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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, drawn to a blood pressure measuring device of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 3/10/26 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 18-23 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/10/26.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim term “the side wall” (line 11) is ambiguous. Claim 1 previously recites “a plurality of side walls” and it is unclear whether this side wall is supposed to be one of those plurality or a new side wall. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 13, the claim term “a fourth vent hole” is ambiguous. Claims 1, from which claim 13 depends, and 13 do not recite “a second vent hole” or “a third vent hole.” Therefore, it is ambiguous whether second and third vent holes are required for a “fourth vent hole” to be present. The claim is examined depending from claim 8 and including a second vent hole.
For claim 13, the claim term “a fifth vent hole” is ambiguous. Claims 1, from which claim 13 depends, and 13 do not recite “a second vent hole” or “a third vent hole.” Therefore, it is ambiguous whether second and third vent holes are required for a “fifth vent hole” to be present. The claim is examined depending from claim 8 and including a second vent hole.
For claim 14, the claim term “a second waterproof ventilation apparatus” is ambiguous. Claims 1, from which claim 14 depends, and 14 do not recite “a first waterproof ventilation apparatus.” Therefore, it is ambiguous whether a first waterproof ventilation apparatus is required for a “second waterproof ventilation apparatus” to be present. The claim is examined as depending from claim 2.
Dependent claim(s) 2-17 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 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 airbag (“AB,” 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), and the cavity is enclosed by a plurality of side walls (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 airbag has an 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);
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 the air cavity of the airbag through a first air passage (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. 102); and a first vent hole is provided on the side wall (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 a pressure film, the pressure film is located between the first air hole and the 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 a pressure film, the pressure film is located between the first air hole and the 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.
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 side wall, 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 side wall (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 side wall, 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 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
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