DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/15/2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 9, 11, 16-18, 20 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 9 and 17, “extract at least one cardiovascular health index by analyzing the characteristic factor and the pulse wave” should read extract at least one cardiovascular health index by analyzing the at least one characteristic factor and the pulse wave”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9, 11, 16-18, 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the limitations (claim 9 representative):
“extract at least one cardiovascular health index by analyzing the characteristic factor and the pulse wave,
wherein the processor is configured to extract the at least one characteristic factor by setting a specific section between a systolic blood pressure (SBP) and a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) according to a cuff pressure, and calculating an average amplitude by averaging amplitudes of a plurality of pulses included in the oscillometric signal within the specific section as the at least one characteristic factor, and
wherein the processor is configured to determine an augmentation index (AIx) as the at least one cardiovascular health index based on a formula AIx = (F-P)/F, and/or
wherein the processor is configured to determine a pulse wave velocity (PWV) as the at least one cardiovascular health index based on Equation (1)…”
renders the claims indefinite. The claims have two significant issues. The first is that the extraction is based on two clauses, but it does not appear that the features determined as the at least one cardiovascular health index are based on the results of the extracted at least one characteristic factor. The second issue is in the “and/or” between the segmentation index and the PWV. While the alternative is fine, it is not clear how both can be present to both be the “at least one”. A simple amendment here to the last clause of “wherein the processor is configured to determine a pulse wave velocity (PWV) as the at least one cardiovascular health index or as a second at least one cardiovascular health index based on Equation (1)…”. For these reasons the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear which renders the claims indefinite.
Furthermore in claims 9 and 17, The augmentation index should have the variables set forth in the claim as the terms do not have a universal meaning, and it appears that applicant’s equation is attempting to be a distinguishing difference from the art cited version of such known index representations, and thus it would be improper to read limitations from the specification directly into the claims. It is noted that the Figure appears to use a known term as a general term and thus is interpreted as a general term and not a special meaning of “pulse pressure” the measurement but more generally as a pressure pulse wave. For these reasons the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear which renders the claims indefinite.
Claims 16 and 20 each recite the limitation "said cardiovascular health indices of a user when the cardiovascular health indices are accumulated". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims depend from the independent claims which each define at least one cardiovascular health index, but the independent claims recite each in an and/or relationship such that it is not clear if claim 16 is requiring the “and” situation. In this case, the claim is indefinite for the same issue as raised above. If the claim is supposed to be for both, then the amendments to the independent claims as suggested above will overcome this rejection too. If the intention is to the alternative, then these claims should refer to “said at least one cardiovascular health index…the at least one cardiovascular health index is…”. The examiner is fine with the breadth for claims 16 or 20 in either form.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 9, 11, 16-18, 20 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):
Claims 9, 17 (9 representative)
extract at least one characteristic factor of an oscillometric signal (mathematical concepts and/or mental processes)
extract a pulse wave from the oscillometric signal (mathematical concepts and/or mental processes)
extract at least one cardiovascular health index by analyzing the characteristic factor and the pulse wave (mathematical concepts and/or mental processes)
extract the at least one characteristic factor by setting a specific section between a systolic blood pressure (SBP) and a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) according to a cuff pressure, and calculating an average amplitude by averaging amplitudes of a plurality of pulses included in the oscillometric signal within the specific section as the at least one characteristic factor (mathematical concepts and/or mental processes)
determine an augmentation index (Aix) as the at least one cardiovascular health index based on a formula AIX = (F-P)/F (mathematical concepts and/or mental processes)
determine a pulse wave velocity (PWV) as the at least one cardiovascular health index based on Equation (1), wherein E indicates a blood vessel elastic modulus, Pfluid indicates blood viscosity, h indicates thickness of a blood vessel, R indicates diameter of the blood vessel, and v indicates a Poisson's ratio, wherein Equation (1) is [modified Moens-Korteweg equation] (mathematical concepts and/or mental processes)
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 9
electronic device for extracting a cardiovascular health status by using an oscillometric signal, the electronic device comprising: memory; and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute at least one instruction stored in the memory, wherein the processor is configured to (Computer structures used as a tool to implement the exception(s))
Claim 17
non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in which a computer program for executing a method of extracting a cardiovascular health status by using an oscillometric signal in an electronic device has been stored (Computer structures used as a tool to implement the exception(s))
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 above in step 2A. 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 directed to further details of the exception(s) (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.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s submission of amendments to the claims, and specification filed 7/15/2026.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the specification; the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the specification; the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive due to the amendments to the claims. However, after further consideration, the amendments have necessitated a new ground as presented above.
Applicant’s argument regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that a practical application is present and lies in the calculated equations. This is not found persuasive, this amounts to the inventive concepts being the claimed judicial exceptions itself. As explained in the rejection, the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements are to generic computer structures to apply the exception. Novelty does not equate to patent eligibility. A judicial exception recited in a claim must be claimed when considered as a whole to be significantly more than the claimed exception and/or recite a practical application of the claimed exception. In this case, data is processed and equation are calculated by computer elements. The rejections are respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Russell (US 2003/0135124) teaches calculations of radius using average amplitude of ith heartbeat as discussed in Figure 7-8, such whole pulse includes systolic and diastolic.
Oka et al. (US 2003/0097074) teaches [0029] an average-amplitude determining means 62 determines respective amplitudes AL.sub.n of respective pulses WL.sub.n of the photoelectric pulse wave continuously detected by the photoelectric-pulse-wave sensor 40 while the cuff pressure P.sub.C is slowly decreased by the cuff-pressure changing means 60, and additionally determines an average of the thus determined amplitudes AL.sub.n, i.e., an average amplitude AL.sub.per.
Narimatsu (US 2003/0004422) teaches augmentation index is known generally, this index is calculated as a percentage of an augmentation between a magnitude of a peak of a pulse wave and a magnitude of a peak of an incident-wave component contained in the pulse wave, relative to a pulse pressure of the pulse wave, as well as other derivations in [0044]-[0045].
Im (US 20100210956) teaches a system and discloses many systems that determine augmentation index, albeit with a different formula.
Narimatsu (US 2003/0130578) teaches almost an identical equation to the claimed augmentation index which is why the variables must be accurately described as they may be meaning the same thing as taught here [0050] More specifically described, an augmentation index is a ratio of a difference between a magnitude of a peak point of an incident wave and a magnitude of an observed pulse wave at the time of occurrence of a peak point of a reflected wave, to a pulse pressure of the observed pulse wave.
Kim et al. (US 2008/0081994) teaches that known modified Moens-Korteweg equation originally derived in 1961for determining PWV is common in the art using the exact equation claimed by applicant with the only difference being a radius is used opposed to a diameter in the calculation 2.
Ladding et al. (US 2013/0331678) teaches the exact same equation as Kim prior discussed using radius and not diameter in equation 2.
No prior art rejections are applied, but the claims are not allowable due to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112/101.
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
Prosecution Insights