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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 06/02/2026 (“Amendment”). Claims 1 and 3-13 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, and 11-13, as well as the cancellation of claim 2.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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: “sensor placement member” in claims 1, 7, 8, and 12.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2010-220949 A (“Futagami,” an English-language machine translation of which is provided and cited to herein) in view of JP 2020-048943 A (“Shinohara,” an English-language machine translation of which is provided and cited to herein) and US Patent Application Publication 2018/0301224 (“Matichuk”).
Regarding claim 1, Futagami teaches [a] pulse wave measuring device attachable to a subject to be measured (Abstract, first paragraph of the Description, etc.), comprising: a pulse wave sensor … (Figs. 1 and 2, sensor 13); a sensor placement member having an inner surface and an inner space defined by the inner surface, the pulse wave sensor being at least partially disposed in the inner space (Figs. 1 and 2, case 11 having an inner surface that surrounds/houses the sensor 13); a first curved member having one end connected to the sensor placement member (Fig. 2, band 16); a second curved member having one end connected to the sensor placement member (Fig. 2, hook 113); and a band member connected to another end of the first curved member and another end of the second curved member (Fig. 2, auxiliary band 17), wherein the first curved member and the second curved member are connected to opposite sides across the sensor placement member in a plan view (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2), wherein a curvature of the first curved member is different from a curvature of the second curved member (as shown in Fig. 2), wherein an inner circumferential length of the first curved member is longer than that of the second curved member (Fig. 2, as shown), … .
Futagami does not appear to explicitly teach the pulse wave sensor including at least one strain gauge (although the middle of page 3 does describe the sensor 13 having a piezoelectric detection element, a resistance detection element, etc.).
Shinohara teaches detecting a pulse wave via a strain gauge having a resistance detection element (the middle of page 8, a strain gauge outputting a stress signal based on a change in resistance value).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a strain gauge in Futagami as in Shinohara, since both contemplate detection via a resistance element, and for the purpose of detecting deformation of an elastic element (Shinohara: middle of page 8).
Futagami-Shinohara does not appear to explicitly teach wherein a center of the pulse wave sensor is offset toward the second curved member from a straight line parallel to an axial direction of the sensor placement member that passes through a center of a wrist of the subject to which the pulse wave measuring device is to be attached (although Futagami teaches offsetting the sensor towards the radial artery, as in Fig. 2, the offset is towards a long curved member and not a short curved member).
Matichuk teaches a band arrangement that locates a pulse sensor in proximity with the radial artery by locating it towards a short curved member (Figs. 1 and 3, sensor 110 is arranged closer to a shorter curved section (band/attachment structure 104) – also see ¶ 0094).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the location of the first and second curved members, thereby locating/offsetting the pulse sensor closer to the shorter curved member, as in Matichuk, since such modification would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts (See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)), and as the simple substitution of one attachment configuration for another with predictable results (locating the pulse sensor with respect to the radial artery).
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk further teaches a spring biasing the pulse wave sensor toward the subject, wherein the spring includes a coil spring (Figs. 2 and 3, coil spring 15).
Regarding claim 6, Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk further teaches wherein the band member has elasticity (towards the bottom of page 3, the auxiliary band 17 made of an elastic member such as rubber).
Regarding claim 7, Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk further teaches wherein the pulse wave sensor includes a strain body on which the at least one strain gauge is disposed (Futagami: Figs. 2 and 4, sensor elements 131 located on a substrate making up sensor 13, like Fig. 22 of Shinohara, where stress sensor 16 is on elastic body 91), and at least a portion of the pulse wave sensor is situated in the inner space of the sensor placement member and is held so as to be capable of moving in the axial direction of the sensor placement member (Futagami: Figs. 2 and 3, pressing means 140 and/or pressing members 14, as described on pages 3 and 4), and the strain body is exposed from the sensor placement member to be capable of contacting the subject (Futagami: Fig. 2, the substrate of sensor 13, contacting the wrist).
Regarding claim 8, Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk further teaches a lid member disposed on a side of the sensor placement member opposite to a direction in which the strain body is exposed (Futagami: Fig. 2, display 20 and windshield 112), wherein the lid member is provided with a marker aligned with a center of the strain body in a plan view (Shinohara: middle of page 9, describing a display 42 that includes a plurality of guide circles 83 displayed concentrically around a pressing position, with an arrow 82 superimposed thereon, for indicating a shift/deviation from the pressing position. Also see the rest of page 9. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this marker into Futagami, for the purpose of indicating a shift/deviation to thereby facilitate improved contact (Shinohara: middle of page 9)).
Regarding claim 12, Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk further teaches wherein the pulse wave sensor projects beyond the inner space of the sensor placement member toward the subject (Futagami: Fig. 2, projecting beyond the case 11 to contact the wrist).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk in view of US Patent Application Publication 2013/0218025 (“Tverskoy”).
Regarding claim 5, Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk teaches all the features with respect to claim 4, as outlined above. Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the spring includes a conical coil spring.
Tverskoy teaches using a conical coil spring as a spring element (¶ 0068).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a conical coil spring in the combination as the simple substitution of one spring element for another with predictable results (Tverskoy: ¶ 0066, providing a pressing force).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk in view of JP 59-083023 A (“Shimazoe,” an English-language machine translation of which is provided and cited to herein).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk teaches all the features with respect to claim 7, as outlined above. Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the strain body includes: a base part having a circular opening; an arm part bridging an inner side of the base part; and a load part provided on the arm part, wherein a pulse wave is to be detected based on a change in a resistance value of the at least one strain gauge in response to a deformation of the strain body, wherein the arm part has two arms intersecting in a cross shape in a plan view, wherein an intersecting region of the arms includes a center of the circular opening, and wherein the load part is provided in the intersecting region of the arms (but see the circular opening in Figs. 1 and 8 of Shinohara).
Shimazoe teaches a measurement diaphragm 10 (strain body) comprising a fixed section 30 (base section) provided with an opening (spanned by diaphragm part 36), two strain yielding parts 34 (beam sections) which bridge the inside of the fixed section 30, and intersect in a cross shape in a plan view, and a broad region in the center of the diaphragm (a load section provided in a region in which the beams intersect), in which the strain yielding parts 34 are provided (Fig. 4 and related description).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the strain body arrangement of Shimazoe into the combination, for the purpose of being able to generate a large sensor signal even with small forces (Shimazoe: Overview section on page 2). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a circular opening, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the choice of shape has no significant impact on the operation of the invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk-Shimazoe in view of US Patent 4,023,562 (“Hynecek”).
Regarding claim 11, Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk-Shimazoe teaches all the features with respect to claim 10, as outlined above. Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk-Shimazoe further teaches wherein the at least one strain gauge includes four strain gauges, wherein two of the four strain gauges are arranged [with respect to] the load part …, on one of the arms having a first direction as a longitudinal direction thereof, and the two of the four strain gauges are arranged so as to face each other with the load part interposed therebetween in a plan view, and wherein the other two of the four strain gauges are arranged on [with respect to] the base part …, on one of the arms having a second direction orthogonal to the first direction as a longitudinal direction thereof, and the other two of the four strain gauges are arranged so as to face each other with the load part interposed therebetween in a plan view (Shimazoe: Figs. 2 and 4, four strain gauges 38, arranged to be close to the load and base parts, opposite and facing each other, etc.), but does not appear to explicitly teach two of the strain gauges arranged on a side closer to the load part and the other two of the strain gauges arranged on a side closer to the base part.
Hynecek teaches two strain gauges being closer to a center than two other strain gauges, leading to different and complementary effects in terms of tension/compression (Figs. 1 and 2, col. 3, line 51 to col. 4, line 13).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the strain gauges of the combination as in Hynecek, i.e., with two closer to the load and two closer to the base, for the purpose of increasing sensitivity of the bridge circuit (Hynecek: col. 4, lines 1-13).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk in view of JP 11-183515 A (“Saito,” an English-language machine translation of which is provided and cited to herein).
Regarding claim 13, Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Futagami-Shinohara-Matichuk does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the at least one strain gauge includes a resistor formed of a Cr mixed phase film.
Saito teaches using a NiCrAl thin film resistor in a strain gauge (claim 2, ¶ 0024).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a resistor like the one of Saito in the combination as the simple substitution of one resistor for another with predictable results (Saito: page 2, Overview section, strain detection).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to the arguments and amendments regarding the interpretation of “sensor placement member” under 35 USC 112(f), the interpretation is maintained because an inner surface or space is not sufficient structure to perform the function of placing the sensor.
In response to the arguments and amendments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, they are persuasive to the extent that Futagami is not explicit about offsetting towards the second curved member. A new grounds of rejection is made in further view of Matichuk and all claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm PT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-5001. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights