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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) been submitted on 12/17/25, 07/18/25 and 01/31/25 have been considered by the examiner
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites a method operating a wearable device. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
detecting that a preset condition is met
an inflation time period for inflating the airbag is T seconds and T>o;
detecting a volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds
These limitations set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 21 recites inflating an airbag of the blood pressure detection component in response to detecting that the preset condition has been met, determining a wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds, and displaying the wearing detection result, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The inflation of an airbag in response to meeting a condition and determining a wearing detection result does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the system does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the model, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of:
a main body
a wrist strap
a blood pressure detection component
an airbag
Additionally, claims 22 and 32 recite the additional limitation
an air pump
The providing and recording steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the providing and recording steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 31 is rejected for substantially similar reasons
Dependent claims 23-30 and 33-40 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 21-40 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 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.
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.
Claims 21-26, 28-36 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuang (CN 112568884 A) and in further view of Woerlee (US 2017/0238824 A1)
Regarding claims 21 and 31, Kuang teaches a method operating a wearable device that comprises a main body, a wrist strap, and a blood pressure detection component [par. 7], the method comprising: detecting that a preset condition is met; inflating an airbag of the blood pressure detection component in response to detecting that the preset condition has been met, wherein an inflation time period for inflating the airbag is T seconds and T>o [par. 7, 61, 88]; and displaying [par. 72] the wearing detection result determining a wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the inflation rate [par. 61, 88, 91, 121]
However, Kuang does not teach detecting a volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds; determining a wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds;
Woerlee teaches detecting a volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds; determining a wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds [par. 26, 41, 68]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuang, to incorporate detecting a volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds; determining a wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds, as the rates at which volume of air is altered may be different between inflation and deflation, as evidence by Woerlee [par. 26]
Regarding claims 22 and 32, Kuang further teaches before inflating the airbag, the method further comprises: detecting performance of an air pump of the blood pressure detection component [par. 90]; and determining a first weight parameter based on the performance of the air pump [par. 90]; wherein determining the wearing detection result comprises determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the inflation rate of the airbag within the T seconds and the first weight parameter [par. 90, 121].
However, Kuang does not teach wherein determining the wearing detection result comprises determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds and the first weight parameter
Woerlee teaches wherein determining the wearing detection result comprises determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds and the first weight parameter [par. 26, 41, 68]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuang, to incorporate wherein determining the wearing detection result comprises determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds and the first weight parameter, as the rates at which volume of air is altered may be different between inflation and deflation, as evidence by Woerlee [par. 26]
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Kuang further teaches before inflating the airbag, the method further comprises: determining a wearing posture of a user [par. 81]; and determining a second weight parameter based on the wearing posture [par. 81]; wherein determining the wearing detection result comprises determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the inflation rate of the airbag within the T seconds, the first weight parameter, and the second weight parameter [par. 81, 88, 121].
However, Kuang does not teach wherein determining the wearing detection result comprises determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds, the first weight parameter, and the second weight parameter
Woerlee teaches wherein determining the wearing detection result comprises determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds, the first weight parameter, and the second weight parameter [par. 26, 41, 68]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuang, to incorporate wherein determining the wearing detection result comprises determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds, the first weight parameter, and the second weight parameter, as the rates at which volume of air is altered may be different between inflation and deflation, as evidence by Woerlee [par. 26]
Regarding claims 24 and 34, Kuang further teaches detecting the performance of the air pump comprises: inflating the airbag; performing deflation after a pressure of the airbag reaches a first pressure; and determining the performance of the air pump based on a deflation rate [par. 123]
Regarding claims 25 and 35, Kuang further teaches wherein detecting the performance of the air pump comprises: inflating the airbag; determining an inflation time period after a pressure of the airbag reaches a second pressure; and determining the performance of the air pump based on the inflation time period [par. 25, 123, 162]
Regarding claims 26 and 36, Kuang further teaches before inflating the airbag, the method further comprises: determining a wearing posture of a user [par. 81]; and determining a weight parameter based on the wearing posture [par. 81]; wherein determining the wearing detection result comprises determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the inflation rate of the airbag within the T seconds and the weight parameter [par. 81, 88, 121].
However, Kuang does not teach wherein determining the wearing detection result comprises determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds and the weight parameter
Woerlee teaches herein determining the wearing detection result comprises determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds and the weight parameter [par. 26, 41, 68]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuang, to incorporate herein determining the wearing detection result comprises determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device based on the volume expansion rate of the airbag within the T seconds and the weight parameter, as the rates at which volume of air is altered may be different between inflation and deflation, as evidence by Woerlee [par. 26]
Regarding claims 28 and 38, Kuang teaches the method further comprises: determining adjustment prompt information based on the inflation rate of the airbag within the T seconds [par. 122]; and displaying the adjustment prompt information [par. 122]
However, Kuang does not teach volume expansion rate
Woerlee teaches a volume expansion rate [par. 26, 41, 68]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuang, to incorporate a volume expansion rate, as the rates at which volume of air is altered may be different between inflation and deflation, as evidence by Woerlee [par. 26]
Regarding claims 29 and 39, Kuang further teaches wherein determining the wearing detection result of the wearable device comprises: determining that the wearable device is worn too loose in response to determining that the inflation rate of the airbag within the T seconds is greater than a first threshold [par. 121]; determining that the wearable device is worn too tight in response to determining that the inflation rate of the airbag within the T seconds is less than a second threshold [par. 122]; and determining that the wearable device is normally worn in response to determining that the inflation rate of the airbag within the T seconds is greater than or equal to the second threshold and is less than or equal to the first threshold [par. 120-123]
However, Kuang does not teach volume expansion rate
Woerlee teaches a volume expansion rate [par. 26, 41, 68]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuang, to incorporate a volume expansion rate, as the rates at which volume of air is altered may be different between inflation and deflation, as evidence by Woerlee [par. 26]
Regarding claims 30 and 40, Kuang further teaches wherein detecting that the preset condition is met comprises: detecting an operation of triggering physiological parameter measurement by a user [par. 94]; detecting an operation of triggering wearable device wearing detection by the user; or detecting that a difference between a measured physiological parameter value and an average value of physiological parameter values measured in a first time period is greater than a third threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE L ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-5pm.
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 publish
ed 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.
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights