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 Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: “photpplethysmogram” should be --photoplethysmogram--. 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.
Claim(s) 2 & 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2, Line 3-4 recites, “the signals” and Claim 2, Line 3 recites, “the ballistocardiogram and photoplethysmogram signal”. The instances of signal is leading to confusion with what type of signal is being referred to. For the purpose of examination, the interpretation is that there are two different signals processed and filtered.
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2 recites, “wherein applying the model includes:…filter the signal before feature extraction…determining a timing delay…and…calculating the inverse of the pulse transit time”. The model within the Specification is disclosed as a deep learning model. It is not understood how in applying the includes filtering, timing delay and calculating. These steps appear to be more appropriate to further processing rather than when applying the model. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the claim limitation to be directed to further processing rather than applying the model.
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 recites, “calibration is subject specific calibration for the absolute estimation of BP from pulse transit time based on the pre-determined co-efficients for the specific subject”. It is not clear what exactly is the absolute estimation of BP. Is the Applicant intending to claim an equation or a result? The Specification in Para 0053 as originally filed discloses an equation 1 and Para 0073 discloses a U-net methods for the absolute value of BP. It would be beneficial to amend the claim to recite what is exactly being claimed in terms of the absolute estimation of BP. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the claim to be intended use and have little to no patentable weight due to the claim claiming the calibration is subject specific calibration for instead of the calibration comprising.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2015/0359486 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0172431 A1).
Claim 1: Kovacs teaches –
A method of estimating a blood pressure of a person [allowing the detection of blood pressure] (Para 0119) comprising:
collecting a signal of each of a plurality of load cells [load cells] (Para 0120 and Figure 1, Element 110) supporting the person [body of a user 105 standing on a scale 110] (Para 0059) to determine a ballistocardiogram [information in a ballistocardiogram (BCG) and an impedance plethysmography (IPG) measurements] (Para 0046);
collecting a photoplethysmogram signal [photoplethysmogram (PPG) measurement circuit 1640, which collects data from the LED/photosensor 1610, can also provide data to the processor circuit 1645] (Para 0126) from an appendage of the person (Figure 1, Element 105; in the Figure the user is shown with their legs or in other words appendage being measured);
Examiner’s Note: Figure 16 of Kovacs is disclosed as being implemented with the other embodiments of Kovacs (Para 0125) and thus citing Figure 1 & 16 is not an improper combining of different embodiments.
Kovacs fails to teach applying a model. However, Kim teaches –
applying a model [The processor 104 extracts at least one feature from the pulse wave information and applies the at least one feature to the estimator] (Para 0059) to the signals [ballistocardiogram (BCG)] (Para 0056; BCG is disclosed as pulse wave information that the estimator uses in Para 0059) of each of the load cells of Kovacs and the photoplethysmogram signal [photoplethysmogram (PPG) signal] (Para 0077 and Figure 2, Element 220) to determine an estimate of the blood pressure of the person [calculating a final blood pressure of the user by applying the blood pressure calibration value to the basic blood pressure] (Claim 1),
wherein the model has been calibrated for the specific posture of the person [trains the estimator based on the pulse wave information corresponding to the posture and the reference blood pressure calibration values obtained to correspond to the estimated posture] (Para 0064) as the model is being applied [determines a blood pressure calibration value corresponding to the pulse wave information of the user using a pre-trained estimator] (Para 0078) in order to obtain a more accurate measurement of a blood pressure (Para 0006)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blood pressure processing of Kovacs to include the model application as taught by Kim in order to obtain a more accurate measurement of a blood pressure (Para 0006).
Claim 8/1: Kovacs fails to teach calibration. However, Kim teaches wherein the method further comprises calibrating the model for the specific person [providing a guide for the user to measure the pulse wave information at different positions; measuring the pulse wave information at the different positions; obtaining reference blood pressure calibration values corresponding to the different positions; and training the estimator based on the pulse wave information and the reference blood pressure calibration values] (Para 0014) in order to a more accurate measurement of a blood pressure (Para 0006)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blood pressure processing of Kovacs to include the calibration as taught by Kim in order to obtain a more accurate measurement of a blood pressure (Para 0006).
Claim 9/8/1: Kovacs fails to teach calibration. However, Kim teaches wherein the calibration is subject specific calibration for the absolute estimation of BP from pulse transit time based on the pre-determined co-efficients for the specific subject [providing a guide for the user to measure the pulse wave information at different positions; measuring the pulse wave information at the different positions; obtaining reference blood pressure calibration values corresponding to the different positions; and training the estimator based on the pulse wave information and the reference blood pressure calibration values] (Para 0014) in order to a more accurate measurement of a blood pressure (Para 0006)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blood pressure processing of Kovacs to include the calibration as taught by Kim in order to obtain a more accurate measurement of a blood pressure (Para 0006).
Examiner’s Note: See pending 35 USC § 112 rejection above.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2015/0359486 A1) and Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0172431 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2018/0289288 A1; referred to herein as Kim‘288)
Claim 2/1: Kovacs teaches –
estimating the blood pressure of the person by calculating the inverse of the pulse transit time [PTT is often inversely correlated with BP] (Para 0004).
Kovacs fails to teach the filtering. However, Kim teaches –
processing the ballistocardiogram and photoplethysmogram signal to filter [amplifies and filters the measured pulse wave information] (Para 0072; filtered before the transmission to the mobile device which performs the further processing steps) the signals before feature extraction [The processor 104 extracts at least one feature from the pulse wave information and applies the at least one feature to the estimator] (Para 0059) in order to obtain a more accurate measurement of a blood pressure (Para 0006)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blood pressure processing of Kovacs to include the filtering as taught by Kim in order to obtain a more accurate measurement of a blood pressure (Para 0006).
Kovacs and Kim fail to teach processing between fiducial points. However, Kim‘288 teaches –
determining a timing delay [foot IPG timings are used to extract intervals between timing fiducials of the improved BCG (typically the I-wave) and the Foot IPG for the purpose of computing the PTT and the (PWV)] (Para 0112) between the fiducial points in the ballistocardiogram signal and the photoplethysmogram signal to determine a pulse transit time [signal processing steps to obtain fiducial references from the individual Leg IPG “beats,” which are subsequently used to obtain fiducials in the Foot IPG] (Para 011); and
estimating the blood pressure of the person by calculating the pulse transit time [timings extracted from the BCG for the purpose of computing the PTT ] (Para 0115) [robust timing extraction of the blood pressure pulse in the foot which is achieved by means of a two-step processing] (Para 0100) in order to enable a low-cost screening of vascular disease (Para 0032)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blood pressure processing of Kovacs and Kim to include the filtering and processing as taught by Kim‘288 in order to enable a low-cost screening of vascular disease (Para 0032).
Claim 3/1: Kovacs teaches a learning program [a learning program] (Para 0074) and Kim teaches training an estimator (Claim 1). However, Kovacs and Kim fail to teach a deep learning model. However, Kim‘288 teaches wherein the model includes:
applying a deep learning model [the features and mapping are obtained by training and then operating an artificial neural network or other machine learning system] to infer the person’s blood pressure [system for monitoring arterial properties, such as blood pressure] (Para 0008) in order to enable a low-cost screening of vascular disease (Para 0032)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the learning program of Kovacs and Kim to include the deep learning model as taught by Kim‘288 in order to enable a low-cost screening of vascular disease (Para 0032).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2015/0359486 A1); Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2018/0289288 A1) and Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2018/0289288 A1; referred to herein as Kim‘288) and further in view of Athaya et al. (Athaya, T.; Choi, S. An Estimation Method of Continuous Non-Invasive Arterial Blood Pressure Waveform Using Photoplethysmography: A U-Net Architecture-Based Approach. Sensors 2021, 21, 1867; enclosed herein)
Claim 4/3/1: Kovacs, Kim and Kim‘288 fail to teach wherein the deep learning model includes a contractive path and an expansive path. However, Athaya teaches wherein the deep learning model [Deep Learning Architecture] (3.3 Title on Page 7) includes a contractive path and an expansive path [This architecture consists of three paths: contracting, bottleneck, and expansive path] (Page 7, Section 3.3 Deep Learning Architecture) in order to have the advantage of a non-invasive, continuous, and rapid approach (Page 3, Section Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deep learning of Kovacs, Kim and Kim‘288 to include the contractive and expansive paths as taught by Athaya in order to have the advantage of a non-invasive, continuous, and rapid approach (Page 3, Section Introduction).
Claim 5/4/3/1: Kovacs, Kim and Kim‘288 fail to teach wherein the contractive path reduces the dimension of signal by half while doubling the number of channels for each layer. However, Athaya teaches wherein the contractive path reduces the dimension of signal by half [the number on the left side of each block denotes the input vector size of that block] (Page 8, Section 3.3 Deep Learning Architecture and Figure 8) while doubling the number of channels for each layer [The number of feature channels after each block doubles in the contracting path so that the architecture can learn the complicated structures effectively. The number on the upper corner side of a block denotes the number of feature vectors or channels] (Page 8, Section 3.3 Deep Learning Architecture and Figure 8) in order to have the advantage of a non-invasive, continuous, and rapid approach (Page 3, Section Introduction).
Examiner’s Note: Figure 8 discloses the input size of the signal being 256 on the very top left-hand side and reducing by half 128, 64, 32 & 16. Figure 8 discloses the number of channels being 64 on the top left-hand side over a bit from the signal input number and doubling as shown by the numbers of 64, 128, 256, 512 & 1024.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deep learning of Kovacs, Kim and Kim‘288 to include the contractive path as taught by Athaya in order to have the advantage of a non-invasive, continuous, and rapid approach (Page 3, Section Introduction).
Claim 6/4/3/1: Kovacs, Kim and Kim‘288 fail to teach wherein the contractive path includes cascaded layers of convolution, batch normalization, and non-linear activation. However, Athaya teaches wherein the contractive path includes cascaded layers of convolution (See Figure 8) in order to have the advantage of a non-invasive, continuous, and rapid approach (Page 3, Section Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deep learning of Kovacs, Kim and Kim‘288 to include the contractive and expansive paths as taught by Athaya in order to have the advantage of a non-invasive, continuous, and rapid approach (Page 3, Section Introduction).
Claim 7/6/4/3/1: Kovacs, Kim and Kim‘288 fail to teach wherein the expansive path includes de-convolutions. However, Athaya teaches wherein the expansive path includes de-convolutions (Figure 8) in order to have the advantage of a non-invasive, continuous, and rapid approach (Page 3, Section Introduction).
Examiner’s Note: While Athaya does not use the term de-convolution, it is understood that convolution occurs on the left contracting side of Figure 8 of Athaya. On the expansion side of Figure 8 of Athaya, the expansion operation is de-convoluting the previously performed convolution. The expansion is the inverse of the contraction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deep learning of Kovacs, Kim and Kim‘288 to include the contractive and expansive paths as taught by Athaya in order to have the advantage of a non-invasive, continuous, and rapid approach (Page 3, Section Introduction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant amended the claims to overcome the pending 35 USC § 112 rejections from Office Action mailed 09/22/2025. However as explained in further detail above, the pending 35 USC § 112 rejection were not overcome by the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the manner in which the references were applied in the prior rejection of record. The Applicant amended the claims with respect to calibrating the model for the specific posture of the person. The rejection above has been changed in response to the Applicant’s amendment. Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0172431 A1) is relied on as the secondary reference in the rejection above. The arguments are unconvincing.
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 HELENE C BOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:30 - 6:30.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/Helene Bor/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights