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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 30, 2026 has been entered.
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 31-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 recites “identifying that the first optical signal and the second optical signal correspond to a same blood pulse event” in lines 12-14.
Claim 41 recites “to identify that the first PPG signal and the second PPG signal correspond to the blood pulse event” in lines 15-16.
However, the Specification does not clearly identify (1) proper written description support describing this limitation, and (2) the computer and the algorithm, i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts, that perform the claimed function.
The Specification teaches a correlator operable to correlate the first and second optical signals detected by first and second light detectors such that the time delay can be determined; however, the Specification is silent on “identifying that the first optical signal and the second optical signal correspond to a same blood pulse event” (claim 31) and “to identify that the first PPG signal and the second PPG signal correspond to the blood pulse event” (claim 41).
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaestle (US 20140155759) in view of Hatch (US 20170112422), and Mohamed (US 9532744).
Regarding claim 48, Kaestle, teaches a method for obtaining vital sign information comprising the steps of illuminating skin of the subject with light of multiple wavelengths from a light source assembly (8) electrically connected to an integrated circuit (processing unit 6) (Paragraphs [0042]-[0044]); selecting, by the integrated circuit, one or more channels of operation for a photoplethysmography (PPG) signal based on the determined skin tone. (Paragraph [0078] the illumination unit is implemented by a set of LEDs, with the wavelengths selected according to the need of the monitoring goal. For pulse monitoring, where the change in skin color is used, there would be a need of LEDs in the green range (e.g., 500 nm) and a reference in the red range (e.g., 650 nm)).
However, Kaestle does not specifically teach “detecting, by a spectral sensor of the integrated circuit, a spectrum of light absorption by the skin; determining, by the integrated circuit, a physical characteristic of the subject based on the detected spectrum of light absorption by the skin, wherein determining the physical characteristic of the subject comprises determining a skin tone of the subject based on a comparison between the detected spectrum of light absorption by the skin and a reference spectrum.”
Hatch, in a related field of endeavor, teaches detecting, by a spectral sensor (spectrometer 530) of the integrated circuit (computer 560), a spectrum of light absorption by the skin (Paragraph [0059]); determining, by the integrated circuit, a physical characteristic of the subject (i.e., skin pigmentation, thickness, spectral optical density) based on the detected spectrum of light absorption by the skin. (Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaestle to teach “detecting, by a spectral sensor of the integrated circuit, a spectrum of light absorption by the skin; determining, by the integrated circuit, a physical characteristic of the subject based on the detected spectrum of light absorption by the skin” as taught by Hatch. Doing so satisfies the need to accommodate the naturally wide variation in degree of skin pigmentation, the range of skin tissue opacity to the wavelengths used, and possibly other normal variations that must be accommodated to create a practical biometric instrument. (Paragraph [0006]).
Mohamad, in a related field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the physical characteristic of the subject comprises determining a skin tone of the subject (Abstract, determining the concentration of the types of melanin) based on a comparison between the detected spectrum of light absorption by the skin and a reference spectrum. (Col. 6, lines 1-24; Col. 7, lines 59-65 comparing and measuring the difference between data on actual spectral reflectance collected from the visible light intensity sensing device which may be a spectrophometer or the multispectral camera and data simulated from the said Monte Carlo simulation.)
As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaestle to teach “wherein determining the physical characteristic of the subject comprises determining a skin tone of the subject based on a comparison between the detected spectrum of light absorption by the skin and a reference spectrum” as taught by Mohamad. Doing so enables development of an accurate model of light interaction with skin tissue. (Col. 6, lines 34-38).
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaestle in view Hatch and Mohamad, further in view of Ermakov (U.S. Patent Pub. 20090306521) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 50, Kaestle as modified teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except “determining a physical characteristic of the subject comprises determining an amount of beta carotene in the skin of the subject.”
Ermakov, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a method for the determination of carotenoid levels in biological tissue such as living skin using reflection spectroscopy. (Abstract, Paragraph [0047]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaestle as modified to provide “determining a physical characteristic of the subject comprises determining an amount of beta carotene in the skin of the subject” of Ermakov. Doing so may help determine the healthiness of the skin. (Paragraph [0047]).
Examiner's Note
No art is applied to claims 31-40 because the prior art does not specifically teach to “identify, by correlating features of the first optical signal and the second optical signal, that the first optical signal and the second optical signal correspond to a same blood pulse event”. However, the claims are not in condition for allowance due to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
No art is applied to claims 41-47 because the prior art does not specifically teach “wherein the time delay is determined by correlating features of the first optical signal and the second optical signal to identify that the first PPG signal and the second PPG signal correspond to the blood pulse event”. However, the claims are not in condition for allowance due to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/30/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 31-48 and 50 under U.S.C. 103 have been full considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 103 for claim 48 in view of Kaestle, Hatch, and Mohamad.
Conclusion
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 Om A. Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-6331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/OM PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights