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 September 22, 2026 were received and fully considered. Claims 1, 5-6 and 11-12 were amended. Claim 4 was cancelled. Please see below for more detail.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/22/2026 has been entered.
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 1 and claims dependent thereon 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “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." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is redefining the “band” of lines 18-19 as the language redefines “the band” from the resulting blood vessel locus of measured values to now a set range of values around the baseline so it is not clearly a basis for the selection.
. Appropriate changes would include -- when the blood vessel locus of the site to be measured corresponds to the band, the band is defined as corresponding to a baseline when the slope of the band is within ±0.5 relative to a baseline.--
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 and 5, and 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.
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);
and selects at least one of the plurality of pressing elements and at least one of the plurality of pressure sensors to measure a pulse wave corresponding to the points (p7, in aligning the system, the user is selecting all of the plurality sensors along an axis to measure a pulse wave according the point. Examiner also notes that the claim does not specify what effect selecting at least one of the plurality of pressing elements is intended to have),
wherein the band being aligned by a slope within ±0.5 relative to a baseline will set the blood vessel locus of the site to be measured in accordance with the band (p6, the band corresponding to a blood vessel is intended to reflect a baseline goal, p7, then utilized for the alignment),
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. And in viewing the pressure sensors of Jun with this relationship, we can identify that a plurality of linear equations having a slope can be used to define the locus. This locus is then applied to align with a 0 slope baseline by the teachings Jun so the a plurality of linear equations (i.e. displacements between sensors in the sensor array) will have a slope that matches the blood vessel slope and correlate closely to a baseline after optimization.
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 5, Jun, Maitre, and Inukai teach the pulse pressure measuring apparatus according to claim 1, 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, and Maitre teaches wherein the processing unit defines multiple virtual lines according to a built-in database or user's settings to intersect with the blood vessel locus at the points corresponding to the pulse wave sources (See Claim 1 Rejection, performing the barycentric blood vessel locus determination, and Maitre Fig. 2C, [0061] further shows that a barycentric locus determination is characterized by virtual lines intersect with the locus at the points corresponding to the peripheral sources).
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
Claims 6-11 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 9/22/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 112(d) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 9/22/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of Claim 1 has been fully considered, but is not persuasive.
The language Applicant seeks requires an alignment of the system in accordance with a baseline and selection of proper measuring conditions. However the language teaches selection of “at least one of the plurality of pressing elements and at least one of the plurality of pressure sensors” but does not give a basis to the selection and the last paragraph does not provide clarity as the language redefines “the band” from the resulting blood vessel locus of measured values to now a set range of values around the baseline so it is not clearly a basis for the selection. Appropriate changes would include -- when the blood vessel locus of the site to be measured corresponds to the band, the band is defined as corresponding to a baseline when the slope of the band is within ±0.5 relative to a baseline.--
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 9/22/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of Claim 6 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 9/22/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the subject matter of prior claim 4 was not found within Jun as no band is identified in Jun. Examiner notes that the rejection has been further expanded above. Jun describes a desired relationship between baselines and actual measuring conditions. Maitre and Inukai provide a new way to calculate the identification of a locus value. When applying this new form of identification to Jun, than the desired relationship between baselines and actual measuring conditions will be reflected by the barycentric coordinate math of Maitre and Inukai.
Applicant also argues that the subject matter of Maitre and Inukai are much different from the present application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jun and Inukai overlap as they desired a non-invasive finding of a blood vessel. Maitre provides specific teachings regarding the mathematics but ultimately, the relevancy to Jun is provided by Inukai.
The rejection(s) stands.
Conclusion
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