DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 9/19/2025. Claims 1-8 and 10-12 remain pending and under prosecution.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Light blocking feature in claim 10-11 – disclosed as black tape
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arias et al (US Pub No. 20170156651 – cited by applicant) in view of Sarantos et al (US Pub No. 20160345881 – cited by applicant) and Schmidt (US Pub No. 20220015656).
In regard to Claim 1, Arias et al disclose a pulse oximeter device, comprising:
a first light emitting element 20 configured to emit red light, best seen in Figure 1;
a second light emitting element 15 configured to emit green light or near infrared (NIR) light, best seen in Figure 1; and
a sensor element 25 configured to detect red and green light or detect red and NIR light, best seen in Figure 1 (0040-0041).
However, Arias et al do not expressly disclose the sensor element has a circular geometry, the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element each have an arc-shaped geometry, and wherein the sensor element is positioned between the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element.
It is noted that while Arias et al disclose a specific orientation of the sensor and light emitting elements, best seen in Figure 1 – the OLEDs are in the center and surrounded by the detector sensor array, Arias et al expressly disclose the sensors (comprising the sensor and light emitting elements) can be made in “new shapes” (0111).
Sarantos et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous pulse oximeter with a light emitting element 2508 that has arc-shaped geometry, as a circle is considered an arc, best seen in Figure 25, as well as a sensor element 2512 configured to detect the light from the light source, the sensor element has a circular geometry – i.e. ring, best seen in Figure 25 (0108). Sarantos et al teach that this configuration of the light emitting element and sensor element are an effective configuration that provides “good light-gathering performance for heart rate measurement purposes when used with green-wavelength light” (0108). It is noted that Sarantos et al appears concerned with the geometry of the light emitting elements and sensor element in Figure 25.
Schmidt teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous pulse sensor comprising a first light emitting element 22 (one of) and a second light emitting element 22 (second of) each positioned in an arc-shaped configuration such that a sensor element 24 is positioned between the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element – “six light sources 22 are arranged radially outside of the luminescent concentrator 50” (0071, 0073), best seen in Figure 11, as an equally as effective configuration for the light emitting element and sensor for the pulse sensor. The radial arrangement of the first and second light emitting elements 22 is thus an arc-shaped configuration. It is noted that Schmidt illustrates the light emitting elements 22 and sensors 24 as squares or rectangles in Figure 11 and is more concerned with the orientation of the light emitting elements relative to the sensors.
Since Arias et al already disclose variability with the shape of the overall sensor (which includes the first and second light emitting elements and the sensor element), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Arias et al such that the sensor element has a circular geometry and the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element each have an arc-shaped geometry, as taught by Sarantos et al, as an effective geometric configuration for the pulse oximeter that provides advantages such as good light-gathering performance for heart rate measurement purposes when used with green-wavelength light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Arias et al such that first light emitting element and the second light emitting element each have an arc-shaped geometry, and wherein the sensor element is positioned between the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element, as taught by Schmidt as an equally as effective configuration for the light emitting element and sensor that is a natural alternative given the teaching in Arias et al for other desirable configurations/shapes.
2. Arias et al disclose the pulse oximeter device of claim 1, wherein a spacing between the sensor element 25 and each of the first light emitting element 20 and the second light emitting element 15 is between about 2 mm and about 6 mm – Arias et al disclose the detector used on a 9 mm finger; thus a distance of 2 mm and about 6 mm can be inferred between the sensor element and each of the first and second light emitting elements, as shown in Figure 1 (0037).
3. Arias et al disclose the pulse oximeter device of claim 1, wherein the first light emitting element comprises a first light emitting diode (LED) 20, best seen in Figure 1 (0005),
wherein the second light emitting element comprises a second LED 15, best seen in Figure 1, and wherein the sensor element includes a photodetector 25, best seen in Figure 1 (0040).
4. Arias et al disclose the pulse oximeter device of claim 3, wherein each of the first 20 and second 15 LEDs comprises an organic LED – OLED (organic light emitting diode), best seen in Figure 1 (0005), and wherein the photodetector comprises an organic photodiode – OPD (organic polymer photodiode), best seen in Figure 1 (0005).
5. Arias et al disclose the pulse oximeter device of claim 1, further comprising a flexible substrate 105, wherein the first light emitting element 20, the second light emitting element 15 and the sensor element 25 are formed on the flexible substrate, best seen in Figure 3 (abst, 0044).
6. Arias et al disclose the pulse oximeter device of claim 5, wherein the flexible substrate 105 comprises polyethylene napthalate (PEN) (0044).
7. Arias et al disclose the pulse oximeter device of claim 1, wherein the sensor element 25 is configured to detect light transmitted through tissue containing blood, e.g. blood oxygenation measurement – “The sensor element is configured to detect the emitted red and green light transmitted through tissue containing blood” (abst).
8. Arias et al disclose the pulse oximeter device of claim 1, wherein the sensor element 25 is configured to detect light reflected by tissue containing blood, e.g. PPG measurement – “By creating a printed sensor on a flexible substrate that can make reflectance measurements as opposed to only transmission measurements” (0085, 0108, claim 7).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arias et al in view of Sarantos et al and Schmidt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Genoe et al (US Pub No. 20080312517).
Arias et al in combination with Sarantos et al and Schmidt disclose the invention above but do not expressly disclose a light blocking feature positioned between the sensor element and at least one of the first light emitting element or the second light emitting element.
Genoe et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous pulse oximeter device comprising a light blocking feature 13 that is positioned between the sensor element 12 and at least one light emitting element 11, best seen in Figure 5, to effectively “prevent incident light that has not been scattered in the skin tissue” (0041), which is undesirable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Arias et al as modified by Sarantos et al and Schmidt to include a light blocking feature as taught by Genoe et al to effectively prevent incident light that has not been scattered in the skin tissue, wherein it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have the light blocking feature positioned between the sensor element and both the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element to effectively prevent undesirable light passing between each element of the pulse oximeter device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arias et al in view of Sarantos et al, Schmidt, and Genoe et al as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Young et al (US Pat No. 5368025).
Arias et al in combination with Sarantos et al, Schmidt, and Genoe et al disclose the invention above but do not expressly disclose the light blocking feature includes a black tape.
Young et al teach that it is well-known in the art to use black tape 14 as a light blocking feature in an analogous pulse oximeter device (Col.4: 57-Col.5: 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify over Arias et al as modified by Sarantos et al, Schmidt, and Genoe et al such that the light blocking feature includes a black tape as taught by Young et al, as an effective form for said light blocking feature of Genoe et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Schmidt has been set forth to teach the limitation of the sensor element is positioned between the first and second light emitting elements as claimed.
The previous Drawing Objection and 112 rejections are moot in light of applicant’s amendments.
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 Huong NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8340. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571)272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.Q.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791