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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 14, and 24 are allowable. Claims 3, 5, 16, 18 - 20, and 26 - 27, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, include all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions I - IV, as set forth in the Office actions mailed on 7/29/2025 and 1/20/2026, is hereby withdrawn and claims 3, 5, 16, 18 - 20, and 26 - 27 hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
In particular, claim 24 recites limitations that use the word “means”, and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raj et al.(WO 2018/013569, of record) in view of Jorov et al. (US 2016/0106367, of record).
Regarding claim 28, Raj shows a method of determining a physiological parameter of a user (“blood pressure of the user is determined based on a pulse transit time or pulse arrival time”, abstract) by using a processor to execute instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (memory storage module 203, [0036] and fig. 2). The method comprises:
obtaining a first acoustic signal associated with a blood vessel of the user measured by a first acoustic sensor (“acoustic sensor to measure the mechanoacoustic signatures of the pulse”, [0043], [0046], that is located in “wearable sensor device 200 such as the sensor device 110 in FIG. 1”, [0030], and figs. 1 - 2), of a wearable device (wearable device 200 … attachable to a user”, [0031] and fig. 2, in combination with one or more of “other sensor devices 112, 114, 116, 118 and 120”, [0027] and fig. 1), and a second acoustic signal associated with the blood vessel measured by a second acoustic sensor of the wearable device (i.e., an acoustic signal from a sensor in one or more of “other sensor devices 112, 114, 116, 118 and 120”, [0027], [0046], and fig. 1) which is disposed at a first distance from the first acoustic sensor (“distance between the two points of measurement”, [0007]; “distance between respective sensors”, [0053]);
obtaining a first motion signal associated with the blood vessel measured by a first motion sensor of the wearable device (“accelerometer 205”, [0039], that is located in “wearable sensor device 200 such as the sensor device 110 in FIG. 1”, [0030] and figs. 1 - 2), and a second motion signal associated with the blood vessel measured by a second motion sensor of the wearable device (i.e., a signal from an accelerometer in one or more of “other sensor devices 112, 114, 116, 118 and 120”, [0027], [0046], and fig. 1) which is disposed at a second distance from the first motion sensor (“distance between the two points of measurement”, [0007]; “distance between respective sensors”, [0053]); and
determining the physiological parameter of the user based on a set of signals comprising first acoustic signal, the second acoustic signal, the first distance, the first motion signal, the second motion signal, the second distance (“subset or all of the sensors 110, 112, 114, 116, 118 and 120 can be … blood pressure can be determined”, [0029]).
Raj further shows obtaining a first optical signal reflected from the blood vessel measured by an optical sensor (“optical sensor 217 … pulse … detected as a change in the … reflected light … blood vessel …”, [0043]).
However, although Raj discusses that the acoustic sensors and optical sensor can both be used to detect pulse data ([0043]; [0046]), it is not explicitly clear whether or not the signals from the acoustic sensors are used in combination with the signals from the optical sensor to detect the pulse data, or as an alternative to the optical sensor. Consequently, it is not explicitly clear that the set of signals used to detect the pulse data comprises the first optical signal in addition to the acoustic signals.
Jorov discloses a wearable health sensor. Jorov teaches using acoustic sensors in combination with optical sensors to detect pulse data (“acoustic sensor, such as a microphone 58, which senses acoustical signals due to the pulsatile blood flow … combine the acoustical information … with the optical measurements … to provide a more accurate and robust measurement … accelerometer … used to further enhance the robustness of measurement …”, [0046]), such that the set of signals used to detect the pulse data comprises a first optical signal in addition to acoustic signals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Raj to have the acoustic sensors be used in combination with the optical sensor to detect the pulse data, such that the set of signals used to detect the pulse data comprises the first optical signal in addition to the acoustic signals, as taught by Jorov, in order to provide more accurate and robust measurements, as discussed by Jorov ([0046]).
Regarding claim 30, the combined invention of Raj and Jorov discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Raj further shows the instructions cause the apparatus to:
determine a physiological characteristic of the blood vessel based at least on the first optical signal, the one or more physiological characteristics of the blood vessel comprising a diameter of the blood vessel, a distension of the blood vessel, a pulse wave velocity of the blood vessel, or a combination thereof (“calculation of the Pulse Wave Velocity”, [0053]);
determine a first characteristic of the blood vessel based on the first distance and a first temporal difference between a measurement time of the first acoustic signal and a measurement time of the second acoustic signal, the first characteristic comprising a pulse wave velocity determined based on the first temporal difference and the first distance (“calculation of the Pulse Wave Velocity”, [0053]);
determine a second characteristic of the blood vessel based on the second distance and a second temporal difference between a measurement time of the first motion signal and a measurement time of the second motion signal, the second characteristic comprising a pulse wave velocity determined based on the second temporal difference and the second distance (“calculation of the Pulse Wave Velocity”, [0053]); and
determine a physiological parameter of the user based at least on a combination of the one or more physiological characteristics of the blood vessel, the first characteristic of the blood vessel, and the second characteristic of the blood vessel (“blood pressure … function of the pulse transit time and distance … Pulse Wave Velocity (PWV)”, [0053]). In the combined invention of Raj and Jorov, the data include the data from the acoustic sensors, motion sensors, and optical sensor, as discussed in the art rejection of claim 28.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable of Raj and Jorov as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0204824, of record).
Regarding claim 29, the combined invention of Raj and Jorov discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above.
Raj fails to show that the at least one optical sensor comprises a first optical sensor and a second optical sensor disposed at a third distance from each other, the third distance corresponding to a third characteristic of the blood vessel, and that the method comprises obtaining signals from the sensors.
Wang discloses wearable device for measuring blood pressure. Wang teaches at least one optical sensor that comprises a first optical sensor and a second optical sensor (“two optical sensors”, [0094]; “… first sensor 601 and a second sensor 602…”, [0096] and fig. 14) disposed at a third distance from each other, the third distance corresponding to a third characteristic of the blood vessel (implicit), and that the method comprises obtaining signals from the sensors ([0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Raj and Jorov to have the at least one optical sensor comprise a first optical sensor and a second optical sensor disposed at a third distance from each other, the third distance corresponding to a third characteristic of the blood vessel, and to have the method comprise obtaining signals from the sensors, as taught by Wang, in order to reduce measurement errors, as suggested by Wang ([0095] - [0096]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 13 that claim 28 has been amended to “incorporate the subject matter of claims 12 and 23, which the Office Action indicated contains allowable subject matter”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as claim 28 has not been amended. The rejections of claims 28 - 30 are therefore maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 11, 13 - 22, and 24 - 27 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As discussed in the previous Office Action in the statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, the prior art of record fails teaches or reasonably suggest the combination of features required by independent claims 1, 14, and 24 as amended, particularly with respect to the limitations directed towards waking up the first motion sensor, the second motion sensor, or the optical sensor from a low-power state responsive to the first acoustic sensor or the second acoustic sensor detecting an acoustic signal having a signal quality above a threshold. Claims 1, 14, and 24 are thus determined to be allowable over the prior art. Dependent claims thereof are determined to be allowable at least by virtue of dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 AMELIE R DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571)272-2714. 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.
/AMELIE R DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights