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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 17 Jun 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 22 have been amended, claims 3, 7-8, 12, and 16-21 have been canceled, and claims 23-29 have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 22-29 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
II. Objections to Claims 3-4, 8, and 21-22
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 17 Jun 2025, with respect to objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
However, new objections to the claims are made below.
III. Rejection of Claims 1-17 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 17 Jun 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Haartsen (US 20190029529 A1), as explained in further detail below.
No specific arguments were made regarding dependent claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11, 13-15, and 21-22, and the previously cited prior art references. Therefore, these claims are also rejected below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, 25-26, and 28-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “at least one second biometric signal weight by the second weight value” on page 3, lines 5-6 should read “at least one second biometric signal weighted by the second weight value”
Claim 15: “about two or more photo-sensors” in line 11 should read “about the two or more photo-sensors”
Claims 25-26, 28-29: the comma after “device” in line 2 should be omitted
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 24 is 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 claim 24 (line 2) 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 as to how close to perpendicular the first and second directions must be. For the purposes of examination, “substantially” will be omitted from the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haartsen (U.S. Publication No. 20190029529 A1) in view of Duval (U.S. Publication No. 20180353075 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Haartsen discloses a wearable device (Figs. 1A-2B, apparatus 2) comprising:
a housing (Figs. 1A-1B, paragraph [0047], left earbud body 14, right earbud body 16, connector 20);
a plurality of photo-sensors that are arranged on the housing or arranged to be exposed outside through the housing, and comprising at least one array of photo-sensors (Figs. 1A-1B, paragraphs [0047]-[0048], PPG sensors 8 and 16; paragraph [0037], "It will be understood that the concept can be extended to more than two PPG sensors"); and
at least one processor (Fig. 4, paragraph [0058], processor 26); and
memory storing instructions (Fig. 4, paragraph [0058], memory 30 and heart rate determination module 34) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to:
obtain a plurality of biometric signals, based on outputting light through the plurality of photo-sensors (paragraphs [0062], [0066]-[0067], PPG sensors 8 and 16 emit light toward the user's skin and detect reflected light),
identify a quality of each of the plurality of biometric signals (paragraph [0062], "estimating the heart rate from the detected first light and the detected second light includes determining a quality of the detected first light relative to the detected second light ... estimating the heart rate from the detected first light and the detected second light includes determining a quality of the detected first light relative to the detected second light"),
determine, based on the quality, two or more photo-sensors among the plurality of photo-sensors as sensors for identification of biometric information (paragraph [0035], "higher quality signals are prioritized over lower quality signals"; paragraph [0037], "It will be understood that the concept can be extended to more than two PPG sensors"; paragraph [0072], "Estimating the heart rate from the detected first light and the detected second light includes identifying a quality of the detected first light from the left ear direction of motion and the first light direction, and identifying a quality of the detected second light from the right ear direction of motion and the second light direction"),
apply a first weight value to at least one first biometric signal obtained using at least one second photo-sensor among the two or more photo-sensors, and a second weight value to at least one second biometric signal obtained using at least one third photo-sensor among the two or more photo-sensors (Fig. 12, paragraph [0035], "W.sub.L and W.sub.R represent the weight factor prioritizing the left or right PPG sensor signals"; paragraph [0036], "Measuring ambient light, either explicitly with an additional photo detector close to the PPG photo detector or implicitly by measuring the DC current in the PPG photo detector, can be used to again to weigh the PPG sensor signals" ; paragraph [0037], "It will be understood that the concept can be extended to more than two PPG sensors"),
wherein the at least one second photo-sensor is disposed to face a first direction which is oriented toward a head side surface of the wearer (Figs. 2A-2B and 8, paragraph [0033], "the PPG sensor in the right ear may be operating along the Y-axis (horizontal, perpendicular to the head), pointing the light to the concha"; paragraph [0055]), and
the at least one third photo-sensor is disposed to face a second direction which is oriented toward an ear of the wearer (Figs. 2A-2B and 8, paragraph [0033], "the PPG sensor in the left ear may be operating along the X-axis (horizontal, in parallel to the head) pointing the light in the tragus or anti-tragus (Z-axis)"; paragraph [0055]), and
the second weight value is greater than the first weight value (paragraph [0035], "higher quality signals are prioritized over lower quality signals"; paragraph [0041], "the signal with the highest SNR (SIR) is weighted with a higher weight"),
identify the biometric information of the wearer, from the at least one first biometric signal weighted by the first weight value and at least one second biometric signal weighted by the second weight value (paragraph [0040], "the PPG input is taken and a HR is extracted. The two preliminary HRs, HR1 and HR2, can then be combined in block 130 to arrive at the estimated HR.sub.est"), and
output the identified biometric information (paragraph [0040], "the PPG input is taken and a HR is extracted. The two preliminary HRs, HR1 and HR2, can then be combined in block 130 to arrive at the estimated HR.sub.est").
Haartsen does not explicitly disclose, based on obtaining an input for identification information about a wearer of the wearable device, identifying the information on the at least one photo-sensor, which is stored in the memory. However, Duval teaches a reflective optical medical sensor device (Abstract) wherein the information on the at least one photo-sensor stored in the memory can be identified first (paragraph [0079]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirov with the teachings of Duval to identify whether information about at least one first photo-sensor among the plurality of photo-sensors corresponding to the identification information is stored in the memory, because doing so preserves battery power and minimizes costs and resources (Duval, paragraph [0076], [0024]).
Regarding claim 2, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Haartsen further discloses that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device, based on determining the two or more photo-sensors as the sensors for identification of biometric information, control the two or more photo-sensors among the plurality of photo-sensors to output two or more lights (paragraph [0046], "a new PPG sample may arrive every 20 ms (50 Hz sampling)"; Fig. 15, paragraphs [0067]-[0068], blocks 502 and 504).
Regarding claim 4, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Although Haartsen discloses a memory (Fig. 4, paragraph [0058], memory 30), Haartsen does not explicitly disclose that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to store, in the memory, information on the at least one photo-sensor determined as the sensor for identification of biometric information. However, Duval teaches that information on the at least one photo-sensor determined as the sensor for identification of biometric information is stored for later use (paragraph [0079]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirov with the teachings of Duval to store information on the at least one photo-sensor determined as the sensor for identification of biometric information, because doing so preserves battery power and minimizes costs and resources (Duval, paragraph [0076], [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, the wearable device of claim 4 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Haartsen does not explicitly disclose, based on the obtaining of the input for identification of the biometric information, identifying the information on the at least one photo-sensor, which is stored in the memory. However, Duval teaches that the information on the at least one photo-sensor stored in the memory can be identified first (paragraph [0079]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirov with the teachings of Duval to identify the information on the at least one photo-sensor based on the obtaining of the input, because doing so can save time and battery power by quickly finding the best photo-sensor to use (Duval, paragraph [0079], [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Haartsen further discloses that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to identify quality of biometric signals obtained from the two or more photo-sensors (paragraph [0062], "estimating the heart rate from the detected first light and the detected second light includes determining a quality of the detected first light relative to the detected second light ... estimating the heart rate from the detected first light and the detected second light includes determining a quality of the detected first light relative to the detected second light").
Haartsen does not explicitly disclose, based on identifying that the quality of the biometric signals obtained from the two or more photo-sensors is lower than a preset threshold value, re-determining the sensors for the identification of biometric information. However, Duval teaches that the device identifies quality of a biometric signal obtained from the at least one photo-sensor (paragraph [0078], SNR), and based on identifying that the quality of the biometric signal obtained from the at least one photo-sensor is lower than a preset threshold value, re-determine the sensor for identification of biometric information (paragraph [0080]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirov with the teachings of Duval to identify quality of a biometric signal and re-determine the sensor for identification of biometric information, because doing so preserves battery power and minimizes costs and resources (Duval, paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 10, Haartsen discloses a method for controlling a wearable device (Figs. 1A-2B, apparatus 2) comprising:
obtaining a plurality of biometric signals, based on outputting light through the plurality of photo-sensors (paragraphs [0062], [0066]-[0067], PPG sensors 8 and 16 emit light toward the user's skin and detect reflected light),
identifying a quality of each of the plurality of biometric signals (paragraph [0062], "estimating the heart rate from the detected first light and the detected second light includes determining a quality of the detected first light relative to the detected second light ... estimating the heart rate from the detected first light and the detected second light includes determining a quality of the detected first light relative to the detected second light"),
determining, based on the quality, two or more photo-sensors among the plurality of photo-sensors as sensors for identification of biometric information (paragraph [0035], "higher quality signals are prioritized over lower quality signals"; paragraph [0037], "It will be understood that the concept can be extended to more than two PPG sensors"; paragraph [0072], "Estimating the heart rate from the detected first light and the detected second light includes identifying a quality of the detected first light from the left ear direction of motion and the first light direction, and identifying a quality of the detected second light from the right ear direction of motion and the second light direction"),
applying a first weight value to at least one first biometric signal obtained using at least one second photo-sensor among the two or more photo-sensors, and a second weight value to at least one second biometric signal obtained using at least one third photo-sensor among the two or more photo-sensors (Fig. 12, paragraph [0035], "W.sub.L and W.sub.R represent the weight factor prioritizing the left or right PPG sensor signals"; paragraph [0036], "Measuring ambient light, either explicitly with an additional photo detector close to the PPG photo detector or implicitly by measuring the DC current in the PPG photo detector, can be used to again to weigh the PPG sensor signals" ; paragraph [0037], "It will be understood that the concept can be extended to more than two PPG sensors"),
wherein the at least one second photo-sensor is disposed to face a first direction which is oriented toward a head side surface of the wearer (Figs. 2A-2B and 8, paragraph [0033], "the PPG sensor in the right ear may be operating along the Y-axis (horizontal, perpendicular to the head), pointing the light to the concha"; paragraph [0055]), and
the at least one third photo-sensor is disposed to face a second direction which is oriented toward an ear of the wearer (Figs. 2A-2B and 8, paragraph [0033], "the PPG sensor in the left ear may be operating along the X-axis (horizontal, in parallel to the head) pointing the light in the tragus or anti-tragus (Z-axis)"; paragraph [0055]), and
the second weight value is greater than the first weight value (paragraph [0035], "higher quality signals are prioritized over lower quality signals"; paragraph [0041], "the signal with the highest SNR (SIR) is weighted with a higher weight"),
identifying the biometric information of the wearer, from the at least one first biometric signal weighted by the first weight value and at least one second biometric signal weighted by the second weight value (paragraph [0040], "the PPG input is taken and a HR is extracted. The two preliminary HRs, HR1 and HR2, can then be combined in block 130 to arrive at the estimated HR.sub.est"), and
outputting the identified biometric information (paragraph [0040], "the PPG input is taken and a HR is extracted. The two preliminary HRs, HR1 and HR2, can then be combined in block 130 to arrive at the estimated HR.sub.est").
Haartsen does not explicitly disclose, based on obtaining an input for identification information about a wearer of the wearable device, identifying the information on the at least one photo-sensor, which is stored in the memory. However, Duval teaches that the information on the at least one photo-sensor stored in the memory can be identified first (paragraph [0079]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirov with the teachings of Duval to identify whether information about at least one first photo-sensor among the plurality of photo-sensors corresponding to the identification information is stored in the memory, because doing so preserves battery power and minimizes costs and resources (Duval, paragraph [0076], [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 10 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Haartsen further discloses, based on determining the two or more photo-sensors as the sensors for identification of biometric information, controlling the two or more photo-sensors among the plurality of photo-sensors to output two or more lights (paragraph [0046], "a new PPG sample may arrive every 20 ms (50 Hz sampling)"; Fig. 15, paragraphs [0067]-[0068], blocks 502 and 504).
Regarding claim 13, the method of claim 10 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Although Haartsen discloses a memory (Fig. 4, paragraph [0058], memory 30), Haartsen does not explicitly disclose that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to store, in the memory, information on the at least one photo-sensor determined as the sensor for identification of biometric information. However, Duval teaches that information on the at least one photo-sensor determined as the sensor for identification of biometric information is stored for later use (paragraph [0079]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirov with the teachings of Duval to store information on the at least one photo-sensor determined as the sensor for identification of biometric information, because doing so preserves battery power and minimizes costs and resources (Duval, paragraph [0076], [0024]).
Regarding claim 15, the method of claim 13 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Haartsen does not explicitly disclose, based on the obtaining of the input for identification of the biometric information, identifying the information on the at least one photo-sensor, which is stored in the memory. However, Duval teaches that the information on the at least one photo-sensor stored in the memory can be identified first (paragraph [0079]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirov with the teachings of Duval to identify the information on the at least one photo-sensor based on the obtaining of the input, because doing so can save time and battery power by quickly finding the best photo-sensor to use (Duval, paragraph [0079], [0076]).
Regarding claim 23, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Haartsen further discloses that an angle between the first direction and the second direction is greater than 45 degrees (Fig. 8, paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 24, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Haartsen further discloses that the first direction and the second direction are substantially perpendicular (Fig. 8, paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 25, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Haartsen does not explicitly disclose that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to deactivate a light receiving unit of the at least one second photo-sensor. However, Duval further teaches that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to deactivate a light receiving unit of the at least one second photo-sensor (paragraph [0083], "the controller can be configured to reduce power to all channel pairs other than the selected channel pair"; paragraph [0044], a channel pair includes an optical detector and a light emitter unit).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haartsen with the teachings of Duval so that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to deactivate a light receiving unit of the at least one second photo-sensor, because doing so preserves battery power and minimizes costs and resources (Duval, paragraph [0076], [0024]).
Regarding claim 26, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Haartsen does not explicitly disclose that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to deactivate a light emitting unit of the at least one second photo-sensor. However, Duval further teaches that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to deactivate a light emitting unit of the at least one second photo-sensor (paragraph [0083], " the controller can be configured to reduce power to all channel pairs other than the selected channel pair"; paragraph [0044], a channel pair includes an optical detector and a light emitter unit).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haartsen with the teachings of Duval so that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to deactivate a light emitting unit of the at least one second photo-sensor, because doing so preserves battery power and minimizes costs and resources (Duval, paragraph [0076], [0024]).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haartsen (U.S. Publication No. 20190029529 A1) in view of Duval (U.S. Publication No. 20180353075 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Kovacs et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20170148240 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Kovacs.
Regarding claim 5, the wearable device of claim 4 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Duval further teaches storing information on the at least one photo-sensor determined as the sensor for identification of biometric information (paragraph [0079]), but does not disclose that this is done in association with information on a wearer. Duval does not disclose that the at least one processor is configured to: identify information on a wearer of the wearable device, and store the information on the at least one photo-sensor determined as the sensor for identification of biometric information in association with the information on the wearer.
However, Kovacs further teaches that the apparatus identifies information on a user of the apparatus based on collected biometric information (Fig. 1b, paragraphs [0073] and [0099], block 121), and stores information on the connection/de-connection of individual electrodes (analogous to the at least one photo-sensor) in association with the information on the user (paragraphs [0067], [0070], [0224]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirov and Duval with the teachings of Kovacs to identify information on a wearer of the wearable device, and store the information on the at least one photo-sensor determined as the sensor for identification of biometric information in association with the information on the wearer, because the biometric information associated with the wearer can be combined with other medical information of the wearer, allowing the device to provide wearer-specific medical assessment and health information (Kovacs, paragraphs [0062], [0090], [0128]).
Regarding claim 14, the method of claim 13 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Duval further teaches storing information on the at least one photo-sensor determined as the sensor for identification of biometric information (paragraph [0079]), but does not disclose that this is done in association with information on a wearer. Duval does not disclose that the at least one processor is configured to: identify information on a wearer of the wearable device, and store the information on the at least one photo-sensor determined as the sensor for identification of biometric information in association with the information on the wearer.
However, Kovacs further teaches that the apparatus identifies information on a user of the apparatus based on collected biometric information (Fig. 1b, paragraphs [0073] and [0099], block 121), and stores information on the connection/de-connection of individual electrodes (analogous to the at least one photo-sensor) in association with the information on the user (paragraphs [0067], [0070], [0224]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirov and Duval with the teachings of Kovacs to identify information on a wearer of the wearable device, and store the information on the at least one photo-sensor determined as the sensor for identification of biometric information in association with the information on the wearer, because the biometric information associated with the wearer can be combined with other medical information of the wearer, allowing the device to provide wearer-specific medical assessment and health information (Kovacs, paragraphs [0062], [0090], [0128]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haartsen (U.S. Publication No. 20190029529 A1) in view of Duval (U.S. Publication No. 20180353075 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190167200 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Jang.
Regarding claim 22, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Neither Haartsen nor Duval explicitly discloses that the wearable device transmits to an external device data on: a value of a current of a biometric signal, a voltage value of a biometric signal, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of a biometric signal, a heart rate of a wearer of the wearable device, an oxygen saturation level of blood of the wearer, and a blood pressure of the wearer.
However, Jang teaches a bio-signal quality assessment apparatus (Abstract) wherein a wearable device (paragraph [0055]) transmits to an external device data on a signal-to-noise ratio of a biometric signal (paragraphs [0004], [0143]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haartsen and Duval with the teachings of Jang to transmit data on a SNR of a biometric signal, because doing so allows assessment of the quality of the biometric signal to occur outside of the wearable device, which may be limited in its processing power (Jang, paragraph [0142]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haartsen (U.S. Publication No. 20190029529 A1) in view of Duval (U.S. Publication No. 20180353075 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Shemesh et al (U.S. Publication No. 20170020399 A1), hereinafter Shemesh.
Regarding claim 27, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Haartsen further discloses that the wearable device comprises a pair of wearing members (Figs. 1A-1B, paragraph [0047], left earbud body 14, right earbud body 16) that are substantially parallel to each other (Figs. 2A-2B, left earbud body 14 is substantially parallel to right earbud body 16), wherein each wearing member of the pair of wearing members includes at least one array of photos sensors of the at least one array (Figs. 1A-1B, paragraphs [0047]-[0048], PPG sensors 8 and 16; paragraph [0037], "It will be understood that the concept can be extended to more than two PPG sensors").
Haartsen does not explicitly disclose that the wearable device comprises augmented reality (AR) glasses. However, Shemesh teaches a device with a PPG sensor assembly that is built into the wearing members of a pair of glasses (Fig. 8D, paragraph [0108]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haartsen and Duval with the teachings of Shemesh so that the wearable device comprises augmented reality (AR) glasses and each wearing member of the pair of wearing members includes at least one array of photo-sensors of the at least one array, because doing so can mitigate PPG sensing artifacts (Shemesh, paragraph [0008]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haartsen (U.S. Publication No. 20190029529 A1) in view of Duval (U.S. Publication No. 20180353075 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Block et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190090766 A1), hereinafter Block.
Regarding claim 28, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Haartsen does not explicitly disclose that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to: activate a light emitting unit of a fourth photo-sensor of the plurality of photo-sensors, deactivate a light receiving unit of the fourth photo-sensor, and activate a light receiving unit of a fifth photo-sensor, so as to receive through the light receiving unit of the fifth photo-sensor, light received based on light output through the light emitting unit of the fourth photo-sensor, the light receiving unit of the fifth photo-sensor being adjacent to the light emitting unit of the fourth photo-sensor.
However, Block teaches an electronic device including light detectors and light emitters (Abstract) that:
activates a light emitting unit of a fourth photo-sensor (Fig. 3, paragraph [0053], step 354),
deactivate a light receiving unit of the fourth photo-sensor, and
activate a light receiving unit of a fifth photo-sensor, so as to receive through the light receiving unit of the fifth photo-sensor, light received based on light output through the light emitting unit of the fourth photo-sensor, the light receiving unit of the fifth photo-sensor being adjacent to the light emitting unit of the fourth photo-sensor (Fig. 3, paragraph [0053], step 356, "In the scenarios where the channels are measured sequentially, the process can be repeated for other channels until some or all channels are measured for a given light emitter").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haartsen and Duval with the teachings of Block so that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to: activate a light emitting unit of a fourth photo-sensor of the plurality of photo-sensors, deactivate a light receiving unit of the fourth photo-sensor, and activate a light receiving unit of a fifth photo-sensor, so as to receive through the light receiving unit of the fifth photo-sensor, light received based on light output through the light emitting unit of the fourth photo-sensor, the light receiving unit of the fifth photo-sensor being adjacent to the light emitting unit of the fourth photo-sensor, because doing so can allow the system to measure multiple regions of the user's skin for enhanced measurement accuracy (Block, paragraph [0053]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haartsen (U.S. Publication No. 20190029529 A1) in view of Duval (U.S. Publication No. 20180353075 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Putila et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20200205681 A1), hereinafter Putila.
Regarding claim 29, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Haartsen and Duval, as explained above. Neither Haartsen nor Duval explicitly discloses that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to activate the second photo-sensor and the at least one third photo-sensor simultaneously.
However, Putila teaches a wearable heart activity sensor device (Abstract) wherein two photosensors are activated simultaneously (paragraph [0093], "each photo sensor may measure the light from the LED 5 at the centre simultaneously ... each photo sensor may measure the light from the LED 6 at the centre simultaneously").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haartsen and Duval with the teachings of Putila so that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable device to activate the second photo-sensor and the at least one third photo-sensor simultaneously, because doing so improves the accuracy of the measurements and reduces signal interference by combining measurements from multiple sensors (Putila, paragraphs [0071], [0080], [0085]).
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 CHRISTINE SISON whose telephone number is (703)756-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5 pm PT, Mon - Fri.
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.
/CHRISTINE SISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796