Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/436,849

SPHYGMOMANOMETER, CONTROL DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 08, 2024
Examiner
CATINA, MICHAEL ANTHONY
Art Unit
3791
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Nihon Kohden Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
31%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
5y 6m
To Grant
61%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 31% of cases
31%
Career Allow Rate
167 granted / 535 resolved
-38.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 6m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
589
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 535 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an inflating/deflating device and a control device in claim 1 and an inflating/deflating device and an interface in claim 5. The inflating/deflating device is a pump and valve, see ¶43. The control device is a A/D converter, a processor and output D/A converter, see ¶46-48. The interface of claim 5 is the A/D converter that receives the sensor signals, see ¶47. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-6 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. Claims 1, 5 and 6 recite “the estimated value” when referring to determining an air feeding flow rate. There is no antecedent bases for the estimated value as the claim previously recites an estimated value of capacity volume. It is not clear if these values are the same. Claim 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. It is not clear what is meant by the control device is configured to deflate the internal pressure without interrupting the power supply to the inflation/deflation device. It seems from ¶69 the device can maintain a pump flow rate while deflating but this is not clear in the claim language. The inflating/deflating device contains the pump and the deflating value so activating the deflation would change or in a way interrupt the power supply. 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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. US 2014/0257116 in view of Eto et al. US 2011/0251499. Regarding claim 1, 5 and 6, Kobayashi discloses a sphygmomanometer, comprising: a ventilation passage adapted to be communicated with an interior of a cuff that is adapted to be attached to a body of a subject ([¶50] air tube 31); an inflating/deflating device configured to perform at least one of air feeding and air exhausting through the ventilation passage to inflate/deflate internal pressure of the cuff ([¶50][FIG.1] air system 300 that contains pump 51 and valve 52); and a control device configured to control an operation of the inflating/deflating device ([¶130][FIG.1] valve driving circuit 54 and pump driving circuit 53), wherein the control device is configured to: cause the inflating/deflating device to initiate a first air feeding to the cuff with a prescribed flow rate ([FIG.10] at step 5 a constant inflation speed is set and inflation starts at step 6); calculate an estimated value of a capacity volume of the cuff based on a time length for which the internal pressure inflates from a first value to a second value ([FIG.10] at step 9 the length of the cuff site is determined based on the volume change over time. [¶81,114-120] a change in volume and overall volume is determined); determine, based on the estimated value, an air feeding flow rate for obtaining a prescribed inflating speed ([¶114-120] the inflation rate can be changed based on the determined length) cause the inflating/deflating device to initiate a second air feeding to the cuff with the air feeding flow rate before the internal pressure reaches zero ([¶114-120] the inflation speed is changed); and measure blood pressure of the subject while the second air feeding is performed ([¶93] the blood pressure is determined). Kobayashi does not specifically disclose cause the inflating/deflating device to perform at least the air exhausting before an inflation of the internal pressure reaches a steady state to deflate the internal pressure. Eto teaches a similar blood pressure device that depressurizes then repressurizes at another rate ([¶80-85]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Kobayashi with the repressurization of Eto in order to have a more accurate measure of the pulse wave and blood pressure. Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi does not specifically disclose the control device is configured to deflate the internal pressure to a value less than 10 mmHg before the second air feeding is initiated. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kobayashi to include the 10 mmHg value since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 3, Eto teaches the control device is configured to deflate the internal pressure without interrupting power supply to the inflating/deflating device ([¶80] the deflating occurs while the pumping can continue). Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi discloses the control device is configured to increase the air feeding flow rate after the second air feeding is initiated to maintain the inflating speed ([¶114-120] the inflation can be corrected). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm. 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 at 5712723672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 08, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599304
CONFIGURABLE HARDWARE PLATFORM FOR PHYSIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF A LIVING BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12484853
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTERACTING WITH AN IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12478282
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR COLLECTING SPIROMETRY DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12471854
Systems and Methods For Monitoring a Patient
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12453483
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING BLOOD PRESSURE ZONES DURING AUTOREGULATION MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
31%
Grant Probability
61%
With Interview (+29.7%)
5y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 535 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month