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 .
Priority
The applicant claims priority to the CON of 14/738,636 filed 6/12/2015 and CIP of 18/127,514 filed 3/28/2023. However, the examiner does not find support for the limitations “receiving a synchronization signal…generating, by a wrist device, blood-arrival signal data that is synchronized to the synchronization signal…generating an assessed blood pressure executing a preconfigured function using the pulse transit time and preconfigured patient’s parameters thereby generating an assessed blood pressure.” Therefore, the priority date that is supported for the claims is the effective filing date 1/30/2024.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention details a system and method (Step 1) directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-23 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-23 recites at least one step or instruction for determining ventilatory threshold for a subject, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of Claims 1-23 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
A method of blood pressure assessment comprising:
receiving a synchronization signal; (additional element)
generating, by a cardiac device, cardiac signal data that is synchronized to the synchronization signal; (additional element)
transmitting the cardiac signal data from the cardiac device to the wrist device; (additional element)
generating, by a wrist device, blood-arrival signal data that is synchronized to the synchronization signal; (additional element)
determining a cardiac output onset time within the cardiac signal data; (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining a peak blood-arrival time in the blood-arrival signal data; (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
(observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
calculating a pulse transit time based on the cardiac onset time and the peak blood-arrival time; and (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
generating an assessed blood pressure executing a preconfigured function using the pulse transit time and preconfigured patient’s parameters thereby generating an assessed blood pressure. (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Similarly, Claim 9 recites
A system for blood pressure assessment comprising:
a cardiac device comprising: (additional element)
a cardiac receiver configured to receive a synchronization signal; (additional element)
cardiac electronics configured to receive a cardiac signal and generate cardiac signal data synchronized to the synchronization signal; (additional element)
a cardiac transmitter configured to transmit the cardiac signal data; and
a wrist device comprising: (additional element)
a wrist receiver configured to input the synchronization signal and the cardiac signal data; (additional element)
wrist electronics configured to receive the cardiac signal data and a wrist sensor configured to generate blood-arrival signal data that is synchronized to the synchronization signal, the wrist sensor positioned over a patient’s radial artery; (additional element)
a processor configured to execute instructions to: (additional element)
determine a cardiac onset time in the cardiac signal data; (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determine a peak blood-arrival time in the blood-arrival signal data; (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
calculate a pulse transit time based on the onset time and the peak blood-arrival time; and (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
execute a preconfigured function using the pulse transit time and preconfigured patient’s parameters thereby generating an assessed blood pressure. (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Similarly, Claim 18 recites
A system for continuous blood pressure assessment comprising:
a cardiac device configured to be placed on a patient’s chest, the cardiac device comprising: (additional element)
a cardiac transmitter configured to transmit a synchronization pulse; (additional element)
cardiac electronics configured to receive a cardiac signal and generate cardiac signal data; (additional element)
a cardiac processor configured to execute instructions to: (additional element)
determine each “R” peak of the qRs complex from the cardiac signal data; and (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
transmit a synchronization pulse for each determined R peak; (additional element)
a wrist device comprising: (additional element)
a wrist receiver configured to receive each synchronization pulse and generate a time stamp for each received synchronization pulse; (additional element)
wrist electronics configured to generate blood-arrival signal data from a sensor positioned over a patient’s radial artery; (additional element)
a wrist processor configured to execute instructions to: (additional element)
determine each peak blood-arrival time in the blood-arrival signal data; (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
calculate a pulse transit time for each peak blood-arrival time based on the time stamp for each of the received synchronization pulse and each determined peak blood-arrival time ; and (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
execute a preconfigured function using the pulse transit time and preconfigured patient’s parameters thereby generating an assessed blood pressure. (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 9 and 18 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-8, 10-17 and 19-23) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 9 and 18), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: cardiac device (receiver, transmitter, electronics, and processor), and wrist device (receiver, electronics, and processor) are generic and used for data gathering adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception in independent Claims 1, 9 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 9 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., external programming device or computer as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 9 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 9 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1-23 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: cardiac device (receiver, transmitter, electronics, and processor), and wrist device (receiver, electronics, and processor). The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, [0048]-0052] that details a cardiac device (receiver, transmitter, electronics, and processor) that has a receiver [0049] for a wireless receiver, transmitter [0051] (i.e. wired or wirelessly), and [0048]-[0049] for generic electronic that include various sensors and signals, and processor [00135] details a general purpose computer, special-purpose computer or other programmable data processing apparatus and cites generic and commercially available items. Further, in applicant’s specification [00100] –[00104] that details a wearable device (receiver, electronics, and processor) that has a transmitter [00101] (i.e. utilizing Internet, WAN, LAN, or a cellular network), a receiver [0053] (i.e. wired or wireless), , and processor [00102] and [00135] details a general purpose computer, special-purpose computer or other programmable data processing apparatus and cites generic and commercially available items.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term computer is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for computers. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 9 and 18 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method and system of Claims 1-23 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 9 and 18 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-23 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-23 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-14, 18-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by de Groot (US 2023/0397827 A1)
Regarding claim 1, de Groot discloses a method of blood pressure assessment (e.g. abstract [0003]-[0005]) comprising: receiving a synchronization signal (e.g. [0048] Fig 1); generating, by a cardiac device, cardiac signal data that is synchronized to the synchronization signal (e.g. Fig 2:270 [0053]-[0054]; [0065]; [0082]); transmitting the cardiac signal data from the cardiac device to the wrist device (e.g. Fig 2:272 [0053]-[0056]); generating, by a wrist device, blood-arrival signal data that is synchronized to the synchronization signal (e.g. Fig 2:280 [0065]; [0083]-[0085]); determining a cardiac output onset time within the cardiac signal data (e.g. [0065]; [0069]); determining a peak blood-arrival time in the blood-arrival signal data (e.g. [0038]; [0069]); calculating a pulse transit time based on the cardiac onset time and the peak blood-arrival time (e.g. [0041]; [0065]; [0069]); and generating an assessed blood pressure executing a preconfigured function using the pulse transit time and preconfigured patient’s parameters thereby generating an assessed blood pressure (e.g. [0065]).
Regarding claim 9, de Groot discloses A system for blood pressure assessment (e.g. Fig 2:200) comprising: a cardiac device (e.g. Fig 2:270) comprising: a cardiac receiver configured to receive a synchronization signal (e.g. [0048]; [0085] Fig 1); cardiac electronics configured to receive a cardiac signal and generate cardiac signal data synchronized to the synchronization signal (e.g. Fig 2:270 [0053]-[0054]; [0065]; [0082]); a cardiac transmitter configured to transmit the cardiac signal data (e.g. Fig 2:272 [0053]-[0056]); and a wrist device (e.g. Fig 2:280) comprising: a wrist receiver configured to input the synchronization signal and the cardiac signal data e.g. Fig 2:282 [0056]; [0083]); wrist electronics configured to receive the cardiac signal data and a wrist sensor configured to generate blood-arrival signal d–––ata that is synchronized to the synchronization signal, the wrist sensor positioned over a patient’s radial artery (e.g. Fig 2:280 [0065]; [0083]-[0085]); a processor (e.g. [0058]; [0075] Fig 2:220) configured to execute instructions to: determine a cardiac onset time in the cardiac signal data (e.g. [0065]; [0069]); determine a peak blood-arrival time in the blood-arrival signal data (e.g. [0038]; [0069]); calculate a pulse transit time based on the onset time and the peak blood-arrival time (e.g. [0041]; [0065]; [0069]); and execute a preconfigured function using the pulse transit time and preconfigured patient’s parameters thereby generating an assessed blood pressure (e.g. [0065]).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, de Groot discloses wherein the synchronization signal is provided by synchronization electronics (e.g. Fig 2:276/286 [0082]-[0083]) within the wrist device and transmitted to the cardiac device (e.g. [0085] the system details that both sensors can be interchanged location wise and the transmitter of the pulse can be either sensor).
Regarding claim 10, de Groot discloses wherein the wrist further comprises synchronization electronics providing the synchronization signal (e.g. Fig 2:286 [0083]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, de Groot discloses wherein the cardiac signal data are digital samples and the cardiac signal data includes one or more time-tags associated with the digital samples and synchronized with the synchronization signal (e.g. [0048]; [0062] Fig 4).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, de Groot discloses wherein the cardiac signal data is generated by one of an ECG sensor, an acoustical sensor, an echocardiographic sensor, and a ballistocardiograph sensor (e.g. Fig 3:270 [0082]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, de Groot discloses wherein the blood-arrival signal data is generated by one of a PPG sensor, a tonometry sensor, and a pressure-sensing sensor (e.g. Fig 3:280 [0083]).
Regarding claim 18, de Groot discloses A system for continuous blood pressure assessment (e.g. Fig 2:200) comprising: a cardiac device configured to be placed on a patient’s chest (e.g. Fig 2:270), the cardiac device comprising: a cardiac transmitter configured to transmit a synchronization pulse (e.g. Fig 2:272 [0053]-[0056]); cardiac electronics configured to receive a cardiac signal and generate cardiac signal data (e.g. Fig 2:270 [0053]-[0054]; [0065]; [0082]); a cardiac processor configured to execute instructions to: determine each “R” peak of the qRs complex from the cardiac signal data; and transmit a synchronization pulse for each determined R peak (e.g. [0064]-[0065]; [0069]); a wrist device (e.g. Fig 2:270) comprising: a wrist receiver configured to receive each synchronization pulse and generate a time stamp for each received synchronization pulse (e.g. Fig 2:282 [0056]; [0083]); wrist electronics configured to generate blood-arrival signal data from a sensor positioned over a patient’s radial artery (e.g. Fig 2:280 [0065]; [0083]-[0085]); a wrist processor configured to execute instructions to: determine each peak blood-arrival time in the blood-arrival signal data (e.g. [0038]; [0069]); calculate a pulse transit time for each peak blood-arrival time based on the time stamp for each of the received synchronization pulse and each determined peak blood-arrival time (e.g. [0041]; [0065]; [0069]); and execute a preconfigured function using the pulse transit time and preconfigured patient’s parameters thereby generating an assessed blood pressure (e.g. [0065]).
Regarding claim 19, de Groot discloses wherein the synchronization pulse is a wireless pulse with a low or known delay between the determination of the R peak and transmission of the synchronization pulse (e.g. [0070]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 20, de Groot discloses wherein the cardiac signal data is generated by one of an ECG sensor, an acoustical sensor, an echocardiographic sensor, and a ballistocardiograph sensor (e.g. Fig 3:270 [0082]).
Regarding claim 23, de Groot discloses wherein the blood-arrival signal data is generated by one of a PPG sensor, a tonometry sensor, and a pressure-sensing sensor (e.g. Fig 3:280 [0083]).
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) 6-8, 15-17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Groot in view of Goldner (US 2022/0361823 A1)
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 21, de Groot discloses wherein the preconfigured function is one of a trained neural network (e.g. [0051] the system could be trained through a machine learning algorithm [0065])
de Groot is silent regarding wherein the preconfigured function is a regression function.
However, Goldner discloses a wearable blood pressure system and method (e.g. Fig 1:102 [0017]; [0019] the system utilizes various inputs in order to determine the blood pressure for the user) wherein the preconfigured function for determining blood pressure is a regression function (e.g. [0082]; [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method of de Groot to incorporate the teachings of Goldner wherein the preconfigured function is a regression function for the purpose of utilizing a known way to determine blood pressure for a user.
Regarding claims 7, 16, and 22 modified de Groot discloses wherein the patient’s parameters include one or more of gender, weight, body mass index, age, health status, blood oxygen level, heart rate, room temperature, patient temperature, and height (e.g. de Groot [0065] Goldner [0019]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, de Groot is silent regarding further comprising: obtaining a current patient’s blood pressure measurement only on a first blood pressure assessment; retraining the trained neural network or refitting the regression function with the calculated pulse transit time and the current patient’s blood pressure measurement, thereby generating a retrained neural network or a refitted regression function; and repeating a plurality of blood pressure assessments using the retrained neural network or the refitted regression function.
However, Goldner discloses a wearable blood pressure system and method (e.g. Fig 1:102 [0017]; [0019] the system utilizes various inputs in order to determine the blood pressure for the user) further comprising: obtaining a current patient’s blood pressure measurement only on a first blood pressure assessment (e.g. [0060]-[0061]); retraining the trained neural network or refitting the regression function with the calculated pulse transit time and the current patient’s blood pressure measurement, thereby generating a retrained neural network or a refitted regression function ([0087]); and repeating a plurality of blood pressure assessments using the retrained neural network or the refitted regression function (e.g. [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and system of de Groot to incorporate the teachings of Goldner of further comprising: obtaining a current patient’s blood pressure measurement only on a first blood pressure assessment; retraining the trained neural network or refitting the regression function with the calculated pulse transit time and the current patient’s blood pressure measurement, thereby generating a retrained neural network or a refitted regression function; and repeating a plurality of blood pressure assessments using the retrained neural network or the refitted regression function for the purpose of updating the system in order to reduce the resulting mean absolute error (e.g. Goldner [0087]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
Jessandra Hough December 8, 2025
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796