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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7 recites, “stoppers” but should read -- a plurality of stopper -- in order to introduce the claim element for the first time
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “sensor unit” in claims 1, 5, 6, & 7 and “communication unit” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them 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(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 2, 3, 6, & 7 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.
In regard to claim 2, line 2 recites, “heights of the stoppers are lower than the pressure equalization sheet.” However, it is unclear if the height of the stoppers is being compared to the height of the pressure equalization sheet or if the stoppers should physically be below the top of the pressure equalization sheet in terms of placement. Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the dimensions of the stoppers in comparison to the dimensions of the pressure equalization sheet in terms of height of each element.
In regard to claim 3, line 2 recites, “each of the stoppers has one of a bar shape and an arc shape,” but as written it is unclear if the claim requires that all stoppers have the same shape, a bar shape or an arc shape, if one stopper is bar shaped while the other is arc shaped, or if each stopper should include a portion that is bar shaped and a portion that is arc shaped. Further clarification is required.
In regard to claim 6, line 5 recites, “a step difference portion placed on one side of the first sensor,” and lines 6 - 7 recite, “a reference surface of the first sensor has a step difference by a first distance with a reference surface of the second sensor,” but the claim language is unclear on how the placement of the step difference portion should be in line 5 in order to achieve “the step difference by a first difference” in lines 6 - 7. Further clarification is required. Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nie (CN 108168740 A - Cited by Applicant under Univ Suzhou).
In regard to claim 1, Nie discloses a sensor module for measuring blood pressure (Page 2, paragraph 4) comprising:
a base portion (See annotated FIG. 1 below, “base”);
a pressure equalization sheet placed on one side of the base portion and filled with liquid or gas (See annotated FIG. 1 below, “pressure equalization sheet”) Nie discloses that the pressure equalization sheet contains a liquid droplet (FIG. 1, component 2);
a sensor unit including at least one sensor placed on one side of the pressure equalization sheet (See annotated FIG. 1 below, “Sensor Unit” and “Sensors”) Examiner notes that the stoppers directly on the sides of the pressure equalization sheet are electrodes that are configured to take measurements along with attached induction coils (FIG. 1, components 301, 302, and 303);
stoppers configured to be in close contact with the pressure equalization sheet and face each other (See annotated FIG. 1 below, “Stoppers”).
PNG
media_image1.png
395
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Nie discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein heights of the stoppers are lower than the pressure equalization sheet. Nie discloses that the stoppers are lower in height than that of the pressure equalization sheet (See annotated FIG. 1 below, “Pressure equalization sheet height” and “Stopper height”).
PNG
media_image2.png
410
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 3, Nie discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein each of the stoppers has one of a bar shape and an arc shape. Examiner notes that they are interpreting the claim to mean that each individual stopper is either bar shaped or arc shaped, and that the stoppers disclosed by Nie (See annotated FIG. 1 below, “Stopper”) are circular conductive electrodes that are sufficiently rounded or arc shaped (FIG. 4, component 1)
PNG
media_image3.png
393
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 4, Nie discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1 wherein the stoppers surround the pressure equalization sheet. The two stoppers on the top and bottom of the pressure equalization sheet (Annotated FIG. 1, components 1, “Stoppers”) and the stoppers around the sides of the pressure equalization sheet (Annotated FIG. 1, component 4, “Stoppers”) form an enclosure around the pressure equalization sheet such that the liquid within the pressure equalization sheet cannot escape (see Annotated FIG. 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
393
731
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (CN 108168740 A - cited by applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20180279889 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Nie discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1. While Nie discloses that their pressure sensor is wearable and configured to detect arterial blood pressure from the surface of the skin (Page 2, paragraph 4), they do not provide further details about how data collected from the sensor module is displayed or specifically disclose that their invention further comprising a circuit, wherein the circuit includes:
a communication unit configured to communicate with an external device;
a controller configured to receive a sensor signal measured by the sensor unit;
a display configured to display information received from the controller; and
a battery configured to supply power to at least one of the communication unit, the controller, the display, and the sensor unit.
However, Lee teaches a wrist-worn blood pressure monitor that includes a circuit (FIG. 1, component 160; FIG. 5) connected to a sensing unit (paragraph [0100]; FIG. 1, component 130), a controller (FIG. 5, controller), display (FIG. 5, “display unit”), and a battery mounted in the case of the device for supplying electric power to the blood pressure monitor (paragraph [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of obvious skill in the art that the wearable blood pressure sensor module disclosed by Nie could be modified with the teaching of Lee that a wearable blood pressure sensor module can be incorporated into a wearable device where the sensor module is connected to a circuit and the circuit is additionally connected to communication unit, the controller, the display, and battery because while Nie mainly focuses on the details of the pressure sensor itself, Nie also discloses that their pressure sensor can be used in a wearable arrangement (Page 2, paragraph 2). Lee further teaches the details of a wearable system with a pressure sensor connected to other elements including a circuit, communication unit, controller, display, and battery such that it would be obvious to follow the lead of Nie of placing the pressure sensor into a wearable arrangement such as the one taught by Lee, because Nie already discloses that the pressure sensor can be included in a wearable arrangement.
Claims 6 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (CN 108168740 A - cited by applicant under Univ Suzhou) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee 2021 (WO 2021246805 A1 - Cited by Applicant as KR 20210150003).
In regard to claim 6, Nie discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, including a sensor unit with at least one sensor placed on one side of the pressure equalization sheet:
a first sensor (See Annotated FIG. 1 below, “1st Sensor”);
Nie does not disclose that the sensor unit includes:
a second sensor separated by a preset distance from the first sensor; and
a step difference portion placed on one side of the first sensor;
a reference surface of the first sensor has a step difference by a first distance with a reference surface of the second sensor.
However, Lee 2021 teaches a wearable device with a sensor unit for measuring blood pressure (FIG. 4) that includes a sensor unit (FIG. 3C) with a first pressure sensor (FIG. 3C, component 110) and a second pressure sensor (FIG. 3C, component 120) where the first and second pressure are separated by a preset difference and additionally that the first pressure sensor includes a step difference portion (FIG. 3C, component 160) placed on one side of the first sensor, causing a vertical height or step difference between the reference surface touching a user of the first pressure sensor and second pressure sensor (FIG. 3C and FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to have modified the sensing module disclosed by Nie with the teaching that a wearable blood pressure device can include multiple sensors that are arranged at preset distances to form a sensor module with a first and second pressure sensor where the reference surface of the first sensor includes a step difference from the reference surface of a second sensor because while Nie mainly focuses on the details of the pressure sensor itself, Nie also discloses that their pressure sensor can be used in a wearable arrangement (Page 2, paragraph 2). Lee 2021 further teaches the details of a wearable system with multiple incorporated pressure sensors (FIG. 3C) such that it would be obvious to follow the lead of Nie of placing pressure sensor units as disclosed by Nie into a wearable arrangement such as the one taught by Lee 2021, because Nie already discloses that the pressure sensor can be included in a wearable arrangement.
In regard to claim 7, Nie as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 6, wherein the sensor unit further includes a third sensor separated by a preset distance from the second sensor. Lee further teaches that a third sensor (See annotated FIG. 3C below, “3rd sensor”) is separated by a preset distance (See annotated FIG. 3C below, “distance”) from the second sensor (See annotated FIG. 3C below, “2nd sensor”).
PNG
media_image5.png
199
469
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aihara (JP 4185036 B2) discloses a blood pressure meter for measuring blood pressure of the ear that includes a gas filled pressure equilibrating sheet (FIG. 1, component 12) with a sensor on one side (FIG. 1, component 11) and a pressure sensor (FIG. 1, component 23).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIENNA CHRISTINE PYLE whose telephone number is (703)756-5798. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5:30 pm M - T; Off first Fridays; 8 am - 4 pm second Fridays.
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, Charles Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/S.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791