DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claim 2, 4-17 considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated in the Office Action below.
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed 06/17/2025 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-8, 10, 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 20150157219 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lee”) in view of US 20130261415 A1 (cited in the IDS; hereinafter referred to as “Ashe”).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches teaches a monitoring device (abstract) comprising:
a substrate (as shown in Figures 1-3);
at least a first pair of emitters disposed at a first location on the substrate and a second pair of emitters disposed at a second location on the substrate that is different than the first location, the first pair of emitters configured to emit light along a first path towards the skin of a user wearing the monitoring device, the second pair of emitters configured to emit light along a second path towards the skin of the user, the second path being different than the first path (12C (light sources) of 312A; paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3);
one or more processors configured to activate the first pair of emitters and the second pair of emitters (paragraphs [0035]-[0037]) and
one or more detectors disposed on the substrate, the one or more detectors configured detect first reflected light associated with the light emitted from the first pair of emitters reflecting off of a blood vessel of the user and second reflected light associated with the light emitted from the second pair of emitters reflecting off of the blood vessel (12B (photodetector) of 312A; paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3); but does not explicitly teach wherein the first pair of emitters and the second pair of emitters are activated or deactivated dynamically by the one or more processors in response to changes in their respective signal strengths; the one or more processors further configured to: obtain a first photoplethysmography (PPG) signal based, at least in part, on the first reflected light; determine if a signal strength of the first PPG signal is above or below the threshold signal strength value; and if it is determined that the signal strength of the first PPG signal is below the threshold signal strength value, activate the second pair of emitters and deactivate the first pair of emitters.
However, Ashe, an optical sensor device teaches wherein the first pair of emitters and the second pair of emitters are activated or deactivated dynamically by the one or more processors in response to changes in their respective signal strengths (paragraphs [0042]-[0044], [0064]-[0067]); the one or more processors (114) further configured to: obtain a first photoplethysmography (PPG) signal based, at least in part, on the first reflected light (paragraphs [0042]-[0044], [0064]-[0067]); determine if a signal strength of the first PPG signal is above or below the threshold signal strength value (paragraphs [0042]-[0044], [0064]-[0067]); and if it is determined that the signal strength of the first PPG signal is below the threshold signal strength value, activate the second pair of emitters and deactivate the first pair of emitters (paragraphs [0042]-[0044], [0064]-[0067]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lee, to have emitters dynamically activated and deactivated based on signal strength, as taught by Ashe, because doing so optimizes signal quality while accounting for motion or blood vessels in a measurement area.
Regarding claim 4, Lee, in view of Ashe, teaches the one or more processors further configured to: if it is determined that the signal strength of the first PPG signal is below the threshold signal strength value, obtain a second PPG signal based, at least in part, on the second reflected light (paragraphs [0042]-[0044], [0064]-[0067]; as taught by Ashe); determine if a signal strength of the second PPG signal is greater than the threshold signal strength value or below the threshold signal strength value (paragraphs [0042]-[0044], [0064]-[0067]; as taught by Ashe); and determine a blood oxygen saturation value for the user based, at least in part, on (1) the first PPG signal if it is determined that the signal strength of the first PPG signal does satisfy a threshold signal strength value or (2) the second PPG signal if it is determined that the signal strength of the first PPG signal is below the threshold signal strength value and/or if it is determined that the signal strength of the second PPG signal is greater than the threshold signal strength value (paragraphs [0042]-[0044], [0064]-[0067]; as taught by Ashe).
Regarding claim 5, Lee, in view of Ashe, teaches the one or more processors further configured to: provide a notification indicative of the determined blood oxygen saturation value for the user (paragraph [0029]; as taught by Lee).
Regarding claim 6, Lee, in view of Ashe, teaches further comprising: a display screen configured to display the notification indicative of the determined blood oxygen saturation value of the user (paragraph [0029]; as taught by Lee).
Regarding claim 7, Lee, in view of Ashe, teaches the first pair of emitters and the second pair of emitters each including a first light source configured to emit light at a first wavelength and a second light source configured to emit light at a second wavelength that is different than the first wavelength (emits red and infrared light; paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3; as taught by Lee).
Regarding claim 8, Lee, in view of Ashe, teaches the first wavelength corresponding to red light and the second wavelength corresponds to infrared light (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3; as taught by Lee).
Regarding claim 10, Lee, in view of Ashe, teaches the one or more detectors including a first detector configured to detect the first reflected light and a second detector configured to detect the second reflect light (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3; as taught by Lee).
Regarding claim 13, Lee, in view of Ashe, teaches the substrate including a wristband configured to secure the monitoring device to a wrist of the user (as shown in Figures 1-3; as taught by Lee).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches a method of determining a blood oxygen saturation value for a user wearing a monitoring device (abstract), the method comprising:
activating a first pair of emitters of the monitoring device to emit light along a first path towards the skin of the user wearing the monitoring device (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3; as taught by Lee);
obtaining a first photoplethysmography (PPG) signal based, at least in part, on the light reflecting off a blood vessel of the user (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3; as taught by Lee);
activating a second pair of emitters of the monitoring device to emit light along a second path towards the skin of the user, the second path being different than the first path (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3; as taught by Lee);
obtaining a second PPG signal based, at least in part, on the light emitted from the second pair of emitters reflecting off of the blood vessel of the user (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3; as taught by Lee);
determining the blood oxygen saturation value for the user based, at least in part, on the second PPG signal (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3; as taught by Lee); but does not explicitly teach dynamically deactivating the first pair of emitters and dynamically activating a second pair of emitters of the monitoring device, via the one or more processors, to emit light along a second path towards the skin of the user, the second path being different than the first path in response to determining that the signal strength of the first PPG signal is below the threshold signal strength value.
However, Ashe teaches dynamically deactivating the first pair of emitters and dynamically activating a second pair of emitters of the monitoring device, via the one or more processors, to emit light along a second path towards the skin of the user, the second path being different than the first path in response to determining that the signal strength of the first PPG signal is below the threshold signal strength value (paragraphs [0042]-[0044], [0064]-[0067]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lee, to have emitters dynamically activated and deactivated based on signal strength, as taught by Ashe, because doing so optimizes signal quality while accounting for motion or blood vessels in a measurement area.
Regarding claim 15, Lee, in view of Ashe, teaches the first pair of emitters is disposed at a first location on a substrate of the monitoring device and the second pair of emitters is disposed at a second location on the substrate, the second location being different than the first location (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3; as taught by Lee).
Regarding claim 16, Lee, in view of Ashe, teaches the first pair of emitters and the second pair of emitters each including a first light source configured to emit light at a first wavelength and a second light source configured to emit light at a second wavelength that is different than the first wavelength (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3; as taught by Lee).
Regarding claim 17, Lee, in view of Ashe, teaches the first wavelength corresponding to red light and the second wavelength corresponding to infrared light (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; Figure 3; as taught by Lee).
Regarding claim 19, Lee, in view of Ashe, teaches further comprising: causing a display screen of the monitoring device to display a notification indicative of the determined blood oxygen saturation value for the user (paragraph [0029]; as taught by Lee).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Ashe, as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, and further in view of US 20020042558 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Mendelson”).
Regarding claim 9, Lee, in view of Ashe, teaches using a first and second emitter that emits in the red and infrared range respectively, but does not explicitly teach the red light is having a peak wavelength of 660 nm; and the infrared light having a peak wavelength that ranges from 750 nm to 1700 nm.
However, Mendelson, an oximeter device, teaches the red light is having a peak wavelength of 660 nm; and the infrared light having a peak wavelength that ranges from 750 nm to 1700 nm (paragraph [0004], [0006]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lee, in view of Ashe, to have a peak wavelength of 660 nm and 940 nm, as taught by Mendelson, because doing so provides light emission for optimal data receiving.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791