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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A from the first groupings and species I from the second groupings in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Species B does not include features that are mutually exclusive from Species A, C, and D. This is found persuasive.
During a telephone conversation with Xiaoyan Wang (Attorney of record) on 06/24/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species A (figures 10A-10B) of the first groupings; Species I (figs. 5A-5B) of second groupings; and Species 1 (Exciter closer to the hand than detector or detector farther from the hand than the exciter), according to the revised groupings as listed below. The election reads on claims1-16 and 19-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The updated groupings of the respective species are as follows:
First Groupings
Species A: Blood pressure monitoring system in figures 10A-10B.
Species B: Blood pressure monitoring system in figures 11A-11C.
Species C: Blood pressure monitoring system in figures 12A-12C.
Second Groupings
Species I: Species II: Exciter in figures 5A-5B.
Species II: Exciter in figures 6A-6B.
Species III: Exciter in figures 7A-7B.
Species IV: Exciter in figures 8A-8C.
Third Groupings
Species 1: Exciter closer to the hand than detector or detector farther from the hand than the exciter ([0021]).
Species 2: Detector closer to the hand than the exciter OR exciter farther from than hand the detector ([0022]).
Species 3: Exciter and detector are parallel to each other along a length of a length of an arm of the patient from an elbow to a wrist of the patient ([0023]).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 limitations are:
Exciter and detector of claim 1.
Attachment element of claims 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.
Alignment indicator of claim 14.
For the means-plus-function of exciter and detector, [0152] of the originally filed specification discloses a transducer.
For the means-plus-function of attachment element, [0148] of the originally filed specification discloses an attachment tape or strap.
For the means-plus-function of alignment indicator, [0158] discloses that the first layer 222 of the blood pressure monitoring system may incorporate openings or windows that align with the exciter and detector components.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 should be amended to recite --an alignment indicator configured to align a measurement axis of the exciter and the detector to the radial artery--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukukita, et al., US 6275447 B1 in view of Carnahan, R.D., US 20120244489 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Fukukita teaches a blood pressure monitoring system (see abstract and reproduced figs. 1, 9A and 9B), comprising:
an exciter configured to produce an acoustic signal, the exciter being provided on a first substrate portion (sound generator unit 6B of figs. 9A and 9B provided on a substrate 51);
a detector spaced apart from the exciter, the detector being configured to detect the acoustic signal and to produce an electrical output signal, the detector being provided on a second substrate portion that is acoustically decoupled from the first substrate portion (sound detection unit 9a of reproduced figs. 9A and 9B, provided on a substrate 52, the substrates 51 and 51, connected by a connecting substrate 53 of fig. 9A and 9B)
a processor (blood pressure operation circuit 17 of fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 58-61 ) configured to determine a blood pressure measurement from the electrical output signal (col. 4, lines 58-61 disclose a signal processing circuit 16 for operating a phase angle from outputs of the phase detection circuit 14, and a blood pressure operation circuit 17 for operating a blood pressure from the phase angle from the signal processing circuit 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fukukita fails to teach wherein the detector comprises at least four detectors.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Carnahan teaches an intraoral ultrasonic transducer and an ultrasonic monitoring apparatus configured to connect to the intraoral ultrasonic transducer, generate and send electrical pulse signals to the intraoral ultrasonic transducer, receive measured signals from the intraoral ultrasonic transducer, and generate time-of-flight and relative density based on the measured signals (see abstract and reproduced fig. 3b below). In [0076], Carnahan discloses that the 2x2 intraoral ultrasonic transducer 42 is similar to the intraoral ultrasonic transducer 30 shown in FIG. 3(A), having a flexible substrate 32, but instead of the single pair of piezo elements 34, it has 4 matched pairs of piezo elements 34 in 2x2 piezo arrays 40 and instead of a four pin transducer connector 36, it has a 16 pin transducer connector 38. A larger or differently dimensioned array of piezo elements 34 will allow monitoring of a larger or differently shaped region of interest. A person of skill in the art would realize that other embodiments of the intraoral ultrasonic transducer 30 can have other numbers of piezo elements 34 and piezo arrays 40 with other dimensions, such as 1x2 or 3x3. Also see fig. 4b and [0086].
PNG
media_image2.png
344
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita wherein the detector comprises at least four detectors, as taught by Carnahan, to allow monitoring of a larger or differently shaped region of interest ([0076]), improving diagnostic outcomes ([0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 2, Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita fails to teach wherein the at least four detectors are separated by at least one gap.
However, Carnahan further teaches wherein the at least four detectors are separated by at least one gap (see reproduced fig. 3b above for the gaps between the piezo elements 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita wherein the at least four detectors are separated by at least one gap, as taught by Carnahan, to allow monitoring of a larger or differently shaped region of interest ([0076]), improving diagnostic outcomes ([0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 3, Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita fails to teach wherein the detector comprises five detectors.
However, Carnahan further teaches wherein the detector comprises five detectors (In [0076], Carnahan discloses that the 2x2 intraoral ultrasonic transducer 42 is similar to the intraoral ultrasonic transducer 30 shown in FIG. 3(A), having a flexible substrate 32, but instead of the single pair of piezo elements 34, it has 4 matched pairs of piezo elements 34 in 2x2 piezo arrays 40 and instead of a four pin transducer connector 36, it has a 16 pin transducer connector 38. A larger or differently dimensioned array of piezo elements 34 will allow monitoring of a larger or differently shaped region of interest. A person of skill in the art would realize that other embodiments of the intraoral ultrasonic transducer 30 can have other numbers of piezo elements 34 and piezo arrays 40 with other dimensions, such as 1x2 or 3x3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita wherein the detector comprises five detectors, as taught by Carnahan, to allow monitoring of a larger or differently shaped region of interest ([0076]), improving diagnostic outcomes ([0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 4, Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita further teaches a memory device (col. 6, lines 55-60 disclose a memory for storing the measurement data).
Regarding claim 6, Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita further teaches wherein the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion are separated by a gap (see figs. 9A and 9B).
Regarding claim 7, Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita further teaches wherein the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion include acoustically absorptive material (col. 5, lines 4-5 disclose that the sound generating unit 6 of figs. 9A and 9B further includes a substrate 51 which is not a piezoelectric substance and is flexible. The substrate 53 is also made of polyimide sheet according to col. 9, lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 8, Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita wherein the processor is configured to determine the blood pressure measurement based on a measured phase delay between an electrical input signal and the electrical output signal (the abstract discloses that a living body measuring apparatus includes the acoustic sensor, wherein phase shift between the sound signal induced by the bimorph and a reference drive signal is detected and a blood pressure is operated by the phase shift amount).
Regarding claim 9, Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita wherein the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion are flexible (see abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita a flexible circuit that connects the exciter and the detector to an electrical connector.
However, Carnahan further teaches a flexible circuit that connects the exciter and the detector to an electrical connector ([0075] discloses a micro-circuitry carried on the substrate, and [0076] discloses a 16 pin transducer connector 38. Also see reproduced fig. 3b above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita a flexible circuit that connects the exciter and the detector to an electrical connector, as taught by Carnahan, to allow monitoring of a larger or differently shaped region of interest ([0076]), improving diagnostic outcomes ([0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 11, Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita fails to teach wherein the exciter and the detector comprise a piezo device or a microelectromechanical system.
However, Carnahan further teaches wherein the exciter and the detector comprise a piezo device or a microelectromechanical system ([0076] discloses piezo elements 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita wherein the exciter and the detector comprise a piezo device or a microelectromechanical system, as taught by Carnahan, to allow monitoring of a larger or differently shaped region of interest ([0076]), improving diagnostic outcomes ([0017]-[0018]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukukita, et al., US 6275447 B1 in view of Carnahan, R.D., US 20120244489 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ni, et al., US 20240108279 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita in view of Carnahan fails to teach an inertial measurement unit (IMU).
However, within the same field of endeavor, Ni teaches a wearable device includes an elastically compliant body having a side for attaching to skin of a patient, a plurality of accelerometers for receiving acoustic wave data from acoustic waves transmitted by a transducer, a short-range radio transmitter for transmitting the acoustic wave data to a computing device, a processor for receiving the acoustic wave data from the plurality of accelerometers and providing the acoustic wave data to the short-range radio transmitter, and a battery for providing power to the processor, the plurality of accelerometers, and the short-range radio transmitter (see abstract). As shown in figs. 2A-2C, the device includes a flexible printed circuit and inertial measurement units mounted on a compliant body 206 (See [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita, as modified by Carnahan, with an inertial measurement unit (IMU), as taught by Ni, to improve the accuracy of the measurements ([0003]-[0004]).
Claims 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukukita, et al., US 6275447 B1 in view of Carnahan, R.D., US 20120244489 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kiani, et al., US 20030225323 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita fails to teach an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a forearm of a patient over a radial artery.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kiani teaches an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a forearm of a patient over a radial artery (Kiani teaches adhesive foam layer 310, stating in [0019] that the foam layer 310 has an adhesive for patient skin attachment and cushions the biopotential sensor 110 against the skin. [0020]-[0021] further disclose attachment mechanism to the skin. Examiner notes that “attach the exciter and the detector to a forearm of a patient over a radial artery” is an intended use of the attachment element. Hence, since Kiani teaches the adhesive foam layer with adhesive, tantamount to the claimed attachment element, the claim is indistinguishable from Kiani. See MPEP 2114(II)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita, as modified by Carnahan, to include an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a forearm of a patient over a radial artery, as taught by Kiani, to ensure that the sensor is secured to the region of interest ([0020], [0022]).
Regarding claim 13, Fukukita in view of Carnahan and Kiani teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Fukukita in view of Kiani fails to teach wherein the attachment element comprises an adhesive substrate.
Fukukita does not teach wherein the attachment element comprises an adhesive substrate.
However, Kiani further teaches wherein the attachment element comprises an adhesive substrate (Kiani teaches adhesive foam layer 310, stating in [0019] that the biopotential sensor 110 has an adhesive foam layer 310 disposed around the electrodes 410 on the circuit side 502 and that the foam layer 310 has an adhesive for patient skin attachment and cushions the biopotential sensor 110 against the skin. [0020]-[0021] further disclose attachment mechanism to the skin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita, as modified by Carnahan, to include wherein the attachment element comprises an adhesive substrate, as taught by Kiani, to ensure that the sensor is secured to the region of interest ([0020], [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Fukukita in view of Carnahan and Kiani teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Fukukita in view of Carnahan fail to teach an alignment indicator to align a measurement axis of the exciter and the detector to the radial artery.
However, Kiani further teaches an alignment indicator to align a measurement axis of the exciter and the detector to the radial artery (Kiani disclose in [0005] that the emitter and the detector may be mounted to the a fold-over portion. The substrate may define at least one aperture configured so that the emitter and the detector each align with a corresponding aperture when the foldover is in a folded position, and further in [0018] that The fold-over 540 is such that each of the emitter 420 and detector 430 align with corresponding apertures 520 (FIG. 5) so that light transmitted from the emitter 420 passes through an aperture 520 (FIG. 5) and into a patient's skin and that reflected light passes out of a patient's skin, through an aperture 520 (FIG. 5) and is received by the detector 430).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita, as modified by Carnahan, to include an alignment indicator to align a measurement axis of the exciter and the detector to the radial artery, as taught by Kiani, to ensure that the sensor is secured to the region of interest ([0020], [0022]).
Regarding claim 15, Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita fails to teach an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a palm side of a wrist on a forearm of a patient.
However, Kiani further teaches an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a palm side of a wrist on a forearm of a patient (Kiani teaches adhesive foam layer 310, stating in [0019] that the foam layer 310 has an adhesive for patient skin attachment and cushions the biopotential sensor 110 against the skin. [0020]-[0021] further disclose attachment mechanism to the skin. Examiner notes that “to attach the exciter and the detector to a palm side of a wrist on a forearm of a patient” is an intended use of the attachment element. Hence, since Kiani teaches the adhesive foam layer with adhesive, tantamount to the claimed attachment element, the claim is indistinguishable from Kiani. See MPEP 2114(II)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita, as modified by Carnahan, to include an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a palm side of a wrist on a forearm of a patient, as taught by Kiani, to ensure that the sensor is secured to the region of interest ([0020], [0022]).
Regarding claim 16, , Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita fails to teach an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a patient, wherein the exciter is closer to a hand of the patient than the detector.
However, Kiani further teaches an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a patient, wherein the exciter is closer to a hand of the patient than the detector (Kiani teaches adhesive foam layer 310, stating in [0019] that the foam layer 310 has an adhesive for patient skin attachment and cushions the biopotential sensor 110 against the skin. [0020]-[0021] further disclose attachment mechanism to the skin. Examiner notes that “to attach the exciter and the detector to a palm side of a wrist on a forearm of a patient” is an intended use of the attachment element. Hence, since Kiani teaches the adhesive foam layer with adhesive, tantamount to the claimed attachment element, the claim is indistinguishable from Kiani. See MPEP 2114(II)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita, as modified by Carnahan, to include an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a patient, wherein the exciter is closer to a hand of the patient than the detector, as taught by Kiani, to ensure that the sensor is secured to the region of interest ([0020], [0022]).
Regarding claim 19, , Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita fails to teach an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a patient, wherein the exciter is positioned over a radial artery of the patient.
However, Kiani further teaches an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a patient, wherein the exciter is positioned over a radial artery of the patient (Kiani teaches adhesive foam layer 310, stating in [0019] that the foam layer 310 has an adhesive for patient skin attachment and cushions the biopotential sensor 110 against the skin. [0020]-[0021] further disclose attachment mechanism to the skin. Examiner notes that “to attach the exciter and the detector to a palm side of a wrist on a forearm of a patient” is an intended use of the attachment element. Hence, since Kiani teaches the adhesive foam layer with adhesive, tantamount to the claimed attachment element, the claim is indistinguishable from Kiani. See MPEP 2114(II)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita, as modified by Carnahan, include an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a patient, wherein the exciter is positioned over a radial artery of the patient, as taught by Kiani, to ensure that the sensor is secured to the region of interest ([0020], [0022]).
Regarding claim 20, , Fukukita in view of Carnahan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fukukita in view of Carnahan fails to teach an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a patient, wherein the detector is positioned over a radial artery of the patient.
However, Kiani further teaches an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a patient, wherein the detector is positioned over a radial artery of the patient (Kiani teaches adhesive foam layer 310, stating in [0019] that the foam layer 310 has an adhesive for patient skin attachment and cushions the biopotential sensor 110 against the skin. [0020]-[0021] further disclose attachment mechanism to the skin. Examiner notes that “to attach the exciter and the detector to a palm side of a wrist on a forearm of a patient” is an intended use of the attachment element. Hence, since Kiani teaches the adhesive foam layer with adhesive, tantamount to the claimed attachment element, the claim is indistinguishable from Kiani. See MPEP 2114(II)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fukukita, as modified by Carnahan, to include an attachment element configured to attach the exciter and the detector to a patient, wherein the detector is positioned over a radial artery of the patient, as taught by Kiani, to ensure that the sensor is secured to the region of interest ([0020], [0022]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights