DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: abbreviations should be defined prior to usage: “ANT” is never defined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the Figure labels are too small and contain brackets which are improper.
(u) Numbering of views.
(1) The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.” Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear.
(2) Numbers and letters identifying the views must be simple and clear and must not be used in association with brackets, circles, or inverted commas. The view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a pressure of a cuff in claim 1.
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 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 1-7 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.
Regarding the independent claims, the limitations (claim 1 representative) of “perform transmission processing of establishing a connection of near-field wireless communication with an information terminal…start the transmission processing at a timing before an end timing of the measurement processing and start the transmission processing when the output of the measurement sensor acquired in the first processing satisfies a condition necessary for deriving the blood pressure information” (emphasis added) renders the claims indefinite. The claims include functions of perform processing of establishing a connection but then include two separate “start” clauses. It is unclear if these are separate instances or are further limiting the same instance of “start” and thus replacing or alternatives. It is also not clear what ends an establishment if these are two separate starts as the claims merely establish connection singularly. The same issue persists in the dependent claims which each all claim new features related to the “start” of such communications, but again, the functions set forth are not clear what ends a communication already established to require a new start. As there is a great deal of uncertainty in the proper interpretation and scope, it would be improper to speculatively apply prior art rejections based on assumptions, In re Steele, see MPEP 2173.06
“Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” All claims are rejected.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because under a broadest reasonably interpretation the claims include carrier waves. The claim should include “non-transitory control recording medium” to overcome this aspect of the rejection. For compact prosecution purposes, claim 7 will be further evaluated under the Alice/Mayo analysis subsequently.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1
deriving blood pressure information based on the output (mathematical concepts in deriving blood pressure based on cuff pressure, mental process including pen and paper for determining pressures)
Claim 6
deriving blood pressure information based on the output (mathematical concepts in deriving blood pressure based on cuff pressure, mental process including pen and paper for determining pressures)
Claim 7
deriving blood pressure information based on the output (mathematical concepts in deriving blood pressure based on cuff pressure, mental process including pen and paper for determining pressures)
These claim limitations fall within the identified groupings of abstract ideas:
Mathematical Concepts:
mathematical relationships
mathematical formulas or equations
mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Under the step 2A, analysis is conducted on the additional features of the claim. Under this analysis, the additional features beyond the judicial exception are:
Claim 1
a near-field wireless communication unit (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data transmission)
a processor (computer structures used as a tool)
a measurement sensor (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data gathering); and,
an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a pressure of a cuff (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data gathering),
wherein the processor is configured to (computer structures used as a tool)
perform measurement processing including first processing of acquiring an output of the measurement sensor while changing the pressure of the cuff by controlling the adjustment mechanism, and second processing of decreasing the pressure of the cuff to a threshold or less by controlling the adjustment mechanism (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data gathering),
perform transmission processing of establishing a connection of near-field wireless communication with an information terminal (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data transmission), and
transmitting information obtained in the first processing from the near-field wireless communication unit to the information terminal (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data transmission)
start the transmission processing at a timing before an end timing of the measurement processing (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data transmission), and
start the transmission processing when the output of the measurement sensor acquired in the first processing satisfies a condition necessary for deriving the blood pressure information (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data transmission).
Claim 6
A control method for a blood pressure measurement device including a near-field wireless communication unit, a measurement sensor, and an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a pressure of a cuff (field of use, including features related to data gathering and transmission of data which are insignificant extra solution activities)
the control method causing a processor to execute steps of: (computer structures used as tools)
performing measurement processing including first processing of acquiring an output of the measurement sensor while changing the pressure of the cuff by controlling the adjustment mechanism, and second processing of decreasing the pressure of the cuff to a threshold or less by controlling the adjustment mechanism (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data gathering),
performing transmission processing of establishing a connection of near-field wireless communication with an information terminal, and transmitting information obtained in the first processing from the near-field wireless communication unit to the information terminal (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data transmission);
starting the transmission processing at a timing before an end timing of the measurement processing (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data transmission); and,
starting the transmission processing when the output of the measurement sensor acquired in the first processing satisfies a condition necessary for deriving the blood pressure information (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data transmission).
Claim 7
A control recording medium for a blood pressure measurement device including a near-field wireless communication unit, a measurement sensor, and an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a pressure of a cuff (field of use, including features related to data gathering and transmission of data which are insignificant extra solution activities)
the control recording medium causing a processor to execute steps of: (computer structures used as tools)
performing measurement processing including first processing of acquiring an output of the measurement sensor while changing the pressure of the cuff by controlling the adjustment mechanism, and second processing of decreasing the pressure of the cuff to a threshold or less by controlling the adjustment mechanism (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data gathering),
performing transmission processing of establishing a connection of near-field wireless communication with an information terminal, and transmitting information obtained in the first processing from the near-field wireless communication unit to the information terminal (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data transmission);
starting the transmission processing at a timing before an end timing of the measurement processing (insignificant extra solution activities involved in data transmission); and
starting the transmission processing when the output of the measurement sensor acquired in the first processing satisfies a condition necessary for deriving the blood pressure information(insignificant extra solution activities involved in data transmission).
These features in the claim do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements in the claim do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Limitation concepts that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitation concepts that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Under Step 2B, the claim limitations are evaluated for an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Analyzing the additional claim limitations individually, the additional limitation that are not directed to the abstract idea are the same as those identified in step 2A above. Such limitations related to the sensors are recognized by the courts as routine data gathering in order to input data to the mathematical algorithm, and thus, do not add a meaningful limitation to the system/method as it would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the mathematical algorithm. In addition, these sensor structures are known from general cuff systems, and include communication elements as taught in US 2022/0240794, US 2021/0161416, US 2022/0071522, US 2011/0295130, US 2014/0159912, US 2020/0085302, US 2020/0162435, and in general are generic sensors in generic locations producing the expected pressure related data signals. The computer structures cited above are claimed as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims are directed to further details on communication protocols for starting to establish communications which are insignificant to the claimed exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, analyzing the claims as an ordered combination under the Mayo/Alice analysis the features claimed are directed to patent ineligible limitations.
Conclusion
No prior art rejections have been speculatively applied to the claims as explained above, In re Steele. See MPEP 2173.06
“Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0240794, US 2021/0161416, US 2022/0071522, US 2011/0295130, US 2014/0159912, US 2020/0085302, US 2020/0162435 teach related systems and processes for measuring pressure, including validity of data, establishing near communications, and structures being claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights