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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species F, claims 7-11 and 22, in the reply filed on 7/17/2026 is acknowledged.
The examiner notes that applicant elected species F, which was identified as the embodiment depicted in figure 11 in the restriction requirement mailed on 6/4/2026; however, claim 9 is clearly drawn to the species G, which is drawn to the embodiment depicted in figure 12. This is evident as species G, identified as the embodiment depicted in figure 12, is the only embodiment that has first and second barometric pressure sensors, an air path cavity and a third air path, which are all limitations recited in claim 9. Accordingly, the election of species F are drawn to claims 7, 8, 10, 11 and 22; and claim 9 is withdrawn as non-elected as being drawn to unelected species G.
Claims 1-6, 9, 12-15 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species A-E and G-I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/4/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/31/2025 and 2/13/2025 were received and placed in the record on file. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“driving apparatus” in claims 7, 8, 10, 11 and 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Accordingly, the limitations are interpreted as follows:
“driving apparatus” is described in paragraph [0082] of the applicant’s printed publication as is not specifically limited but acts an apparatus configured to provide a driving force for inflating/deflating process of the air supply and exhaust apparatus and that it may be a motor. Therefore, the claim limitation will be interpreted as a motor, or any apparatus that provides a driving force for the inflating/deflating process of the air supply and exhaust apparatus such as a motor; or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
No claim limitations of the instant claims are being interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112(f) interpretatio
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 22 is 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 22 recites the limitations “an air supply and exhaust apparatus”, "exhaust apparatus", and “a driving apparatus electrically connected to the air supply and exhaust apparatus”. Based on the current claim language, it is unclear if “an air supply and exhaust apparatus” is a single apparatus that is capable of air supply and exhaust or if it is a separate air supply apparatus and a separate exhaust apparatus. Specifically, “an air supply and exhaust apparatus” are mentioned together in the first recitation and later together when referencing the “driving apparatus electrically connected to the air supply and exhaust apparatus”; but there is also the separate recitation of “exhaust apparatus” in line 11 of the claim with no corresponding separate recitation of “air supply apparatus”. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite as the scope of the claim is unclear as to whether: a combined air supply and exhaust apparatus; a separate air supply apparatus and a separate exhaust apparatus; or a combined air supply and exhaust apparatus and an additional exhaust apparatus are required by the claim.
For the purpose of practicing compact prosecution, to advance examination on the basis of prior art, the examiner will interpret the claim as requiring separate air supply apparatus and a separate exhaust apparatus which are each connected through the first air path to the air cavity and electrically connected to the driving apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yokoyama et al (US 2011/0118613 A1), at least as best understood.
Regarding claim 22; Yokoyama discloses a blood pressure measurement device (figures 1 and 3), comprising:
a body (element 10) comprising an end and a cavity, wherein the cavity is enclosed by a plurality of side walls (wherein figures 1 and 2 depicts sidewalls of the body, element 10, and [paragraph 0045] discloses the other components as inside the body which inherently means there is a cavity within the body to contain the components);
an airbag (cuff, element 12) having an air cavity (inside of cuff) and fastened to the end of the body (paragraphs [0041]-[0047]; figures 1-3);
a first air path (pressure transmission channel, element 22; paragraph [0045]; figure 3);
an air supply (pressurizing pump, element 16) and exhaust (air discharge unit, element 18) apparatus disposed in the cavity and connected, through the first air path, to the air cavity (paragraph [0045]; figure 3);
a second air path (pressure transmission channel, element 20);
a barometric pressure sensor (pressure sensor, element 24) disposed in the cavity, connected through the second air path (element 20) to the air cavity (element 12), and configured to detect an air pressure value in the air cavity (paragraph [0041]-[0047], specifically [0045]; figure 3);
exhaust apparatus (air discharge unit, element 18);
a driving apparatus (wherein the examiner notes that the pressurizing pump, element 16, and air discharge unit, element 18, inherently requires a driving component in order to pressurize the pump and discharge the air, which is supported by paragraph [0050] which discloses the CPU outputs drive signals 46 and 48, which means they must drive something) and electrically connected to the air supply and the exhaust apparatus (paragraphs [0041]-[0047]; figure 3); and
a processor (CPU, element 28) electrically connected to the barometric pressure sensor (element 24) and the driving apparatus (elements 16 and 18), and configured to:
obtain an air pressure compensation value (correction value) based on an operating parameter of the blood pressure measurement device (measured atmospheric air pressure) and a correspondence between the operating parameter and an air pressure compensation value (air pressure difference conversion equation), wherein the correspondence is stored in the blood pressure measurement device (correction values are calibrated and stored in the blood pressure measurement device and use for correcting blood pressure measurement based on atmospheric air pressure; paragraphs [0041]-[0078], specifically [0046], [0048], [0051]-[0053], and [0077]; figures 3-5);
compensate, based on the obtained air pressure compensation value, the air pressure value detected by the barometric pressure sensor to obtain a compensated air pressure value (calculates a corrected blood pressure measurement; paragraphs [0051]-[0078], specifically [0046] and [0077]; figures 4 and 5); and
control the driving apparatus based on the compensated air pressure value (wherein control of the blood pressure inflation/deflation is based on the measured and corrected pressure values; paragraphs [0051]-[0078]; figures 4 and 5).
Further regarding claim 22; while in the rejection above, examiner notes that Yokoyama does not explicitly disclose a driving apparatus electrically connected to the air supply and exhaust apparatus and processor. However, as noted above, Yokoyama does imply that a driving apparatus inherently exists and is electrically connected to the air supply and exhaust apparatus and processor based on the context of the disclosure in paragraph [0050] and depicted in figure 3, that the CPU (element 28) sends driving signals (elements 46 and 48) to the air supply and exhaust apparatus (combined elements 16 and 18) to inflate/deflate the air bag of the cuff (element 12). As such, the examiner contends that Yokoyama does disclose and anticipate a driving apparatus; however, in the alternative, if the applicant contends that the driving apparatus is not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Yokoyama’s blood pressure measurement device to include a driving apparatus for receiving the driving signals from the CPU and to cause the air supply and exhaust apparatus to inflate/deflate the pressure cuff as a mere rearrangement of parts (i.e. using a single driving apparatus to cause inflation/deflection instead of two separate driving apparatus).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama in view of Mason (US 2008/0306354 A1).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 10 and 11; Yokoyama discloses a blood pressure measurement device (figures 1 and 3), comprising:
a body (element 10) comprising an end and a cavity enclosed by a plurality of side walls (wherein figures 1 and 2 depicts sidewalls of the body, element 10, and [paragraph 0045] discloses the other components as inside the body which inherently means there is a cavity within the body to contain the components);
an airbag (cuff, element 12) having an air cavity (inside of cuff) and fastened to the end (paragraphs [0041]-[0047]; figures 1-3);
a first air path (pressure transmission channel, element 22; paragraph [0045]; figure 3);
a second air path (pressure transmission channel, element 20);
an air supply and exhaust apparatus (combined pressurizing pump, element 16, and air discharge unit, element 18) disposed in the cavity and connected, through the first air path, to the air cavity (paragraph [0045]; figure 3);
a barometric pressure sensor (pressure sensor, element 24) disposed in the cavity, connected through the second air path (element 20) to the air cavity (element 12), and configured to detect a first air pressure value in the air cavity (pressure value measured in cuff) and a second air pressure value in the cavity (atmospheric air pressure value) (paragraph [0041]-[0047], specifically [0045]-[0046]; figure 3);
a driving apparatus (wherein the examiner notes that the pressurizing pump, element 16, and air discharge unit, element 18, inherently requires a driving component in order to pressurize the pump and discharge the air, which is supported by paragraph [0050] which discloses the CPU outputs drive signals 46 and 48, which means they must drive something) electrically connected to the air supply and the exhaust apparatus (paragraphs [0041]-[0047]; figure 3); and
a processor (CPU, element 28) electrically connected to the barometric pressure sensor (element 24) and the driving apparatus (elements 16 and 18), and configured to:
obtain, based on a second air pressure value (measured atmospheric air pressure) and a correspondence that is between a cavity air pressure value (measured atmospheric air pressure) and an air pressure compensation value (air pressure difference conversion equation from calibration), a second air pressure compensation value (correction value) (wherein the correction values are stored from calibration in the blood pressure measurement device and used for correcting a measured blood pressure measurement based on the measured atmospheric air pressure in the cavity; paragraphs [0041]-[0078], specifically [0046], [0048], [0051]-[0053], and [0077]; figures 3-5);
compensate, based on the second air pressure compensation value, the first air pressure value (measured blood pressure value from cuff) to obtain a compensated air pressure value (calculates a corrected blood pressure measurement; paragraphs [0051]-[0078], specifically [0046] and [0077]; figures 4 and 5); and
control, based on the compensated air pressure value, the driving apparatus to drive the air supply and exhaust apparatus to perform inflating and deflating (wherein control of the blood pressure inflation/deflation is based on the measured and corrected pressure values; paragraphs [0051]-[0078]; figures 4 and 5).
However, while Yokoyama discloses a single barometric pressure sensor for detecting both the first air pressure value in the air cavity and the second air pressure value in the cavity; Yokoyoma does not disclose the use of a first barometric pressure sensor for detecting the first air pressure value in the air cavity and a second barometric pressure sensor for detecting the second air pressure value in the cavity.
Mason teaches a similar blood pressure measuring apparatus comprising a first blood pressure sensor (element 16) that measures the pressure in a blood pressure cuff (paragraph [0034]) that compensates for atmospheric air pressure by providing an offset pressure measuring device (element 18) including a second pressure sensor (element 22, referred to as element 20 in figures 5 and 6 and their corresponding description) for measuring a value representing the atmospheric pressure in order to determine a pressure difference and correct the measured blood pressure value to account for altitude and atmospheric pressure (paragraphs [0022]-[0029],[0033]-[0040]; figures 1-3, 5 and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Yokoyama’s blood pressure monitoring apparatus to substitute the single pressure sensor for measuring both blood pressure (via pressure inside the cuff) and atmospheric pressure (pressure inside the cavity) with a first and second pressure sensor each dedicated to measuring the blood pressure inside the air cavity and the atmospheric air pressure inside the cavity, respectively, as taught by Mason as simple substitution of one known element with another to yield a predictable result (in this case, Yokoyama’s system utilizing a first pressure sensor for measuring the air cavity pressure and fluctuations therein and a second pressure sensor for measuring the atmospheric pressure in the cavity of the body, to carry out Yokoyama’s functions and compensation method)
Further regarding claim 8; the Yokoyama/Mason combination is described in the rejection of claim 7; however, it does not explicitly disclose that the second barometric air pressure sensor is disposed closer to the air supply and exhaust apparatus than the first air pressure sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Yokoyama/Mason combination to dispose the second barometric sensor closer to the air supply and exhaust apparatus than the first barometric pressure sensor as obvious to try, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (in this case, there are 3 identified and predictable solutions: the second barometric pressure sensor is either closer, farther, or equidistant from the air supply and exhaust apparatus than the first barometric sensor). See MPEP 2143.
Further regarding claims 10 and 11; the Yokoyama/Mason combination is described in the rejection of claim 7 above. Yokoyama further discloses the processor is configured to: control the device to perform inflating when the airbag is removed, so that the second air pressure value detected by the second barometric pressure sensor changes; obtain a plurality of third air pressure values detected by the first barometric pressure sensor when the second barometric pressure sensor detects a plurality of different second air pressure values; use the plurality of third air pressure values as air pressure compensation values separately corresponding to the plurality of different second air pressure values; and establish the correspondence between the cavity air pressure value and the air pressure compensation value based on the plurality of different second air pressure values and the air pressure compensation values (wherein Yokoyama discloses the method for calibrating the compensation values used for correcting the measured blood pressure value based on the measured atmospheric pressure; paragraphs [0041]-[0078], specifically [0046], [0048], [0051]-[0053], and [0077]; figures 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the Yokoyama/Mason combination’s processor would be configured to carry out the same process for establishing the compensation values.
Further regarding claim 11; the Yokoyama/Mason combination as described in the rejection of claim 10 discloses the processor is further configured to establish the correspondence in an interpolation method based on the plurality of different second air pressure values and the air pressure compensation values (wherein Yokoyama’s method teaches the compensation values are established for measured atmospheric pressure using the conversion equation based on measured atmospheric pressure values).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2023/0019122 A1 to Xia et al; disclose an electronic device for measuring blood pressure.
US 2016/0120418 A1 to Oksala et al; discloses a blood pressure measurement device which compensates blood pressure measurements using multiple pressure sensors.
US 2021/0379388 A1 to Connor; discloses a system which can measure blood pressure and compensates for ambient pressure surrounding the pressure sensor.
US 2015/0282720 A1 to Goldshtein et al; discloses a drift compensation for implanted capacitance-based pressure transducer.
US 2020/0367760 A1 to Klaassen et al; discloses a blood pressure monitor using a multi-function wrist worn device.
US 2022/0296115 A1 to Choi et al; discloses an apparatus and method for estimating bioinformation which corrects an initially measured value to compensate for external factors which affect the measurement.
US 2020/0205679 A1 to Fujita et al; discloses a blood pressure measurement device that compensates for external factors to correct the measured blood pressure.
US 2023/0068620 A1 to Tadele et al; discloses an adjustment or weighting of blood pressure in response to one or more biophysical or environmental conditions.
US 2019/0090761 A1 to Sawanoi et al; discloses a wearable blood pressure measuring cuff and sphygmomanometer.
US 2019/0307340 A1 to Fujii et al; discloses a blood pressure measurement device and method.
US 2019/0021612 A1 to Lin et al; discloses a wrist sphygmomanometer.
US 2020/0315463 A1 to Deno et al; discloses a blood pressure measurement device which accounts and compensates for environmental effects of the measurement.
US 2021/0282656 A1 to Li et al; discloses a blood pressure monitoring apparatus that utilizes machine learning to compensate and calculate an accurate blood pressure measurement.
US 2019/0307336 A1 to Fujii et al; discloses a pulse wave measurement device which calculates blood pressure utilizing a corresponding equations that correlates pulse transit time and blood pressure.
CN 113679365 A to Chen et al; discloses a blood pressure monitoring device which compensates for factors that affect the blood pressure measurement to provide a more accurate measurement.
CN 116807430 A to Chen et al; discloses a method for improving blood pressure measurement accuracy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J EISEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:00 AM - 4:00 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.
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights