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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-5 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halbritter et al. (US 2017/325729 (provided by IDS)) and in view of Huang (US 2013/0141369).
3. Addressing claim 1, Hubert discloses an apparatus comprising:
photodetector area comprising a first photodetector area and a second photodetector area, the first and second photodetector areas having co-planar interlocking shapes that alternate over the photodetector area and position side by side having projections that extend at angles such that the first photodetector area and the second photodetector area are limited in movement in a first direction and in a second direction in a two-dimensional co-planar plane, wherein the first and second photodetector areas each produce respective comparable detected output signals, and wherein an output signal of the second photodetector area is subtracted from an output signal of the first photodetector area, using analog circuitry, to produce a physiological measurement result (see Figs. 1, 3, [0070] and [0072], elements 310/311 and 320/321, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art any element could be called first and second photodetector area; arrangement of order and filter first or second detector area only require ordinary skill and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; first and second photodetector area lock together therefore they are co-planar interlocking shapes; as see in Fig. 3, 310/311 limit movement of 320/321 in the y-direction/vertical direction (up and down movement) and in the x-direction/horizontal direction (left movement); 310, 311 alternate and side by side with 320, 321; Halbritter’s photodetectors is capable of wherein the first and second photodetector areas each produce respective comparable detected output signals; as see in Fig. 3 of Halbritter first and second photodetector areas are the same size and arrange next to each other in same row and column to receive the same incident of angle to produce respective comparable detected output signals; Halbritter does not explicitly disclose subtracting by analog or digital circuitry; however without disclosing an analog to digital convertor one of ordinary skill in the art know that the measurement signals from photodetector is an analog signal therefore the signal subtraction is analog; subtracting digital or analog signal is a designer choice that only require routine skill in the art as see in applicant paragraph [0049]; also signal subtraction to provide a better physiological measurement result therefore signal one subtract from signal two or vice versa is just a designer choice and depend on where the filter is located; subtract the signal from the photodetector with the filter);
an optical blocking filter configured to filter light incident on the second photodetector area (see Fig. 3 and [0063]; element 312).
However, Halbritter does not disclose prevent a separation of first photodetector area from the second photodetector area and wherein defining edges of the first photodetector area coincide with defining edge of the second photodetector area over the photodetector area. Rearranging sensor is a designer choice that only require routine skill in the art. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Huang explicitly discloses prevent a separation of first electrode detector area from the second electrode detector area and wherein defining edges of the first electrode detector area coincide with defining edge of the second electrode detector area over the photodetector area (see Figs. 3-4; electrodes detector pattern 102, 104 and 106 interlock with each other to prevent separation; defining edges of the patterns also coincide with each others). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halbritter to prevent a separation of first detector area from the second detector area and wherein defining edges of the first detector area coincide with defining edge of the second detector area over the detector area as taught by Huang because this fractal pattern enhanced sensitivity and detection capabilities.
4. Addressing claims 2-5 and 9-17, Halbritter discloses:
addressing claim 2, wherein the first photodetector area comprises one or more first subareas that extend from an edge of the photodetector area into the photodetector area, and the second photodetector area comprises one or more second subareas that extend from an edge of the photodetector area into the photodetector area, and at least one of the first subareas has a shape that interlocks with a shape of at least one of the second subareas (see Figs. 1, 3 and [0072]).
addressing claim 3, wherein at least one of the first subareas and/or at least one of the second subareas extends from the edge of the photodetector area more than halfway across the photodetector area, towards an opposite edge of the photodetector area (see Fig. 3).
addressing claim 4, wherein at least one of the first subareas and/or at least one of the second subareas extends from one edge of the photodetector area to an opposite edge of the photodetector area (see Fig. 3).
addressing claim 5, wherein the photodetector area comprises one or more inactive subareas (see Fig. 3, interface between first and second light reception surfaces represents inactive areas).
addressing claim 9, wherein size of the first photodetector area and the size of the second photodetector area are substantially equal (see Fig. 3).
addressing claim 10, wherein the apparatus is configured to detect a target wavelength, and said optical blocking filter is configured to block the target wavelength (see [0063]).
addressing claim 11, a light source configured to emit light at the target wavelength (see Fig. 1 and [0059-0060]; element 200).
addressing claim 12, an angle adjustment element configured to adjust the angle of incidence of light incident on the photodetector area (see Fig. 5 and [0080]; element 440 and the shape of the device adjust/control the angle of incidence of light incident on the photodetector area).
addressing claim 13, a signal processing element configured to produce a physiological measurement result using at least one of: an output signal provided by the first photodetector area and an output signal provided by the second photodetector area (see [0070]).
addressing claim 14, a mirror arranged to reflect light back to the first and/or second photodetector areas (see [0075]; wall act like mirror/optical reflector.
addressing claim 15, wherein the apparatus is a physiological measurement sensor (see [0070]).
addressing claim 16, wherein the first direction is orthogonal to the second direction (see Fig. 3).
addressing claim 17, at least one area defined within edges of the first photodetector area and not covered by the first photodetector area (see Fig. 3; there is space between 310,311 and 320,321; this is one area defined within edges of the first photodetector area and not covered by the first photodetector area).
5. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halbritter et al. (US 2017/325729 (provided by IDS)), in view of Huang (US 2013/0141369) and further in view of Frith et al. (US 2009/0078024).
6. Addressing claims 6-7, Halbritter does not disclose fractal curve (Hilbert or Peano curves) defines shapes of the first photodetector area and the second photodetector area. Frith discloses fractal curve (Hilbert or Peano curves) defines shapes of the detector area (see abstract, [0019], [0047], [0054-0055] and [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halbritter to have fractal curve (Hilbert or Peano curves) defines shapes of the detector area as taught by Frith because this improve the detector due to being less sensitive to minor defect (see [0054]).
7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halbritter et al. (US 2017/325729 (provided by IDS)), in view of Huang (US 2013/0141369) and further in view of Bellinger et al. (US 2017/0153340).
8. Addressing claim 8, Halbritter does not disclose wherein the interlocking shapes of the first photodetector area and the second photodetector area have been defined by a genetic algorithm. Bellinger discloses wherein the interlocking shapes of the photodetector areas have been defined by a genetic algorithm (see [0017], [0052] and Fig. 1H). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halbritter to have wherein the interlocking shapes of the photodetector areas have been defined by a genetic algorithm as taught by Bellinger because this optimizes the measurement parameters, detector position and lead to improvement in efficiency (see [0051-0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Halbritter and Huang do not disclose wherein an output signal of the second photodetector area is subtracted from an output signal of the first photodetector area, using analog circuitry, to produce a physiological measurement result. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Halbritter discloses this limitation (see [0070).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2010/0100160 (see [0084]; fractal or other geometries that enable optimized energies and determinations not achieved through other repetitive sensor pattern) and US 2010/0267163 (see Fig. 6 and [0007]; photodetectors in the same row have the same angle of incident; same angle of incident produce respective comparable detected output signals).
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 HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/HIEN N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights