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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election with traverse of inventio (I) drawn to claims 1-9, and with drawn claims 10-13 drawn to non-elected invention in the reply filed on 03/05/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 regarding inventions I and II have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the method in invention II can be performed with a different blood pressure device and does not necessarily require all the structural elements in invention I. P lease, see detailed reasons in Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed on 01/06/2026. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the two phrases “blood-pressure measurement” in line 12 should be amended –the blood-pressure measurement-- . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “merely” in line 2 and “may” in line 9 should be cancelled as they have no patentable weight . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a mobile terminal” in line 5 should be amended to read –the mobile terminal--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “may” in line 4 should be cancelled as it has no patentable weight. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. STEP 1: claim 1 recite an apparatus to measure blood pressure. Thus, the claim is directed to a product. which is one of the statutory categories of invention. STEP 2A PRONG ONE: The claim(s) recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: Bluetooth communication module regularly sends dynamic air pressure values currently in the sleeve collected by the pressure sensor to the mobile terminal: and in a second measurement stage, the Bluetooth communication module associates a blood pressure value, calculated by the Bluetooth control module, with a heart rate value to form a Bluetooth data set and sends the Bluetooth data set to the mobile terminal. This limitation recites a mental process, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. STEP 2A PRONG TWO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recite the combination of additional elements/method steps of: s phygmomanometer with an integrated air pump, comprising a sphygmomanometer main body and a sleeve, a master controller and a pressure sensor indirectly connected to the sleeve, characterized in that the master controller comprises a Bluetooth chip . Accordingly, this additional element/step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitations fail to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. STEP 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, sphygmomanometer with an integrated air pump, comprising a sphygmomanometer main body and a sleeve, a master controller and a pressure sensor indirectly connected to the sleeve, characterized in that the master controller comprises a Bluetooth chip , but do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these structural elements are generically claimed to enable the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and providing/displaying data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized these functions to be well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Merely adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). As such, the recitation of these additional limitations in claims 2-9 does not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and represent insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as a sensor and use of a processor does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)). Thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea. When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-9 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). 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: Limitations “Bluetooth communication module” and “Bluetooth control module” in claim 1, the claim does not recite enough structure that corresponds to the claimed “module” above to perform the claimed function of sending, executing and data processing. However, the specification disclose s a Bluetooth chip as the structure that corresponds to the claimed “Bluetooth communication module” and “Bluetooth control module” . 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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 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. Claim 1 recite “t he Bluetooth communication module associates a blood pressure value, calculated by the Bluetooth control module ” this limitation is not defined by the claim, which renders the claim indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know how blood pressure is being calculated by a Bluetooth module. The scope of the claim remains indeterminate because of the claimed “ the Bluetooth communication module associates a blood pressure value, calculated by the Bluetooth control module ”. 14. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the s equence " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the switch" in line s 3-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the operational units" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the form" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the measurement subject" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the wrist" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the measurement subject" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claim (s) 1- 3 and 6- 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Karru et al ( US 2017 / 0049343 ) in view of Marcus et al ( US 2020 / 0360027 ). As to claim 1, Karru teaches an electronic sphygmomanometer (w ireless NIBP monitor 2 , par.15, fig.1-3) with an integrated air pump (pump 43, par.19, fig.2-3) , the electronic sphygmomanometer comprising a sphygmomanometer main body (unit 4, par.15-19, fig.1-3) and a sleeve (scuff 3, par.15-19, fig.1-3) that are detachably coupled to each other (unit 4 and cuff 3 are detachable at least through pump line 42, as best seen in fig.2-3), and comprising the integrated air pump serving to inflate the sleeve for pressurization (b lood pressure determination unit 4 has a pump 43 configured to inflate the blood pressure cuff 3. The pump 43 pumps air into the cuff 3 via one or more pump lines 42 , par.19) , wherein the sphygmomanometer main body is provided with a master controller (processor 41, par.19, fig.2) and a pressure sensor (pressure sensor 28 coupled to main unit 4 and indirectly to cuff 3, par.20, fig.2) indirectly connected to the sleeve, characterized in that the master controller comprises a Bluetooth chip (Bluetooth chip in wireless transceiver 48 connected to controller 41, par.15 and par.17, fig.2 ) , wherein the Bluetooth chip integrates: a Bluetooth communication module (Bluetooth module in 48, par.15 and par.17) , for having two-way data connection with a remote terminal ( monitor 30, par.15, fig.1-3, communication of information between the wireless monitoring devices 2 and 10 goes through the central monitor 30 , par.17) , and sending instructions that come from the mobile terminal and are related to blood-pressure measurement to a Bluetooth control module (par.17) : and the Bluetooth control module, for executing control tasks and data processing tasks related to blood-pressure measurement in response to the received instructions related to blood-pressure measurement ( wireless transceiver 38 of the monitor 30 may communicate with wireless transceivers of the respective monitoring devices 2 and 10 by any wireless means, such as via a network operating on the medical body area network (MBAN), body area network (BAN), wireless medical telemetry service (WMTS) the spectrum or on a Wi-Fi-compliant local area network (WLAN), or by Bluetooth or another wireless communication , par.15 and par.17) : wherein, in a first measurement stage, the Bluetooth communication module regularly sends air pressure values currently in the sleeve collected by the pressure sensor to the mobile terminal (par.20) : and in a second measurement stage, the Bluetooth communication module associates a blood pressure value ( processor 41 of the blood pressure determination unit 4 determines and executes the fastest method of obtaining a non-invasive blood pressure measurement from a patient 1 by using the inflation cycle to measure the patient's blood pressure and/or obtain information that can expedite the measurement process on the deflation cycle , par.15, apr.19 and par.23) , calculated by the Bluetooth control module, with a heart rate value to form a Bluetooth data set and sends the Bluetooth data set to the mobile terminal (the system correlates the accuracy of measured blood pressure based on measured heart rate, par.30) . Karru teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, but failed to explicitly teach the terminal is a mobile terminal, and in a first measurement stage, the Bluetooth communication module regularly sends dynamic air pressure values currently in the sleeve collected by the pressure sensor to the mobile termina l. However, Marcus teaches an analogous blood pressure system in the same field of endeavor to occlude blood pressure (abstarct, fig.1-5), wherein the terminal is mobile terminal (50, par.96-103, fig.5), and wherein the Bluetooth communication module regularly sends dynamic air pressure values currently in the sleeve collected by the pressure sensor to the mobile terminal (using phone app 52 to monitor cuff pressure, as best seen in fig.5, the cuff deflates, and Smartphone app 52 records cuff pressures and duration in a user profile , par.107, ser then increases cuff pressure, via the app, to an arterial occluding pressure indicated by the attenuation of the Doppler signal. The controller automatically maintains the arterial occluding cuff pressure measured by the pressure sensor by inflating or deflating the cuff , par.109)(Examiner respectfully notes that monitoring and adjusting cuff pressure through the phone app occurs using Bluetooth connection) . Since dynamic/real time cuff pressure monitoring is well-known in the art, so it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to monitor cuff pressure in real time in Karru’s invention, as taught by Marcus’s invention, in order to continuously maintain the cuff pressure at a predetermined value, to obtain more accurate blood pressure measuremen t. As to claim 2 , Karru teaches the electronic sphygmomanometer , further comprising a driving unit ( inherently the drive unit in controller 41 that drives and/or operates pump 43, par.19, fig.2 ) , which at least comprises an inflation driver and the integrated air pump (as best seen in fig.2) , wherein the inflation driver drives and/or switches and/or stops working modes of the integrated air pump based on a measurement command issued by the Bluetooth control module (par.15 and par.17-19) , and the integrated air pump is configured to work alternatively with different working modes based on variation of current polarity of a driving circuit connected thereto (working with different modes, d isplay 49 may also provide a mode indicator 21 which may indicate the mode, or method, used to calculate the patient's blood pressure 15. For example, the mode indicator 21 may indicate whether the blood pressure value for the patient was measured during continuous inflation of the cuff 3, stepwise inflation of the cuff 3, or stepwise deflation of the cuff 3 , par.18-19, the device may only try to detect the right target inflation pressure 54 and estimate where to stop pumping , par.30) . As to claim 3 , Karru teaches the electronic sphygmomanometer, wherein the integrated air pump has a reversible airflow channel (pump line 42, par.19, fig.3) , and the working modes of the integrated air pump include a first working mode in which the sleeve is inflated for pressurization by a motor driven to perform forward rotation ( blood pressure determination unit 4 has a pump 43 configured to inflate the blood pressure cuff 3. The pump 43 pumps air into the cuff 3 via one or more pump lines 42. The pump 43 is powered by battery 45, par.19, inherently the motor of the pump) and a second working mode in which the sleeve is deflated for depressurization by the motor driven to perform reverse rotation (delating the cuff after measuring blood pressure, end of par.18, par.23 and par.26 -28 ) . As to claim 6 , Karru teaches the electronic sphygmomanometer, further comprising a charging unit (charging unit that charges battery 45, battery 45 may be any battery capable of providing sufficient power, and is preferably a rechargeable batter y, par.19) , which at least comprises a data interface that is configured to have mechanical and/or signal connection with other health measuring equipment so as to provide enriched health monitoring functions ( battery 45 is connected to user interface 49 that can communicate with ECG device 10 and mobile unit 30, par.15-20, fig.1-2 ) . As to claim 7 , Karru teaches the electronic sphygmomanometer, wherein the switch deposited on the surface of the sphygmomanometer main body merely serves to turn on/off the sphygmomanometer and switch between Bluetooth working modes, except for the switch, all the operational units of the sphygmomanometer related to blood-pressure measurement are provided on a mobile terminal that is in wireless communication with the sphygmomanometer, all operational instructions for the sphygmomanometer are given through the mobile terminal bound with the sphygmomanometer through wireless communication, the operational instructions may include a start-to-measure instruction, a stop-measuring instruction, and/or a dynamic-blood-pressure-measurement command ( user interface 36. The user interface 36 may provide a means through which a clinician may receive or view information from the patient monitors 2 and 10 and/or to provide input to the patient monitors 2 and 10 , par.16, and/or user interface 49 may enable user input, such as to select a mode or to initiate a blood pressure measurement , par.19, fig.1-3) . As to claim 8 , Karru teaches the electronic sphygmomanometer, wherein the sleeve wraps an inflatable/deflatable bladder that is in gas connection with the integrated air pump ( pump 43 pumps air into the cuff 3 via one or more pump lines 42 , par.19, fig.3) , the sleeve may be in the form of an arm band or a wrist band (fits around the arm, as best seen in fig.1, par.15-19) , the bladder performs pressure control operations related to blood-pressure measurement on the wrist and/or arm of the measurement subject based on movements of the integrated air pump related to gas control ( battery 45 is connected to the pump 43 through power gauge and protection module 44, which regulates the power distribution within the blood pressure determination unit 4. For example, the power from the battery 45 may be distributed via the power gauge and protection module 44 to the processor 41, analog to digital convertor 46, wireless transmitter 38, par.19 , and p ressure measurements sensed by the pressure sensor 28 are transmitted to the analog-to-digital converter (A/D converter) 46, which digitizes the signals and transmits them to the processor 41. The A/D converter 46 may be any device or logic set capable of digitizing analog physiological signals. For example, the A/D converter 46 may be an analog front end (AFE) , par.20 ) . As to claim 9 , Karru teaches the electronic sphygmomanometer, wherein the sleeve has a first section that is mechanically coupled to the sphygmomanometer main body (the upper portion of monitor 2 where unit 4 is attached to, par.15, as best seen in fig.1-3) and a second section that is properly elastic to fit the wrist and/or arm of the measurement subject, the second section is formed integratedly with the first section but is mechanically isolated from the sphygmomanometer main body (bottom elastic section that fits around upper arm of the subject, par.15-16, as best seen in fig.1-2, wherein cuff 3 is all one/i=single integrated cuff) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7917 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712725596 . 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. /MAY A ABOUELELA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791