DETAILED ACTION
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Claims 1-4, 7-13, 20 are pending; claims 9-10, 13, 20 are withdrawn.
This action is Final. MPEP 706.07(a) If rejoinder occurs after a first Office action on the merits and if any of the rejoined claims are unpatentable (e.g., a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is made), the next Office action may be made final if the rejection of the rejoined claims was necessitated by applicant’s amendment, or based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). See MPEP § 821.04et seq. for more information on rejoinder.
Claim Interpretation
No claims are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is allowable. The restriction requirement among species A and B, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 11/10/2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 11/10/2025 is partially withdrawn. Claims 9-10, 20, directed to Figure 15 are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claim 13, directed to the method of invention II remains withdrawn from consideration because it does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an image capturing unit configured to” in claims 9-10, 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In review of the disclosure as filed the following statements of correspondence are made:
“an image capturing unit configured to” corresponds to RGB camera and equivalents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9-10, 20 the limitations of further including an image capturing unit in view to the amendments to claim 1 are new matter. As addressed in the claim interpretation above, such structure correspondence is an RGB camera, which is already a required structure in claim 1. The inclusion of a second RGB camera is new matter. As such, one of skill in the art would not have recognized applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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 9-10, 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 9-10, 20, the claims are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but as described above, the corresponding structure is an RGB camera and equivalents. However, the claim 1 already has such structures and in addition to new matter, this addition is indefinite as not being consistent with the disclosure as filed due to the amendments to claim 1, MPEP 2173.03. As such the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear which renders the claims indefinite.
Further regarding claims 9-10, 20, the limitation “the modifying unit” lacks proper antecedent basis due to the amendments of claim 1. This further makes the metes and bounds of the claims unclear, rendering the claims indefinite.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s submission of amendments to the claims filed 6/2/2026; IDS filed 3/11/2026 and IDS filed 5/27/2023 have been considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim interpretation have been fully considered and are partially persuasive due to the amendments to the claims. However, the rejoined claims have such features and are thus interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims and arguments. While not necessarily to an improvement to the computer per se, the arguments on page 10 for the particular control mechanism as claimed are persuasive with the amendments as presented. Specifically, the argument of the sampling process control is found to be persuasive that such amounts to a practical application and/or significantly more than the claimed exception, when considered as a whole including a detection assembly configured to detect a pulse wave on a living organism, the detection assembly comprising at least one of a contact sensor that includes a light-emitting unit and a light-receiving unit, and an RGB camera that includes an image processing unit; the control circuitry configured to: determine whether or not the pulse wave contains a disturbance and modify a length of a measurement period based on a result of the determination, determine whether or not each pulse of a plurality of pulses detected on the pulse wave, after the measurement period is started, contains the disturbance, and end the measurement period in a case that a count of pulses, in the plurality of pulses, that are determined not to contain the disturbance reaches a specified value; and estimation circuitry configured to estimate biological information from the pulse wave detected during the measurement period, using the pulses that are determined not to contain the disturbance.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims in view of prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; the rejections are withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The art of record teaches similar features (see rejections of record, but fails to teach, suggest, or make reasonably obvious the claimed features considered as a whole including a detection assembly configured to detect a pulse wave on a living organism, the detection assembly comprising at least one of a contact sensor that includes a light-emitting unit and a light-receiving unit, and an RGB camera that includes an image processing unit; the control circuitry configured to: determine whether or not the pulse wave contains a disturbance and modify a length of a measurement period based on a result of the determination, determine whether or not each pulse of a plurality of pulses detected on the pulse wave, after the measurement period is started, contains the disturbance, and end the measurement period in a case that a count of pulses, in the plurality of pulses, that are determined not to contain the disturbance reaches a specified value; and estimation circuitry configured to estimate biological information from the pulse wave detected during the measurement period, using the pulses that are determined not to contain the disturbance.
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 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