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Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected system/device, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/26/2026.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood (US 2013/0109947).
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (‘947) in view of Su et al (US 2013/0184544).
Regarding claim 12, Wood (‘947) discloses and teaches a method of automated blood pressure measurement including photoacoustic imaging an extremity of a patient (Claim 1, abs, 0065), contacting the imaging apparatus to a location on the extremity near a vessel of interest (0047), delivering photoacoustic energy to a target in the vessel, receiving an imaging signal from the vessel of interest (Fig 2-3, 0016, 0017), and determining blood pressure from the derived signal data (0017, 0065).
While Wood discloses what is listed above, the specific mention of photoacoustic flow measurements is not mentioned (though CW photoacoustic measurements certainly measure flow properties in the interrogated region). Attention is hereby directed to the teaching reference to Su et al which expressly discloses and teaches the measurement of blood flow and pulsatile flow measurements with photoacoustic interrogation (0016, 0020, 0031, 0034, 0048, Claim 19, 0075-0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the teachings of Su for measurement of blood flow, with the system of Wood for complete measurement of blood vessel dynamics (0016, claim 19, Su et al).
Regarding claims 13-14, Wood (‘947) discloses and teaches the interrogation site being brachial or radial arteries on the arm, the measurement of blood pressure therefrom (0057, 0059, 0065).
Regarding claims 16-19, Wood (‘947) discloses and teaches pulsatile flow measurements, the reception of a pulse wave velocity signal (0015, 0019, 0039), a continuous wave signal (0015, 0026, 039, 0044) and the transmittal of data to an external device (0031, 0033).
Claim(s) 15 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (‘947) in view of Su as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Pearson et al (US 2015/0366474). While Wood in view of Su discloses what is listed above, they fail to disclose the measurement of non-pulsatile flow with a sphygmometer cuff. Pearson et al expressly discloses and teaches the incorporation of a sphygmomanometer cuff and the ultrasonic transmission to measure blood flow in a region (0009, claim 1, 2, 8, 12), including measurements not based on pulsatile flow (0009, 0016, 0034, 0059). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the teachings of Pearson et al with those of Wood in view of Su et al for the purpose of facilitating blood pressure, flow, and other parameter measurements in an arm of the patient restricted with a sphygmometer cuff (abs, Pearson et al).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes cited Murakoshi ‘061 which discloses a similar photoacoustic measurement and imaging apparatus for facilitating measurement of properties of the blood vessels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M. LAMPRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-3250. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
/JOEL LAMPRECHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights