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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-12, 14-20, and 22-24 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments have not corrected previously-identified issues regarding the rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Both claims 23 and 24 still depend upon cancelled claim 21.
New citations of Weekly are presented in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 103, as necessitated by Applicant’s amended claim language.
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.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re. Claims 23 and 24: Claims 23 and 24 are dependent on cancelled claim 21. A dependent claim that refers to a cancelled claim is indefinite because the cancelled claim limitations are gone, leaving the dependent claim without proper definition.
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, 4-6, 8-12, and 14-20, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Weekly et al. (US 20170311825 A1) (hereinafter – Weekly) (disclosed by Applicant) in view of
Ritscher et al. (US 20170071487 A1) (hereinafter – Ritscher) (disclosed by Applicant) in further view of
Podhajsky et al. (US 20150088002 A1) (hereinafter – Podhajsky) in further view of
Robinson et al. (US 20220096007 A1) (hereinafter – Robinson).
Re. Claims 1 and 11: Weekly teaches a method for selecting a photoplethysmography (PPG) channel from a plurality of PPG channels of a PPG sensor attached to a subject (Figs. 1, 2, 6A-6C: plurality of PPG channels between multiple light sources and detectors shown; Figs. 4A, 4B: methods utilizing PPG channel selection),
wherein the PPG sensor comprises at least one optical detector and a plurality of optical emitters that define the plurality of PPG channels (Figs. 1, 2, 6A-6C),
the method comprising the steps of: initiating a hunting mode comprising repeatedly (Paragraph 0113: “The processes of FIG. 3, FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B also may include a feedback loop and other test operations that result in selectively energizing or de-energizing different pairs of red and green light sources of the monitoring device 100 as ambient conditions change”):
sensing PPG data from the subject using each of the plurality of PPG channels (Paragraph 0081: particularly, “… PPG signals associated with any of the aforementioned light paths may be selectively obtained and utilized for estimating heart rate…;” Fig. 3: steps 302, 304: obtaining first and second PPG signals from channels of particular wavelength; Paragraphs 0095-0098: signals obtained from plurality of channels);
processing the PPG data from each PPG channel, via a processor, to generate a plurality of PPG parameters (Paragraph 0081: particularly, “For example, the PPG signals corresponding to any of multiple paths and/or multiple wavelengths may be compared using a quality metric such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the highest quality can be selected to be used for estimating heart rate;” Paragraphs 0096-0099, 0104, 0105: see discussion of signal quality, quality metric, confidence value, and cardiac signal magnitude relative to non-cardiac signal magnitude);
analyzing PPG signals of the plurality of PPG signals to determine motion data (Paragraph 0041: particularly, “As described further in other sections herein, first PPG signals obtained from first light sources using a first light wavelength, and second PPG signals obtained from second light sources using a second light wavelength, can be used to identify motion and cardiac components of the PPG signals;” Paragraph 0085: rejection of signal components associated with motion of the user, implying identification of separate motion data via analysis of PPG signals).
While Weekly teaches processing the PPG parameters to identify a one of a plurality of PPG channels (see prior citations of Paragraphs 0081, 0096-0099, 0104, 0105), Weekly does not appear to process the PPG parameters using a model to perform such an identification. Instead, Weekly compares signals using a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (Paragraph 0044).
Ritscher teaches analogous art in the technology of processing a physiological signal (Abstract), particularly PPG signals (Paragraphs 0061-0062; Fig. 3). Ritscher further teaches a method comprising processing PPG parameters (Fig. 3: steps 306-312: pre-processing PPG signals, RR interval determination from processed signals, and confidence interval determination of RR interval), via the processor using a model, to identify a PPG channel of the plurality of PPG channels (Fig. 3: step 314: confidence level above threshold and yes/no paths thereafter).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Weekly to also incorporate the determination of a confidence level of an RR interval as taught by Ritscher when processing PPG signals to determine a best signal, the motivation being that determining the confidence level of a signal allows for an alternative determination of whether a frequency-based analysis algorithm should be utilized in obtaining accurate RR intervals, thereby maximizing determination of physiological information even in the case of motion (Paragraph 0064).
Weekly as modified by Ritscher does not teach the invention comprising, in response to determining the that the motion data satisfies a motion threshold, stopping the hunting mode, determining a biometric using the currently selected PPG channel of the plurality of PPG channels and deactivating other PPG channels of the plurality of PPG channels.
Weekly as modified by Ritscher does not teach the invention comprising, in response to determining that the motion data satisfies a motion threshold, stopping the hunting mode, determining a biometric using the currently selected PPG channel of the plurality of PPG channels and deactivating other PPG channels of the plurality of PPG channels. While Weekly identifies motion data from an analysis of PPG signals, Weekly uses such signals to remove motion components from other light paths (Paragraphs 0092, 0095).
Podhajsky teaches obtaining analyzing motion data from environmental sensors including accelerometers and gyroscopes (Paragraphs 0045, 0063; Fig. 6: steps 602) to provide an operating condition signal. Such data is analyzed to determine which sensor and/or light source of multiple sensors/light sources produces the best output (Paragraph 0066; Fig. 6: steps 604, 606), whereby operation of inferior sensors is stopped to enter a lower energy mode. After a particular sensor is selected and others are stopped, a metric is computed (Fig. 6: step 608). Such a switch to an alternative mode and identifying a metric based on the best sensor can be viewed as a stop to a “hunting mode” as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Weekly as modified by Ritscher to include the process of analyze motion data to select determine a best an optical sensor based on comparison of motion data while deactivating others to perform a measurement as taught by Podhajsky, the motivation being that doing so allows the device to conserve energy by entering a lower energy mode when utilizing a single best sensor out of a plurality of sensors (Paragraph 0066: “lower energy mode, sleep mode”), particularly since the device of Weekly performs a feedback loop type process (Weekly, Paragraph 0113), which may continue without consideration to conserving energy of the device.
Weekly as modified by Ritscher and Podhajsky does not teach the invention further comprising, in response to determining that a signal quality from the selected PPG channel falls below a quality threshold, activating the deactivated PPG channels and reinitiating the hunting mode.
Robinson teaches analogous art in the technology of optical sensor systems (Paragraph 0015). Robinson teaches the use of a suitability metric which provides information related to signal quality (Paragraph 0164). Robinson further teaches repeating signal acquisition/analysis steps if a suitability metric from an optical sensor system are inadequate (Paragraph 0184).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Weekly as modified by Ritscher and Podhajsky to include the step of re-initiating a signal acquisition/analysis process as taught by Robinson in response to a signal quality from a sensor signal being below a certain threshold, the motivation being that doing so prevents measurement via inadequate signasl (Paragraph 0184). Examiner notes that the step of re-initiating signal acquisition/analysis in the combination of Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson requires Weekly to repeat steps encompassing a claimed “hunting mode” as identified above.
Re. Claims 2 and 12: Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson teaches the invention according to claims 1 and 11. Ritscher, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated probabilistic model, further teaches the invention wherein the identified PPG channel is determined by the probabilistic model to be least likely to generate an error value above a threshold for at least one biometric (Paragraphs 0065-0068: confidence level for RR interval being above threshold).
Re. Claim 4: Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson teaches the invention according to claim 1. Weekly further teaches the invention wherein the method further comprises:
sensing motion data (Paragraph 0100: see discussion of accelerometer or motion sensor proximate to light sources); and
wherein processing the PPG data from each PPG channel, via the processor, to generate the plurality of PPG parameters comprises processing the motion data (Paragraph 0085: “In an embodiment, PPG signals obtained from light sources having multiple wavelengths may be processed to filter or reject signal components that are associated with motion of the user, using a computer program to identify the motion component of the signal and remove it from the composite signal, leaving the cardiac component as a remainder or final signal;” Paragraphs 0092-0095, 0100-0105: processing involving motion signal).
Re. Claims 5 and 14: Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson teaches the invention according to claims 1 and 11. Weekly further teaches the invention wherein the at least one biometric comprises subject heart rate (Paragraph 0081: ‘For example, the PPG signals corresponding to any of multiple paths and/or multiple wavelengths may be compared using a quality metric… the highest quality can be selected to be used for estimating heart rate”).
Re. Claims 6 and 15: Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson teaches the invention according to claims 3 and 13. Ritscher, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated probabilistic model, further teaches wherein the biometric comprises at least one of:
subject breathing rate,
breathing volume,
subject RR- interval (RRi) (Paragraphs 0065-0068: confidence level for RR interval being above threshold),
subject blood pressure,
subject blood oxygenation,
subject hemodynamics,
subject blood flow volume, and
subject tissue perfusion.
Re. Claim 9: Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson teaches the invention according to claim 1. Podhajsky further teaches the invention wherein determining that the motion data satisfies the motion threshold comprises processing motion data from the at least one motion sensor and monitoring motion parameters over a predetermined period of time (Fig. 6: analysis of operating condition signals from environmental sensors including accelerometers and gyroscopes as described in Paragraphs 0045, 0063; Examiner notes that “predetermined period of time” is not defined or provided further context in the claims or specification and further notes that Weekly also takes into consideration motion signals to determine whether or not a user has been at rest for a period of time in order to determine a biometric based on analyzed signals).
Re. Claims 10 and 17: Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson teaches the invention according to claims 1 and 11. Weekly further teaches the invention wherein the plurality of PPG parameters are selected from the following:
a ratio of a magnitude of a pulsatile portion of a PPG waveform to a magnitude of a non-pulsatile portion of the PPG waveform;
the non-pulsatile portion of the PPG waveform;
a ratio of the magnitude of the pulsatile portion of the PPG waveform to a magnitude of rapid changes in the pulsatile portion of the PPG waveform due to motion artifacts (Paragraph 0104: “In some alternative embodiments, the quality metric described herein can be determined based on the ratio of cardiac signal magnitude to non-cardiac (e.g., noise) signal magnitude”);
confidence in quality of a PPG waveform (Paragraphs 0098-0104: discussion of confidence value of a PPG signal);
a ratio of a magnitude of rapid changes in the non-pulsatile portion of the PPG waveform due to motion artifacts to the magnitude of the non- pulsatile portion of the PPG waveform;
a frequency at which a peak magnitude of the PPG waveform occurs;
a magnitude of a largest spectral peak of the PPG waveform; and
a ratio of the peak magnitude of the PPG waveform to a range of spectral magnitudes of the PPG waveform.
Re. Claim 16: Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson teaches the invention according to claim 11. Weekly further teaches the invention wherein the at least one processor is further configured to process motion data with the PPG data from each PPG channel to generate the plurality of PPG parameters (Paragraphs 0100, 0101, 0105, 0107: processing PPG signals include obtaining motion data in assessing confidence).
Re. Claim 18: Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson teaches the invention according to claim 11. Weekly further teaches the invention wherein the monitoring device is configured to be positioned at or within an ear of the subject (Paragraph 0040: “For purposes of illustrating a clear example, FIG. 1A and other aspects of this disclosure describe a monitoring device that is configured for wearing on the wrist, but other embodiments may be implemented using monitoring devices that are wearable in other anatomical locations such as the ear, head, fingertips, ankle, neck, upper arm, torso, leg and/or forehead (such that light sources of the monitoring devices are configured to be aligned adjacent to blood vessels of a human, as described in more detail)”).
Re. Claim 19: Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson teaches the invention according to claim 11. Weekly further teaches the invention wherein the monitoring device is configured to be secured to an appendage of the subject (Paragraph 0040: “For purposes of illustrating a clear example, FIG. 1A and other aspects of this disclosure describe a monitoring device that is configured for wearing on the wrist, but other embodiments may be implemented using monitoring devices that are wearable in other anatomical locations such as the ear, head, fingertips, ankle, neck, upper arm, torso, leg and/or forehead (such that light sources of the monitoring devices are configured to be aligned adjacent to blood vessels of a human, as described in more detail)”).
Re. Claim 20: Weekly teaches a method for selecting a photoplethysmography (PPG) channel from a plurality of PPG channels of a PPG sensor attached to a subject (Figs. 1, 2, 6A-6C: plurality of PPG channels between multiple light sources and detectors shown; Figs. 4A, 4B: methods utilizing PPG channel selection),
wherein the PPG sensor comprises at least one optical detector and a plurality of optical emitters that define the plurality of PPG channels (Figs. 1, 2, 6A-6C),
the method comprising the steps of:
initiating a hunting mode comprising repeatedly (Paragraph 0113: “The processes of FIG. 3, FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B also may include a feedback loop and other test operations that result in selectively energizing or de-energizing different pairs of red and green light sources of the monitoring device 100 as ambient conditions change”):
sensing PPG data from each of the plurality of PPG channels (Paragraph 0081: particularly, “… PPG signals associated with any of the aforementioned light paths may be selectively obtained and utilized for estimating heart rate…;” Fig. 3: steps 302, 304: obtaining first and second PPG signals from channels of particular wavelength; Paragraphs 0095-0098: signals obtained from plurality of channels); and
processing the PPG data from each PPG channel, via a processor, to generate a plurality of PPG parameters (Paragraph 0081: particularly, “For example, the PPG signals corresponding to any of multiple paths and/or multiple wavelengths may be compared using a quality metric such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the highest quality can be selected to be used for estimating heart rate;” Paragraphs 0096-0099, 0104, 0105: see discussion of signal quality, quality metric, confidence value, and cardiac signal magnitude relative to non-cardiac signal magnitude);
analyzing PPG signals of the plurality of PPG signals to determine motion data (Paragraph 0041: particularly, “As described further in other sections herein, first PPG signals obtained from first light sources using a first light wavelength, and second PPG signals obtained from second light sources using a second light wavelength, can be used to identify motion and cardiac components of the PPG signals;” Paragraph 0085: rejection of signal components associated with motion of the user, implying identification of separate motion data via analysis of PPG signals).
While Weekly teaches processing the PPG parameters to identify one of a plurality of PPG channels (see prior citations of Paragraphs 0081, 0096-0099, 0104, 0105), Weekly does not appear to process the PPG parameters using a model to perform such an identification. Instead, Weekly compares signals using a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (Paragraph 0044).
Ritscher teaches analogous art in the technology of processing a physiological signal (Abstract), particularly PPG signals (Paragraphs 0061-0062; Fig. 3). Ritscher further teaches a method comprising processing PPG parameters (Fig. 3: steps 306-312: pre-processing PPG signals, RR interval determination from processed signals, and confidence interval determination of RR interval), via the processor using a model, to identify a best one of the plurality of PPG channels (Fig. 3: step 314: confidence level above threshold and yes/no paths thereafter).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Weekly to also incorporate the determination of a confidence level of an RR interval as taught by Ritscher when processing PPG signals to determine a best signal, the motivation being that determining the confidence level of a signal allows for an alternative determination of whether a frequency-based analysis algorithm should be utilized in obtaining accurate RR intervals, thereby maximizing determination of physiological information even in the case of motion (Paragraph 0064).
Weekly as modified by Ritscher further teaches the invention comprising the step of determine a biometric using respective one of the plurality of PPG channels having a lowest probability of generating an error value above the threshold for the at least one biometric (Paragraphs 0099, 0102; Fig. 4B: select best estimate; Examiner notes that this selection is performed in view of modification by Ritscher including a confidence level).
With respect to the limitations:
in response to determining that the motion data satisfies a motion threshold, stopping the hunting mode, determining a biometric using a currently selected PPG channels of the plurality of PPG channels and deactivating other PPG channels of the plurality of PPG channels; and
in response to determining that a signal quality from the currently selected PPG channel falls below a quality threshold, activating the deactivated PPG channels and reinitiating the hunting mode.
See rejection of claims 1 and 11 utilizing Podhajsky and Robinson.
Re. Claim 22: Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson teaches the invention according to claim 20. Claim 22 recites limitations analogous to that of claim 4 and is rejected mutatis mutandis.
Re. Claim 23: Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson teaches the invention according to claim 20. Claim 23 recites limitations analogous to that of claims 5 and 14 and is rejected mutatis mutandis.
Re. Claim 24: Weekly as modified by Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson teaches the invention according to claim 21. Claim 24 recites limitations analogous to that of claims 6 and 15 and is rejected mutatis mutandis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
The combination of Weekly, Ritscher, Podhajsky, and Robinson does not teach or suggest at least the above emphasized features of claim 1. None of the references discuss analyzing PPG signals to determine that motion data satisfies a motion threshold, as recited in claim 1. (Office Action p. 9). Podhajsky discusses using data from environment sensors, such as an accelerometer and/or gyroscope to provide an operating system signal. (Podhajsky para. [0045]). Podhajsky does not discuss analyzing PPG signals of the plurality of PPG channels to determine motion data, as recited in claim 1. The other references do not discuss these features of claim 1, and the Office Action does not suggest otherwise.
Citations of Weekly have been provided to address Applicant’s amended claim language, particularly “analyzing PPG signals of the plurality of the PPG channels to determine motion data.” The combination of prior art references thus still teaches each aspect of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JUSTIN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights