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
Applicant's election with traverse of species V-B (corresponding to Figures 13, 14B and 19) in the reply filed on 9/10/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “many of the subspecies identified in the Election of Species Requirement are based upon a drawing that is actually a different view of the same device shown in another drawing that is used as the basis for another subspecies”, as stated on page 1. Applicant, on page 2, “requests that the following pairs of species be combined into single species: (1) species IV-A and IV-B; (2) species V-A and V-B; (3) to species V-C and V-D; and (4) species V-E and V-F.”
In response, the requested pairs of species ((1) species IV-A and IV-B; (2) species V-A and V-B; (3) to species V-C and V-D; and (4) species V-E and V-F) have respectively been combined into single species, as requested. Consequently, the patentably distinct species have been re-numbered to reflect the requested combination. The patentably distinct species are now identified as:
The species of fig. 1
The species of fig. 2
The species of fig. 4
The species of figs. 7 and 18, encompassing the following subspecies:
IV-A: species of fig. 11A - 11B
IV-B: species of fig. 12A
IV-C: species of fig. 12B
IV-D: species of fig. 12C
The species of figs. 13 and 19, encompassing the following subspecies:
V-A: species of fig. 14A - 14B
V-B: species of fig. 15A - 15B
V-C: species of fig. 16A - 16B
V-D: species of fig. 17A
V-E: species of fig. 17B
V-F: species of fig. 17C
Notwithstanding the regrouping of sub-species as requested, the species remain independent or distinct because each species/subs-species present unique and mutually exclusive feature relative to the others, as discussed in the Office Action mailed 7/29/2025. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant's Response filed on 9/10/2025 asserts on page 1 that claims 1-3, 6-16, 21-24, 28 and 30 correspond to the elected sub-species of figs. 13, 14A-14B, and 19. In addition, during a phone interview, applicant’s representative stated that claims 4, 17, 25, and 29, as well as the claims identified in the Remarks (i.e., claims 1-3, 6-16, 21-24, 28 and 30, were also believed to read on the elected species. In summary, applicant’s statements during the phone interview indicate that claims 1- 4, 6-17, 21-25, and 28-30 are believed to read on the elected species.
Examiner cannot fully agree, as claims 3 and 16 recite that the sensors are “not contactable with a skin of the user”, which is not a feature of the elected sub-species, but is instead disclosed as a feature of sub-species V-C (fig. 16). In contrast, the elected sub-species requires that the sensors are “contactable with a skin of the user”, as recited in elected claims 2 and 15, and depicted in fig. 14A - 14B, corresponding to the elected sub-species.
Therefore claims 3, 5, 16, 18 - 20, and 26 - 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/10/2025. Claims 1 - 2, 4, 6 - 15, 17, 21 - 25, and 28 - 30 have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The description above paragraph [0145] reads “Example Configurations of PAPG Apparatus”. However, the following examples appear to be configurations of a PPG apparatus, rather than a PAPG apparatus. Examiner requests that applicant consider re-labeling the description above paragraph [0145] to read “Example Configurations of PPG Apparatus”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 recites that “the one or more physiological characteristics of the blood vessel comprise a diameter of the blood vessel, a distension of the blood vessel, volumetric blood flow, a pulse wave velocity of the blood vessel, motion of the blood vessel or tissue, or a combination thereof.” These limitations fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because the ‘physiological characteristics of the blood vessel to which the reflected optical signals correspond’ already necessarily include “a diameter of the blood vessel, a distension of the blood vessel, volumetric blood flow, a pulse wave velocity of the blood vessel, motion of the blood vessel or tissue, or a combination thereof”, as these are physiological features that dictate the content of the reflected optical signals from the blood vessel
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1 - 2, 6 - 10, 13 - 15, 21, 24, 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).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Raj shows a multi-sensor user device (figs. 1 - 2) comprising:
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) and a second acoustic sensor (i.e., an acoustic sensor in one or more of “other sensor devices 112, 114, 116, 118 and 120”, [0027], [0046], and fig. 1) disposed at a first distance from each other (“distance between the two points of measurement”, [0007]; “distance between respective sensors”, [0053]), the first and second acoustic sensors each configured to obtain respective first and second acoustic signals associated with a blood vessel of a user ([0043]), the first distance corresponding to a first characteristic of the blood vessel (implicit);
a first motion sensor (“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 sensor (i.e., an accelerometer in one or more of “other sensor devices 112, 114, 116, 118 and 120”, [0027], [0046], and fig. 1) disposed at a second distance from each other (“distance between the two points of measurement”, [0007]; “distance between respective sensors”, [0053]), the first and second motion sensors each configured to obtain respective first and second motion signals ([0039]) associated with the blood vessel, the second distance corresponding to a second characteristic of the blood vessel (implicit); and
a wearable structure (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) securable to the user and comprising the sensors of the device.
Raj further shows an optical sensor (“optical sensor 217 … pulse … detected as a change in the … reflected light … blood vessel …”, [0043] and fig. 2) configured to obtain reflected optical signals from the blood vessel, the reflected optical signals corresponding to a physiological characteristic of the 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 acoustic sensors are intended to be used in combination with the optical sensor to detect the pulse data, or as an alternative to the optical sensor. Consequently, Raj fails to explicitly show that wearable structure also comprises the optical sensor.
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]), wherein a wearable structure (capsule 34, [0036] and fig. 3A) also comprises the optical sensor (optical sensing module 46, [0043] and fig. 3A).
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 wearable structure also comprise the optical sensor, as taught by Jorov, in order to provide more accurate and robust measurements by combining the acoustical information with the optical measurements, as discussed by Jorov ([0046]).
In the combined invention of Raj and Jorov, a combination of the physiological characteristic, the first characteristic, and the second characteristic correlate to a physiological parameter of the user, at least because the sensors are used in combination to determine blood pressure measurements (Raj: [0029]).
Further regarding claim 24, the acoustic sensors, motion sensors, and optical sensor are mapped to the respective “means” in claim 24.
Regarding claim 2, the combined invention of Raj and Jorov discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Raj further shows that the acoustic sensors, motion sensors, and optical sensor are contactable with a skin of the user. (“mechanically transparent close contact with a surface (such as the skin or other portion of the body) to provide measurement and/or analysis of physiological information”, [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, the combined invention of Raj and Jorov discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Raj further shows a light source corresponding to visible light and/or infrared light, and a photodetector to detect the light (“light emitters … sensor”, [0043]).
Regarding claim 7, the combined invention of Raj and Jorov discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Raj further shows the first and second motion sensors each comprise an accelerometer ([0039]).
Raj is silent as to the acoustic sensors comprising microphones.
Jorov teaches acoustic sensors comprising microphones (“acoustic sensor, … microphone 58”, [0046]).
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 comprise microphones, as taught by Jorov, in order to use well-known, and readily available components as the acoustic sensors.
Regarding claim 8, the combined invention of Raj and Jorov discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Further, the physiological characteristics of the blood vessel to which the reflected optical signals correspond necessarily include “a diameter of the blood vessel, a distension of the blood vessel, volumetric blood flow, a pulse wave velocity of the blood vessel, motion of the blood vessel or tissue, or a combination thereof”, as these are physiological features that dictate the reflected optical signals from the blood vessel.
Regarding claims 9 - 10, the combined invention of Raj and Jorov discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Raj further shows a control system (processor 201, [0036] and fig. 2) configured to determine the user’s blood pressure based on the combination of the characteristics (“subset or all of the sensors 110, 112, 114, 116, 118 and 120 can be … blood pressure can be determined”, [0029]). 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 1.
Regarding claim 13, the combined invention of Raj and Jorov discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Raj further shows data interface (“user can access these applications or the output…”, [0029]) configured to communicate with a control system (processor 201, [0036] and fig. 2) configured to determine the user’s blood pressure based on the combination of the characteristics (“subset or all of the sensors 110, 112, 114, 116, 118 and 120 can be … blood pressure can be determined”, [0029]). 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 1.
Regarding claims 14 and 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 15, the combined invention of Raj and Jorov discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Raj further shows that the acoustic sensors, motion sensors, and optical sensor are contactable with a skin of the user. (“mechanically transparent close contact with a surface (such as the skin or other portion of the body) to provide measurement and/or analysis of physiological information”, [0030]).
Regarding claim 21, the combined invention of Raj and Jorov discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Raj further shows determining a distension of the blood vessel (dentification of vasodilation, [0049]), volumetric blood flow, a pulse wave velocity of the blood vessel (“calculation of the Pulse Wave Velocity”, [0053]), and motion of the blood vessel or tissue (“quantifies the motion”, [0030]).
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.
Claims 4, 17, 25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable of Raj and Jorov as applied to claims 1, 14, 24, and 28 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0204824, of record).
Regarding claims 4, 17, 25, and 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]).
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable of Raj and Jorov as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Galeev et al. (US 2021/0353165, of record).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, the combined invention of Raj and Jorov discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Raj further shows a control system (processor 201, [0036] and fig. 2) configured to receive the reflected optical signals, the first and second acoustic signals, the first and second motion signals, or a combination thereof; and output a prediction the physiological parameter of the user (“subset or all of the sensors 110, 112, 114, 116, 118 and 120 can be … blood pressure can be determined”, [0029]).
Raj fails to show that the control system is configured to use a trained artificial intelligence model to output the prediction.
Galeev discloses detecting blood pressure using sensors. Galeev teaches a control system is configured to use a trained artificial intelligence model to output a prediction (“machine-learning … blood pressure”, abstract).
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 control system be configured to use a trained artificial intelligence model to output the prediction, as taught by Galeev, in order to improve computational analysis, as is understood in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 12 and 23, the combined invention of Raj and Jorov discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above.
Raj fails to show 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.
Wang et al. (US 2023/0320599) disclose determination of blood pressure, and teach discarding measurements providing pulse-related data values which fall below a threshold quality ([0068], inter alia), but are not specific to waking up one of the recited sensors from a low-power state responsive to detecting an acoustic signal having a signal quality above a threshold. Moreover, no other prior art of record, either singly or in combination, teaches or reasonably suggests such features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2023/0320599) are cited above in the discussion of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
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