display device includes:
a pixel configured to emit light towards the user’s body (Figs. 3-4: pixels PX);
a photo-sensor configured to sense the light reflected from the user’s body to generate a first pulse wave signal (Figs. 3-4: photodiode PD embodied as an optical sensor OPS); and
a main processor (Fig. 3: control part CTLP),
wherein the main processor receives the first pulse wave signal (Fig. 3: control part CTLP receiving signals from pulse wave measuring part PWMP), and
a main processor which:
receives a first pressure signal from the pressure measurement device (Fig. 8: pressure detection).
Hong does not teach the invention comprising:
a pressure measurement device applying a pressure to a user's body according to a pressure control signal and sensing a pressure measurement value, and
a main processor which:
outputs a pressure control signal to the pressure measurement device from the main processor,
determines a measurement section in the first pressure signal where the pressure measurement value varies,
determines a second pressure signal in the first pressure signal corresponding to the measurement section,
extracts a second pulse wave signal from the first pulse wave signal corresponding to the measurement section, and
calculates a blood pressure based on the first second pulse wave signal and the first second pressure signal.
Instead, Hong measures a change in pressure from a user manually pressing a pressure-sensitive display screen with his or her fingers, whereby changes in the amount of light absorbed due to changes in blood flow are measured to estimate blood pressure (Paragraph 0099).
Baruch teaches analogous art in the technology of inflatable finger pressure cuffs for blood pressure monitoring (Abstract). Baruch further teaches:
a pressure measurement device applying a pressure to a user's body according to a pressure control signal and sensing a pressure measurement value (Fig. 10: finger cuff system 100; Figs. 1A-1C: pressure sensor signal, device applied pressure, and cuff pressure), and
a main processor which:
receives a first pressure signal including the pressure measurement value from the pressure measurement device (Figs. 1B, 1C, 16B: entirety of pressure signal), and
outputs a pressure control signal to the pressure measurement device from the main processor (Paragraph 0103: “The finger cuff system 100 can be controlled from and stream data to the software running on any applicable computing device. Communication can be wireless using, for example, the Bluetooth transmission protocol. In a preferred embodiment, the finger cuff system 100 can automatically upload data by radio transmission (e.g., cell phone communication) to a cloud-based server on the Internet”),
determines a measurement section in the first pressure signal where the pressure measurement value varies (Figs. 1A-1C, 16B: see any portion of corresponding measured signals where the device pressure varies),
determines a second pressure signal in the first pressure signal corresponding to the measurement section (Figs. 1A-1C, 16B: see pressure signals obtained while device pressure varies),
extracts a second pulse wave signal from the first pulse wave signal corresponding to the measurement section (Figs. 1A, 16B: see any subset of pulse wave signals obtained during pressures applied aside from initial periods where no pressure is applied),
calculates a blood pressure based on the first second pulse wave signal and the first second pressure signal (Figs. 14, 17 of Baruch; Examiner notes that blood pressure determination in Baruch occurs after pressure application steps and is therefore determined from signals based on such waveforms).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Hong to include the finger cuff system and method of pressure measurement of Baruch, the motivation being that, since Hong states that, in order to measure blood pressure, the device “may need to be gradually pressurized (e.g., gradually increasing pressure) or gradually depressurized (e.g., gradually decreasing pressure), and/or maintained at a constant pressure” (Paragraph 0087), using a separately controlled pressure applying device and corresponding control enables precise application of pressure increases and holds suitable for blood pressure measurement. Such precision in pressure application reduces the need to compensate for human error in manual application of increasing, decreasing, or steadily applied pressures. Furthermore, using a separately controlled pressure applying device also removes the need for pressure sensors in the display screen of Hong, simplifying device construction. Even further, the precise application of pressure enables blood pressure calibration using a measured oscillometric profile (Paragraph 0023).
Re. Claim 2: Hong as modified by Baruch teaches the invention according to claim 1. Baruch, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated structures and control thereof, further teaches the invention wherein the pressure measurement device includes:
a pressure applying part applying the pressure to the user's body (Fig. 10: finger cuff 20);
a pressure sensor sensing an external pressure (Fig. 10: pressure sensors 54, 56); and
a controller controlling the pressure applying part (Fig. 10: module 50).
Re. Claim 3: Hong as modified by Baruch teaches the invention according to claim 2. Baruch, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated structures and control thereof, further teaches the invention wherein the main processor controls the pressure applying part so that the pressure measurement value gradually increases during a period of time (Figs. 1B, 1C, 16: see gradually increasing pressure portions; Examiner notes that such application of pressure can be controlled wirelessly by any applicable computing device as described in Paragraph 0103).
Re. Claim 4: Hong as modified by Baruch teaches the invention according to claim 2. Baruch, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated structures and control thereof, further teaches the invention wherein the pressure measurement device further includes a wireless communication module receiving the pressure control signal (Paragraph 0103: implicit in the use of wireless communication for control signals).
Re. Claim 5: Hong as modified by Baruch teaches the invention according to claim 2. Hong further teaches wherein the controller controls the pressure sensor and the photo-sensor to be synchronized and to simultaneously sense the external pressure from the user's body and light reflected from the user's body, respectively (Fig. 8: pressure detection and sensing light information are processed synchronously in order to produce pulse wave signal generation respective to an applied pressure).
Re. Claim 6: Hong as modified by Baruch teaches the invention according to claim 1. Baruch, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated structures and control thereof, further teaches the invention wherein the main processor calculates, based on the first pressure signal, a non-measurement section and the measurement section for a period of time (Figs. 1B, 1C, 16B),
wherein during the non-measurement section the pressure measurement value is constant (Figs. 1B, 1C: cuff pressure and device pressure are constant at left-most point in graph; Fig. 16B: device pressure is constant at the left-most point in bottom graph).
Re. Claim 16: Claim 16 recites limitation of claim 1 mutatis mutandis as a method in combination with limitations of claims 6 and 7. Thus, the prior art rejection of claim 7 encompasses all requirements of independent claim 16.
Re. Claim 17: Hong as modified by Baruch teaches the invention according to claim 16. Baruch, in teaching further detail regarding the blood pressure measurement device, further teaches the invention wherein the first pressure signal gradually increases in the measurement section (Figs. 1B, 1C, 16: see portions possessing gradual pressure increases).
Claims 8-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Hong et al. (US 20210067618 A1) (hereinafter -- Hong) in view of
Baruch et al. (US 20190059825 A1) (hereinafter – Baruch) in further view of
Kang et al. (US 20190104997 A1) (hereinafter – Kang).
Re. Claim 8: Hong as modified by Baruch teaches the invention according to claim 1, but does not teach the invention wherein the main processor further calculates a third pulse wave signal including a pulse wave signal value based on the second pulse wave signal and the second pressure signal.
Kang teaches a device which utilizes force sensors in the screen (Fig. 3D) combined with pulse wave sensors (Fig. 3B) which calculates blood pressure based on the oscillometric method (Paragraph 0087). Kang, in teaching the use of the oscillometric method, further teaches the invention wherein a pulse wave signal is calculated based on an obtained pulse wave signal and a pressure signal (Figs. 5A-5B: generation of a contact pressure vs. pulse wave graph).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the method of measuring blood pressure of Kang for the method of measuring blood pressure of Hong as modified by Baruch. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Re. Claim 9: Hong as modified by Baruch and Kang teaches the invention according to claim 8. Kang, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated oscillometric method, further teaches the invention wherein the main processor generates a peak detection signal based on an amplitude corresponding to a peak of a cycle of the third pulse wave signal (Paragraph 0089: extraction of peak-to-peak point; Fig. 5C).
Re. Claim 10: Hong as modified by Baruch and Kang teaches the invention according to claim 9. Kang, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated oscillometric method, further teaches the invention wherein the main processor calculates
a peak value of the peak detection signal (Fig. 5C: point M),
a pressure value corresponding to the peak value of the peak detection signal (Fig. 5C: see corresponding pressure indicated by vertical line),
a diastolic blood pressure (Paragraph 0092: “In addition, contact pressure values at the right and left points which are symmetrically distant from the contact pressure value xM at the maximum peak point and which have a pre-set peak ratio within a range from 0.5 to 0.7 may be extracted as features for calculating systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)”),
a systolic blood pressure (see citation above), and
a mean blood pressure (Paragraph 0092: “For example, the contact pressure value xM at the maximum peak point, which is extracted as the characteristic point, may be extracted as a feature for calculating a mean blood pressure (MBP)”),
wherein the diastolic blood pressure is lower than the pressure value corresponding to the peak value and the systolic blood pressure is higher than the pressure value corresponding to the peak value (see citations of Paragraph 0092 above).
Re. Claim 11: Hong as modified by Baruch and Kang teaches the invention according to claim 10. Kang, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated oscillometric method, further teaches the invention wherein the main processor calculates the mean blood pressure as the pressure value corresponding to the peak value (Paragraph 0092: “For example, the contact pressure value xM at the maximum peak point, which is extracted as the characteristic point, may be extracted as a feature for calculating a mean blood pressure (MBP)”).
Re. Claim 12: Hong as modified by Baruch and Kang teaches the invention according to claim 10. Kang, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated oscillometric method, further teaches the invention wherein the diastolic blood pressure is smaller than a pressure value corresponding to 60% to 80% of the peak value and the systolic blood pressure is greater than the pressure value corresponding to 60% to 80% of the peak value (Paragraph 0092: “In addition, contact pressure values at the right and left points which are symmetrically distant from the contact pressure value xM at the maximum peak point and which have a pre-set peak ratio within a range from 0.5 to 0.7 may be extracted as features for calculating systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)”).
Re. Claim 18: Claim 18 recites limitations of claims 8 and 9 mutatis mutandis as a method. Thus, the prior art rejection of claim 9 encompasses all requirements of independent claim 18.
Re. Claim 19: Claim 18 recites limitations of claim 10 mutatis mutandis as a method. Thus, the prior art rejection of claim 10 encompasses all requirements of independent claim 19.
Re. Claim 20: Claim 20 recites limitations of claim 11 mutatis mutandis as a method. Thus, the prior art rejection of claim 11 encompasses all requirements of independent claim 20.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 of this application is patentably indistinct from the following applications and patents (hereinafter – “the group”):
Claims 10, 12, and 18 of Application No. 18/517,802 (hereinafter – the ‘802 application).
Claims 1, 13, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,484 B2 (hereinafter – the ‘484 patent).
Claim 20 of Application No. 17/965,159 (hereinafter – the ‘597 application).
Claim 19 of Application No. 18/170,647 (hereinafter – the ‘647 application).
Claim 1 of Application No. 17/938,424 (hereinafter – the ‘424 application).
Claims 2 and 20 of Application No. 19/008,202 (hereinafter – the ‘202 application).
Claim 1 of Application No. 18/182,917 (hereinafter – the ‘917 application).
Claims 1 and 21 of Application No. 18/159,945 (hereinafter – the ‘945 application).
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
For the sake of brevity, claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the identified claims of the group of patent applications and patents identified above in view of Baruch et al. (US 20190059825 A1) (hereinafter – Baruch).
Each identified claim of the group of patent applications and patents identified above, possesses the following components: 1) a display device utilizing pixels as a light source as part of a pulse wave analyzing device and 2) a pressure sensor used to identified applied pressure of a user contacting the display device. Each of these components are found in the primary reference of Hong (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103), and are utilized in a similar manner for the same goal of detecting blood pressure. Thus, each of the identified claim of the group of patent applications and patents identified above may be similarly modified in view of Baruch to utilize a finger cuff as a pressure applicator (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103).
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 JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights