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 .
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.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 6/22/26, amended claim(s) 1-2, 8, 13-14, canceled claim(s) 18-23, and new claim(s) 24-25 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109700444 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0232411 to Brunner et al. (hereinafter “Brunner”).
For claim 1, Zhang discloses a blood pressure measuring device (Abstract), comprising:
a main body (“C,” Fig. 1),
an air supply and exhaust apparatus (see all the different piping in Figs. 1-2 that include “a100,” “b100,” “c100,” “d100,” and “f100”), and
a first air pressure sensor (“S,” Fig. 1), wherein
the main body comprises a cavity (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2); the air supply and exhaust apparatus and the first air pressure sensor are disposed in the cavity (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2);
the main body comprises an end (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2), the end is configured to connect to an airbag (“AB,” Fig. 1) (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2);
the air supply and exhaust apparatus comprises an air inlet passage (where “a100” points to in Fig. 1) and an air outlet passage (where “f100” points to in Fig. 2), and the air supply and exhaust apparatus is communicated with an air cavity of the airbag through a first air passage (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2), the air inlet passage and the air outlet passage are communicated with the cavity (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2); and
the first air pressure sensor comprises a first air hole (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2); and a first vent hole is provided on the main body (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2), the first air hole is communicated with the air cavity of the airbag through a second air passage (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2), and the first air hole is communicated with the first vent hole through a third air passage (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2), and the first air pressure sensor is communicated with outside atmosphere through the first vent hole (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2).
Zhang does not expressly disclose that the first air pressure sensor comprises a second air hole, and that it is the second air hole that is communicated with the first vent hole through a third air passage.
However, Brunner teaches a first air pressure sensor (see structure shown in Fig. 1) that comprises a first air hole (hole where reference numeral “41” generally points to in Fig. 1), a second air hole (hole where reference numeral “29” generally points to in Fig. 1), and a pressure film (15) (Fig. 1) (para [0104]), the pressure film is located between the first air hole and the second air hole (see Fig. 1), and that the second air hole is communicated with a first vent hole (hole where reference numerals “21” and “31” generally point to in Fig. 3) through a third air passage (air passage defined by reference numeral “19,” see Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zhang such that the first air pressure sensor comprises a second air hole, and that it is the second air hole that is communicated with the first vent hole through a third air passage, in view of the teachings of Brunner, for the obvious advantage of preventing contamination of the device by being able to measure pressure without allowing particulate matter into the system.
For claim 24, Zhang further discloses the airbag (“AB,” Fig. 1), wherein the airbag has the air cavity (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2), and the airbag is fixed to an end of the main body (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2).
For claim 25, Zhang does not expressly disclose a pressure film that is located between the first air hole and the second air hole.
However, Brunner teaches a pressure film (15) (Fig. 1) (para [0104]) that is located between the first air hole and the second air hole (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zhang to include a pressure film that is located between the first air hole and the second air hole, in view of the teachings of Brunner, for the obvious advantage of preventing contamination of the device by being able to measure pressure without allowing particulate matter into the system.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Brunner, and further in view of CN 109700446 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang 2”).
For claim 2, Zhang does not expressly disclose wherein a second vent hole is further provided on the main body, and a first waterproof ventilation apparatus is disposed at the second vent hole.
However, Brunner teaches a second vent hole (see Fig. 7).
Additionally, Zhang 2 teaches a vent hole provided on a main body (Abstract) (see Fig. 1), and a first waterproof ventilation apparatus (300) (Fig. 1) is disposed at the second vent hole (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zhang wherein a second vent hole is further provided on the main body, and a first waterproof ventilation apparatus is disposed at the second vent hole, in view of the teachings of Zhang 2 and Brunner, for the obvious advantage of preventing liquid or solid foreign matter from entering the main body,
For claim 14, Zhang, as modified, does not expressly disclose wherein a second waterproof ventilation apparatus is further disposed at the first vent hole.
However, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zhang wherein a second waterproof ventilation apparatus is further disposed at the first vent hole, in view of the teachings of Zhang 2, because it has been held that the mere duplication of parts (i.e., Zhang 2 teaches a waterproof ventilation apparatus (see Abstract) and a second waterproof ventilation apparatus is a mere duplication of that waterproof ventilation apparatus in Zhang 2) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The result produced from this claimed second waterproof ventilation apparatus would just be to cover the first vent hole (similar to how the other waterproof ventilation apparatus covers the second vent hole), thereby not providing any new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Brunner and Zhang 2, and further in view of CN 107032348 to Zhou et al. (hereinafter “Zhou”).
For claim 3, Zhang, Brunner, and Zhang 2 do not expressly disclose wherein an air permeating volume of the first waterproof ventilation apparatus is greater than or equal to 100 ml/min.
However, Zhou teaches wherein ventilation is greater than or equal to 100 ml/min (claim 6).
It would have been obvious to skilled artisan to modify Zhang wherein an air permeating volume of the first waterproof ventilation apparatus is greater than or equal to 100 ml/min, in view of the teachings of Zhou, because such a ventilation rate is a suitable ventilation rate for ventilating Zhang’s device.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Brunner, and further in view of CN 104180691 to Han et al. (hereinafter “Han”).
For claim 15, Zhang and Brunner do not expressly disclose wherein a plurality of protrusions are provided on an inner wall of a pipe of the second air passage, and the plurality of protrusions are alternately arranged at intervals along an extension direction of the pipe.
However, Han teaches wherein a plurality of protrusions (8) (Fig. 1) are provided on an inner wall of a pipe of an air passage (see Fig. 1), and the plurality of protrusions are alternately arranged at intervals along an extension direction of the pipe (as can be seen in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zhang wherein a plurality of protrusions are provided on an inner wall of a pipe of the second air passage, and the plurality of protrusions are alternately arranged at intervals along an extension direction of the pipe, in view of the teachings of Han, for the obvious advantage of reducing a pressure drop.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Brunner, and further in view of CN 112826477 to Huang et al. (hereinafter “Huang”).
For claim 16, Zhang and Brunner do not expressly disclose wherein the airbag is detachably connected to the main body.
However, Huang teaches wherein the airbag is detachably connected to the main body (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zhang wherein the airbag is detachably connected to the main body, in view of the teachings of Huang, for the obvious advantage of being able to clean and store the airbag.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Brunner, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0279888 to Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”).
For claim 17, Zhang and Brunner do not expressly disclose wherein the blood pressure measuring device further comprises a photoplethysmography (PPG) module and an electrocardiogram (ECG) measurement module, and the PPG module and the ECG measurement module are disposed on a bottom surface of the main body.
However, Wang teaches wherein the blood pressure measuring device (Abstract) further comprises a photoplethysmography module (Abstract) and an electrocardiogram measurement module (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Zhang wherein the blood pressure measuring device further comprises a photoplethysmography (PPG) module and an electrocardiogram (ECG) measurement module, in view of the teachings of Wang, for the obvious advantage of increasing accuracy of blood pressure measurement. Additionally, the PPG module and the ECG measurement module are disposed on a bottom surface of the main body is an obvious design choice of where to locate the modules. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered.
With respect to the objection to the specification, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112 rejections, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 103 rejection, claim 1 recites “a first air pressure sensor … communicated with outside atmosphere through the first vent hole.” The response states, on page 10, that “Zhang discusses a sensor S that is connected to measure to [sic] pressure of the airbag [but] Zhang has not been shown to teach or suggest that the pressure sensor that [sic] communicates both with the airbag (though [sic] one air hole) and also with the outside atmosphere (through a vent hole).” So it appears that the issue is not with the air hole that connects to the airbag, but the vent hole that connects to the outside atmosphere. Figures 1-2 of Zhang both show that sensor S does communicate with the outside atmosphere through the air passage located at “f100” in Fig. 2. The hole at the end of this air passage where “f100” is located is going to read on the claimed “first vent hole.” The only structure that is between the hole at the end of the air passage at f100 and sensor S is the valve SV. But even then, when the valve is open, air will freely be able to escape out through f100. Therefore, Zhang reads on the argued claim language. Since Zhang is not deficient, the other cited references do not need to be consulted.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights