DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2025 and 09/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite computing the mean arterial pressure (MAP) which is a formula description that is considered a mathematical concept grouping; thus, an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is merely an implementation of abstract idea on a computer, or merely a using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite only the name of the formula and its corresponding variables for usage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothkopf (Pub. No.: US 2016/0378069, Applicant’s IDS filed 06/20/2025) in view of Pantelopoulos et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0209055, Applicant’s IDS filed 06/20/2025) and further in view of Park et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0076032, Applicant’s IDS filed 06/20/2025).
Consider claims 1, 16, Rothkopf discloses a blood pressure monitoring device (paragraph [0084], Fig. 2, device 100 to compute blood pressure) comprising:
a case (paragraph [0070], Fig. 1, device body 11 to includes a housing) and a strap adapted to hold the case against the wrist of the patient (paragraph [0073], Fig. 1, band 12 or strap configured to attach to the body and provide a loop for securing to the wrist of the user);
a first PPG sensor (paragraph [0084], Fig. 2, biosensors 118 may include a light source and a photodetector to form a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor) aimed at a pulse wave of blood in the wrist when the case is strapped to the wrist (paragraph [0195], output of the two detectors may be used to detect a pulse wave of blood as it passes beneath the respective detectors to compensate for movement of the user);
a second PPG sensor (paragraph [0084], Fig. 2, biosensors 118 may include a light source and a photodetector to form a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor) aimed at a pulse wave of blood in the wrist when the case is strapped to the wrist (paragraph [0195], output of the two detectors may be used to detect a pulse wave of blood as it passes beneath the respective detectors to compensate for movement of the user); and
a processor arranged (Figs. 2, 19, processor 102) within the case (paragraph [0221], Figs. 2, 19, device 100 may include one or more electronic components located within the housing 601) and operable to: compute a plurality of features from PPG waveform data generated by the PPG sensors (paragraph [0084], optical (e.g., PPG) sensors may be used to compute various health metrics including a heart rate, a respiration rate, blood oxygenation level, a blood volume estimate, blood pressure, or a combination thereof).
Rothkopf does not specifically disclose the PPG sensors within the case and spaced apart.
Pantelopoulos discloses the PPG sensors within the case (paragraph [0158], Fig. 8, biometric sensors including a PPG sensor contained in a housing structure and paragraph [0210], Fig. 10C, PPG sensor (light sources and photodetector) with optically transparent layer within the device body or case) and spaced apart (paragraph [0116], PPG sensor LEDs spaced apart).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the case as disclosed by Rothkopf with the case as taught by Pantelopoulos in order to improve the PPG signal for pulse waveform analysis (Pantelopoulos, paragraphs [0116]).
The combination of Rothkopf and Pantelopoulos does not specifically disclose the PPG sensors aimed at the artery in the wrist and computing the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features.
Park discloses the PPG sensors aimed at the artery in the wrist (paragraph [0049], measuring a plurality of PPG signals from on the skin surface of the wrist where the radial artery passes) and computing the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features (paragraph [0053], extract a pulse wave value at a maximum peak point of the oscillometric waveform as a feature point for calculating the mean arterial pressure (MAP)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the PPG sensors as disclosed by the combination of Rothkopf and Pantelopoulos with the PPG sensors as taught by Park in order to measure blood pressure by applying the extracted feature points to a blood pressure measurement model (Park, paragraph [0053]).
Consider claims 3, 18, the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park discloses wherein one of the plurality of features comprises: diastolic velocity, systolic velocity, systolic volume, diastolic volume, diastolic distance, systolic distance, heart rate, diastolic time, and /or systolic time (paragraph [0084], optical (e.g., PPG) sensors may be used to compute a heart rate).
Consider claim 4, the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park discloses wherein the processor is further operable to compute diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (Pantelopoulos, paragraph [0112], paragraph [0108], diastolic pressure).
Consider claim 5, the combination of Rothkopf and Pantelopoulos does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is further operable to compute systolic blood pressure based on the computed the MAP and DBP.
Park discloses wherein the processor is further operable to compute systolic blood pressure based on the computed the MAP and DBP (paragraph [0053] and [0078], extracting pulse wave values, which are at points to the left and right of the maximum peak point (mean arterial pressure (MAP)) of the oscillometric waveform and have 0.5 to 0.7 of the value at the maximum peak point, as features points for calculating the systolic blood pressure (SBP) and the diastolic blood pressure (DBP)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the processor as disclosed by the combination of Rothkopf and Pantelopoulos with the processor as taught by Park in order to measure blood pressure by applying the extracted feature points to a blood pressure measurement model (Park, paragraph [0078]).
Consider claim 6, the combination of Rothkopf and Park discloses wherein the case further houses a battery (Rothkopf, paragraph [0141], Figs. 7, 19, housing 601 houses battery 114 (see Fig. 2)) and memory (Fig. 19, housing 601 houses memory 104 (see Fig. 2)).
The combination of Rothkopf and Park does not specifically disclose the case further houses PPG electronics.
Pantelopoulos discloses the case further houses PPG electronics (paragraph [0158], Figs. 7, 8, biometric sensors including a PPG sensor contained in a housing structure and paragraph [0210], Fig. 10C, PPG sensor (light sources and photodetector) within the device body or case).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the case as disclosed by combination of Rothkopf and Park with the case as taught by Pantelopoulos in order to provide flexibility in the PPG sensor implementation by elimination of the PPG sensor protrusion from the housing (Pantelopoulos, paragraph [0210]).
Consider claim 8, the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park discloses a display (paragraph [0070], Figs. 1, 2, device body 11 includes a display 120), and wherein the strap, case and display collectively form a wrist watch-like shape (paragraph [0073], Fig. 1, band 12 configured to attach to the body 11 and provide a loop for securing to the wrist of the user).
Consider claim 10, the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park discloses wherein the MAP computing is performed without use of ECG data (Park, processor 120 may extract a pulse wave value at a maximum peak point of the oscillometric waveform as a feature point for calculating the mean arterial pressure (MAP); thus, without use of ECG data).
Consider claim 11, Rothkopf discloses a blood pressure monitoring device (paragraph [0084], Fig. 2, device 100 to compute blood pressure) comprising:
a case (paragraph [0070], Fig. 1, device body 11 to includes a housing) and a window (paragraph [0202], Fig. 16, rear cover 608 includes an array of windows) adapted to be held against the skin of the patient (paragraph [0109], Fig. 5, a body or device that is adapted to attach to one or more bands or straps used to attach the device to the body of a user);
at least one sensor modality (paragraph [0084], Fig. 2, biosensors 118 may include a light source and a photodetector to form a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor); and
a processor (Figs. 2, 19, processor 102) arranged operable to: compute a plurality of features from data arising from the sensor modality (paragraph [0084], optical (e.g., PPG) sensors may be used to compute various health metrics including a heart rate, a respiration rate, blood oxygenation level, a blood volume estimate, blood pressure, or a combination thereof).
Rothkopf does not specifically disclose the PPG sensors arranged within the case.
Pantelopoulos discloses the PPG sensors arranged within the case (paragraph [0158], Fig.8, biometric sensors including a PPG sensor contained in a housing structure and paragraph [0210], Fig. 10C, PPG sensor (light sources and photodetector) with optically transparent layer within the device body or case).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the case as disclosed by Rothkopf with the case as taught by Pantelopoulos in order to provide flexibility in the PPG sensor implementation by elimination of the PPG sensor protrusion from the housing (Pantelopoulos, paragraph [0210]).
The combination of Rothkopf and Pantelopoulos does not specifically disclose computing the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features.
Park discloses computing the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features (paragraph [0053], extract a pulse wave value at a maximum peak point of the oscillometric waveform as a feature point for calculating the mean arterial pressure (MAP)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the processor as disclosed by the combination of Rothkopf and Pantelopoulos with the processor as taught by Park in order to measure blood pressure by applying the extracted feature points to a blood pressure measurement model (Park, paragraph [0053]).
Consider claim 12, the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park discloses wherein the at least one sensor modality comprises a PPG sensor modality comprising a first PPG sensor and second PPG sensor (paragraph [0084], Fig. 2, biosensors 118 may include a light source and a photodetector to form a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor) aimed through the window towards the artery (paragraph [0195], output of the two detectors may be used to detect a pulse wave of blood (i.e., via an artery) as it passes beneath the respective detectors to compensate for movement of the user).
Consider claim 13, the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park discloses wherein the MAP computing is performed without use of ECG data (Park, processor 120 may extract a pulse wave value at a maximum peak point of the oscillometric waveform as a feature point for calculating the mean arterial pressure (MAP); thus, without use of ECG data).
Consider claim 14, the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park discloses wherein one of the plurality of features comprises: diastolic velocity, systolic velocity, systolic volume, diastolic volume, diastolic distance, systolic distance, heart rate, diastolic time, and /or systolic time (paragraph [0084], optical (e.g., PPG) sensors may be used to compute a heart rate).
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park in view of Klassen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0340209, Applicant’s IDS filed 06/20/2025).
Consider claims 2, 15, the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park does not disclose wherein computing MAP is further based on a predetermined proportionality coefficient associated with the user, wherein the proportionality coefficient is initially computed and based on measuring blood pressure using a second type of blood pressure measurement device.
Klassen discloses wherein computing MAP is further based on a predetermined proportionality coefficient associated with the user (paragraphs [0074] to [0100], see equations 2 and 3, where coefficient “K” is suitable for the subject and the arterial tree segment over which PIT is being measured), wherein the proportionality coefficient is initially computed and based on measuring blood pressure using a second type of blood pressure measurement device (paragraph [0084], value of (K) can be determined using the approach of an oscillometric blood pressure measurement cuff used to measure one or more blood pressure values for the subject).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the processor as disclosed by the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park with the processor as taught by Klassen in order provide suitable calibration data to be formulated using the oscillometric blood pressure measurement cuff measured blood pressure values (Klassen, paragraph [0084]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park in view of Leboeuf et al. (Pub. No.: WO 2021/046237, Applicant’s IDS filed 06/20/2025).
Consider claim 7, the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park does not specifically disclose a trained machine learning model for determining the MAP based on the plurality of features extracted from the PPG waveform data.
Leboeuf discloses a trained machine learning model for determining the MAP based on the plurality of features extracted from the PPG waveform data (page 32 lines 21-34, machine learning algorithm that is configured to receive input from a subject PPG sensor to output an estimation for subject blood pressure (such as systolic, diastolic, or mean arterial blood pressure)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the device as disclosed by the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park with the device as taught by Leboeuf in order to output an estimation for subject blood pressure to include the mean arterial blood pressure without requiring a calibration by the user (Leboeuf, page 32 lines 21-34).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park in view of Coakley et al. (Pat. No.: US 11,850,071, Applicant’s IDS filed 06/20/2025).
Consider claims 9, 17, the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park does not specifically disclose a location module for alerting the user to an optimal position on the wrist to strap the case thereto as the user adjusts the position of the case along the user’s wrist.
Coakley discloses a location module for alerting the user to an optimal position on the wrist to strap the case thereto as the user adjusts the position of the case along the user’s wrist (col. 11, line 37 – col. 12, line 2, Fig. 7, specific instructions may be provided to the user for how to correct the fitting of the device with respect to the placement of the device such that a fit signature is within the accepted range; col. 17, lines 1-5, when the first fit signature is outside the predetermined range, the notification prompting the user to adjust the position of the wearable device and col. 6, lines 42-45, wherein device 200 is wearable being worn in a manner such that skin sensor 206 has good contact with the skin on the user's wrist).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention replace the device as disclosed by the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park with the device as taught by Coakley in order to ensure the orientation or the placement of the device on the wrist such that a fit signature is within the accepted range (Coakley, col. 11, line 37 – col. 12, line 2).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park in view of Addison et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0193311).
Consider claim 19, the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park does not specifically disclose wherein the step of computing MAP is performed using a BP algorithm, and wherein the BP algorithm is calibrated using an ancillary BP measuring device, optionally a pressure cuff-type device.
Addison discloses wherein the step of computing MAP is performed using a BP algorithm, and wherein the BP algorithm is calibrated using an ancillary BP measuring device, optionally a pressure cuff-type device (paragraph [0062], calibrating blood pressure monitoring algorithm with the blood pressure as measured by an inflatable cuff-type blood pressure monitoring system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step of computing MAP as disclosed by the combination of Rothkopf, Pantelopoulos and Park to include a blood pressure monitoring algorithm as taught by Addison to provide continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring (Addison, paragraph [0062]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,268,481. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent contains each and every element of the instant application.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,268,481
1. A blood pressure monitoring device for computing mean arterial pressure of a user comprising:
a case and a strap adapted to hold the case against the wrist of the patient;
a first PPG sensor within the case and aimed at an artery in the wrist when the case is strapped to the wrist;
a second PPG sensor spaced from the first PPG sensor within the case and aimed at the artery in the wrist when the case is strapped to the wrist; and
a processor arranged within the case and operable to:
compute a plurality of features from PPG waveform data generated by the PPG sensors; and compute the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features.
1. A blood pressure monitoring device for computing mean arterial pressure of a user comprising:
a case and a strap adapted to hold the case against the wrist of the patient;
a first PPG sensor within the case and aimed at an artery in the wrist when the case is strapped to the wrist;
a second PPG sensor spaced from the first PPG sensor within the case and aimed at the artery in the wrist when the case is strapped to the wrist; and
a processor arranged within the case and operable to:
compute a plurality of features from PPG waveform data generated by the PPG sensors;
and compute the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features; and wherein the processor is further programmed to, after the plurality of features are computed, assess signal quality wherein assessing signal quality comprises computing a reference template, comparing a beat morphology of each pulse to the reference template, identifying low-quality features based on the comparing step, and excluding the low-quality features from the plurality of features used in the MAP computing step.
16. A method for monitoring mean arterial pressure (MAP) of a person based on PPG data comprising:
arranging a first PPG sensor and second PPG sensor on the skin, optionally a wrist, of the person,
wherein the second PPG sensor is spaced a fixed distance from the first PPG sensor;
obtaining PPG data from the first PPG sensor and the second PPG sensor corresponding to blood flow in a vessel of the person;
extracting a plurality of features from the PPG data; and
computing the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features.
16. A method for monitoring mean arterial pressure (MAP) of a person based on PPG data comprising:
arranging a first PPG sensor and a second PPG sensor on the skin, optionally a wrist, of the person,
wherein the second PPG sensor is spaced a fixed distance from the first PPG sensor; obtaining PPG data from the first PPG sensor and the second PPG sensor corresponding to blood flow in a vessel of the person; extracting a plurality of features from the PPG data; and
computing the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features;
and wherein the method further comprising, after the extracting step, assessing the signal quality wherein assessing signal quality comprises computing a reference template, comparing a beat morphology of each pulse to the reference template, identifying low-quality features based on the comparing step, and excluding the low-quality features from the plurality of features used in the MAP computing step.
Claims 1, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 21, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,528. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent contains each and every element of the instant application.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,419,528
1. A blood pressure monitoring device for computing mean arterial pressure of a user comprising:
a case and a strap adapted to hold the case against the wrist of the patient;
a first PPG sensor within the case and aimed at an artery in the wrist when the case is strapped to the wrist;
a second PPG sensor spaced from the first PPG sensor within the case and aimed at the artery in the wrist when the case is strapped to the wrist; and
a processor arranged within the case and operable to:
compute a plurality of features from PPG waveform data generated by the PPG sensors; and
compute the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features.
1. A blood pressure monitoring device for computing mean arterial pressure of a user comprising:
a case and a strap adapted to hold the case against the wrist of the patient;
a first PPG sensor, including a light source and light sensor, within the case and aimed at a first location along an artery in the wrist when the case is strapped to the wrist;
a second PPG sensor, including a light source and detector, spaced a fixed distance from the first PPG sensor within the case and aimed at a second location along the artery in the wrist when the case is strapped to the wrist; and
a processor arranged within the case and operable to:
compute a plurality of features from PPG waveform data generated by the first and second PPG sensors,
wherein the plurality of features comprise computing diastolic velocity and systolic velocity based on the fixed distance; and
compute the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features.
11. A blood pressure monitoring system for computing mean arterial pressure of a user comprising:
a case and a window adapted to be held against the skin of the patient;
at least one sensor modality arranged within the case; and
a processor arranged operable to:
compute a plurality of features from data arising from the sensor modality; and
compute the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features.
11. A blood pressure monitoring system for computing mean arterial pressure of a user comprising:
a case and a window adapted to be held against the skin of the patient;
at least one sensor modality arranged within the case wherein the at least one sensor modality comprises a first PPG sensor and second PPG sensor spaced a fixed distance from the first PPG sensor and aimed through the window towards the artery; and
a processor arranged and operable to: compute a plurality of features including velocity information based on the fixed distance and data arising from the first PPG sensor and the second PPG sensor; and compute the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features including the velocity information.
16. A method for monitoring mean arterial pressure (MAP) of a person based on PPG data comprising:
arranging a first PPG sensor and second PPG sensor on the skin, optionally a wrist, of the person, wherein the second PPG sensor is spaced a fixed distance from the first PPG sensor;
obtaining PPG data from the first PPG sensor and the second PPG sensor corresponding to blood flow in a vessel of the person;
extracting a plurality of features from the PPG data; and
computing the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features.
21. A method for monitoring mean arterial pressure (MAP) of a person based on PPG data comprising:
arranging a first PPG sensor and second PPG sensor on a wrist of the person, wherein the second PPG sensor is spaced a fixed distance from the first PPG sensor;
obtaining PPG data from the first PPG sensor and the second PPG sensor corresponding to blood flow in a vessel of the person; extracting a plurality of features from the PPG data and computing systolic velocity and diastolic velocity based on the plurality of features and the fixed distance; and computing the mean arterial pressure (MAP) based on the plurality of features, the systolic velocity, and the diastolic velocity.
17. The method of claim 16, further comprising alerting the user to an optimal position for location of the first PPG sensor and second PPG sensor as the user adjusts and moves the first PPG sensor and second PPG sensor along the skin of the person.
26. The method of claim 21, further comprising alerting the user to an optimal position on the wrist to strap the case thereto as the user adjusts and moves the case along the user's wrist.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 2-10 and 21-23 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,268,481. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 2-10, 13-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 2-10, 12-14, 27, and 28 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,419,528. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 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, Carey Michael can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/Gerald Johnson/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797