DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1, and 3-15 are pending in the application. Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a). Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the average pulse wave signal” in line 12. It should recite “the determined average pulse wave signal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5-9 are 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine an average pulse wave signal based on an average of each of the plurality of pulse wave signals that is sensed in a same time section at substantially the same distance from a heart of the subject; determine a peak of the determined average pulse wave signal; and determine the pulse wave propagation speed based on the peak of the average pulse wave signal and an electrocardiogram peak of the subject”. These features are exclusively related to the second embodiment (Fig. 11-13) [0055]-[0056]. The features of amended claim 1 are directed to the features of the first embodiment (Fig. 1-3) [0014]-[0015]. These embodiments have mutually exclusive characteristics, and there is nothing in the specification which suggests combining the different embodiments. Therefore, claim 5 is directed to new matter.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the pulse wave propagation speed based on a set of pulse wave signals of the plurality of pulse wave signals, wherein a cross-correlation associated with each of the set of pulse wave signals is equal to or higher than a threshold among each of the plurality of pulse wave signals, and the plurality of pulse wave signals is sensed in a same time section at an arbitrary position on the same arterial path”. These features are exclusively related to the third embodiment (Fig. 19-21) [0092]-[0093]. The features of amended claim 1 are directed to the features of the first embodiment (Fig. 1-3) [0014]-[0015]. These embodiments have mutually exclusive characteristics, and there is nothing in the specification which suggests combining the different embodiments. Therefore, claim 6 is directed to new matter.
Claims 7-9 depend on claim 6, and are also directed to the third embodiment. The features of amended claim 1 are directed to the features of the first embodiment (Fig. 1-3) [0014]-[0015]. These embodiments have mutually exclusive characteristics, and there is nothing in the specification which suggests combining the different embodiments. Therefore, claims 7-9 are directed to new matter.
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 5-9 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.
Claim 5 recites “the plurality of pulse wave signals that is sensed in a same time section at substantially the same distance from a heart of the subject”. However, claim 1 states the plurality of pulse wave signals are on “a same arterial path”, which suggests that they are not at substantially the same distance from a heart of the subject. It is therefore not clear if the “plurality of pulse wave signals” are referring to different pulse wave signals, or modifying the pulse wave signals previously set forth. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 6 recites “the plurality of pulse wave signals is sensed in a same time section at an arbitrary position of the same arterial path” in lines 9-10. However, claim 1 states that the plurality of pulse wave signals are sensed at a same time. It is not clear if the plurality of pulse wave signals are referring to different pulse wave signals, or if it is modifying the pulse wave signals to no longer be needed to be acquired at the same time. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
All claims dependent from the above claims rejected under 35 USC 112(b) are also rejected, as the limitations of the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies identified above.
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 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recite mental processes and a mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations are just mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The step of “fit a specific pulse waveform to each pulse wave signal of a plurality of pulse wave signals, wherein each pulse wave signal of the plurality of pulse wave signals is sensed at a same time by a plurality of sensors, and the plurality of sensors are at three or more different positions on a same arterial path on a body surface of a subject” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals sensed at a same time by a plurality of sensors, and the plurality of sensors are at three or more different positions on a same arterial path on a body surface of a subject, could fit a specific pulse waveform to each of the pulse waveforms using only their mind. Furthermore, fitting a specific pulse waveform is a mathematical concept, as it is a mathematical calculation. The steps of “determine a plurality of peak positions of the plurality of pulse wave signals at different times based on the fitted specific pulse waveform” and “determine a pulse wave propagation speed of the subject based on a different between the determined plurality of peak positions at different times” are an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, could determine the peak position and derive the speed based on the peak positions using only their mind. Furthermore, estimating the peaks and determining the speed based on a difference in times is a mathematical concept, as the determinations are mathematical calculations. The claim recites an abstract idea.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature of a “at least one processor” is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the generic computer component. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element is a generic computer component recited at a high level, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The steps of determining in a first interval and determining in a second interval are an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, could determine the peak position and determine the speed based on the peak positions using only their mind. Furthermore, determining the peaks and determining the speed are mathematical concepts, as the determinations are mathematical calculations. The claim recites an abstract idea. The claim contains no additional limitations which either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Further defining fitting the specific pulse wave is narrowing the abstract idea of fitting, and is therefore still directed to an abstract idea. The claim recites an abstract idea. The claim contains no additional limitations which either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The step of “determine an average pulse wave signal based on an average of each of the plurality of pulse wave signals” is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at the pulse wave signals, could calculate an average signal using only their mind. Furthermore, the averaging the signals is a mathematical concept, as averaging is a mathematical calculation. The steps of “determine a peak of the determined average pulse wave signal” and “determine the pulse wave propagation speed base on of the peak of the average pulse wave signal and an electrocardiogram peak of the subject” are an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, could determine a peak of the averaged signal, and determine the speed based on the peak and an ECG peak using only their mind. Furthermore, determining the peak and determining the speed based on peaks is a mathematical concept, as the determination steps are mathematical calculations. The claim recites an abstract idea. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature of “at least one processor” is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the generic computer component. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element is a generic computer component recited at a high level, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The steps of “determine pulse wave propagation speed based on a set of pulse wave signals of the plurality of pulse wave signals, wherein a cross-correlations associated with each of the set of pulse wave signals is equal to or higher than a threshold among each of the plurality of pulse wave signals, and the plurality of pulse wave signals is sensed in a same time section at an arbitrary position on the same arterial path” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, can determine a pulse wave speed only using signals with a cross-correlation above a threshold using only their mind. Furthermore, determining the speed is a mathematical concept, as the determining steps are mathematical calculations. The claim recites an abstract idea. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature of a “at least one processor” is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the generic computer component. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element is a generic computer component recited at a high level, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The steps of “determine a plurality of pulse wave propagation speeds for each of the set of pulse wave signals, and determine the pulse wave propagation speed based on an average of the determined plurality of pulse wave propagation speeds” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, can determine a plurality of speeds and determine an average speed from the speeds using only their mind. Furthermore, determining the speed based on averaging speeds is a mathematical concept, as the determining are mathematical calculations. The claim recites an abstract idea. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature of a “at least one processor” is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the generic computer component. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element is a generic computer component recited at a high level, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The step of “determine respective weights for the determined plurality of pulse wave propagation speeds based on distances between a plurality of sensing positions of the set of pulse wave signals, wherein each of the set of pulse wave signals is sensed at a respective sensing position of the plurality of sensing positions” and “determine the average of the plurality of pulse wave propagation speeds based on the determined respective weights” are mental processes type abstract ideas. A user can determine weights for speeds based on the distance between sensing position and can average the pulses using the weights using only their mind. Furthermore, averaging the speeds is a mathematical concept, as averaging is a mathematical calculation. The claim recites an abstract idea. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature of a “at least one processor” is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the generic computer component. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element is a generic computer component recited at a high level, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The step of “determine the pulse wave propagation speed based on an influence of gravity on the body surface of the subject” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, include gravity in the calculation for deriving the pulse wave speed using only their mind. Furthermore, deriving the speeds is a mathematical concept, as the steps for deriving the speed including gravity are mathematical calculations. The claim recites an abstract idea. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature of a “at least one processor” is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the generic computer component. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element is a generic computer component recited at a high level, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 10 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is further narrowing the abstract idea by defining what the pulse wave signals are, and is still directed to an abstract idea of a mental process and mathematical concept. The claim contains no additional limitations that either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The step of “determine a blood pressure of the subject on a basis of the pulse wave propagation speed” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at a pulse wave speed, could derive blood pressure using only their mind. Furthermore, the determining a blood pressure is a mathematical concept, as determining the blood pressure from a pulse wave speed is a mathematical calculation. The claim recites an abstract idea. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature of a “at least one processor” is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the generic computer component. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element is a generic computer component recited at a high level, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The step of “calibrating the blood pressure using a reference blood pressure measured by a sphygmomanometer” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at a blood pressure and a reference blood pressure, can calibrate blood pressure using only their mind. Furthermore, calibrating the blood pressure is a mathematical concept, as calibration is a mathematical calculation. The claim recites an abstract idea. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature of a “at least one processor” is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the generic computer component. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element is a generic computer component recited at a high level, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 13 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is further narrowing the abstract idea by defining where the pulse wave signals are obtained from (i.e. a surface of a hand, a foot, or a head), and is still directed to an abstract idea of a mental process and mathematical concept. The claim contains no additional limitations that either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 14 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The step of “fit a specific pulse waveform to each pulse wave signal of a plurality of pulse wave signals, wherein each pulse wave signal of the plurality of pulse wave signals is sensed at a same time by a plurality of sensors, and the plurality of sensors are at three or more different positions on a same arterial path on a body surface of a subject” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals sensed at a same time by a plurality of sensors, and the plurality of sensors are at three or more different positions on a same arterial path on a body surface of a subject, could fit a specific pulse waveform to each of the pulse waveforms using only their mind. Furthermore, fitting a specific pulse waveform is a mathematical concept, as it is a mathematical calculation. The steps of “determine a plurality of peak positions of the plurality of pulse wave signals at different times based on the fitted specific pulse waveform” and “determine a pulse wave propagation speed of the subject based on a different between the determined plurality of peak positions at different times” are an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, could determine the peak position and derive the speed based on the peak positions using only their mind. Furthermore, estimating the peaks and determining the speed based on a different in times is a mathematical concept, as the determinations are mathematical calculations. The claim recites an abstract idea.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature of “an information processing apparatus” is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the generic computer component. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element is a generic computer component recited at a high level, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim 15 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The step of “fit a specific pulse waveform to each pulse wave signal of a plurality of pulse wave signals, wherein each pulse wave signal of the plurality of pulse wave signals is sensed at a same time by a plurality of sensors, and the plurality of sensors are at three or more different positions on a same arterial path on a body surface of a subject” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals sensed at a same time by a plurality of sensors, and the plurality of sensors are at three or more different positions on a same arterial path on a body surface of a subject, could fit a specific pulse waveform to each of the pulse waveforms using only their mind. Furthermore, fitting a specific pulse waveform is a mathematical concept, as it is a mathematical calculation. The steps of “determine a plurality of peak positions of the plurality of pulse wave signals at different times based on the fitted specific pulse waveform” and “determine a pulse wave propagation speed of the subject based on a different between the determined plurality of peak positions at different times” are an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, could determine the peak position and derive the speed based on the peak positions using only their mind. Furthermore, estimating the peaks and determining the speed based on a different in times is a mathematical concept, as the determinations are mathematical calculations. The claim recites an abstract idea.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature of a “a non-transitory computer readable medium have stored there computer executable instructions” is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the generic computer component. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element is a generic computer component recited at a high level, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea. The Applicant argues that processing of physical pulse wave signals sensed at the same time by multiple sensors cannot be performed by a human mind. The Examiner disagrees. A user, if they were given the output of the sensors, could “process” (i.e. think about) the measurements using only there mind/using a piece of paper. With the measurements, as user could “fit” a specific curve to the data by thinking about which point of the specified curve most likely corresponds to the output data at a respective position. Furthermore, a user could then, again using their mind/a piece of paper, calculate what the speed is using the fitted waveforms. There is nothing that precludes this data calculation from being performed in the mind, therefore it is an abstract idea of a mental process.
Applicant continues to argue that the claim also does not recite an abstract idea of a mathematical concept. The Applicant argues that, as the claim is tied to acquisition of a processing of a physical biological signal, the claim does not recite an abstract idea of a mathematical concept. The Examiner disagrees. The steps of fitting a waveform and determining a wave propagation speed are mathematical calculations (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The fact that the data input into the equation is more specific (i.e. acquired from three or more sensors at the same time), does not overcome the fact that the data is manipulated using mathematical calculations. The claim also recites an abstract idea of a mathematical calculation.
The Applicant continues to argue that the steps of fitting and estimating the peak positions from the fitted equation results in an improvement of more accurate pulse wave propagation speed calculation, and thus results in a practical application of the abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees. The steps of fitting and determining the speed are directed to the claimed abstract idea. “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement” (MPEP 2106.05(a)). As the abstract idea is purported to provide the improvement, the claim is not integrated into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible. Therefore, claims 1, and 3-15 remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant argues that claim 2 was not rejected under prior art. This is correct. The claim was not indicated as allowable as claim 2 was not in condition for allowance, as there was an outstanding 101 rejection on the claim. Similarly, claim 1 is not rejected under prior art rejections, but is not in condition for allowance as it is rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
