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 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 and 2 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. It is unclear if the mounting portion and the accommodation portion are the same structure as the claim recites “a mounting portion including an accommodation port” and then later recites “the mounting portion is the accommodation port”. It is unclear if the mounting portion is only the accommodation port or is the mounting portion a broader category than the accommodation port.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodiera Olivé et al. US 2016/0296141 (herein after “Rodiera”) in view of Slaughterbeck US 4,548,249 and Matsumoto et al. US 2020/0196883.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Rodiera discloses a cuff cover ([¶129,432] cuff cover 315) configured to cover a cuff structure in a biological information measurement device, the biological information measurement device including the cuff structure including one or more cuffs and one or more electrodes ([FIG. 31a] electrodes 313 and 314 and cuff structure 310) the biological information measurement device being configured to measure a blood pressure value and an electrocardiographic waveform of a human body in a state of being attached to the human body by the attachment unit ([¶39,293] the device measures pressure pulses and while it does not specifically state that it measures a ECG waveform it has the appropriate electrode structure to do so and the claim does not positively recite the cuff structure is part of the claimed structure), the cuff cover comprising:
a covering portion formed of a non-conductive material, the covering portion being configured to cover the cuff structure ([¶129,432] cuff cover 315);
a mounting portion including an accommodation port configured to mount the covering portion to the cuff structure ([¶129-130,437-440] the fabric cover is mounted around the cuff bladder); and
an energization assisting unit provided in the covering portion, the energization assisting unit being configured to assist energization between each of the one or more electrodes included in the cuff structure covered with the covering portion and the human body when the biological information measurement device is attached to the human body ([¶445] there are openings in the cover that allow for better conduction from the electrodes to the skin),
an inner covering portion configured to be brought into contact with the human body in a state in which the cuff structure is accommodated, the inner covering portion being provided with the energization assisting unit, an outer covering portion configured to be opposed to the inner covering portion with the cuff structure positionable between the outer covering portion and the inner covering portion in the state in which the cuff structure is accommodated, and a fixing portion including a seam or weld that fixes the inner covering portion and the outer covering portion at a position between one of the plurality of the accommodation ports and another of the plurality of the accommodation ports, and is configured to accommodate a plurality of structures including the cuff structure in the covering portion from different accommodation ports ([¶437-442] the inner and outer layers of the cover are welded together, wherein welding is the fixing portion),
Rodiera does not specifically disclose an attachment unit, wherein the covering portion is formed of a material having stretchability in a bag shape capable of accommodating the cuff structure, includes a plurality of the accommodation ports that are openings each of which is configured to accommodate the cuff structure in the covering portion, the accommodation port is provided in the outer covering portion, is an opening having an area smaller than an area of the cuff structure in a plan view of the cuff structure, and is expandable to be larger than the area of the cuff structure due to the stretchability of the material when the cuff structure is accommodated, the mounting unit is the accommodation port in the covering portion. Slaughterbeck teaches a cover for a pressure cuff device that has an opening that is expandable to larger than the cuff to accommodate the cuff ([C3 L60-C4 L19]) and has an attachment unit to fasten the cuff ([C4 L20-30]). 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 Rodiera with the teachings of Slaughterbeck in order to provide a flexible and disposable envelope for the cuff device ([C1 L30-40]).
Rodiera does not specifically disclose the energization assisting unit comprising a conductive member covering an opening in the covering portion configured to contact the one or more electrodes and the human body to assist with energization and configured to cover a portion of the one or more electrodes included in the cuff structure in a state where the cuff structure is covered with the covering portion, and the conductive portion is formed by covering at least a part of an opening provided in the covering portion with a flat conductive member made of a conductive material. Matsumoto teaches a similar electrode and pulse measurement unit that has an energization unit that is conductive material that overlays the electrodes ([¶76] the conductive layer is electrodes 220 which are flat and overlay the conductive electrode portion 230). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine Rodiera with the conductive portions of Matsumoto as Rodiera already discloses having an opening for the electrodes to have better contact with the skin and Matsumoto provides a way to allow the electrodes to contact the skin without having to perfectly align with the openings ([¶6,7]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant arguments against Rodiera, specifically that Rodiera does not disclose a fixing portion including a seam or weld that fixes the inner covering portion and the outer covering portion at a position between one of the plurality of the accommodation ports and another of the plurality of the accommodation ports, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rodiera discloses clearly in FIG. 32 and ¶442 that the layers 302 and 321 are welded at some point between the accommodation ports. Applicant argues that the weld divides the cuff between the accommodation ports but the claim language does specifically recite that limitation.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the references do not teach the accommodation port or the mounting portion, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the covering portion is made of a stretchable material so that the accommodation port is expandable to be larger than the cuff structure when the cuff structure is being accommodated and then contracts to hold the cuff structure into place. This holding the structure in place feature is not a limitation recited in the claim. The claim only require that the accommodation port has an area smaller than the cuff structure in the plan view which Slaughterbeck teaches. Similarly, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Rodiera with Slaughterbeck because Slaughterbeck would be insufficient to ensure the electrodes of Rodiera remain in the correct position. However, Rodiera ensures the electrodes are in position by the configuration of the electrodes and cuff band ([¶394-404]). Nothing about Slaughterbeck’s cover would interfere with the placement of the cuff.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Matsumoto does not disclose the energization unit, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Matsumoto teaches a conductive layer, the measurement electrodes 220, that overlay an electrode, electrode 230, that facilitate signal conduction from the outside of layer 210 and covers the hole in layer 210.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights