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 February 03, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-4 remain pending in the application.
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 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:
Claim 3: Claim limitation “reception unit being configured to receive an operation performed by an operator” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “to receive an operation performed by an operator” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier that has a known structural meaning before the phrase “unit”.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claim 3: “a reception unit” refers to the specification [0019] describing a touch panel.
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.
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.
Claims 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation it is unclear if “a reception unit” is the same as “a receiver” as recited in claim 1. It is interpreted that they are the same and the added limitation of user input is added by claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear how the target is first switched automatically but now claimed to switch by user input.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US 2015/0320327 A1) (“Ono”) in view of Chen, Yan & Li, Dan & Li, Yanhai & Ma, Xiaoyuan & Wei, Jianming. (2016). Use Moving Average Filter to Reduce Noises in Wearable PPG During Continuous Monitoring. 181. 193-203. 10.1007/978-3-319-49655-9_26. (“Chen”).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Ono discloses A physiological information processing apparatus/method comprising (Abstract and entire document):
a calculator configured to calculate ([0027], “The data calculation device 160 has a moving average calculation device 162.”):
a moving average value of a pulse wave transit time of a subject ([0027], “The moving average calculation device 162 can be configured to calculate a moving average of the PWTT calculated by the PWTT calculation device 126.”); and
a hemodynamic parameter of the subject, using the calculated moving average value ([0047], “The data output device 180 outputs the data for measuring the hemodynamics, which is obtained by synthesizing the moving average of the PWTT values and the body posture of the living body, as a graph as shown in FIG. 4.” See also [0037], “In general, when the blood pressure increases, the blood vessel of the living body becomes hard, so that the rising point of the peripheral pulse wave becomes fast. Therefore, the PWTT value becomes a short time. On the other hand, when the blood pressure decreases, the blood vessel of the living body becomes soft, so that the rising point of the peripheral pulse wave becomes late. Therefore, the PWTT value becomes a long time. Hence, it is possible to capture the change in the blood pressure by calculating the PWTT value.” Blood pressure/hemodynamic parameters are calculated based on the moving average of the PWTT, see also [0053 – 0056]),
Ono fails to disclose a receiver configured to receive a start signal and an end signal, the start signal indicating a start timing of a treatment for the subject, the end signal indicating an end timing of the treatment,
wherein the calculator is configured to switch a calculation target between a first hemodynamic parameter and a second hemodynamic parameter, the first hemodynamic parameter being calculated using a first moving average value of a first pulse wave transit time, the second hemodynamic parameter being calculated using a second moving average value of a second pulse wave transit time comprising fewer pulse wave transit times than the first moving average value
wherein, based on the start signal and the end signal received by the receiver, the calculator is configured to calculate: the first hemodynamic parameter, in a case where the treatment for the subject is not performed and the second hemodynamic parameter, in a case where the treatment for the subject is being performed, and wherein the calculator is configured to automatically switch the calculation target based on the start signal or end signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches a receiver configured to receive a start signal and an end signal, the start signal indicating a start timing of a treatment for the subject, the end signal indicating an end timing of the treatment (Abstract, “There are two cascaded moving average filters. The first filter is designed to remove baseline wandering as preprocessing. The second filter whose window size is adjusted according to the additional accelerometer signal is used to remove motion artifacts. During continuous monitoring, the parameters of these two filters change adaptively in accordance with a batch processing method.”),
wherein the calculator is configured to switch a calculation target between a first hemodynamic parameter and a second hemodynamic parameter, the first hemodynamic parameter being calculated using a first moving average value of a first pulse wave transit time, the second hemodynamic parameter being calculated using a second moving average value of a second pulse wave transit time comprising fewer pulse wave transit times than the first moving average value (Page 196, “It is known that moving average filter with narrow window has a smoothing effect on the signal and the moving average filter with wide window can get the general trend of a signal.” And equation 5 and page 198], “Because of continuous changes of motion state and heartbeat in the long-time monitoring, the coefficients of moving average filters need to be changed relatively in order to remove motion artifacts more effectively and improve the accuracy of BPM detection. The flow chart of the whole algorithm is shown as Fig. 3 where MAFBW is the baseline wandering removal algorithm and MAFMA is the motion artifact removal algorithm. We call this method as batch processing method. We select 3–4 s data as a batch and set NBW in the next batch to be T in the current batch (except initialization in the first batch).”),
wherein, based on the start signal and the end signal received by the receiver, the calculator is configured to calculate: the first hemodynamic parameter, in a case where the treatment for the subject is not performed and the second hemodynamic parameter, in a case where the treatment for the subject is being performed, and wherein the calculator is configured to automatically switch the calculation target based on the start signal or end signal (Page 196, “It is known that moving average filter with narrow window has a smoothing effect on the signal and the moving average filter with wide window can get the general trend of a signal.” And equation 5 and page 198], “Because of continuous changes of motion state and heartbeat in the long-time monitoring, the coefficients of moving average filters need to be changed relatively in order to remove motion artifacts more effectively and improve the accuracy of BPM detection. The flow chart of the whole algorithm is shown as Fig. 3 where MAFBW is the baseline wandering removal algorithm and MAFMA is the motion artifact removal algorithm. We call this method as batch processing method. We select 3–4 s data as a batch and set NBW in the next batch to be T in the current batch (except initialization in the first batch).” Automatically switched to second parameter and second moving average value and vice versa based on the period of movement or activity, interpreted as a period of treatment).
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 apparatus/method as taught by Ono to include a receiver configured to receive a start signal and an end signal, the start signal indicating a start timing of a treatment for the subject, the end signal indicating an end timing of the treatment, wherein the calculator is configured to switch a calculation target between a first hemodynamic parameter and a second hemodynamic parameter, the first hemodynamic parameter being calculated using a first moving average value of a first pulse wave transit time, the second hemodynamic parameter being calculated using a second moving average value of a second pulse wave transit time comprising fewer pulse wave transit times than the first moving average value, wherein, based on the start signal and the end signal received by the receiver, the calculator is configured to calculate: the first hemodynamic parameter, in a case where the treatment for the subject is not performed and the second hemodynamic parameter, in a case where the treatment for the subject is being performed, and wherein the calculator is configured to automatically switch the calculation target based on the start signal or end signal as taught by Chen to improve signal quality and accuracy (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Ono as modified discloses The physiological information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Ono as modified further discloses wherein, in a case where a reception unit receives a predetermined operation, the calculator is configured to switch the calculation target from the first hemodynamic parameter to the second hemodynamic parameter, the reception unit being configured to receive an operation performed by an operator (Chen, user interface implicit by the adaptable algorithm, set by a user via the computing system).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights