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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “a monitor for identifying wavelength deviations Δλir” should read “a monitor for identifying wavelength deviations Δλir between each respective pulse”
In Claim 1, “a pulse oximeter for...” should read “a pulse oximeter configured for...”.
In Claim 1, “a sphygmomanometer for...” should read “a sphygmomanometer configured for...”.
In Claim 1, “a monitor for...” should read “a monitor configured for...”.
In Claim 1, “a computer for...” should read “a computer configured for...”.
In Claim 1, “a display for...” should read “a display configured for...”.
In Claim 5, the period after the word “ps” should be replaced by a comma.
In Claim 13, “Δλir” should read “±Δλir”.
In Claim 17, the period after the word “measurement” should be replaced by a comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “means” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“means” is linked with the transitional word “for” and modified by the functional language “measuring a pulse rate, and changes in blood oxygen saturation levels in a blood pulse”
“means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on [0019] and [0052] as pulse oximeter and equivalents thereof.
Claim 9 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “means” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“means” is linked with the transitional word “for” and modified by the functional language “preselecting a same blood oxygen saturation level for each pulse having a unique infrared color wavelength λir”
“means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on [0025] and Fig. 2 as a computer system and equivalents thereof.
Claim 9 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “means” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“means” is linked with the transitional word “for” and modified by the functional language “measuring a blood pressure p of the patient, wherein the blood pressure measurement includes a systolic pressure ps and a diastolic pressure pd”
“means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on [0013], [0019], [0022], and [0052] as a sphygmomanometer and equivalents thereof.
Claim 9 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “means” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“means” is linked with the transitional word “for” and modified by the functional language “identifying wavelength deviations of ±Δλir between consecutive pulses”
“means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on [0012], [0020], and Fig. 2 as a computer system and equivalents thereof.
Claim 9 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “means” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“means” is linked with the transitional word “for” and modified by the functional language “correlating the systolic pressure ps with the infrared color wavelength λir”
“means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on [0024] and Fig. 2 as a computer system and equivalents thereof.
and equivalents thereof.
Claim 9 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “means” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“means” is linked with the transitional word “for” and modified by the functional language “summing the wavelength deviations Δλir in a sequence of blood pulses to establish a cumulative Σ±Δλir”
“means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on [0012], [0020], and Fig. 2 as a computer system and equivalents thereof.
Claim 9 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “means” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“means” is linked with the transitional word “for” and modified by the functional language “presenting Σ±Δλir as an indicator of blood flow trends”
“means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on [0012], [0041] and Fig. 2 as a visual display and equivalents thereof.
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 1-20 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 1 recites “a pulse oximeter for measuring a pulse rate, and for indicating changes in blood oxygen saturation levels within a blood pulse, wherein each pulse has a unique infrared color wavelength λir ” and “a computer for correlating λir with the systolic pressure ps”. As multiple pulses with unique color wavelengths λir are claimed, it is unclear which color wavelength λir the second clause is referring to. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “a computer for correlating λir in each pulse with the systolic pressure ps”.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “wherein λir is arbitrarily taken from the invisible segment of the color spectrum of the blood pulse”. As multiple pulses with unique color wavelengths λir are claimed in parent Claim 1, it is unclear which color wavelength λir Claim 3 is referring to. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “wherein λir is arbitrarily taken from the invisible segment of the color spectrum of [[the]] each blood pulse”.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the number of wavelength deviations summed in a sequence for λir(base) is equal to the number of pulses occurring in the blood pressure measurement taken between ps and pd”. The acronym “λir(base)” is undefined by the claims and the applicant’s written description, and therefore it is unclear what this acronym means, and the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “wherein the number of wavelength deviations summed in a sequence during the predetermined time period is equal to the number of pulses occurring in the blood pressure measurement taken between ps and pd”.
Claim 7 recites “an alarm feature which is activated whenever Σ±Δλir exceeds a predetermined value within a predetermined time period”. It is unclear if this predetermined time period is referring to the previously mentioned predetermined time period in parent Claim 1, or a different predetermined time period. For the purposes of substantive examination, it is presumed this predetermined time period is referring to the previously mentioned predetermined time period in parent Claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “a means for preselecting a same blood oxygen saturation level for each pulse having a unique infrared color wavelength λir ” and “a means for correlating the systolic pressure ps with the infrared color wavelength λir”. As multiple pulses with unique color wavelengths λir are claimed, it is unclear which color wavelength λir the second clause is referring to. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “a means for correlating the systolic pressure ps with the infrared color wavelength λir of each pulse”.
Claims 10-15 are rejected by virtue of dependence on Claim 9.
Claim 11 recites “wherein λir is arbitrarily taken for preselection from the invisible segment of the color spectrum of the blood pulse”. As multiple pulses with unique color wavelengths λir are claimed in parent Claim 9, it is unclear which color wavelength λir Claim 11 is referring to. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “wherein λir is arbitrarily taken for preselection from the invisible segment of the color spectrum of [[the]] each blood pulse”.
Claim 14 recites “wherein Σ±Δλir(base) is visually displayed to monitor blood flow trends in the patient’s vasculature”. The acronym “λir(base)” is undefined by the claims and the applicant’s written description, and therefore it is unclear what this acronym means, and the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “wherein ) Σ±Δλir(base) is visually displayed to monitor blood flow trends in the patient’s vasculature”.
Claim 16 recites “preselecting a same blood oxygen saturation level for each pulse having a unique infrared color wavelength λir” and “correlating the systolic pressure ps with the infrared color wavelength λir”. As multiple pulses with unique color wavelengths λir are claimed, it is unclear which color wavelength λir the second clause is referring to. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “correlating the systolic pressure ps with the infrared color wavelength λir of each pulse”.
Claims 17-20 are rejected by virtue of dependence on Claim 16.
Claim 20 recites “wherein Σ±Δλir(base) is visually displayed to monitor blood flow trends in the patient’s vasculature”. The acronym “λir(base)” is undefined by the claims and the applicant’s written description, and therefore it is unclear what this acronym means, and the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “wherein ) Σ±Δλir(base is visually displayed to monitor blood flow trends in the patient’s vasculature”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites “wherein ps is considered an indicator of blood flow”. However, parent Claim 1 already recites “a sphygmomanometer for measuring a blood pressure p of the patient, wherein the pressure measurement includes a systolic pressure ps and a diastolic pressure pd, wherein ps is an indicator of blood flow”. Therefore, Claim 5 fails to further limit the claimed invention.
Claims 6-8 are rejected by virtue of dependence on Claim 5.
Claim 19 recites “The method of claim 18 wherein ps and Δλir are considered as an indicator of blood flow”. However, parent Claim 16 already recites “wherein ps is considered an indicator of blood flow”. Therefore, Claim 19 reciting “wherein ps [is] considered as an indicator of blood flow” fails to further limit the claimed invention.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 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 1, the claim recites a system for monitoring blood flow trends in the vasculature of a patient. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One). The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
identifying wavelength deviations Δλir, and for summing these deviations Σ±Δλir over a predetermined time period
correlating λir with the systolic pressure ps
wherein Σ±Δλir is based on values of λir correlated with pressure ps, and are used as indications of blood flow trends during the predetermined time period
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps.
For example:
The plain meaning of the limitation “identifying wavelength deviations Δλir, and for summing these deviations Σ±Δλir over a predetermined time period” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “correlating λir with the systolic pressure ps” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “wherein Σ±Δλir is based on values of λir correlated with pressure ps, and are used as indications of blood flow trends during the predetermined time period” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two).
The following limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
a pulse oximeter for measuring a pulse rate, and for indicating changes in blood oxygen saturation levels within a blood pulse, wherein each pulse has a unique infrared color wavelength λir
a sphygmomanometer for measuring a blood pressure p of the patient, wherein the pressure measurement includes a systolic pressure ps and a diastolic pressure pd, wherein ps is an indicator of blood flow
The following limitations amount to a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and/or nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
a monitor for...
a computer for...
Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the identified judicial exception (Step 2B):
The following limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially similar reasons applied in Step 2A, Prong Two.
a pulse oximeter for measuring a pulse rate, and for indicating changes in blood oxygen saturation levels within a blood pulse, wherein each pulse has a unique infrared color wavelength λir
a sphygmomanometer for measuring a blood pressure p of the patient, wherein the pressure measurement includes a systolic pressure ps and a diastolic pressure pd, wherein ps is an indicator of blood flow
a monitor for...
a computer for...
The following limitations is/are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC).
The pulse oximeter is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 11/30/2024 (“It is another object of the present invention to provide methodological information regarding how a common pulse oximeter can be modified to provide a source of information pertaining to trends in a patient’s blood flow”, [0008]; “Structurally, a system for measuring the blood flow of a patient in accordance with the present invention includes a pulse oximeter of any type well known in the pertinent art”, [0010]).
The sphygmomanometer is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 11/30/2024 (“It is routine in clinical practice to measure a patient’s peak systolic pressure together with his/her comparable diastolic pressure during a heartbeat”, [0003]; see [0019], [0052]).
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites a method for monitoring blood flow trends in the vasculature of a patient. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One). The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
preselecting a same blood oxygen saturation level for each pulse having a unique infrared color wavelength λir
wherein ps is considered an indicator of blood flow
identifying wavelength deviations of ±Δλir between consecutive pulses
correlating the systolic pressure ps with the infrared color wavelength λir
summing the wavelength deviations Δλir in a sequence of blood pulses to establish a cumulative Σ±Δλir
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps.
For example:
The plain meaning of the limitation “preselecting a same blood oxygen saturation level for each pulse having a unique infrared color wavelength λir” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “wherein ps is considered an indicator of blood flow” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “ identifying wavelength deviations of ±Δλir between consecutive pulses” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “ correlating the systolic pressure ps with the infrared color wavelength” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “summing the wavelength deviations Δλir in a sequence of blood pulses to establish a cumulative Σ±Δλir” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two).
The following limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
measuring a pulse rate, and changes in blood oxygen saturation levels in a blood pulse
measuring a blood pressure p of the patient, wherein the blood pressure measurement includes a systolic pressure ps and a diastolic pressure pd
presenting Σ±Δλir as an indicator of blood flow trends
Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the identified judicial exception (Step 2B):
The following limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially similar reasons applied in Step 2A, Prong Two.
measuring a pulse rate, and changes in blood oxygen saturation levels in a blood pulse
measuring a blood pressure p of the patient, wherein the blood pressure measurement includes a systolic pressure ps and a diastolic pressure pd
presenting Σ±Δλir as an indicator of blood flow trends
There are no additional limitations to analyze under the Berkheimer Standard (Step 2B).
Independent Claim 9 is also not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons as it recites the same abstract idea(s) and additional element(s) as Claim 16 and Claim 1 but as an apparatus-type claim.
Dependent Claim 2 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 3 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 4 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 5 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 6 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 7 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 8 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 10 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 11 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 12 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 13 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 14 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application (“wherein the means for measuring pulse rate and oxygen saturation levels is an oximeter, wherein the means for measuring blood pressure is a sphygmomanometer, and the means for correlating and summing is a computer”), and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea (“wherein the means for measuring pulse rate and oxygen saturation levels is an oximeter, wherein the means for measuring blood pressure is a sphygmomanometer, and the means for correlating and summing is a computer”).
Dependent Claim 14 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 15 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 16 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 17 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 18 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 19 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 20 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes Claims 1-20 are not currently rejected under prior art.
Regarding Claim 1, there is no prior art reference or obvious combination of references in the same field of invention that discloses a monitor for identifying wavelength deviations Δλir, and for summing these deviations Σ±Δλir over a predetermined time period; a computer for correlating λir with the systolic pressure ps; and a display for presenting the summed wavelength deviations Σ±Δλir, wherein Σ±Δλir is based on values of λir correlated with pressure ps, and are used as indications of blood flow trends during the predetermined time period.
Regarding Claim 9, there is no prior art reference or obvious combination of references in the same field of invention that discloses a means for identifying wavelength deviations of ±Δλir between consecutive pulses; a means for correlating the systolic pressure ps with the infrared color wavelength λir; a means for summing the wavelength deviations Δλir in a sequence of blood pulses to establish a cumulative Σ±Δλir; and a means for presenting Σ±Δλir as an indicator of blood flow trends.
Regarding Claim 16, there is no prior art reference or obvious combination of references in the same field of invention that discloses identifying wavelength deviations of ±Δλir between consecutive pulses; correlating the systolic pressure ps with the infrared color wavelength λir; summing the wavelength deviations Δλir in a sequence of blood pulses to establish a cumulative Σ±Δλir; and presenting Σ±Δλir as an indicator of blood flow trends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Thomas (US 5435309 A).
See Addison (US 20140316286 A1) ([0084]).
See Sterling et al (US 7215987 B1).
See Xu (US 20230133936 A1) ([0007]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-2860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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.
/JONATHAN E. COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights