Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 14, 2026
Application No. 18/984,769

SMART RING AND BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Dec 17, 2024
Priority
Apr 03, 2024 — CN 2024104059667
Examiner
CERIONI, DANIEL LEE
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Shenzhen Flysounds Medical Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 10m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% of resolved cases
65%
Career Allowance Rate
500 granted / 773 resolved
+4.7% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
77 currently pending
Career history
847
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§103
43.0%
+3.0% vs TC avg
§102
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
§112
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 773 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
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 (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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “when” (line 6) appears that it should be “and when.” Appropriate correction is required. 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(s) 2-3, 7, and 9 is/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. For claim 2, the claim language “when blood pressure of the user increases, the blood vessel of the finger deforms and expands to squeeze the skin, pressure generated through squeezing of the blood vessel is transmitted to the piezoelectric film sensor through the skin, the captured pressure is converted by the piezoelectric film sensor into an electric signal to generate the first information, and the first information is sent to the central processing unit” is ambiguous. The language is a run-on clause making it unclear what terms limit what phrases, thereby making the scope ambiguous. It appears that there needs to be some conjunctions inserted into the claim language to make it logically flow more smoothly. For claim 2, the claim term “the captured pressure” (line 5) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term. For claim 3, the claim language “when blood pressure of the user increases, an eddy and turbulence are generated when blood flows through the blood vessel, resulting in a louder blood flow sound in the blood vessel; the blood flow sound in the blood vessel of the finger is transmitted in a form of a mechanical wave to the bone conduction microphone through the skin, the captured sound intensity is converted by the bone conduction microphone into an electric signal to generate the second information, and the second information is sent to the central processing unit” is ambiguous. The language is a run-on clause making it unclear what terms limit what phrases, thereby making the scope ambiguous. It appears that there needs to be some conjunctions inserted into the claim language to make it logically flow more smoothly. For claim 7, the para “R” is not defined. The claim is examined as depending from claim 6. For claim 9, the claim language “when blood pressure of the user increases, the blood vessel of the finger deforms and expands to squeeze the skin, pressure generated through squeezing of the blood vessel is transmitted to the piezoelectric film sensor through the skin, the captured pressure is converted by the piezoelectric film sensor into an electric signal to generate the first information, and the first information is sent to the central processing unit” is ambiguous. The language is a run-on clause making it unclear what terms limit what phrases, thereby making the scope ambiguous. It appears that there needs to be some conjunctions inserted into the claim language to make it logically flow more smoothly. For claim 9, the claim term “the captured pressure” (line 5) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term. For claim 9, the claim language “when blood pressure of the user increases, an eddy and turbulence are generated when blood flows through the blood vessel, resulting in a louder blood flow sound in the blood vessel; the blood flow sound in the blood vessel of the finger is transmitted in a form of a mechanical wave to the bone conduction microphone through the skin, the captured sound intensity is converted by the bone conduction microphone into an electric signal to generate the second information, and the second information is sent to the central processing unit” is ambiguous. The language is a run-on clause making it unclear what terms limit what phrases, thereby making the scope ambiguous. It appears that there needs to be some conjunctions inserted into the claim language to make it logically flow more smoothly. 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. Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). For claim 1, the claim language “wherein the smart ring is worn on a finger of a user” encompasses a human organism because it requires the smart ring being worn on the user as part of the claim scope. The claim is examined as meaning “wherein the smart ring is configured to be worn on a finger of a user. For claim 8, the claim language “wherein the smart ring is worn on a finger of a user” encompasses a human organism because it requires the smart ring being worn on the user as part of the claim scope. The claim is examined as meaning “wherein the smart ring is configured to be worn on a finger of a user. Dependent claim(s) 2-7 and 9-10 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim(s) 1 and 8, thus claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0164876 to Hyde et al, discloses a smart ring (1000) (Fig. 15A) (para [0152]), wherein the smart ring is worn on a finger of a user (as can be seen in Fig. 15A), and the smart ring comprises: a ring structure (1604) (Fig. 15B) (para [0153]), a piezoelectric film sensor (“piezoelectric thin film sensor,” para [0191]) and a bone conduction microphone (“microphone,” para [0204]); a central processing unit (1608) (Fig. 15B) (para [0153]) disposed in the ring structure (as can be seen in Fig. 15B). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0247352 to Yuan et al. (hereinafter “Yuan”) discloses an acoustic transducer (520) (Fig. 5) (para [0130]) as a piezoelectric layer (para [0009]) and a bone conduction microphone (500) (Fig. 5) (para [0138}) that is in the inside of a ring shape (see Fig. 5) U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0074056 to Sanchez teaches the smart ring further comprises a light (para [0041]). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0112199 to Nakamura discloses the piezoelectric film sensor (para [0053]) is configured to capture deformation of a blood vessel of the finger to generate first information (para [0059]). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0096000 to Boesen discloses a bone conduction microphone configured to capture sound intensity of blood flow (para [0074] and/or [0080]). However, none of the prior art of record anticipates nor renders obvious the ordered combination of elements recited in the claim(s). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT. 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (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 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. /DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 17, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12697071
DEEP LEARNING LYME DISEASE DIAGNOSIS
5y 4m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12678068
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR BREATH SAMPLING AND BREATH ANALYSIS
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12678074
INSTALLATION UNIT OF ANALYTE DETECTION DEVICE
2y 3m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12672810
APPARATUS FOR MEASURING PUSHES DURING LABOR
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12661063
INTRAOPERATIVE NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL MONITORING SYSTEM
5y 2m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+28.5%)
3y 6m (~1y 10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 773 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month