DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 Information Disclosure Statements, filed 16 November 2023 and 19 April 2024 have been fully considered by the examiner. Signed copies are attached.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-14 are rejected, grounds follow.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that instant application is a Continuation of Application PCT/JP2022/023545 and has been accorded the benefit of the original priority date.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding Claim 1, The term “a common shape” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “common shape” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Particularly one of ordinary skill would not be reasonably apprised of how much (e.g. in terms of amplitude, phase shift, period, and/or frequency) the waveforms of the first and second signal may differ before they are no longer considered to share a “common shape”.
Further Regarding Claims 4, 5, and 11, The term “gradually increased the voltage” in claims 4, 5, and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Particularly one of ordinary skill would not be reasonably apprised of what rate of increase over time would no longer constitute a ‘gradual’ increase.
Regarding dependent claims 2-14, these claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent(s).
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 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata et al., US Pg-Pub 2019/0298194 in view of Kamisaka et al., Japanese Patent Application JP 2014-033865 (citations to machine translation courtesy eSpacenet, furnished with this office action).
Regarding Claim 1, Iwata teaches:
A drive circuit (see fig. 10) for measuring blood pressure ([0003] “a conventionally known sphygmomanometer of this type has a cuff wound around a wrist that is a measurement site, and a main body integrally attached to the cuff. This sphygmomanometer includes in a strap-shaped belt a bag-shaped blood-pressure measurement cuff compressing an artery”) that generates a first drive signal for driving a valve ([0086] “the CPU 100 provides a control of driving the pump 30 and the on-off valve 33”) for opening and closing a flow path ([0091] “The on-off valve (normally open solenoid valve in this example) 33 is interposed in the second flow path (actually, between the first flow-path forming member 390 and the second flow-path forming member 380).”) connected to a blood pressure measurement cuff (fig. 10, cuff 20) and a second drive signal for driving a pump ([0086] “the CPU 100 provides a control of driving the pump 30 and the on-off valve 33”) for supplying a fluid to the cuff, ([0090] “The pump 30 can supply air as a pressurizing fluid to the pressing cuff 23 through the first flow-path forming member 390 and the flexible tube 39.” )
Wherein the first drive signal and the second drive signal are generated from a common power supply voltage ([0053] “The battery 53 supplies electric power to the elements mounted on the main body 10, i.e., the CPU 100, the memory 51, the acceleration sensor 54, the communication part 59, the first pressure sensor 31, the second pressure sensor 32, the pump 30, the on-off valve 33, and the pump drive circuit 35”) supplied from a power source circuit, ([0082] “battery 53”)
Iwata differs from the claimed invention in that:
Iwata does not appear to clearly articulate and a waveform of the first drive signal and an envelope of a peak voltage of the second drive signal have a common shape changing at a same timing.
However, Kamisaka teaches a blood pressure measuring system (see [0001] “blood pressure information measuring device that enables the measurement of blood pressure information by compressing a living body using a fluid bag”) in which the waveforms of the drive signals for the pump ([0092] “pump”) and the valve ([0092] “switching valve”) have a shared envelope, common waveform, and change at the same timings (see fig. 12 showing the waveforms for the pump and the valve (which are the same) compared to the pressure in the cuff, and [0093]-[0101], e.g. [0095] “The second predetermined time T2 mentioned above is the time in the preliminary operation 2 when the operation of the switching valve 33 is controlled to switch the air bag 42 to the open state, and the third predetermined time T3 mentioned above is the time in the preliminary operation 2 when the operation of the pump 32 is controlled to stop the injection of air into the air bag 42.” And [0102] “In this third embodiment, we have provided an example where the second predetermined time T2, which is the time when the operation of the switching valve 33 is controlled to switch the air bag 42 to the open state, and the third predetermined time T3, which is the time when the operation of the pump 32 is controlled to stop injecting air into the air bag 42, are set to be the same time.”)
Kamisaka is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of blood pressure measurement systems which operate by inflating a fluid bag around a living person’s extremity.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Iwata to excite the valve and pump with a same timing using a waveform having the same shape, as suggested by Kamisaka.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the accuracy of the blood pressure measurement, as suggested by Kamisaka ([0101] “Therefore, as in this third embodiment, by stopping the operation of the pump 32 during the period from time T3, which is a third predetermined time point prior to time Tpe, which is the end of the pre-operation, to time Tpe, and thereby stopping the injection of air into the air bag 42, it becomes possible to more reliably return the cuff pressure to atmospheric pressure P0. Thus, by adopting this configuration, the accuracy of blood pressure measurement can be further improved.”)
Regarding Claim 14, Iwata in view of Kamisaka teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Iwata further teaches:
A blood pressure measurement device, (see fig. 2) comprising:
a cuff to which a fluid is supplied; (cuff 20, see figs. 2, 10)
a pump that supplies the fluid to the cuff; (pump 30, see fig. 10)
a valve that opens and closes a flow path connected to the cuff; (valve 33, see fig. 10)
a power source circuit; (see fig. 10, battery 53)
the drive circuit for measuring blood pressure according to claim 1; (see rejection claim 1, supra.)
and a processor (cpu 100) that outputs a control signal of a voltage to the drive circuit for measuring blood pressure. ([0086] “the CPU 100 provides a control of driving the pump 30 and the on-off valve 33”)
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata in view of Kamisaka, further in view of Yamashita et al., US Pg-Pub 2014/0276146.
Regarding Claim 2, Iwata in view of Kamisaka teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Iwata further teaches:
a control circuit that outputs the second drive signal; ([0086] “the CPU 100 provides a control of driving the pump 30 and the on-off valve 33”)
Iwata in view of Kamisaka differs from the claimed invention in that:
neither reference clearly articulates: a transformer circuit that transforms the power supply voltage into a voltage value corresponding to the first drive signal and the second drive signal and outputs the transformed voltage to the control circuit and the valve.
However, Yamashita teaches a blood pressure measurement system (see fig. 1) including a transformer circuit (see fig. 3) which transforms the voltage to output the transformed voltage to the controlled actuator (e.g. the pump, see [0045] “The booster circuit 66 adjusts the level of an applied voltage supplied to the H-bridge circuit 64 in accordance with an instruction from the CPU 100. The amount of current flowing in the piezoelectric pump 51 can be adjusted by adjusting the level of the applied voltage.”)
Yamashita is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of blood pressure measurement systems which operate by inflating a fluid bag around a living person’s extremity.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Iwata to include a transformer circuit comprising a booster circuit for adjusting the level of the applied voltage, as suggested by Yamashita.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to condition the power signal supplied to the excited component using known circuit elements, as suggested by Yamashita ([0045] “Note that in the case where the amount of current flowing in the piezoelectric pump 51 is constant, it is not necessary for the CPU 100 to instruct the voltage to be adjusted, and the booster circuit 66 may simply boost the voltage to a desired fixed voltage and supply that voltage to the H-bridge circuit 64. Of course, if it is not necessary to boost the voltage, a configuration in which the booster circuit 66 is not provided may be employed. Note that the configurations of the H-bridge circuit 64 and the booster circuit 66 are already known and thus detailed descriptions thereof will not be given.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Iwata in view of Kamisaka further in view of Yamashita teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Yamashita further teaches:
wherein the transformer circuit is a booster circuit that boosts the power supply voltage. (see [0045] “The booster circuit 66 adjusts the level of an applied voltage supplied to the H-bridge circuit 64 in accordance with an instruction from the CPU 100. The amount of current flowing in the piezoelectric pump 51 can be adjusted by adjusting the level of the applied voltage.”)
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Iwata in view of Kamisaka, further in view of Yamashita teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 3 respectively;
Yamashita further teaches:
(Claim 6 representative) the transformer circuit transforms the power supply voltage into the voltage value at which the valve is driven and subsequently transforms the voltage value to a voltage value at which driving of the valve is maintained and the pump is driven. ([0045] The booster circuit 66 adjusts the level of an applied voltage supplied to the H-bridge circuit 64 in accordance with an instruction from the CPU 100. The amount of current flowing in the piezoelectric pump 51 can be adjusted by adjusting the level of the applied voltage. Note that in the case where the amount of current flowing in the piezoelectric pump 51 is constant, it is not necessary for the CPU 100 to instruct the voltage to be adjusted, and the booster circuit 66 may simply boost the voltage to a desired fixed voltage and supply that voltage to the H-bridge circuit 64. Of course, if it is not necessary to boost the voltage, a configuration in which the booster circuit 66 is not provided may be employed. Note that the configurations of the H-bridge circuit 64 and the booster circuit 66 are already known and thus detailed descriptions thereof will not be given. )
The limitation:
wherein a voltage value at which the valve is driven is higher than a voltage at a start of driving the pump;
is an obvious matter of design choice within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to select a suitable voltage level to operate the excited components based on the particular voltage requirements of the components selected, and is obvious unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (see MPEP 2144.04 citing in re Stevens 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954); in re Japiske 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USQP 70 (CCPA 1950).) As examiner is unable to find any indication in the record at this time that a new and unexpected result was produced, this limitation is obvious over the teachings of Yamashita regarding the use of a transformer circuit to adjust the output voltage to match the excited component.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata in view of Kamisaka and Yamashita, further in view of Lane et al., US Pg-Pub 2009/0156946.
Regarding Claim 10, Iwata in view of Kamisaka in view of Yamashita teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Iwata in view of Kamisaka in view of Yamashita differs from the claimed invention in that:
Iwata, Kamisaka, and Yamashita do not appear to clearly articulate: the control circuit outputs a PWM signal to the pump and the valve as the first drive signal and the second drive signal, and the PWM signal has an effective voltage equal to or more than a voltage required for the valve and the pump to operate.
However, Lane teaches a blood pressure measurement cuff (see e.g. [0053] “blood pressure monitor 100”) where the excited components are driven by a signal that is pulse width modulated (PWM) ([0053] “The drive power for valves and pumps can be simple DC switching, such as using ON-OFF solid state switches, or can by pulse width modulation (PWM).”)
Lane is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of blood pressure measurement systems which operate by inflating a fluid bag around a living person’s extremity.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Iwata to include using a PWM driving signal as suggested by Lane.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification because PWM drive power is an expressly considered alternative for direct current drive power for pumps and valves in Lane, and because Lane suggests that such a drive signal may be especially suitable for pump excitation ([0053] “PWM drive can be particularly useful for driving a pump motor and can include such features as a pump motor start profile in time.”)
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 recites the same features as Claim 6 (supra), except dependent upon claim 10. For the reasons articulated with respect to Claim 6, Claim 12 is obvious over the teachings of Iwata in view of Kamisaka, in view of Yamashita, further in view of Lane.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While Ishihara, Kamisaka, Yamashita, and Lane teach many of the limitations of the claimed invention as outlined above; none of the references, alone or in reasonable combination teach or fairly suggest all of the limitations of the claimed invention, particularly:
(Claim 4)
wherein the transformer circuit gradually increases the voltage value output to the valve and the control circuit.
(Excerpted)
…in combination with the remaining limitations and features of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 11 reciting substantively the same subject matter except with different antecedent claims and are likewise persuasive over the prior art for the same reason(s) as articulated with respect to claim 4.
Dependent claims 8, 9, and 13, being dependent upon the above noted claim(s), are likewise persuasive for at least the above noted reason(s).
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Woehrle et al., US Pg-Pub 2021/0022627 particularly figure. 1 depicting step-wise cuff pressure reduction control of a blood pressure cuff for measuring systolic pressure and diastolic pressure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights