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 .
Applicant’s arguments filed in the reply on March 24, 2026 were received and fully considered. Claims 1 and 6 were amended. Claims 11 and 12 were added. Please see below for more detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 11 and 12 do not further limit their independent claims as they do not change a display or follow the output of a particular preceding limitation. The claim could be read as stating that an X- and Y- axis would intersect with a blood vessel locus in a virtual space.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim(s) recites “wherein, in a blood vessel locus determination stage, the processing unit utilizing any three of the plurality of position coordinates Pi (i=1, 2, 3...) and the corresponding three measured values of pressure intensity Ii, Ij, Ik (i, j, k=1, 2, 3..., and i≠j≠k) to generate multiple weighted coordinate positions Gijk, where
G
i
j
k
(
X
,
Y
)
=
I
i
P
i
+
I
j
P
j
+
I
k
P
k
I
i
+
I
j
+
I
k
,
wherein the processing unit defines a plurality of linear equations respectively passing through the plurality of weighted coordinate positions Gijk, and determines a blood vessel locus of the site to be measured based on a band defined by the linear equations and a barycentric coordinate of the weighted coordinate positions Gijk,
during a pulse wave measurement stage, the determined blood vessel locus is used to determine points corresponding to pulse wave sources of the site to be measured.” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concepts).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“ a base”
“a plurality of pressing elements, arranged in an array on the base and used to press a site to be measured, wherein a number of the pressing elements is at least four, and each of the pressing elements has a position coordinate Pi (i=1, 2, 3…);”
“a plurality of pressure sensors, configured to respectively measure pressure on the plurality of pressing elements in order to generate measured values of pressure intensity Ii (i=1, 2, 3…) at the position coordinates Pi (i=1, 2, 3...);”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activity of generating an output.
Furthermore, pressing elements and pressure sensors are general fields of use and processing units are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of predicting a blood vessel location based on input pressure data and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 12 also do not recite patent eligible subject matter as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim(s) recites “wherein, in the blood vessel locus determination stage, the processing unit defines multiple virtual circles, wherein the position coordinates Pi (i=1, 2, 3...) are respectively centers of the virtual circles and reciprocals of a square root of the measured values of pressure intensity Ii (i=1, 2, 3…) are respectively radii of the virtual circles, and
the processing unit further defines a plurality of interior common tangents of the virtual circles, shrinks or enlarges the virtual circles by a same ratio until at least two of the interior common tangents overlap with each other, and defines a blood vessel locus of the site to be measured based on the interior common tangents overlapping with each other,
during a pulse wave measurement stage, the determined blood vessel locus is used to determine points corresponding to pulse wave sources of the site to be measured.”” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concepts).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“a base”
“a plurality of pressing elements, arranged in an array on the base and used to press a site to be measured, wherein a number of the pressing elements is at least four, and each of the pressing elements has a position coordinate Pi (i=1, 2, 3…);”
“a plurality of pressure sensors, configured to respectively measure pressure on the plurality of pressing elements in order to generate measured values of pressure intensity Ii (i=1, 2, 3…) at the position coordinates Pi (i=1, 2, 3...);”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activity of generating an output.
Furthermore, pressing elements and pressure sensors are general fields of use and processing units are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of predicting a blood vessel location based on input pressure data and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 7-11 also do not recite patent eligible subject matter as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
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(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun et al (WO 2017/073824) (“Jun”) in view of Maitre et al (WO 2022/235897) (“Maitre”) and further in view of Inukai et al (WO 2023/002849) (“Inukai”).
Regarding Claim 1, while Jun teaches a pulse pressure measuring apparatus (Abstract), including:
a base (p4, sensor housing);
a plurality of pressing elements, arranged in an array on the base and used to press a site to be measured, wherein a number of the pressing elements is at least four, and each of the pressing elements has a position coordinate Pi (i=1, 2, 3…) (p4, individual array pressure sensor units transferring pulse information, with seven individual pressure sensors acting as corresponding pressing elements and each is recognized as having a position coordinate);
a plurality of pressure sensors, configured to respectively measure pressure on the plurality of pressing elements in order to generate measured values of pressure intensity Ii (i=1, 2, 3…) at the position coordinates Pi (i=1, 2, 3...) (p4, individual array pressure sensor units transferring pulse information, with seven individual pressure sensors generating measures of pressure intensity as shown in Fig. 3 and described in p5); and
a processing unit, connected to the plurality of pressing elements and the plurality of pressure sensors (p7-8, processors, computers, and the like described for performing the steps),
wherein, in a blood vessel locus determination stage, the processing unit utilizing any three of the plurality of position coordinates Pi (i=1, 2, 3...) and to generate multiple coordinate positions and distance (p7, Equation 4) and determines a blood vessel locus of the site to be measured based on the coordinate positions and distances (Figs. 3-4, looking for highest normalized peak and tests with different coordinate positions and distances through rotation),
during a pulse wave measurement stage, the determined blood vessel locus is used to determine points corresponding to pulse wave sources of the site to be measured (p7, sensor unit is aligned by adjusting the center of the sensor unit to align with the blood vessel, acquiring pulse signals when the distance between the center and the blood vessel is under a threshold);
Jun fails to teach wherein, in a blood vessel locus determination stage, the processing unit utilizing any three of the plurality of position coordinates Pi (i=1, 2, 3...) and the corresponding three measured values of pressure intensity Ii, Ij, Ik (i, j, k=1, 2, 3..., and i≠j≠k) to generate multiple weighted coordinate positions Gijk, where
G
i
j
k
(
X
,
Y
)
=
I
i
P
i
+
I
j
P
j
+
I
k
P
k
I
i
+
I
j
+
I
k
,
wherein the processing unit defines a plurality of linear equations respectively passing through the plurality of weighted coordinate positions Gijk, and determines a blood vessel locus of the site to be measured based on a band defined by the linear equations and a barycentric coordinate of the weighted coordinate positions Gijk.
However Maitre teaches a pressure monitoring device related to a patient (Abstract, Fig. 6, [0045]) using multiple pressure sensors associated with four pressing locations ([0039], [0045]-[0046] pressure data gathered from a mat to identify the pressing from a patient’s limbs) where the coordinates and pressure intensity at each pressing location is used to determine a center locus from the pressure data ([0045]-[0046] pressure data from four limbs used to find barycenter from coordinates, a center of mass of an infant) with the form of the above equation ([0056]-[0058] Equation 1 and [0060]-[0061] further solving multiple linear equations) and Inukai teaches a vascular puncture device (Abstract) and further teaches that a blood vessel locus could be determined by a barycentric evaluation process (p3, 6-7, applied on images).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the blood vessel estimation process of Jun with the barycentric calculation of Maitre as this center locating process obviates the need for sensor unit rotation, and does not require new sensors in the system. Furthermore, the method is applicable to Jun’s blood vessel locating system as Inukai confirms that such a process can successfully location a patient blood vessel.
Regarding Claim 2, Jun, Maitre, and Inukai teach the pulse pressure measuring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in the blood vessel locus determination stage, each of the plurality of pressing elements simultaneously presses the site to be measured (See Claim 1 Rejection¸ Jun’s Fig. 3-4 reflect that all pressure sensors are to be tested simultaneously).
Regarding Claim 4, Jun, Maitre, and Inukai teach the pulse pressure measuring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the band is defined based on the plurality of linear equations having a slope within ±0.5 relative to a baseline, and the blood vessel locus of the site to be measured corresponds to the band (See Claim 1 Rejection, p6, the band corresponding to a blood vessel is intended to reflect a baseline like of Fig. 8 of Jun. An idealized relationship like of Fig. 8 will cause a plurality of linear equations (i.e. displacements between sensors in the sensor array) to have a slope that matches the blood vessel slope and correlate closely to a baseline after optimization).
Regarding Claim 5, Jun, Maitre, and Inukai teach the pulse pressure measuring apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the blood vessel locus of the site to be measured is determined based on a barycentric coordinate of the plurality of weighted coordinate positions Gijk and an average slope of the plurality of linear equations defining the band (See Claim 4 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 12, Jun, Maitre, and Inukai teach the pulse pressure measuring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein multiple virtual lines according to a built-in database or user's settings intersect with the blood vessel locus at the points corresponding to the pulse wave sources (See Claim 1 Rejection, Jun’s Fig. 8 reflects such a teaching, with user settings creating virtual lines corresponding to an X-axis and Y-axis that intersect with the blood vessel line. Examiner will further note that this limitation doesn’t necessarily further limit claim 1 and can be read as a statement of fact rather than a narrowing of the claim).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun in view of Maitre and further in view of Inukai and further in view of Ogura et al (US 2001/0003792) (“Ogura”).
Regarding Claim 3, while Jun, Maitre, and Inukai teach the pulse pressure measuring apparatus according to claim 1, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein spacings of the adjacent pressing elements in a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction are less than or equal to 30 mm.
However Ogura teaches an arterial characterizing system based on pulse wave characteristics (Abstract, [0019] uses pulse wave characteristics of multiple pressure sensing elements to find blood vessel characteristic) with an array of pressure sensing elements and wherein spacings of the adjacent pressure sensor elements is less than or equal to 30 mm ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the spacings of the pressure sensors / pressing elements in Jun as less than or equal to 30 mm as taught by Ogura as Ogura teaches this is a spacing that enables the finding of vessels characteristics and will provide a consistency in the monitoring of blood vessels across the application of the invention of Jun and Maitre.
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art rejection is applied to claims 6-10 because the prior art fails to teach a blood vessel locus determination based on the virtual circle mathematic described in the claim. However, the claims are not allowed at this time due to the rejections under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
No prior art rejection is applied to claims 11 because the prior art fails to teach a blood vessel locus determination based on the virtual circle mathematic described in claim 6. However, the claims are not allowed at this time due to the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112(b), as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 3/24/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are significantly more than the judicial exception because they improve accuracy of pulse pressure measurements. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jun and Ogura teach steps to ensure a blood vessel locus is found and measured to determine points corresponding to pulse wave sources (Jun by aligning, Ogura by a high density of pressure sensing elements). Furthermore, the newly added claim limitation is not a positive recitation of pulse wave monitoring, but rather, a statement of intended use. The pulse wave measurement stage isn’t positively occurring and thus an improvement is not being put into practice. Thus, it is unclear if the pulse pressure measuring apparatus has improved accuracy over the prior art.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 3/24/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the teachings of Maitre have nothing to do with motion tracking of a dynamically moving object and is of a completely different mean and purpose. Examiner will note that the rejections of the claims are based on the combined teachings of Jun, Maitre, and Inukai. If Maitre’s teachings were solely applied to Jun, it would be unlikely one of ordinary skill in the art would find the connection. However Inukai is brought in to identify that barycentric coordinate finding of a blood vessel would be known in the art. And while the outcome of the blood vessel locus identifying is divergent, it would be completely reasonable to consider Inukai as relevant subject matter. Maitre’s teachings are thus brought in to confirm the barycentric coordinate calculation is applicable to pressure signals and to provide the specifics of how the barycentric coordinate calculation is conducted.
Applicant’s second argument is that Maitre has not disclosed any teaching about the multiple weighted coordinate positions Gijk, a band defined by linear equations passing through the plurality of weighted coordinate positions G-ijk-, and a barycentric coordinate of the weighted coordinate positions Gijk-. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Maitre teaches in Fig. 2C, Equation 1, and [0058]-[0061] where multiple weighted coordinates are found as centers of mass 204a-e in Maitre and a barycentric coordinate of weighted coordinate positions is found as 204f as the overall center of mass informed by the peripheral center of mass. And in view of finding a length of blood vessel for aligning (a goal of Jun), one will need to find a band defined by linear equations passing through the plurality of weighted coordinate positions as this reflects a blood vessel within the measuring area. This limitation is an obvious byproduct of a barycentric coordinate-based finding of a vessel of Jun.
The rejection(s) stands.
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 JAIRO H PORTILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:15 pm.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/JAIRO H. PORTILLO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights