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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 30th, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (Claims 10-20) in the reply filed on July 30th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite substantively identical limitations”. This is not found persuasive because although Groups I and II have similar limitations, Groups I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process such as a method for assessing cardiovascular risk to estimate a patient’s risk of heart disease.
Applicant may amend the withdrawn claims concurrently during prosecution and would likely be able to rejoin them if any found allowable subject matter is inputted into those claims. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract recites “operation ,” in line 3, but should read “operation,”
The abstract recites “where the” in line 6, but should read “wherein the”
The abstract recites “state).” in line 9, but should read “state.”
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.
Claims 16, 18, and 20 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.
Claim 16 recites “wherein before, to output prompt information” in lines 1-2. It is unclear as to whether there is a grammatical error present or not, and as to what exactly the limitation “before” is modifying.
Claim 18 recites “wherein after, to outputting prompt information” in lines 1-2. It is unclear as to whether there is a grammatical error present or not, and as to what exactly the limitation “after” is modifying.
Claim 20 recites “a processor” in line 5. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “processor” from claim 19, or a separate element.
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 10-20 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. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Claims 10-20 recite an electronic device and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 10-20 recites at least one step or instruction for determining an abnormality, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG.
Both independent Claims 10 and 19 recite abstract ideas in the form of mental processes, as consistent with Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Determining abnormality types based on obtained data is an assessment that may be performed by a human. This applies for all claims dependent on claims 10 and 19. Accordingly, each of Claims 10-20 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of: “determining an abnormality type of at least one of the wearable device or the user based on the first feature data”, and independent Claim 19 recites the abstract idea of: “determine an abnormality type of at least one of the wearable device or the user based on the first feature data”.
The other steps of obtaining and outputting recite steps that directed towards data-gathering or data-outputting, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, dependent claims 11-18 and 20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims 10 and 19 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: “processor”, “memory”, “wearable device comprising an inflatable airbag” in Claim 10; “heart rate collection module” and “acceleration sensor” in Claim 17; and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “processor”, “wearable device comprising an inflatable airbag” in Claim 19 are generically recited computer elements in independent claims 10 and 19 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 10 and 19 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., “processor” as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 10 and 19 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent claims 10 and 19 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 10-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “processor”, “memory”, “wearable device comprising an inflatable airbag” in Claim 10; “heart rate collection module” and “acceleration sensor” in Claim 17; and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “processor”, “wearable device comprising an inflatable airbag” in Claim 19.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by the Applicant’s specification (e.g. paragraphs [0244-0252]) which discloses that the processor(s) comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g. determining) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; the Applicant’s Background in the specification; and the cited prior art of record in the application.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “processor” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 10-20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the electronic device and medium of Claims 10-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 10-20 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 10 and 19 (and their respective dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 10-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 10-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 10-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 10-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokko et al (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0295130) in view of Wang et al (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0279953). Regarding Claim 10, Tokko discloses an electronic device (Blood pressure measurement device including cuff to be wrapped around measurement site; Abstract), comprising:
a processor (The main body 10 incorporates a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 100 for intensively controlling and monitoring each unit, a nonvolatile memory 39, a display unit 40, an operation unit 41, a power supply unit 42, and a timing unit 43 for timing time; [0089]); and
a memory (memory 39; [0078]) coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to:
obtain first feature data of a user in response to a measurement operation, wherein the electronic device comprises a wearable device comprising an inflatable airbag (With reference to FIG. 1, the cuff 20 of the blood pressure measurement device 1 includes the air bladder 21 including air. The air bladder 21 is connected to an air system 25 incorporated in the main body 10 through the air tube 24; [0087]), and wherein the first feature data comprises an air pressure value in the inflatable airbag when the user wears the wearable device to measure blood pressure (The air system 25 includes a capacitance pressure sensor 32 for detecting pressure (hereinafter referred to as “cuff pressure”) in the air bladder 21; [0088]);
determine an abnormality type of at least one of the wearable device or the user based on the first feature data, wherein the abnormality type indicates that the at least one of the wearable device or the user is in a current state in which a measurement condition is not met (In FIG. 8, the detected cuff pressure level is shown on the vertical axis, and the pressurization time is shown on the horizontal axis. The cuff pressure-pressurization time properties are thereby shown. In the case of “good” wrapping, the cuff pressure increases with a constant slope from the start of pressurization. In the case of “tight” wrapping, the cuff pressure rapidly rises after the start of pressurization and thereafter rises with a constant slope. In the case of “loose” wrapping, the time until the cuff pressure starts to rise after the start of pressurization becomes long, and rises with a constant slope after the starting to rise. From each graph in FIG. 8, when the cuff pressure becomes a predetermined level, it continues to increase thereafter at a substantially constant pressurization speed based only on the volume of the cuff 20 (air bladder 21) irrespective of the wrapping strength; [0115]); and
output prompt information associated with the abnormality type to prompt the user to adjust the current state (The detection result of the wrapping strength is displayed on the display unit 40 through the display control unit 160 (step S208). One example of such display is shown in FIG. 16. In FIG. 16, the wrapping strength is displayed in the data 40A of the screen of the display unit 40. In FIG. 16, the detected wrapping strength is “loose”, and hence, the flashing character “LOOSE” is displayed. The user who recognizes the display rewraps the cuff 20 with respect to the measurement site so as to be tight if “loose” is recognized and to be loose if “tight” is recognized. The user does not redo the wrapping if “good” is recognized. [0124] When the CPU 100 detects that “loose” (LOOSE) or “tight” (TIGHT) is detected according to the detection result of the wrapping strength (NO in step S210), all the air in the air bladder 21 of the cuff 20 is exhausted (step S215). The blood pressure measurement is then cancelled (forcibly terminated). The user then can smoothly redo the wrapping; [0123-0124]).
Tokko fails to disclose wherein the first feature data comprises an activity intensity of the user; and wherein the activity intensity of the user is used to determine whether the user is in an active state.
In a similar technical field, Wang teaches wearable blood pressure measurement systems (Abstract), wherein the first feature data comprises an activity intensity of the user; and wherein the activity intensity of the user is used to determine whether the user is in an active state (To address the goal that the user should avoid vigorous physical activities before the blood pressure measurement, an accelerometer on a smartphone or a smartwatch (depending on which device the user is wearing) may be used to evaluate the intensity of physical activity in a past time window (e.g., the last 5 minutes) and determine an activity score. Higher activity score may indicate the human has avoided vigorous activities and is ready for the measurement (e.g., the activity score may be inversely proportional to a statistic (e.g., an energy, a standard deviation, or and entropy) of the accelerometer signal; [0030]; motion data may be received from a motion sensor (e.g., a motion sensor that is attached to a device worn by the human) and the motion data may be monitored to determine the time for initiating a blood pressure measurement using a blood pressure measurement cuff worn by the human. In some implementations, monitoring the motion data to determine the time includes determining an activity score based on the motion data corresponding to a motion signal within a sliding window of time; comparing the activity score to an activity threshold to assess an activity condition; and responsive at least in part to the activity score satisfying the activity condition, determining the time to be a current or upcoming time; [0082]; If (at operation 559) the activity score and the estimate of heart rate both indicate that the human is still and at peace and ready to have their blood pressure measured, the measurement continues 560. For example, the technique 570 of FIG. 5D may be implemented to continue 560 the blood pressure measurement procedure. In some implementations, a blood pressure measurement is initiated responsive at least in part to the activity score satisfying a condition (e.g., that the activity score exceeds a threshold); [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the activity score teachings of Wang into the invention of Tokko in order to only initiate the blood pressure measurement once the human is deemed to be in a measurement ready condition to ensure accurate results.
Regarding Claim 11, Tokko discloses wherein the air pressure value is comprised in a plurality of air pressure values, and wherein, to determine the abnormality type of at least one of the wearable device or the user based on the first feature data, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: generate an air pressure change curve based on the plurality of air pressure values and a plurality of airbag inflation time moments corresponding to each air pressure value; and determine the abnormality type of the wearable device based on the air pressure change curve (In FIG. 8, the detected cuff pressure level is shown on the vertical axis, and the pressurization time is shown on the horizontal axis. The cuff pressure-pressurization time properties are thereby shown. In the case of “good” wrapping, the cuff pressure increases with a constant slope from the start of pressurization. In the case of “tight” wrapping, the cuff pressure rapidly rises after the start of pressurization and thereafter rises with a constant slope. In the case of “loose” wrapping, the time until the cuff pressure starts to rise after the start of pressurization becomes long, and rises with a constant slope after the starting to rise. From each graph in FIG. 8, when the cuff pressure becomes a predetermined level, it continues to increase thereafter at a substantially constant pressurization speed based only on the volume of the cuff 20 (air bladder 21) irrespective of the wrapping strength; [0115]).
Regarding Claim 14, Tokko fails to specifically teach wherein, to obtain first feature data of a user in response to a measurement operation, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: obtain, by using a moment at which the measurement operation is detected as a start moment, an activity intensity of the user within preset detection duration before the start moment, and use the activity intensity within the preset detection duration as the first feature data.
In a similar technical field, Wang teaches wearable blood pressure measurement systems (Abstract), wherein, to obtain first feature data of a user in response to a measurement operation, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: obtain, by using a moment at which the measurement operation is detected as a start moment, an activity intensity of the user within preset detection duration before the start moment, and use the activity intensity within the preset detection duration as the first feature data (an accelerometer on a smartphone or a smartwatch (depending on which device the user is wearing) may be used to evaluate the intensity of physical activity in a past time window (e.g., the last 5 minutes) and determine an activity score; [0030]; monitoring the motion data to determine the time includes determining an activity score based on the motion data corresponding to a motion signal within a sliding window of time; comparing the activity score to an activity threshold to assess an activity condition; and responsive at least in part to the activity score satisfying the activity condition, determining the time to be a current or upcoming time; [0082-0083]; a sliding window approach may be used to estimate a time in the future that the activity score might reach a threshold required to continue 560 the blood pressure measurement; [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the activity score teachings of Wang into the invention of Tokko in order to only initiate the blood pressure measurement once the human is deemed to be in a measurement ready condition to ensure accurate results.
Regarding Claim 15, Tokko fails to specifically teach wherein the activity intensity is comprised in a plurality of activity intensities, and wherein, to determine at least one of an abnormality type of the wearable device or the user based on the first feature data, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: divide the preset detection duration into an active time period and an inactive time period based on a preset activity threshold, wherein each activity intensity in the active time period is greater than or equal to the preset activity threshold, and each activity intensity in the inactive time period is less than the preset activity threshold; accumulate an integral of activity intensities in each active time period, to determine a total activity amount of the user within the preset detection duration; determine an expected rest duration of the user based on the total activity amount; determine a rested duration of the user based on a type of a time period to which the start moment belongs; and in response to the rested duration is less than the expected rest duration, determine that the abnormality type of the user is a fourth abnormality type, wherein the fourth abnormality type indicates that the user is in a rest insufficient state.
In a similar technical field, Wang teaches wearable blood pressure measurement systems (Abstract), wherein the activity intensity is comprised in a plurality of activity intensities, and wherein, to determine at least one of an abnormality type of the wearable device or the user based on the first feature data, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: divide the preset detection duration into an active time period and an inactive time period based on a preset activity threshold, wherein each activity intensity in the active time period is greater than or equal to the preset activity threshold, and each activity intensity in the inactive time period is less than the preset activity threshold; accumulate an integral of activity intensities in each active time period, to determine a total activity amount of the user within the preset detection duration; determine an expected rest duration of the user based on the total activity amount; determine a rested duration of the user based on a type of a time period to which the start moment belongs; and in response to the rested duration is less than the expected rest duration, determine that the abnormality type of the user is a fourth abnormality type, wherein the fourth abnormality type indicates that the user is in a rest insufficient state (additional conditions (e.g., an activity condition and/or a heart rate condition) for a blood pressure may be checked in conjunction with the calmness condition to schedule a blood pressure measurement. For example, motion data may be received from a motion sensor (e.g., a motion sensor that is attached to a device worn by the human) and the motion data may be monitored to determine the time for initiating a blood pressure measurement using a blood pressure measurement cuff worn by the human. In some implementations, monitoring the motion data to determine the time includes determining an activity score based on the motion data corresponding to a motion signal within a sliding window of time; comparing the activity score to an activity threshold to assess an activity condition; and responsive at least in part to the activity score satisfying the activity condition, determining the time to be a current or upcoming time…the determination of the activity score can be implemented as sliding window based movement detector (e.g.., shifting one minute between consecutive activity score determinations) to check that a low MET score is achieved before a blood pressure measurement is initiated; [0082-0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the activity score teachings of Wang into the invention of Tokko in order to only initiate the blood pressure measurement once the human is deemed to be in a measurement ready condition to ensure accurate results.
Regarding Claim 16, Tokko fails to specifically teach wherein before, to output prompt information associated with the abnormality type, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the electronic device to: determine a required rest duration of the user based on a time difference between the expected rest duration and the rested duration; and wherein, to output prompt information associated with the abnormality type, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: output fourth prompt information, wherein the fourth prompt information is used to prompt the user with the required rest duration.
In a similar technical field, Wang teaches wearable blood pressure measurement systems (Abstract), wherein before, to output prompt information associated with the abnormality type, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the electronic device to: determine a required rest duration of the user based on a time difference between the expected rest duration and the rested duration; and wherein, to output prompt information associated with the abnormality type, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: output fourth prompt information, wherein the fourth prompt information is used to prompt the user with the required rest duration (The processing apparatus 310 may include a user interface 320. For example, the user interface 320 may include an LCD display for presenting alerts or other messages to a human wearing a wearable device (e.g., the wearable device 110 or the wearable device 162); [0059]; The processing apparatus 340 may include a user interface 350. For example, the user interface 350 may include a touchscreen display for presenting blood pressure values, quality scores, or other messages to a human wearing a wearable device (e.g., the wearable device 110 or the wearable device 162) or another person assisting that human and detecting control gestures by a user. For example, the user interface 350 may include buttons or switches enabling a person to manually turn the processing apparatus on and off, adjust sound volume, etc. In some implementations, the user interface 350 may include a LCD display or CRT monitor for presenting blood pressure values, quality scores, or other messages to a human wearing a wearable device (e.g., the wearable device 110 or the wearable device 162) or another person assisting that human and detecting control gestures by a user; [0066]; A blood pressure measurement system (e.g., the system 100, the system 160, the system 200, or the system 250) implementing the technique 530 first notifies 532 the human about the upcoming scheduled measurement via a user interface (e.g., the user interface 320 or the user interface 350) prior to (e.g., 30 minutes before) the scheduled time and instructs the human to avoid vigorous physical activities in preparation for the blood pressure measurement. The system waits for a short period (e.g., 5 minutes) while keep collecting sensor data (e.g., motion data from an accelerometer and/or heart rate data from a photoplethysmogram sensor) after the scheduled time; [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the display teachings of Wang into the invention of Tokko in order to instruct the user to avoid vigorous physical activities in preparation for the blood pressure measurement.
Regarding Claim 17, Tokko fails to specifically teach wherein the wearable device comprises a heart rate collection module and an acceleration sensor, and the activity intensity is calculated based on a heart rate value obtained by the heart rate collection module and a movement speed determined by the acceleration sensor.
In a similar technical field, Wang teaches wearable blood pressure measurement systems (Abstract), wherein the wearable device comprises a heart rate collection module and an acceleration sensor (the described methods and systems may utilize two types of sensors. A first type of sensor(s) such as a motion sensor (e.g., an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope), a heart rate sensor (e.g., a photoplethysmogram sensor and/or an electrocardiogram sensor), or a combination of these sensors may be used to detect a human's physical activities; [0029]; the wearable device 110 may be equipped with sensors to detect physical activity (e.g., an accelerometer); [0034]), and the activity intensity is calculated based on a heart rate value obtained by the heart rate collection module and a movement speed determined by the acceleration sensor (To address the goal that the user should avoid vigorous physical activities before the blood pressure measurement, an accelerometer on a smartphone or a smartwatch (depending on which device the user is wearing) may be used to evaluate the intensity of physical activity in a past time window (e.g., the last 5 minutes) and determine an activity score. Higher activity score may indicate the human has avoided vigorous activities and is ready for the measurement (e.g., the activity score may be inversely proportional to a statistic (e.g., an energy, a standard deviation, or and entropy) of the accelerometer signal; [0030]; In the example system 160, the motion sensor(s) 176 (e.g., an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope) are attached to the band 164. Readings from the motion sensor(s) may be used to detect activity by the human wearing the wearable device 162. For example, an activity score may be determined based on readings from the motion sensor(s) 176. Heart rate sensor(s) 178 (e.g., a photoplethysmogram sensor and/or an electrocardiogram sensor) may be used to estimate a heart rate of the human. A heart rate estimate may be used to infer information about physical activity or mental state of a user. For example, an activity score or a calmness score may be based in part on a heart rate estimate; [0043-0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the motion sensor and heart rate sensor teachings of Wang into the invention of Tokko in order to only initiate the blood pressure measurement once the human is deemed to be in a measurement ready condition to ensure accurate results.
Regarding Claim 18, Tokko discloses wherein after, to outputting prompt information associated with the abnormality type, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: obtain second feature data of the user in response to a remeasurement operation that is fed back by the user based on the prompt information (The user again operates the switch 41C of the operation unit 41 if the wrapping is done over. The CPU 100 determines whether or not the switch 41C is operated by the user (step S216). [0126] If determined that the switch 41C is operated (YES in step S216), the process returns to step S204 and the wrapping strength detection process (step S204) is similarly carried out to start the blood pressure measurement; [0125-0126]); and
in response to it is determined, based on the second feature data, that statuses of the wearable device and the user both meet the measurement condition, generate a measurement result based on the second feature data (When determining that the wrapping strength of the cuff 20 with respect to the measurement site is “good” (GOOD) wrapping (YES in step S210) according to the detection result of the wrapping strength, the CPU 100 proceeds to a circumferential length detection process (step S212), display of detection result (step S213), and blood pressure measurement process (step S214). After the blood pressure measurement is completed in the blood pressure measurement process, the series of processes is terminated; [0127]).
Regarding Claim 19, Tokko discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor (The memory 39 stores program for causing the CPU 100 to perform a predetermined operation and various types of information such as measurement result information; [0093]), cause the processor to:
obtain first feature data of a user in response to a measurement operation, wherein a wearable device comprises an inflatable airbag (With reference to FIG. 1, the cuff 20 of the blood pressure measurement device 1 includes the air bladder 21 including air. The air bladder 21 is connected to an air system 25 incorporated in the main body 10 through the air tube 24; [0087]), and wherein the first feature data comprises an air pressure value in the inflatable airbag when the user wears the wearable device to measure blood pressure (The air system 25 includes a capacitance pressure sensor 32 for detecting pressure (hereinafter referred to as “cuff pressure”) in the air bladder 21; [0088]);
determine an abnormality type of at least one of the wearable device or the user based on the first feature data, wherein the abnormality type indicates that the at least one of the wearable device or the user is in a current state in which a measurement condition is not met (In FIG. 8, the detected cuff pressure level is shown on the vertical axis, and the pressurization time is shown on the horizontal axis. The cuff pressure-pressurization time properties are thereby shown. In the case of “good” wrapping, the cuff pressure increases with a constant slope from the start of pressurization. In the case of “tight” wrapping, the cuff pressure rapidly rises after the start of pressurization and thereafter rises with a constant slope. In the case of “loose” wrapping, the time until the cuff pressure starts to rise after the start of pressurization becomes long, and rises with a constant slope after the starting to rise. From each graph in FIG. 8, when the cuff pressure becomes a predetermined level, it continues to increase thereafter at a substantially constant pressurization speed based only on the volume of the cuff 20 (air bladder 21) irrespective of the wrapping strength; [0115]); and
output prompt information associated with the abnormality type to prompt the user to adjust the current state (The detection result of the wrapping strength is displayed on the display unit 40 through the display control unit 160 (step S208). One example of such display is shown in FIG. 16. In FIG. 16, the wrapping strength is displayed in the data 40A of the screen of the display unit 40. In FIG. 16, the detected wrapping strength is “loose”, and hence, the flashing character “LOOSE” is displayed. The user who recognizes the display rewraps the cuff 20 with respect to the measurement site so as to be tight if “loose” is recognized and to be loose if “tight” is recognized. The user does not redo the wrapping if “good” is recognized. [0124] When the CPU 100 detects that “loose” (LOOSE) or “tight” (TIGHT) is detected according to the detection result of the wrapping strength (NO in step S210), all the air in the air bladder 21 of the cuff 20 is exhausted (step S215). The blood pressure measurement is then cancelled (forcibly terminated). The user then can smoothly redo the wrapping; [0123-0124]).
Tokko fails to disclose wherein the first feature data comprises an activity intensity of the user; and wherein the activity intensity of the user is used to determine whether the user is in an active state.
In a similar technical field, Wang teaches wearable blood pressure measurement systems (Abstract), wherein the first feature data comprises an activity intensity of the user; and wherein the activity intensity of the user is used to determine whether the user is in an active state (To address the goal that the user should avoid vigorous physical activities before the blood pressure measurement, an accelerometer on a smartphone or a smartwatch (depending on which device the user is wearing) may be used to evaluate the intensity of physical activity in a past time window (e.g., the last 5 minutes) and determine an activity score. Higher activity score may indicate the human has avoided vigorous activities and is ready for the measurement (e.g., the activity score may be inversely proportional to a statistic (e.g., an energy, a standard deviation, or and entropy) of the accelerometer signal; [0030]; motion data may be received from a motion sensor (e.g., a motion sensor that is attached to a device worn by the human) and the motion data may be monitored to determine the time for initiating a blood pressure measurement using a blood pressure measurement cuff worn by the human. In some implementations, monitoring the motion data to determine the time includes determining an activity score based on the motion data corresponding to a motion signal within a sliding window of time; comparing the activity score to an activity threshold to assess an activity condition; and responsive at least in part to the activity score satisfying the activity condition, determining the time to be a current or upcoming time; [0082]; If (at operation 559) the activity score and the estimate of heart rate both indicate that the human is still and at peace and ready to have their blood pressure measured, the measurement continues 560. For example, the technique 570 of FIG. 5D may be implemented to continue 560 the blood pressure measurement procedure. In some implementations, a blood pressure measurement is initiated responsive at least in part to the activity score satisfying a condition (e.g., that the activity score exceeds a threshold); [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the activity score teachings of Wang into the invention of Tokko in order to only initiate the blood pressure measurement once the human is deemed to be in a measurement ready condition to ensure accurate results.
Regarding Claim 20, Tokko discloses wherein the air pressure value is comprised in a plurality of air pressure values, and wherein, to determine at least one of an abnormality type of the wearable device or the user based on the first feature data, the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: generate an air pressure change curve based on the plurality of air pressure values and a plurality of airbag inflation time moments corresponding to each air pressure value; and determine the abnormality type of the wearable device based on the air pressure change curve (In FIG. 8, the detected cuff pressure level is shown on the vertical axis, and the pressurization time is shown on the horizontal axis. The cuff pressure-pressurization time properties are thereby shown. In the case of “good” wrapping, the cuff pressure increases with a constant slope from the start of pressurization. In the case of “tight” wrapping, the cuff pressure rapidly rises after the start of pressurization and thereafter rises with a constant slope. In the case of “loose” wrapping, the time until the cuff pressure starts to rise after the start of pressurization becomes long, and rises with a constant slope after the starting to rise. From each graph in FIG. 8, when the cuff pressure becomes a predetermined level, it continues to increase thereafter at a substantially constant pressurization speed based only on the volume of the cuff 20 (air bladder 21) irrespective of the wrapping strength; [0115]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokko and Wang, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Koga et al (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0030287).
Regarding Claim 12, Tokko discloses wherein, to determine the abnormality type of the wearable device based on the air pressure change curve, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: in response to a slope of the air pressure change curve is less than a preset slope at a preset third moment, determine that the abnormality type of the wearable device is a third abnormality type, wherein the third abnormality type indicates that the inflatable airbag is in an air leakage state (With reference to FIGS. 8 and 9 schematically showing the cuff pressure-volume change relationship detected through experiments by the inventors in advance, it can be recognized that the wrapping strength of the cuff 20 on the measurement site has great influence. In FIG. 8, the detected cuff pressure level is shown on the vertical axis, and the pressurization time is shown on the horizontal axis. The cuff pressure-pressurization time properties are thereby shown. In the case of “good” wrapping, the cuff pressure increases with a constant slope from the start of pressurization. In the case of “tight” wrapping, the cuff pressure rapidly rises after the start of pressurization and thereafter rises with a constant slope. In the case of “loose” wrapping, the time until the cuff pressure starts to rise after the start of pressurization becomes long, and rises with a constant slope after the starting to rise. From each graph in FIG. 8, when the cuff pressure becomes a predetermined level, it continues to increase thereafter at a substantially constant pressurization speed based only on the volume of the cuff 20 (air bladder 21) irrespective of the wrapping strength; [0115-0117]).
Tokko fails to teach wherein the third abnormality type indicates that the inflatable airbag is in an air leakage state.
In a similar technical field, Koga teaches a blood pressure meter (Abstract), wherein the third abnormality type indicates that the inflatable airbag is in an air leakage state (As a result of many years of use, for example, when the fluid bag (measuring air bag 77 or curler wrapping air bag 79) deteriorates and defects such as air leakage occur, only the cuff structure 7 of the cuff unit is replaced as a component in this sphygmomanometer 1; [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the air leakage teachings of Koga into the those of Tokko and Wang in order to ensure that the cuff is replaced after deterioration and defects that can lead to air leakage.
Regarding Claim 13, Tokko discloses wherein, to output prompt information associated with the abnormality type, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: output third prompt information, wherein the third prompt information is used to prompt the user to send the wearable device for repair (The processing apparatus 310 may include a user interface 320. For example, the user interface 320 may include an LCD display for presenting alerts or other messages to a human wearing a wearable device (e.g., the wearable device 110 or the wearable device 162); [0059]; The processing apparatus 340 may include a user interface 350. For example, the user interface 350 may include a touchscreen display for presenting blood pressure values, quality scores, or other messages to a human wearing a wearable device (e.g., the wearable device 110 or the wearable device 162) or another person assisting that human and detecting control gestures by a user. For example, the user interface 350 may include buttons or switches enabling a person to manually turn the processing apparatus on and off, adjust sound volume, etc. In some implementations, the user interface 350 may include a LCD display or CRT monitor for presenting blood pressure values, quality scores, or other messages to a human wearing a wearable device (e.g., the wearable device 110 or the wearable device 162) or another person assisting that human and detecting control gestures by a user; [0066]; A blood pressure measurement system (e.g., the system 100, the system 160, the system 200, or the system 250) implementing the technique 530 first notifies 532 the human about the upcoming scheduled measurement via a user interface (e.g., the user interface 320 or the user interface 350) prior to (e.g., 30 minutes before) the scheduled time and instructs the human to avoid vigorous physical activities in preparation for the blood pressure measurement. The system waits for a short period (e.g., 5 minutes) while keep collecting sensor data (e.g., motion data from an accelerometer and/or heart rate data from a photoplethysmogram sensor) after the scheduled time; [0089]; Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes wherein the limitation “wherein the third prompt information is used to prompt the user to send the wearable device for repair” is a recitation of the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
