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 .
Applicant’s arguments filed in the reply on May 11, 2026 were received and fully considered. Claims 1 and 7-10 were amended1. The current action is FINAL. Please see corresponding rejection headings and response to arguments section below for more detail.
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”).
Harada was applied in the previous office action.
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 and configured to pressurize the first sensor (cuff 10 is fluidly connected to pressure sensor 12, as depicted in Fig. 7); a processing circuit (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 circuit 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) while 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).
Yamasawa was applied in the previous office action.
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”).
Cao was applied in the previous office action.
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.
Previously cited:
CN 112842292 A
US PG Pub. No. 2022/0296104
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed with respect to the 35 USC 112F section (claim interpretation) raised in the previous office action were considered. Applicant acknowledges that the pressurizing element, as recited in the claims, corresponds to an airbag (as set forth in instant specification, par. 27). Moreover, Examiner acknowledges that the amendment “processing circuit” is sufficient structure such that there is no longer a 35 USC 112F issue for this limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections raised in the previous office action have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Harada does not teach “wherein the processing circuit controls the pressurizing element to depressurize until the pulse wave amplitude returns to a maximum amplitude pulse wave while records a pulse waveform of the radial artery under a constant pressure when the processing circuit confirms that the pulse wave amplitude starts to decrease”, as set forth in amended claim 1. Applicant appears to take issue with Harada’s cuff operation as depicted in Fig. 5, which teaches inflating the blood pressure cuff to a prescribed target pressure value Pt, followed by deflating the cuff while sensing pulse wave amplitude signals. Specifically, applicant contends that Harada’s depressurization is triggered based on whether the cuff pressure reaches a predetermined target pressure, instead of the amplitude of pulse waves (see remarks, pg. 8). Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. First, the instant claims, even as amended, do not distinguish over inflating a cuff to a predetermined target pressure and are not further limiting such that depressurization occurs based on pulse wave amplitude. Rather, the instant claims recite “controls the pressurizing element to depressurize until the pulse wave amplitude returns to a maximum amplitude pulse wave while records a pulse waveform of the radial artery under a constant pressure when the processing circuit confirms that the pulse wave amplitude starts to decrease”. When taking into consideration broadest reasonable interpretation of the “comprising” (open) nature of the instant claims, the prior step of “continuously pressurize” (see line 8) could include continuously pressurize to a predetermined target pressure. Applicant also appears to take issue with Harada’s Phold and Pmean, specifically that the amplitude corresponding at Pmean is lower than the greatest amplitude corresponding at Phold (remarks, pgs. 8-9). Again, and when considering broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner argues that the claims are not limited in a manner that distinguishes over Harada’s operation, as depicted in Fig. 5. Moreover, Examiner argues that operating a cuff to inflate/deflate, in the manner recited, would result in pulse wave amplitudes such that that they would oscillate, increase, decrease, etc. per the known oscillometric blood pressure technique. Examiner does not find that deflating a cuff, as set forth in the instant claims, would yield different pulse wave amplitude signals over Harada’s technique, which also senses pulse wave amplitudes during cuff deflation.
For at least the above reasons, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
1 Claims 8-10 remain withdrawn from consideration on the merits, as set forth in the restriction requirement, with mailing date January 7, 2026.
Prosecution Insights