DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101. Claims 1, 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1). Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a calculation unit” in claims 1 and 15, and “a blood pressure derivation unit” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The limitations will be interpreted as follows:
“a calculation unit” will be interpreted as a CPU running software, or equivalents thereof, consistent with [0138]-[0140] of the specification.
“a blood pressure derivation unit” will be interpreted as a CPU running software, or equivalents thereof, consistent with [0138]-[0140] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 15 is directed to a computer program per se, which is not one of the four categories of statutory subject matter (MPEP 2106.03(I)).
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 “derive a pulse wave propagation speed of a subject by performing signal processing together on pulse wave signals sensed at three or more different positions on a body surface of the subject” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals from three or more different positions, could derive a pulse wave propagation speed using only their mind. Furthermore, the deriving a pulse wave propagation speed is a mathematical concept, as it deriving a pulse wave propagation 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 “calculation unit” 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 2 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The steps of “estimating peak positions of the pulse wave signals by fitting each of the pulse wave signals sensed at a same time at different positions on a same arterial path to a predetermined pulse waveform” and “derives the pulse wave propagation speed on a basis of a difference between the peak positions of the pulse wave signals at different times” are an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, could estimate the peak position and derive the speed based on the peak positions using only their mind. Furthermore, estimating the peaks by fitting and deriving the speed based on a different in times is a mathematical concept, as the estimation and deriving are mathematical calculations. The claim recites an abstract idea. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature of a “calculation unit” 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 estimating in a first interval and deriving in a second interval are an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, could estimate the peak position and derive the speed based on the peak positions using only their mind. Furthermore, the estimating the peaks and deriving the speed are a mathematical concepts, as the estimation and deriving 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 the predetermined pulse wave is narrowing the abstract idea of estimating, 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 steps of “derives a peak of an average pulse wave signal obtained by averaging each of the pulse wave signals sensed in a same time section at substantially the same distance from the heart” and “derives the pulse wave propagation speed on a basis 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 average signals, derive a peak of the averaged signal, and derive the speed based on the peak and an ECG peak using only their mind. Furthermore, the deriving the peak by averaging and deriving the speed based on peaks is a mathematical concept, as the deriving 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 “calculation unit” 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 “derives the pulse wave propagation speed using the pulse wave signals in which cross-correlations between the pulse wave signals are equal to or higher than a threshold among each of the pulse wave signals sensed in a same time section at an arbitrary position on a same arterial path” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, derive a pulse wave speed only using signals with a cross-correlation above a threshold using only their mind. Furthermore, deriving the speed is a mathematical concept, as the deriving 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 “calculation unit” 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 “derives the pulse wave propagation speed as a whole by averaging individual pulse wave propagation speeds derived from each of combinations of the pulse wave signals in which the cross-correlations between the pulse wave signals are equal to or higher than the threshold” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, can average the pulses and derive a pulse wave speed using only their mind. Furthermore, deriving the speed based on averaging signals is a mathematical concept, as the deriving 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 “calculation unit” 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 “averages the individual pulse wave propagation speeds by using weighting based on lengths of distances between positions where the pulse wave signals are sensed” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals, can average the pulses using 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 “calculation unit” 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 “derives the pulse wave propagation speed in further consideration of gravity acting 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. 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 “calculation unit” 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 “derive 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 deriving a blood pressure is a mathematical concept, as it deriving 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 “a blood pressure derivation unit” 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 “the blood pressure… is calibrated 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 “a blood pressure derivation unit” 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 “deriving… a pulse wave propagation speed of a subject by performing signal processing together on pulse wave signals sensed at three or more different positions on a body surface of the subject” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals from three or more different positions, could derive a pulse wave propagation speed using only their mind. Furthermore, the deriving a pulse wave propagation speed is a mathematical concept, as it deriving a pulse wave propagation 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 an “arithmetic processing device” 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 “derive a pulse wave propagation speed of a subject by performing signal processing together on pulse wave signals sensed at three or more different positions on a body surface of the subject” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at pulse signals from three or more different positions, could derive a pulse wave propagation speed using only their mind. Furthermore, the deriving a pulse wave propagation speed is a mathematical concept, as it deriving a pulse wave propagation 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 “program causing a computer to function” and “calculation unit” are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the generic computer components. 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 elements are generic computer components recited at a high level, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Melker et al. (U.S PGPub 2016/0022157 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Melker discloses an information processing apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
a calculation unit [0033]+[0060] configured to derive a pulse wave propagation speed of a subject [0018]+[0045]+[0053] by performing signal processing together on pulse wave signals [0041]+[0044]-[0045] sensed at three or more different positions on a body surface of the subject [0018]+[0041]+[0045]+[0048].
Regarding Claim 10, Melker teaches the invention as claimed. Melker further teaches wherein the pulse wave signals are sensed by an optical sensor [0024].
Regarding Claim 11, Melker teaches the invention as claimed. Melker further teaches further comprising a blood pressure derivation unit [0033]+[0060] configured to derive a blood pressure of the subject on a basis of the pulse wave propagation speed [0054]-[0055].
Regarding Claim 13, Melker teaches the invention as claimed. Melker further teaches wherein the body surface of the subject for whom the pulse wave signals are to be sensed is a surface of a hand, a foot, or a head [0023]+[0023]+[0059].
Regarding Claim 14, Melker discloses an information processing method (Abstract) comprising:
deriving, by an arithmetic processing device [0033]+[0060], a pulse wave propagation speed of a subject [0018]+[0045]+[0053] by performing signal processing together on pulse wave signals [0041]+[0044]-[0045] sensed at three or more different positions on a body surface of the subject [0018]+[0041]+[0045]+[0048].
Regarding Claim 15, Melker discloses a program causing a computer [0033]+[0060] to function as:
a calculation unit [0033]+[0060] configured to derive a pulse wave propagation speed of a subject [0018]+[0045]+[0053] by performing signal processing together on pulse wave signals [0041]+[0044]-[0045] sensed at three or more different positions on a body surface of the subject [0018]+[0041]+[0045]+[0048].
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melker in view of Tchertkov et al. (U.S PGPub 2017/0079534 A1) and Kirenko (U.S PGPub 2017/0164904 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Melker further teaches wherein the calculation unit [0033]+[0060] derives a peak of a pulse wave signal [0045].
Melker fails to explicitly teach an average pulse wave signal obtained by averaging each of the pulse wave signals sensed in a same time section at substantially the same distance from the heart.
Tchertkov teaches a mobile device for determining pulse transit time and blood pressure (Abstract). This system determines an average pulse wave signal by averaging each of the pulse wave signals sensed at the same time section at substantially the same distance from the heart (Fig. 7, 710 the sensors are around the wrist, and are therefore substantially the same distance from the heart) [0082]-[0083].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Melker to average the signals that are the same distance from the heart, as taught by Tchertkov, because this allows for a wearable device that is immune from motion artifacts, thereby increasing the quality of the data, as recognized by Tchertkov [0003]-[0004].
The combination fails to explicitly teach derives the pulse wave propagation speed on a basis of the peak of the average pulse wave signal and an electrocardiogram peak of the subject.
Kirenko teaches a system for measuring a pulse wave velocity from PPG signals (Abstract). This system determines the pulse wave velocity based on the difference between a PPG signal peak and the peak of an ECG of the subject [0092].
It would have been obvious to substitute the method of measuring the PWV of the combination with a method which derives the speed based on the peak of the pulse wave signal and ECG signal, as taught by Kirenko, as the substitution for one known method of calculating a PWV with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results or calculation PWV using the peak of a pulse wave and a peak of an ECG are reasonably predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melker in view of Hadley et al. (U.S PGPub 2016/0120411 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Melker teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Melker further teaches wherein the blood pressure derived by the blood pressure derivation unit is calibrated using a reference blood pressure [0054] (BPCAL is the blood pressure for calibration).
Melker fails to explicitly teach a reference blood pressure measured by a sphygmomanometer.
Hadley teaches a system for obtaining cardiovascular parameters (Abstract). This system uses a reference blood pressure obtained from a sphygmomanometer to calibrate the sensor [0073].
It would ha been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the reference blood pressure of Melker with a reference blood pressure measured with a sphygmomanometer, as taught by Hadley, as the substitution for one known reference blood pressure with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using a reference blood pressure obtained with a sphygmomanometer are reasonably predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohno et al. (U.S PGPub 2016/0360982 A1), which teaches a method of calculating pulse wave velocity with three or more sensors.
Baxi et al. (U.S PGPub 2018/0184921 A1), which teaches a cuffless blood pressure monitor.
Asmar (U.S Patent 6,511,436 B1), which teaches a system which calculates blood pressure with three or more sensors.
Tomizawa et al. (U.S PGPub 2022/0323015 A1), which teaches a system that uses cross-correlation in order to correct pulse waves.
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
Prosecution Insights