DETAILED ACTION
Note: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no search burden to also examine Group II, i.e. withdrawn claims 8-10. This is not found persuasive because each group of invention has separate classification and separate status in the art. Further, each group of invention requires a different field of search and different search terms and databases because each group of invention possesses a distinct element not possessed by the other groups of invention as set forth in the restriction requirement, with mailing date January 7, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 limitations are:
“a pressurizing element… to pressurize the first sensor” (see claim 1); and
“a processing device… to control the first sensor” (see claims 1, 2, 7)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
[0024] …Moreover, the pressurizing device may be composed of a pump and an air bag, or may be composed of a stepping motor and a buffer pressure head (such as a relatively large rather than wrist type pulse diagnosis instrument). The above is an example for illustration, and the embodiment of the disclosure is not limited thereto.
[0025] In the embodiment of the disclosure, the processing device Dpr may be an electronic device having a processor and/or a circuit capable of executing software, but the embodiment of the disclosure is not limited thereto.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(A)(1)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Harada et al. (US Patent No. 5560366) (hereinafter “Harada”).
With respect to claim 1, Harada teaches an arterial pulse wave measurement system, comprising: a first sensor, arranged on a radial artery to detect a pulse wave amplitude of the radial artery (col. 9, lines 38+ “sensor 70 is set on the skin of a wrist… such a way that the press surface of the sensor 70 is pressed against a radial artery…so as to detect a pressure pulse wave propagated from the artery to the pressure sensing elements in synchronism with heartbeat of the subject”; pressure sensor 12 in Fig. 7); a pressurizing element (cuff 10, air pump 14, and regulator valve 16; see Fig. 7), contacting the first sensor to pressurize the first sensor (cuff 10 is fluidly connected to pressure sensor 12, as depicted in Fig. 7); a processing device (CPU 28 in Fig. 7), coupled to the first sensor and the pressurizing element to control the first sensor to continuously detect the pulse wave amplitude and control the pressurizing element to continuously pressurize (CPU 28 provides controls pulse wave detection and instructions for inflating/deflating cuff 10; Fig. 7), wherein the processing device controls the pressurizing element to depressurize until the pulse wave amplitude returns to a maximum amplitude pulse wave (col. 6, lines 10+ “target pressure…proceeds to… slowly deflate the cuff 10… the respective amplitudes of successive pulses… increase and then decrease”; see also Fig. 5; Note: these limitations also pertain to conventional steps in oscillometric blood pressure technique, which is set forth by Harada, see abstract) and records a pulse wave waveform of the radial artery under a constant pressure when the processing device confirms that the pulse wave amplitude starts to decrease (cuff pressure is held at a constant level, Phold, as depicted in Fig. 5; see also col.8, lines 30+ “the pulse having the greatest amplitude of all the pulses obtained is read in when the respective amplitudes of the detected pulses start decreasing… proceeds with Step S17 to store, in the BP data memory area 60”; Note: these limitations also pertain to conventional steps in oscillometric blood pressure technique, which is set forth by Harada, see abstract).
With respect to claim 4, Harada teaches further comprising a plurality of sensors comprising the first sensor (pressure pulse wave sensor 70 and pressure sensor 12; see Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 7. Harada teaches wherein the processing device simultaneously confirms a plurality of pulse wave amplitudes detected by the sensors, and the processing device controls the pressurizing element to simultaneously depressurize the sensors such that the pulse wave amplitudes respectively return to the corresponding maximum amplitude pulse wave and records a plurality of pulse wave waveforms of the radial artery sensed by the sensors at the corresponding maximum amplitude pulse wave under the constant pressure when the pulse wave amplitude of each of the sensors starts to decrease (Figs. 1-7).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Yamasawa (US Patent No. 4844084).
With respect to claim 2, Harada teaches an arterial pulse wave measurement system, as set forth above.
However, Harada does not teach the limitations further recited in claim 2.
Yamasawa teaches wherein the processing device releases a pressure until the pulse wave amplitude returns to the maximum amplitude pulse wave when the pressurizing element pressurizes until the pulse wave amplitude decreases to between 70%-80% of the maximum amplitude pulse wave (col. 6, lines 16+ “70% of the maximum pulse wave amplitude is determined as a diastolic blood pressure”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify Harada to release a pressure until the pulse wave amplitude returns to the maximum amplitude pulse wave when the pressurizing element pressurizes until the pulse wave amplitude decreases to between 70%-80% of the maximum amplitude pulse wave for the purpose of computing blood pressure values, including a diastolic blood pressure, as evidence by Yamasawa (col. 6, lines 16+).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada.
With respect to claim 3, Harada teaches an arterial pulse wave measurement system, as set forth above.
Although Harada does not explicitly teach a record of the pulse wave waveform of the radial artery is maintained for at least 6 seconds, further modification to incorporate recording pulse waveform for at least 6 seconds would have been prima facie obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed for the following reasons. First, Harada expressly teaches holding the cuff pressure at the reference value Phold for a short time and storing pulse waveform of a signal in memory (col. 8, lines 55+). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed for the Phold to be maintained for a period of time (at least 6 seconds) in order to confirm whether a positive judgment is made with respect to reaching a prescribed target pressure value, as evidence by Harada (col. 8, lines 55+). Additionally, PHOSITA would have had predictable success modifying Harada’s Phold time to be at least 6 seconds since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Cao et al. (CN 114176533 A) (hereinafter “Cao”).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Harada teaches an arterial pulse wave measurement system, as set forth above.
However, Harada does not teach the limitations further recited in claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 5, Dong teaches wherein the sensors comprise three sensors (Abstract “independent measurement of cun-guan-chi pulse condition and wrist type measurement… the data are synchronously collected and fit with an algorithm for three-way blood pressure, the blood pressure and pulse data are more accurate”).
Regarding claim 6, Dong teaches wherein the three sensors measure three parts of "cun", "guan", and "chi" (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed to modify Harada to incorporate three measurement sensors to measure cun, guan, and chi in order to achieve high precision in a wrist based blood pressure measurement. Moreover, PHOSITA would have had predictable success modifying Harada to measure cun, guan, and chi as these methodologies have been widely set forth in traditional Chinese medicine for pulse diagnosis. See prior art cited, but not relied upon, at the end of the current office action for further example teachings.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 112842292 A
US PG Pub. No. 2022/0296104
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PUYA AGAHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1906. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791