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.
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: “a guide portion” in claim 5.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, there is no description of the loop portion actually folding back the band. Presumably the user does the folding back.
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein a first end of both ends of the curler overlaps a second end of the both ends when the blood pressure measurement device is attached to the living body having a shortest length in a circumferential direction of at least the living body to which attachment is expected” is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation of “both ends of the curler,” since the curler need not necessarily only have two ends. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation of “the living body,” especially in the context of “expected” attachment. What defines the expectation? The phrase “attached to the living body having a shortest length in a circumferential direction of at least the living body to which attachment is expected” at least due to grammar issues. Along these lines, the terms “expected” and “shortest” are unclear because they are relative terms which have not been defined. And, it is unclear whether the first end overlaps the second or the second overlaps the first, since both configurations are recited.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “a first end of the curler” is unclear because claim 1 already recites a first end. Is reference being made to the same or a new/different first end?
The terms “low-hardness” and “high-hardness” in claims 3 and 8 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear what thresholds define a low and high hardness material.
Similarly in claim 3, it is unclear what makes something “less likely” to stretch.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation of “the outer surface.”
Claims 2-9 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
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, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2021/0307630 (“Sano’630”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0112412 (“Sano’412”).
Regarding claim 1, Sano’630 teaches [a] blood pressure measurement device (Title) comprising: a device body (Fig. 27, device main body 3); a curler fixed to the device body (Fig. 27, curler 5); a fluid bag fixed to an inner surface of the curler and inflated by a fluid (Fig. 27, pressing cuff 71 or sensing cuff 73); and a band provided integrally with an outer surface of the curler or the outer surface of the curler and an outer surface of the fluid bag (¶ 0092, belt 4, Figs. 1, 3, 27, etc.) …, wherein a first end of both ends of the curler overlaps a second end of the both ends when the blood pressure measurement device is attached to the living body having a shortest length in a circumferential direction of at least the living body to which attachment is expected, and the first end of the curler has a smaller radius of curvature than the second end overlapping the first end of the curler (Fig. 27, portion 5h is overlapped by portion 5g, and portion 5h has a smaller radius of curvature in at least one section - also see Fig. 14, ¶¶s 0191, 0096, and 0097, etc.).
Sano’630 does not appear to explicitly teach the band including a hook-and-loop fastener on an outer surface of the band.
Sano’412 teaches using a hook and loop fastener to secure a blood pressure cuff (¶ 0054).
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 hook and loop fasteners to secure the device of Sano’630, as in Sano’412, as the simple substitution of one known securing arrangement for another with predictable results (attachment around the body part - also see Sano’412: ¶ 0054).
Regarding claim 2, Sano’630-Sano’412 teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Sano’630-Sano’412 further teaches wherein the curler is formed longer than a length of the fluid bag in a longitudinal direction (Sano’630: as shown in Fig. 27) and is formed to be elastically deformable to follow a shape of an attachment site of a living body in a circumferential direction (Sano’630: Abstract), and the band is provided on an outer circumferential surface of the curler and extends from a first end of the curler (Sano’630: Figs. 1, 3, 27, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Sano’630-Sano’412 teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Sano’630-Sano’412 further teaches wherein the curler is made of a low-hardness material (Sano’630: ¶ 0103, a hardness that provides flexibility) and includes a fixed portion fixed to the device body and into which a high-hardness material having a hardness higher than a hardness of the low-hardness material is inserted (Sano’630: ¶ 0099, an insert member 5d that reinforces the curler, which suggests that it is higher hardness. The screws that go through holes 5e are also considered higher hardness), and the band is made of a material that is less likely to stretch than the curler (Sano’630: ¶¶s 0086, 0090, 0092 (the belt elastically deforms the curler), 0093, etc.; also note, as above in e.g. ¶ 0099, that the curler requires reinforcement. 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 material for the belt that is less likely to stretch than the material for the curler, for the purpose of reinforcing the curler along other portions of the wrist (Sano’630: ¶ 0099).
Regarding claim 8, Sano’630-Sano’412 teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Sano’630-Sano’412 further teaches wherein the curler is formed of a fixed portion made of a low-hardness material (Sano’630: ¶ 0103, a hardness that provides flexibility) and a high-hardness material inserted into the low-hardness material and having a hardness higher than a hardness of the low-hardness material (Sano’630: ¶ 0099, an insert member 5d that reinforces the curler, which suggests that it is higher hardness. The screws that go through holes 5e are also considered higher hardness), the fixed portion being fixed to the device body (Sano’630: ¶ 0099, fixed to the back cover 35), and the outer surface of the fluid bag is integrally fixed to the fixed portion and the band (Sano’630: as shown in Figs. 1, 3, 27, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Sano’630-Sano’412 teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Sano’630-Sano’412 further teaches a sensor provided on an inner surface of a first end portion of the curler and separated from the fluid bag in a longitudinal direction of the curler and configured to detect information on a living body (Sano’630: Fig. 3, pressure sensors 17A and 17B, considered as located at portions 93, 84, etc., as shown in Fig. 8 (which also shows the arrangement with respect to the curler)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano’630-Sano’412 in view of US Patent Application Publication 2005/0234351 (“Nishii”).
Regarding claim 4, Sano’630-Sano’412 teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Sano’630-Sano’412 does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the device body includes a loop portion configured to fold back the band.
Nishii teaches a variety of different securing arrangements for securing a measuring device to the wrist. One such arrangement includes a device body with a loop portion configured to fold back a band (e.g. Fig. 9C).
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 the loop-based securing arrangement of Nishii in the combination, as the simple substitution of one known securing arrangement for another with predictable results (Nishii: ¶ 0011, contacting/securing against the living body, including e.g. urging the device against the living body).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano’630-Sano’412 in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0184926 (“Doi”).
Regarding claim 5, Sano’630-Sano’412 teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Sano’630-Sano’412 does not appear to explicitly teach a guide portion configured to guide the second end overlapping the first end of the curler to an outer side of the first end.
Doi teaches a guide portion including a protrusion configured to guide overlap of a strap (Figs. 2, 6, ¶¶s 0147, 0148, etc., via frame member 30).
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 implement the guide portion of Doi into the combination, for the purpose of guiding the overlap (Doi: ¶ 0147) already contemplated by Sano’630 (Fig. 27, portion 5h being overlapped by portion 5g - also see Fig. 14, ¶¶s 0191, 0096, and 0097, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Sano’630-Sano’412-Doi teaches all the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above. Sano’630-Sano’412-Doi further teaches wherein the guide portion is a protrusion provided at the first end or the second end of the curler and configured to move the second end to an outer side (Doi: a guide portion including a protrusion configured to guide overlap of a strap (Figs. 2, 6, ¶¶s 0147, 0148, etc., via frame member 30)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano’630-Sano’412-Doi in view of US Patent Application Publication 2025/0114040 (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 7, Sano’630-Sano’412-Doi teaches all the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above. Sano’630-Sano’412-Doi does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the guide portion is a sheet member provided on an inner surface of the band, configured to cover an end portion of the fluid bag and extending from the curler.
Yang teaches a guide portion that is a sheet member provided on an inner surface of a band, acts as a curler, and facilitates overlapping (Fig. 5, memory metal portion 302 - also see ¶ 0111).
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 implement the memory metal portion of Yang into the combination, e.g. with respect to the belt, thereby covering an end portion of the fluid bag (e.g. when worn as shown in Sano’630: Fig. 4) and extending from the curler (as shown in Sano’630: Figs. 1, 3, and 27), for the purpose of conferring a natural arc-shape to the belt and thereby facilitate secure attachment (Yang: ¶ 0111).
Conclusion
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