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 Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed 6/03/2026. As directed by the Amendment, claims 1, 2, 13, 14, and 17 are amended and claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-9, 12-14, 17, and 19-22 are pending in the application.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the references cited in the previous Office Action, whether considered alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest having two or more second light receivers adjacent to an inside surface of the housing and operable to detect light that is scattered by or reflected off the tissue of the digit of the user. However, De Benedetti discloses a pulse oximetry device with at least one light detector for detecting the light emitted from said one or more light emitters after the light has passed through, ie has transited, said human tissue [see in ¶ 0052]. As such, the rejections to claims 1, 13, 17, and their respective dependent claims have been updated in light of Applicant’s amendments and remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see below under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103).
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.
Claims 1,2, 6, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov (US 20060009685 A1) in view of De Benedetto et al. (US 20210169382 A1), hereinafter De Benedetto.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Finarov teaches a pulse oximetry system, comprising:
a housing operable to interface with a digit of a user [optical measurement device 10, see in Fig. 1 and ¶ 0027 and ¶ 0034];
a first light emitter [optical window 19 + light emitting elements in illumination assembly 12, see in Fig. 1 and ¶ 0028] positioned adjacent to an inside surface of the housing [see 19 in Fig.1] and operable to emit a first light having at least one first wavelength [an illumination assembly configured and operable to generate illuminating light of a predetermined wavelength range, see in ¶ 0010-¶ 0013], the light configured to transmit through tissue of the digit of the user [light signal transmitted through the finger, see in ¶ 0029], wherein some of the light is scattered by or reflected off the tissue of the digit of the user [see in ¶ 0008; illuminated region can be a finger, see in ¶ 0028];
a second light emitter operable to emit a second light having at least one second wavelength [the illumination assembly 12 is designed for generating light of different wavelengths (at least two different wavelengths), which can be implemented by using different light emitting elements or a single broadband illuminator, see in ¶ 0028];
a first light receiver [first detector unit 14a, see in ¶ 0029 and Fig. 1] positioned adjacent to an inside surface of the housing opposite from the inside surface adjacent to which the light emitter [14a opposite of 12+19, see in Fig. 1] is positioned and operable to detect light that is transmitted through the tissue of the digit of the user [detecting a first light signal transmitted through the finger F, see in ¶ 0029]; and
second light receiver [second detector unit 14b, see in ¶ 0029 and Fig. 1] adjacent to an inside surface of the housing [14b adjacent to 12+19, see in Fig. 1] and operable to detect light that is scattered by or reflected off the tissue of the digit of the user [second detector unit for detecting a second light signal reflected from the illuminated body portion (which can be a finger), see in ¶ 0010-¶ 0013].
Examiner notes that although Finarov mentions motives of expanding the non-invasive techniques to measurements different from pulse oximetry [see in ¶ 0005 and ¶ 0006], Finarov at ¶ 0037 discloses that the present invention can be “used in measurements based on detecting a pulsatile signal of a light response of the medium (such as in the conventional pulse oximeter).”
Finarov fails to disclose wherein the oximetry system comprises two or more second light receivers.
However, De Benedetti discloses a pulse oximetry device with at least one light detector for detecting the light emitted from said one or more light emitters after the light has passed through, ie has transited, said human tissue [see in ¶ 0052].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include that there are two or more second light receivers in order to better capture all of the light passed through the tissue of the subject for improved accuracy.
Regarding claim 6, Finarov as modified discloses the pulse oximetry system of claim 2.
Finarov as modified fails to disclose the system further comprising a transmitter operable to send the transmitted-light data and the scattered-light and/or reflected light data.
However, De Benedetto discloses a Bluetooth wireless module as a transmitter [see in ¶ 0162].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include a transmitter within the system in order to exchange with (and access data from) other data holding sources.
Regarding claim 7, Finarov as modified by De Benedetto discloses the pulse oximetry system of claim 6, further disclosing a transmitter that is a wireless transceiver [Bluetooth wireless module, see in ¶ 0162].
Regarding claim 13, Finarov teaches a pulse oximetry system comprising:
a housing including a first portion and a second portion, the first and second portions operable to at least partially surround at least a portion of a user's digit [optical measurement device 10, top and bottom portions attached to 26, see in Fig. 1 and ¶ 0027 and ¶ 0034];
a first light emitter [optical window 19 + light emitting elements in illumination assembly 12, see in Fig. 1 and ¶ 0028] positioned adjacent to the first portion of the housing [see 12+19 in Fig.1, first portion of housing mapped to bottom portion of 10 attached to 26] and operable to emit a light having at least one wavelength and operable to emit a light having at least one wavelength [an illumination assembly configured and operable to generate illuminating light of a predetermined wavelength range, see in ¶ 0010-¶ 0013];
a second light emitter operable to emit a light having at least one wavelength [the illumination assembly 12 is designed for generating light of different wavelengths (at least two different wavelengths), which can be implemented by using different light emitting elements or a single broadband illuminator, see in ¶ 0028];
a first light receiver [first detector unit 14a, see in ¶ 0029 and Fig. 1] positioned adjacent to the second portion of the housing [see in Fig. 1, second portion of housing mapped to top portion of 10 attached to 26] and opposite the first light emitter [The light detection assembly 14 includes a first detector unit 14A accommodated substantially opposite the illumination assembly 12 for detecting a first light signal transmitted through the finger F and generating first measured data, see in ¶ 0029; see in Fig. 1, 14a positioned on opposite portion of 12+19]; and
second light receiver [second detector unit 14b, see in ¶ 0029 and Fig. 1] positioned adjacent to the first portion of the housing [see in Fig.1, first portion of housing mapped to bottom portion of 10 attached to 26].
Although Finarov discloses that light of at least two different wavelengths can be generated by the illumination assembly [see in ¶ 0028], Finarov fails to explicitly disclose that the first light emitter is operable to emit at least one wavelength within the range of 620 nanometers (nm) to 750 nm and that the second light emitter is operable to emit a light having at least one wavelength within the range of 800 nm to 1 millimeter.
However, De Benedetto discloses two light emitters emitting light at approximately 600 nm and 900 nm [The light sources or emitters 2, 3 embedded in the pulse oximetry unit 9 are LED type and emit red and infrared lights of wavelengths of approximately 600 and 900 nm, respectively, see in ¶ 0158].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include two light emitters to emit red and infrared wavelengths, as red and infrared light is used to detect deoxygenated and oxygenated hemoglobin, respectively, in order to obtain the appropriate signals for calculating oxygen saturation [see De Benedetto equation 00001].
As modified, Finarov still fails to disclose wherein the oximetry system comprises two or more second light receivers.
However, De Benedetti discloses a pulse oximetry device with at least one light detector for detecting the light emitted from said one or more light emitters after the light has passed through, ie has transited, said human tissue [see in ¶ 0052].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include that there are two or more second light receivers in order to better capture all of the light passed through the tissue of the subject for improved accuracy.
Regarding claim 14, Finarov teaches the pulse oximetry system of claim 13, wherein
the first light receiver is operable to generate transmitted-light data in response to light that is transmitted through the tissue of the user [first detector unit for detecting a first light signal transmitted through an illuminated body portion and generating first measured data indicative of the detected transmitted light, see in ¶ 0010-¶ 0013] and
the second light receivers are operable to generate scattered-light and/or reflected light data in response to light that is scattered by or reflected off the tissue of the user [second detector unit for detecting a second light signal reflected from the illuminated body portion and generating second measured data indicative of the detected reflected light, see in ¶ 0010-¶ 0013].
Regarding claim 21, Finarov, discloses the pulse oximetry system of claim 1.
Although Finarov discloses that light of at least two different wavelengths can be generated by the illumination assembly [see in ¶ 0028], Finarov fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first light emitter is operable to emit the first light having the at least one first wavelength within the range of 620 nanometers (nm) to 750 nm.
However, De Benedetto discloses the first light emitter operable to emit the first light having the at least one first wavelength within the range of 620 nanometers (nm) to 750 nm [The light sources or emitters 2, 3 embedded in the pulse oximetry unit 9 are LED type and emit red and infrared lights of wavelengths of approximately 600 and 900 nm, respectively, see in ¶ 0158].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include that the first light emitter is operable to emit the first light having the at least one first wavelength within the range of 620 nanometers (nm) to 750 nm, also known as red light, as red light is used to detect deoxygenated hemoglobin, in order to obtain the appropriate signals for calculating oxygen saturation [see De Benedetto equation 00001].
Regarding claim 22, Finarov, as modified, discloses the pulse oximetry system of claim 21.
Although Finarov discloses that light of at least two different wavelengths can be generated by the illumination assembly [see in ¶ 0028], Finarov fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second light emitter is operable to emit the second light having the at least one second wavelength within the range of 800 nm to 1 millimeter.
However, De Benedetto discloses the second light emitter operable to emit the second light having the at least one second wavelength within the range of 800 nm to 1 millimeter [The light sources or emitters 2, 3 embedded in the pulse oximetry unit 9 are LED type and emit red and infrared lights of wavelengths of approximately 600 and 900 nm, respectively, see in ¶ 0158].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include that the second light emitter is operable to emit the second light having the at least one second wavelength within the range of 800 nm to 1 millimeter, also known as infrared light, as infrared light is used to detect oxygenated hemoglobin, in order to obtain the appropriate signals for calculating oxygen saturation [see De Benedetto equation 00001].
Claims 3-5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov (US 20060009685 A1) in view of De Benedetto et al. (US 20210169382 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Jacques (US 6421549 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Finarov, as modified, discloses the pulse oximetry system of claim 2, further comprising a processor [control unit 20, see in Fig. 1, ¶ 0027, and ¶ 0035].
Finarov fails to disclose that the processor is configured to use a calibration curve based on the scattered-light and/or reflected light data.
However, Jacques teaches an oximetry method and device and discloses that the scattered-light and/or reflected light data is provided to select a calibration curve based on the scattered-light and/or reflected light data [These values are representative of absorption and scattering characteristics of the tissue and can be used to adaptively select an appropriate R vs. SaO2 calibration curve, see in Col. 10, lines 53-56 and Col. 15, lines 15-19].
Finarov and Jacques are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of Jacques and include that scattered data is used in the selection process of a calibration curve by the processor, in order to more accurately and properly calculate the R value while taking background tissue optics into consideration [see in Jacques Col. 7, lines 22-43].
Regarding claim 4, Finarov, as modified, discloses the pulse oximetry system of claim 3.
Finarov as modified fails to disclose that the processor is further configured to select the calibration curve from a plurality of calibration curves.
However, Jacques discloses a plurality of calibration curves available for selection, in which scattered light related values play an important role in establishing the calibration curves [These values are representative of absorption and scattering characteristics of the tissue and can be used to adaptively select an appropriate R vs. SaO2 calibration curve, see in Col. 10, lines 53-56 and Col. 15, lines 15-19; see in Col. 11, lines 14-17].
Finarov and Jacques are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of Jacques and include that the processor uses scattered data in the selection process of a calibration curve from a plurality of curves for optimal calibration accuracy over a range of oxygen saturation levels [see in Jacques Col. 5, lines 54-57].
Regarding claim 5, Finarov, as modified, discloses the pulse oximetry system of claim 4, including the aforementioned processor.
Finarov as modified fails to disclose that the processor is further operable to determine the R value in response to the transmitted-light data, the R value indicating an SpO2 level via the calibration curve.
However, De Benedetto discloses the R value as well as a processor programmed to perform the needed measurements for the calculation [see in ¶0026-¶0027, ¶0031-¶0032, ¶0044, and equation 00001].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include a processor able to determine the R value based on transmitted-light data in order to implement the calculation of SpO2 levels within the same system.
Regarding claim 8, Finarov, as modified, discloses the pulse oximetry system of claim 2.
Finarov fails to disclose the system further comprising a processor operable to receive the transmitted-light data and calculate an R value ([AC66o] / [DC66o]) / ([AC940] / [DC940]) and operable to receive the scattered-light and/or reflected light data and determine a calibration curve based on the scattered-light and/or reflected light data, the processor operable to determine an SpO2 level based on the calculated R value and the calibration curve.
However, Jacques discloses determining a calibration curve and R values with scattered light properties considered [see in Col. 10, lines 7-13 and Col. 11, lines 23-29].
Finarov and Jacques are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of Jacques and include determining a calibration curve based on R values and scattering light properties in the pulse oximetry system, in order to ensure accurate sensing.
Finarov as modified by Jacques still does not disclose the R value equation and a processor able to receive transmitted light data, calculate the R value, and determine an SpO2 level based on the R value and calibration curve.
However, De Benedetto discloses the equation for the R value as well as a processor programmed to perform the needed measurements for the calculation of SpO2 [see in ¶0026-¶0027, ¶0031-¶0032, ¶0044, and equation 00001].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include a processor able to determine the R value based on transmitted-light data in order to implement the calculation of SpO2 levels within the same system.
Regarding claim 9, Finarov as modified discloses the pulse oximetry system of claim 8.
Finarov as modified does not disclose the system further comprising a memory operable to store a database of a plurality of calibration curves each relating to a different profile of skin pigmentation.
However, De Benedetto discloses that the pulse oximetry device may comprise a memory and the calibration data may be stored locally on said memory [see in ¶ 0039].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include a memory to store calibration related data, as local storage within the system allows for prompt access of relevant data.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov (US 20060009685 A1) in view of De Benedetto (US 20210169382 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ali et al. (US 20110288384 A1), hereinafter Ali.
Regarding claim 12, Finarov discloses the pulse oximetry system of claim 1.
Finarov fails to explicitly disclose that the system further comprises a pulse monitor.
However, Ali discloses that a pulse oximeter typically provides a numerical readout of the patient's oxygen saturation, a numerical readout of pulse rate, and an audible indicator or beep that occurs in response to each pulse [see in ¶ 0003].
Finarov and Ali are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurements of blood composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of Ali and explicitly state that pulse monitoring is included in the optical measurement system, as monitoring and determining a pulse is an important component of measuring oxygen saturation through pulse oximetry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov (US 20060009685 A1), in view of De Benedetto (US 20210169382 A1) and further in view of Jacques (US 6421549 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Finarov discloses a method of taking a reading of an SpO2 level of a user, the method comprising:
emitting first light from a first light emitter wherein a portion of the first light is transmitted through tissue of the user and a portion of the first light is scattered and/or reflected by the tissue of the user [see in ¶ 0019];
detecting at least some of the portion of the first light transmitted through the tissue of the user by a first light receiver [see in ¶ 0020] opposite the light emitter [The light detection assembly 14 includes a first detector unit 14A accommodated substantially opposite the illumination assembly 12 for detecting a first light signal transmitted through the finger F and generating first measured data, see in ¶ 0029; see in Fig. 1, 14a positioned on opposite portion of 12+19];
detecting at least some of the portion of the second light scattered and/or reflected by the tissue of the user by a second light receiver [see in ¶ 0020 and ¶ 0021].
Although Finarov discloses that light of at least two different wavelengths can be generated by the illumination assembly [see in ¶ 0028], Finarov fails to explicitly disclose that the first light emitter is operable to emit the first light having at least one wavelength within the range of 620 nanometers (nm) to 750 nm and that the second light emitter is operable to emit the second light having at least one wavelength within the range of 800 nm to 1 millimeter.
However, De Benedetto discloses two light emitters emitting light at approximately 600 nm and 900 nm [The light sources or emitters 2, 3 embedded in the pulse oximetry unit 9 are LED type and emit red and infrared lights of wavelengths of approximately 600 and 900 nm, respectively, see in ¶ 0158].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include two light emitters to emit red and infrared wavelengths, as red and infrared light is used to detect deoxygenated and oxygenated hemoglobin, respectively, in order to obtain the appropriate signals for calculating oxygen saturation [see De Benedetto equation 00001].
As modified, Finarov still fails to disclose wherein the oximetry system comprises two or more second light receivers.
However, De Benedetti discloses a pulse oximetry device with at least one light detector for detecting the light emitted from said one or more light emitters after the light has passed through, ie has transited, said human tissue [see in ¶ 0052].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include that there are two or more second light receivers in order to better capture all of the light passed through the tissue of the subject for improved accuracy.
Finarov as modified still fails to disclose calculating an R value based on the first light transmitted through the tissue of the user detected by the first light receiver, and determining the SpO2 level of the user based on the R value.
However, De Benedetto discloses calculating R values with light signals that may be reflected, scattered, or transmitted, and having the SpO2 measurement being a function of the R parameter [see in ¶ 0031-¶ 0034 and equation 00001].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include steps of calculating an R value based on transmitted light and determining SpO2 measurements based on the R value, as it is known in the art of pulse oximetry to be a reliable method of obtaining oxygen saturation measurements.
Finarov as modified by De Benedetto still fails to disclose selecting a calibration curve from a plurality of calibration curves based on the portion of the second light scattered and/or reflected by the tissue of the user detected by the two or more second light receivers, calculating an R value based on the first light transmitted through the tissue of the user detected by the first light receiver, and determining the SpO2 level of the user based on the R value with respect to the calibration curve selected from the plurality of calibration curves.
However, Jacques discloses a plurality of calibration curves available for selection, in which scattered light related values play an important role in establishing the calibration curves [These values are representative of absorption and scattering characteristics of the tissue and can be used to adaptively select an appropriate R vs. SaO2 calibration curve, see in Col. 10, lines 53-56 and Col. 15, lines 15-19; see in Col. 11, lines 14-17].
Finarov and Jacques are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of Jacques and include that scattered data is used in the selection process of a calibration curve from a plurality of curves for optimal calibration accuracy over a range of oxygen saturation levels [see in Jacques Col. 5, lines 54-57].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov (US 20060009685 A1), in view of De Benedetto (US 20210169382 A1) and Jacques (US 6421549 B1), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bindszus et al. (US 6178343 B1), hereinafter Bindszus.
Regarding claim 19, Finarov as modified discloses the method of claim 17.
Finarov as modified fails to disclose calculating the R value as an average over the predetermined period of time.
However, De Benedetto discloses that the underlying signal to calculate an R value (photoplethysmographic signal) can be acquired over different durations and averaged within the duration window [see in De Benedetto ¶ 0149].
Finarov and De Benedetto are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of De Benedetto and include calculating the R value as an average over a predetermined period of time in order to obtain more representative R values.
Further, Finarov as currently modified still fails to disclose the method further comprising detecting a pulse of the user over a predetermined period of time.
However, Bindszus discloses that it is well known in the art of pulse oximetry that pulse and pulse period can be determined using pulse finding algorithms to analyze spectrophotometric signals [see in Bindszus Col. 1, lines 22-40].
Finarov and Bindszus are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pulse oximetry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of Bindszus to acknowledge that it is common in the art of pulse oximetry to detect the pulse of a user over a predetermined period of time, as it is the basis of determining absorption ratios that are then used to determine oxygen saturation [see in Bindszus Col. 1, lines 36-40].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov (US 20060009685 A1), in view of De Benedetto (US 20210169382 A1) and Jacques (US 6421549 B1), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Mannheimer (US 20060224058 A1). Regarding claim 20, Finarov as modified discloses the method of claim 17.
Finarov fails to disclose the method further comprising blocking ambient light from being received by the two or more second light receivers.
However, Mannheimer discloses a sensor being adapted to block light that may shunt directly between the emitter and the detector [see in ¶ 0035].
Finarov and Mannheimer are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical measurements at the finger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finarov to incorporate the teachings of Mannheimer and include that light not traveling through the blood perfused tissue of the finger is blocked from the detector, in order to prevent unwanted light from entering the system.
ConclusionAny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HY KHANH DOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Robert Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/HY KHANH DOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights