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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Reply to Office Action filed April 08, 2025. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 4, 7-9, 12, 14, 16, and 18, as well as the cancellation of claims 1-3 and 10-11. Claims 4-9 and 12-22 are currently pending, with claims 4-9 and 14-21 being withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed April 08, 2025, with respect to the objection made to claim 12, and the rejection of claims 12-13 & 22 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objection of claim 12 and the previous rejection of claims 12-13 & 22 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed April 08, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12-13 & 22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly added claim limitations to claim 12 and newly found prior art that reads on those limitations. As such, claims 12-13 & 22 are still rejected under 35 USC 103, and claims 4-9 and 12-22 are not eligible for rejoinder. See 35 USC 103 claim rejections below.
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(s) 12 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20170156651 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Arias" in view of US Patent Application Publication 20130060104 --as previously cited, hereinafter referenced as "Schlottau", and in further view of US Patent Application Publication 20180220906, hereinafter referenced as “LeBoeuf”.
With respect to claim 12, Arias teaches a pulse oximeter device for conducting PPG measurements using broadband light (see Arias, abstract, par 0007-0010) comprising:
a first organic photodiode (OPD) having a first sensing region 25 (i.e., an organic polymer photodiode (OPD) of an OPD array), the first OPD absorbs/detects light in a first wavelength range including visible wavelengths up to about 700nm (i.e., the photodetector absorbs/detects wavelengths of light up to red light, including green light) (see Arias, par 0039-0043, figs. 1 & 2);
a second OPD having a second sensing region 25 (i.e., an organic polymer photodiode (OPD) of an OPD array), the second OPD absorbs/detects light in a second wavelength range including visible wavelengths and NIR wavelengths greater than 700nm (i.e., the photodetector absorbs/detects wavelengths of light including red light and infrared light that has wavelengths greater than 700 nm) (see Arias, par 0039-0043, figs. 1 & 2);
and an optical filter disposed proximal to the second sensing region (i.e., an active layer is formed on the surface of the OPDs using a polymer such as PTB7:PC70BM or a BODIPY-based polymer to sense visible wavelengths such as green light and red light, and near infrared (NIR) wavelengths beyond 750 nm), the optical filter transmitting only light having a wavelength of greater than about 590nm (i.e., red light), light in the wavelength range from about 490 nm to about 570 nm (i.e., green light), or only light having a wavelength of greater than about 700nm (i.e., NIR light) (see Arias, par 0043-0044 & 0113, fig. 13D).
Arias fails to explicitly teach that in the photodetector sensor array, one photodetector and respective filter is used to absorb/detect wavelengths of red light (i.e., wavelengths of light greater than 590 nm) and that another photodetector and respective filter is used to absorb/detect green light and NIR light (i.e., wavelengths of light in the range of 490 nm to 570 nm and greater than 700 nm).
Schlottau teaches a photodetector array 120 that comprises a plurality of photodetectors (see Schlottau, figs. 1 & 5, par 0017-0018, 0020, 0026, 0030, 0035, 0040). The photodetectors of the photodetector array have filters 122A, 122B disposed over them such that the respective photodetector can only detect certain wavelengths of light, such as red or infrared light (see Schlottau, fig. 5, par 0017-0018, 0021, 0026, 0030, 0033-0036, 0040), in addition to shorter and longer wavelengths of light (i.e., light having wavelengths of 400-700 nm or 800-1000 nm) (see Schlottau, par 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Arias such that in the photodetector sensor array, one photodetector and respective filter is used to absorb/detect wavelengths of red light (i.e., wavelengths of light greater than 590 nm) and that another photodetector and respective filter is used to absorb/detect green light and NIR light (i.e., wavelengths of light in the range of 490 nm to 570 nm and greater than 700 nm) because it would improve the system of Arias by permitting the system to use broadband light as a light source while still having wavelength selectivity when measuring the light returning from the tissue of a subject/patient (see Schlottau, par 0043).
Arias in view of Schlottau fails to teach neither the pulse oximeter device for conducting PPG measurement uses broadband ambient light, nor the pulse oximeter device does not include a light source for use in conducting PPG measurements.
LeBoeuf teaches physiological monitoring apparatuses and networks wherein in an embodiment, an earpiece pulse oximetry device uses ambient light, such as room light or solar radiation as an optical source in the device (see LeBoeuf, fig. 17, par 0138). The ambient light is useful in this application because it is a diffuse optical source that is largely independent of a user/patient’s body position, which aids in lessening the amount of motion artifacts that may arise if the user/patient moves when the device is in operation (see LeBoeuf, par 0138).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Arias in view of Schlottau such that the pulse oximeter device for conducting PPG measurement uses broadband ambient light, and the pulse oximeter device does not include a light source for use in conducting PPG measurements because the use of ambient light can permit the lessening of motion artifacts in obtained pulse oximetry measurements as ambient light is a diffuse optical source that is largely independent of a user/patient’s body position (see LeBoeuf, par 0138).
With respect to claim 22, Arias in view of Schlottau and LeBoeuf teaches the pulse oximeter device of claim 12. Arias further teaches the pulse oximeter device further comprises a flexible substrate, wherein the first OPD and the second OPD are disposed on the flexible substrate (i.e., the first OPD and the second OPD are fabricated on a polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) flexible substrate) (see Arias, abstract, par 0044, 0083, 0085, 0094, claim 4).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arias in view of Schlottau and LeBoeuf, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Non-Patent Literature "Power generating reflective-type liquid crystal displays using a reflective polariser and a polymer solar cell", hereinafter referenced as "Huh".
With respect to claim 13, Arias in view of Schlottau and LeBoeuf teaches forming an active layer on OPDs using a polymer such as PTB7:PC70BM or a BODIPY-based polymer to sense visible wavelengths such as green light and red light, and near infrared (NIR) wavelengths beyond 750 nm, but fails to teach the first OPD comprises PCDTBT:PCBM70 and the second OPD comprises PCDTBT:PCBM70 or P3HT:O-IDTBR.
Huh teaches using a PCDTBT:PCBM70 photovoltaic layer in a polymer solar cell that has an optical absorption spectra in the visible range from 350 nm to 650 nm and an absorption onset at 720 nm (see Huh, abstract, page 2, paragraph 2 of "Experimental" section, page 6, paragraph 1, fig. 3(a)-(d)). Furthermore, the use of CDTBT:PCBM70 as the photovoltaic layer of the polymer solar cell resulted in an increased reflectivity of the solar cell in visible light illumination (see Huh, conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Arias in view of Schlottau and LeBoeuf such that the first OPD comprises PCDTBT:PCBM70 and the second OPD comprises PCDTBT:PCBM70 or P3HT:O-IDTBR because that would improve the device of Arias in view of Schlottau and LeBoeuf by increasing the filtering of light of the OPDs since PCDTBT:PCBM70 increases the reflectivity of the surface it is layered on (see Huh, abstract, page 2, paragraph 2 of "Experimental" section, page 6, paragraph 1, fig. 3(a)-(d), conclusion).
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 Destiny J Cruickshank whose telephone number is (571)270-0187. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examine
Art Unit 3791
/D.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3791