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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2023, 01/11/2024, 02/20/2025, 10/13/2025 and 03/05/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of invention (I) and species (1) drawn to claims 1 and 3-13, and withdrawn claims 14-20 from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/05/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1, 3-6 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. STEP 1: claim 1, recites a series of steps or acts for determining a blood pressure calibration fact or. Thus, the claims are directed to a process. which is one of the statutory categories of invention. STEP 2A PRONG ONE: The claim(s) recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: generating the blood pressure calibration factor based on determining a substantially linear relationship between the first blood pressure, the first height, the second blood pressure, and the second height; sensing a third blood pressure using a second device, when the second device is at a second device height; and modifying the third blood pressure based on the blood pressure calibration factor and the second device height. This limitation recites a mental process, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. STEP 2A PRONG TWO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recite the combination of additional elements/method steps of: sensing a first blood pressure by a first device is at first height ; and sensing a second blood pressure by the first device when the first device is at a second height . Accordingly, this additional element/step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitations fail to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception STEP 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, sensing a first blood pressure by a first device is at first height; and sensing a second blood pressure by the first device when the first device is at a second height , but do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these structural elements are generically claimed to enable the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: ( i ) receiving, processing, and providing/displaying data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized these functions to be well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Merely adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). As such, the recitation of these additional limitations in claims 2 and 3-13 does not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and represent insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as a sensor and use of a processor does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct . 2347, 2358-59 (2014)). Thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea. When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1 and 3-13 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not ( i ) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO , Bascom and Enfish ), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al ( US 2020 / 0146563 ). As to claim 1, Lee teaches a method for determining a blood pressure calibration factor (determining blood pressure calibration time point/factor , abstract, par.13 and par.37) , the method comprising: sensing a first blood pressure by a first device when the first device is at a first height, wherein the first height is at or above a heart level of a user ( measuring first blood pressure as first data using sensor 211 in a first condition at heart level as instep1303 , par.77-78 , and par.183 -186 , fig.1 and 13) sensing a second blood pressure by the first device when the first device is at a second height, wherein the second height is at or below the heart level of the user ( measuring second blood pressure as first data using sensor 211 in a second condition at heart level as in step 1305 , par.77-78, and par.1863, fig.1 and 13) ( processor 120 may calculate blood pressure values of at least two times by changing the blood pressure calculating method (e.g., a PWA or a PWV) or changing a parameter or an equation used for calculating a blood pressure, end of par.78) ; generating the blood pressure calibration factor based on determining a substantially linear relationship between the first blood pressure, the first height, the second blood pressure, and the second height ( processor 120 may determine a calibration time point at least partially based on a difference between the first blood pressure value and the second blood pressure value , par.80 and par.77-79, fig.13) ; sensing a third blood pressure using a second device (measuring blood pressure using PPG sensor as a second data, par.77 , par.81 and par.184-186 ) , when the second device is at a second device height; and modifying the third blood pressure based on the blood pressure calibration factor and the second device height (calculating blood pressure using first data from sensor module 211 and second data from PPG sensor, par.77-87, and processor 120 may calibrate the blood pressure value. For example, the processor 120 may calibrate a blood pressure value to reduce an error in calculation of a blood pressure , par.186-187) As to claim 3 , Lee teaches the method , wherein the second device is a photoplethysmography (PPG) device (Abstract, measuring blood pressure using PPG sensor as a second data, par.77 ) . As to claim 4 , Lee teaches the method, wherein the second device is configured to detect a user blood pressure and the second device height continuously (par.77-86) . As to claim 5 , Lee teaches the method, wherein the second device is configured to detect a user blood pressure using light (LED light in PPG sensor, par.77 and par.93) . As to claim 6 , Lee teaches the method, further comprising applying at least one of a noise reduction filter or a signal amplifier after modifying the third blood pressure ( analog front end may include LED drivers, an amplifier that amplifies detector values, an analog-to-digital converter that converts an analog value output from the detector to a digital value , par.67) . As to claim 11 , Lee teaches the method, wherein the blood pressure calibration factor comprises one of a linear relationship or a non-linear relationship (relationship in equations 1-4, par.78, par.84 and par.86) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7917 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712725596 . 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. /MAY A ABOUELELA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791