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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments obviate the rejection of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Foxlin et al. (US 20180296136)(Hereinafter Foxlin) in view of Pohjonen et al. (US 20180020975)(Hereinafter Pohjonen).
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/06/2026. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1, 4-5, 23, 26, 28, and 30-31 have been amended, claims 6, 10-22, and 29 have been cancelled, and claims 34-36 have been added. No claims were previously withdrawn due to a Restriction Requirement. Thus, claims 1-5, 7-9, 23-28, and 30-36 are presently under consideration in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “each of said electrode areas…are being arranged” is grammatically incorrect due to a subject-verb agreement issue and should recite “each electrode area…are being arranged”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner does note that although not incorrect or objectable, Applicant is claiming the progressive passive state of the electrode area are “being” arranged.
Claims 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “at least one of the electrode areas are is” is grammatically incorrect due to a subject-verb agreement issue and should recite “at least one of the electrode areas are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “at least one of the electrode areas is” is grammatically incorrect due to a subject-verb agreement issue and should recite “at least one of the electrode areas are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “at least a partially arranged” is grammatically incorrect should recite “at least partially arranged”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the phrase “electrode areas” is not disclosed in the instant specification.
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 1-5, 7-9, 23-28, and 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
Claims 1, 23, and 28 has been amended to include the limitation, " an electrode having a plurality of electrode areas adapted for recording a cardiogram, each of said electrode areas or at least a part thereof being arranged, when viewed in a top view of the sensor device, between a pair of the emitters and the detectors and being exposed at the support surface". The limitation does not have support in the instant specification nor in the parent application.
The specification provides support for electrode 15 that is a single electrode that has portions above the barrier (see Fig. 5 and 6). However, the specification does not provide support for an electrode with a plurality of “electrode areas” that are between a pair of emitters and detectors . Applicant has not indicated where the disclosure provides adequate written description support for the instant claim limitation, "an electrode having a plurality of electrode areas adapted for recording a cardiogram, each of said electrode areas or at least a part thereof being arranged, when viewed in a top view of the sensor device, between a pair of the emitters and the detectors and being exposed at the support surface”. Therefore, the new claim limitations introduce 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 1-5, 7-9, 23-28, and 30-36 are 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1 and 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear the defined distance for the “equal intervals in both the columns and rows of the emitters and detectors.
Regarding claims 1, 23, and 28, the phrase “each of said electrode area or at least a part thereof being arranged…between a pair of the emitters and the detectors”, it is unclear if the plurality is referring to a plurality of electrodes, or electrode areas. Furthermore, it is unclear how each of the electrode areas (plural) can be found between a single pair of an emitter and a photodiode. It is further unclear how there is a pair of all the emitters and detectors when all of the emitters and detectors are alternating. It is unknown what the “at least a part thereof”, which part is being referred to, the areas or a part of an area. It is further unknown what the metes and bounds of the “electrode areas” as it is unknown what the “electrode areas” are composed of, and what is the size of such an area.
Claims 1 and 23 is directed to both product and a process. A single claim that claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 USC 112b. See MPEP 2173.05(p). Claim 1 is to an apparatus, i.e. a product, and claim 1 also requires specific method steps of “a photoplethysmography sensor device for determination of blood pressure”. Examiner suggest amending to recite the following limitation “a photoplethysmography sensor device configured for determination of blood pressure”.
Claims 1, 23, and 28 is directed to both product and a process. A single claim that claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 USC 112b. See MPEP 2173.05(p). Claim 1 is to an apparatus, i.e. a product, and claim 1 also requires specific method steps of “a plurality of emitters for emitting electromagnetic radiation and a plurality of detectors for detecting the radiation emitted by the emitters”. Examiner suggest amending to recite the following limitation “a plurality of emitters configured for emitting electromagnetic radiation and a plurality of detectors configured for detecting the radiation emitted by the emitters”.
Claim 1, 23, and 28 recites the limitation "the emitters" in lines 8-9, 14, 16, and 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 6 recites the phrase “the plurality of emitters”.
Claim 1, 23, and 28 recites the limitation "the detectors" in lines 8-9, and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 7 recites the phrase “the plurality of emitters”.
Claim 4, 26, and 30 is directed to both product and a process. A single claim that claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 USC 112b. See MPEP 2173.05(p). Claim 1 is to an apparatus, i.e. a product, and claim 1 also requires specific method steps of “a cardiogram is able to be recorded by at least one of the electrode areas and a photoplethysmography can be carried out simultaneously by the sensor device”. Examiner suggest amending to recite the following limitation “a cardiogram is configured to be recorded by at least one of the electrode areas and a photoplethysmography is configured to be carried out simultaneously by the sensor device”.
Claim 8 is directed to both product and a process. A single claim that claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 USC 112b. See MPEP 2173.05(p). Claim 1 is to an apparatus, i.e. a product, and claim 1 also requires specific method steps of “the emitters emit radiation of a wavelength that is the same and wherein the detectors detect at the same wavelength”. Examiner suggest amending to recite the following limitation “the emitters are configured to emit radiation of a wavelength that is the same and wherein the detectors are configured to detect at the same wavelength”.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1, 23, and 28, due to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues presented above, Examiner interprets the claim to contain a single electrode arranged between a pair of emitters and detectors, where that electrode has plurality of electrode areas, are simply just portions of the single electrode that make up the side of the electrode that is found between the emitter and detector.
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.
Claim 1-3, 7, and 23-25, 28, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foxlin et al. (US 20180296136)(Hereinafter Foxlin) in view of Pohjonen et al. (US 20180020975)(Hereinafter Pohjonen).
Regarding claims 1, 23, and 28, Foxlin teaches an examination apparatus for medical examination of an animal (Fig. 2D foot pad 190.), comprising:
a support surface for the animal to be examined (Fig. 2D foot pad 190.),
a photoplethysmography sensor device for determination of blood pressure of the animal ([0042] “the foot pads also include one or more LED-photo detector pairs 210 arranged therein such that when the user placing blood-perfused area of the foot (for example, the big toe) over the one or more LED-photo detector pairs 210, the biometric monitoring device 100 may implement or perform photo plethysmography to calculate, assess and/or determine blood pressure and/or arterial stiffness.” [0039] “a PPG sensor may generate an optical signal which is applied to the user's feet and may measure the light reflected from the user.”),
wherein the sensor device has a plurality of emitters for emitting electromagnetic radiation and a plurality of detectors for detecting the radiation emitted by the emitters ([0042] “the foot pads also include one or more LED-photo detector pairs 210 arranged therein such that when the user placing blood-perfused area of the foot (for example, the big toe) over the one or more LED-photo detector pairs 210, the biometric monitoring device 100 may implement or perform photo plethysmography to calculate, assess and/or determine blood pressure and/or arterial stiffness.” The wavelengths emitted from the light emission elements are electromagnetic radiation because each wavelength corresponds to a different region in the electromagnetic spectrum. See the plurality of emitter and detectors in Fig. 2D (210).), and
(claim 28 ) a sensor device for the optical examination of arterial blood flow of the animal, the sensor device having a plurality of emitters for emitting electromagnetic radiation and a plurality of detectors for detecting radiation emitted by the emitters, the emitters and detectors being arranged in a periodic structure (Fig. 2D shows the photodiodes and LEDs in a periodic structure as the photodiodes and LEDs are alternating. [0042] “the foot pads also include one or more LED-photo detector pairs 210 arranged therein such that when the user placing blood-perfused area of the foot (for example, the big toe) over the one or more LED-photo detector pairs 210, the biometric monitoring device 100 may implement or perform photo plethysmography to calculate, assess and/or determine blood pressure and/or arterial stiffness.” [0039] “a PPG sensor may generate an optical signal which is applied to the user's feet and may measure the light reflected from the user.” The instant specification defines the “periodic structure” as emitters and detectors arranged in a recurring or repeating structure ([0134]), which can be seen in Fig. 2D of Foxlin.), and
wherein the emitters and detectors are arranged in a column and row structure in which all of the emitters and detectors alternate with each other at … in both the columns and rows and between the columns and rows/from column to column and row to row (Figs. 2D where the LED and detectors are alternating in rows and columns in relatively/substantially equal intervals. [0042] “the foot pads also include one or more LED-photo detector pairs 210 arranged therein such that when the user placing blood-perfused area of the foot (for example, the big toe) over the one or more LED-photo detector pairs 210, the biometric monitoring device 100 may implement or perform photo plethysmography to calculate, assess and/or determine blood pressure and/or arterial stiffness. For example, an array of LED-photo detector pairs 210 may be employed to adaptively determine which location on the foot provides the best plethysmography signal.”)).
However, Foxlin does not teaches electrode having a plurality of electrode areas adapted for recording a cardiogram, each of said electrode areas or at least a part thereof being arranged, when viewed in a top view of the sensor device, between a pair of the emitters and the detectors and being exposed at the support surface and a barrier or limiting device that is impermeable to radiation emitted by the emitters, said barrier or limiting device being positioned below each of said electrode areas and configured for limiting an emission angle of the emitter and/or a detection angle of the detector. Pohjonen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electrode on a wearable device that is integrated with the optical components (Abstract), and further teaches an electrode having a plurality of electrode areas adapted for recording a cardiogram, each of said electrode areas or at least a part thereof being arranged, when viewed in a top view of the sensor device, between a pair of the emitters and the detectors and being exposed at the support surface ([0042] “The electrodes provided in various embodiments of the invention may be used for ICG (Impedance Cardiogram) measurements” The support surface is the location in which the user will place their hand on the device, which must be the electrode, for the capability of obtaining impedance cardiogram, which thereby makes the photodiode and emitter exposed to the surface and both components are facing upwards towards the electrodes, as seen in Fig. 3 of Pohjonen. Examiner interprets electrode areas of the single electrode as many small areas within a single electrode that make up the single electrode, see interpretation in Fig. below with all the circles of the electrode areas. Fig. 3 shows from the top view that the emitter and detector 307 and 308 are between electrode 303 of the right side.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
a barrier or limiting device that is impermeable to radiation emitted by the emitters, said barrier or limiting device being positioned below each of said electrode areas and configured for limiting an emission angle of the emitter and/or a detection angle of the detector ([0047] “frame part made of e.g. plastic [impermeable to radiation] and the frame part may be covered/coated with conductive material…the frame part and/or the conductive part of the electrode forms walls that define outer dimensions of the electrode. The walls form a space inside the electrode.” [0071] “the electrode walls function as a light barrier between the light source and the light detector.” See Fig. 3 where the emitter and detector 307 and 308 are limiting the emission and detection angle due to the barrier of the electrode with the frame and the body 301. Fig. 3 also shows the electrode 303 is found above the electrode wall and frame.) to reduce internal light pollution ([0071]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Foxlin, with the electrode having a plurality of electrode areas adapted for recording a cardiogram, each of said electrode areas or at least a part thereof being arranged, when viewed in a top view of the sensor device, between a pair of the emitters and the detectors and being exposed at the support surface and a barrier or limiting device that is impermeable to radiation emitted by the emitters, said barrier or limiting device being positioned below each of said electrode areas and configured for limiting an emission angle of the emitter and/or a detection angle of the detector of Pohjonen, because such a modification would allow to reduce internal light pollution.
Although Foxlin teaches an emitters and detectors in rows and columns between the rows and columns from column to column and row to row, Foxlin does not explicitly teach equidistant spacing between the emitters and detectors. Nevertheless, equidistant spacing between the emitters and detectors would be optimizing the spacing ranges and values, thereby maximizing the space used for the emitters and detectors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have equidistant emitters and detectors, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 2 and 24, Foxlin teaches wherein several emitters are associated with each detector (Fig. 2D and [0042] “the foot pads also include one or more LED-photo detector pairs 210 arranged therein such that when the user placing blood-perfused area of the foot (for example, the big toe) over the one or more LED-photo detector pairs 210” ).
Regarding claim 3, Foxlin teaches wherein the emitters and detectors are arranged in a matrix with at least one of (a) more than two columns or (b) more than two rows (Fig. 2D. See the matrix with more than 2 rows and columns.).
Regarding claim 7, Foxlin does not teach the photoplethysmography sensor device comprising more than 20 detectors. Nevertheless, Foxlin teaches the use of multiple detectors (photodetectors and emitters)(this can be as many as needed)(Fig. 23) used to locate different areas of a subject ([0163]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the examination apparatus of Foxlin, with the more than 20 detectors, because such a modification allows to locate different areas of a subject.
Regarding claim 25, Foxlin teaches further comprising a support for the animal or a paw during the examination, and wherein the sensor device is integrated in the support ([0006] “operating a biometric monitoring device, the device comprising a platform configured to receive at least one foot of a user, a plurality of sensors”).
Regarding claim 32, Foxlin teaches wherein the emitters and detectors are arranged in a matrix with at least one of (a) more than two columns or (b) more than two rows (Fig. 2D. See the matrix with more than 2 rows and columns.).
Regarding claim 33, the invention of claim 28 is obvious over Foxlin in view of Wroblewski. Although Foxlin teaches an emitters and detectors in rows and columns between the rows and columns from column to column and row to row, Foxlin does not explicitly teach equidistant spacing between the emitters and detectors. Nevertheless, equidistant spacing between the emitters and detectors would be optimizing the spacing ranges and values, thereby maximizing the space used for the emitters and detectors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have equidistant emitters and detectors, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 34-36, claims 1, 23, and 28 are obvious over Foxlin and Pohjonen. However, Foxlin does not teaches electrode has openings or areas transparent to the radiation arranged above the emitters and detectors. Pohjonen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electrode on a wearable device that is integrated with the optical components (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the electrode has openings or areas transparent to the radiation arranged above the emitters and detectors ([0050] “The light-passing element 402 extends from the opening 302 to the light source/detector. The light-passing element 402 may comprise for example a light guide, a light fiber, lenses, glass or some other optical component with suitable optical characteristics. Light guides and fibers are typically made of silicon dioxide (SiO2) or similar and do not cause allergies when undoped.”) to reduce internal light pollution ([0071]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Foxlin, with electrode has openings or areas transparent to the radiation arranged above the emitters and detectors of Pohjonen, because such a modification would allow to reduce internal light pollution.
Claim 4, 9, 26, and 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foxlin et al. (US 20180296136)(Hereinafter Foxlin) in view of Pohjonen et al. (US 20180020975)(Hereinafter Pohjonen), and Wiard et al. (US 20130310700)(Hereinafter Wiard).
Regarding claims 4, 26, and 30, claims 1, 23, and 28 are obvious over Foxlin and Pohjonen. Foxlin in view of Pohjonen do not teach a cardiogram simultaneously recorded with the optical detection of animal paw fitted. Wiard, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a heart and vascular characteristic of a user to determine a blood pressure (Abstract) including PPG sensor including LEDs and photodiodes ([0069]) teaches wherein one of the electrode areas are is arranged in such a way that, when an animal paw is positioned over the sensor device, a cardiogram is able to be recorded by at least one of the electrode areas and a photoplethysmography can be carried out simultaneously by the sensor device (Wiard teaches foot pads for biometric monitoring (examination apparatus) of human feet (humans are animals and feet are paws) ([0007]) containing an LED and detector (that emit and detect radiation) (which composes the PPG sensor device) ([0069], [0074]) for obtaining PPG and electrodes for collecting BCG (cardiogram detection element) ([0077], Fig. 1A) both from the feet in order to collect a simultaneous cardiogram (BCG) and PPG signal for estimating PWV (which requires the comparison of both signals to determine pulse wave velocity) ([0076], [0086]).) to increase the sensitivity of measurement ([0076]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the examination apparatus of Foxlin in view of Pohjonen, with the cardiogram simultaneously recorded with the optical detection of animal paw fitted of Wiard, because such a modification allows to increase the sensitivity of measurement.
Regarding claim 9, claims 1, 23, and 28 are obvious over Foxlin and Pohjonen. Foxlin in view of Pohjonen do not teach a sensor device integrated in support for an animal paw. Wiard, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a heart and vascular characteristic of a user to determine a blood pressure (Abstract) including PPG sensor including LEDs and photodiodes ([0069]) teaches further comprising a support for the animal or a paw during the examination, and wherein the sensor device is integrated in the support (Fig. 1A [0076] “The bathroom scale is configured to measure the ballistocardiogram (BCG) and the photoplethysmograph (PPG), both from the feet.”) to increase the sensitivity of measurement ([0076]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the examination apparatus of Foxlin in view of Pohjonen, with the cardiogram simultaneously recorded with the optical detection of animal paw fitted of Wiard, because such a modification allows to increase the sensitivity of measurement.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foxlin et al. (US 20180296136)(Hereinafter Foxlin) in view of Pohjonen et al. (US 20180020975)(Hereinafter Pohjonen), further in view of Kwon et al. (US 20170000350)(Hereinafter Kwon).
Regarding claim 8, claims 1, 23, and 28 are obvious over Foxlin and Pohjonen. Foxlin in view of Pohjonen do not teach emitting a wavelength that is the same as the detection from the detector. Kwon, in the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting biological information from light sources and detectors, similar to the device of Foxlin, and further teaches wherein the emitters emit radiation of a wavelength that is the same and wherein the detectors detect at the same wavelength (Fig. 17 and [0154] “In an example, the first light receiving device 200a may be a device receiving an optical signal in a red R region, and the second light receiving device 200b may be a device receiving an optical signal in a green G region. In this case, one of the first and second light emission elements 10 and 20 may be a red light source, and the other one may be a green light source.” The coloring emitted and received represent a specific wavelength in the electromagnetic radiation spectrum.) to optimally position the array over a radial artery ([0162]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Foxlin in view of Pohjonen, with the emitting a wavelength that is the same as the detection from the detector of Kwon, because such a modification would allow to optimally position the array over a radial artery.
Claims 5, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foxlin et al. (US 20180296136)(Hereinafter Foxlin) in view of Pohjonen et al. (US 20180020975)(Hereinafter Pohjonen) and Putila et al. (US 20200205681)(Hereinafter Putila).
Regrading claim 5 and 27, claims 1, 23, and 28 are obvious over Foxlin and Pohjonen. Foxlin in view of Pohjonen do not teach an electrode on a side of a transparent cover opposite of the emitters and detectors. Putila, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a heart activity sensor with photoplethysmogram sensor with LED and detector, similar to the device of Foxlin, and further teaches wherein the sensor device has a cover that is transparent to the radiation emitted by the emitters, and wherein said electrode is arranged on a side of the cover facing away from the emitters and detectors ([0042] “a substrate 300 of optically transparent material arranged to face a skin 208 of a user when the sensor device is worn by the user; at least one LED 302 arranged on the substrate 300 and arranged to emit light through the substrate 300; at least one photo sensor 304 arranged on the substrate 300 as spatially separated from the at least one LED 302 and arranged to absorb light through the substrate, wherein the at least one LED and the at least one photodiode are comprised in a PPG sensor of the heart activity sensor device” See Fig. 5 where substrate/cover 300 that is optically transparent contains an electrode on the opposite side of the photodiode and LEDs.) to arrange the electrode on the substrate opposite of the photo sensor ([0062]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the examination apparatus of Foxlin in view of Pohjonen, with the electrode on a side of a transparent cover opposite of the emitters and detectors of Putila, because such a modification allows to arrange the electrode on the substrate opposite of the photo sensor.
Regrading claim 31, claims 1, 23, and 28 are obvious over Foxlin and Pohjonen. Foxlin in view of Pohjonen do not teach the sensor device has a cover that is transparent to the radiation emitted by the emitters, and wherein said electrode is arranged on a side of the cover facing away from the emitters and detectors. Putila, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a heart activity sensor with photoplethysmogram sensor with LED and detector, similar to the device of Foxlin in view of Wroblewski, and further teaches wherein the sensor device has a cover that is transparent to the radiation emitted by the emitters, and wherein said electrode is arranged on a side of the cover facing away from the emitters and detectors ([0042] “a substrate 300 of optically transparent material arranged to face a skin 208 of a user when the sensor device is worn by the user; at least one LED 302 arranged on the substrate 300 and arranged to emit light through the substrate 300; at least one photo sensor 304 arranged on the substrate 300 as spatially separated from the at least one LED 302 and arranged to absorb light through the substrate, wherein the at least one LED and the at least one photodiode are comprised in a PPG sensor of the heart activity sensor device” See Fig. 5 where substrate/cover 300 that is optically transparent contains an electrode on the opposite side of the photodiode and LEDs.) to improve the accuracy of the measurements ([0080]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the examination apparatus of Foxlin in view of Pohjonen, with the sensor device has a cover that is transparent to the radiation emitted by the emitters, and wherein said electrode is arranged on a side of the cover facing away from the emitters and detectors of Putila, because such a modification allows to improve the accuracy of the measurements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights