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 .
Response to Amendment
The action is in response to amendments filed on 06/24/2025. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13, and 15 have been amended. Claims 16-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190336006 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Horstmeyer”) in view of US 20190150745 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sobek”).
Regarding claim 1, Horstmeyer, an Interferometric frequency-swept source and detector in a photonic integrated circuit, teaches a photonic integrated device (optical system 10; paragraph [0016]; Figure 1) comprising:
a first photonic integrated chip (PIC) adapted to investigate blood flow at a portion of tissue of a user (16 photonic integrated circuits, 30 photonic integrated circuit; paragraph [0053]; Figure 6), said first PIC comprising:
a laser having an optical output (Fig.7A is one profile view of a distributed feedback (DFB) laser incorporated into the PIC of FIG. 6; paragraphs [0041], [0083]; Figures 6, 7A), or waveguide for guiding an optical output from an external laser (paragraph [0106]; Figure 9), the optical output being split into a first optical component and a second optical component (paragraph [0091]); wherein the first optical component is arranged to be transmitted to and generate speckle at the portion of tissue of the user (paragraph [0082], [0097]);
the photonic integrated device further comprising:
one or more detectors, each detector configured to receive the speckle generated by the first optical component at the portion of tissue (paragraph [0097]; Figure 6); and
one or more optical splitters (as shown in Figure 6) optically coupling the second optical component to one or more respective input(s) of the one or more detectors (paragraphs [0093]-[0094]);
wherein the photonic integrated device is further adapted to measure interference at the one or more detectors between a sample arm formed by the first optical component and a reference arm formed by the second optical component (paragraph [0097]); but does not explicitly teach wherein the photonic integrated device is configured such that each of the one or more detectors measures less than five speckle grains of the speckle within a larger speckle pattern.
However, Sobek, an interferometer device, teaches wherein the photonic integrated device is configured such that each of the one or more detectors measures less than five speckle grains of the speckle within a larger speckle pattern (paragraph [0084]). 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 Horstmeyer, 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 Horstmeyer, wherein the photonic integrated device is configured such that each of the one or more detectors measures less than five speckle grains of the speckle within a larger speckle pattern, as taught by Sobek, because making this modification merely combines prior art elements according to known methods well known in the industry (see MPEP 2143, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches wherein the one or more detectors are located on the first PIC (paragraphs [0041], [0096]; as shown in Figure 6, 7A; as taught by Horstmeyer).
Regarding claim 3, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches wherein the one or more detectors are located on a second PIC separate from the first PIC (paragraph [0074]; as taught by Horstmeyer).
Regarding claim 6, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches further comprising a single mode waveguide or an aperture adapted to receive light from the portion of tissue of the user, said single mode waveguide or aperture placed in optical communication with a respective one of the one or more detectors (54b; as shown in Figure 6; as taught by Horstmeyer).
Regarding claim 8, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches wherein the photonic integrated device is configured such that each of the one or more detectors receives only light from a single grain of speckle within the larger speckle pattern (paragraph [0097]; as taught by Horstmeyer).
Regarding claim 9, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches wherein the first PIC is a silicon photonics chip (paragraph [0080]; as taught by Horstmeyer).
Regarding claim 10, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches wherein the laser has a wavelength of operation of 1280 nm or more (paragraph [0070]; as taught by Horstmeyer).
Regarding claim 11, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches wherein the laser is a fixed wavelength laser (paragraph [0086]; as taught by Horstmeyer).
Regarding claim 12, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches wherein the laser is a tunable laser (paragraph [0086]; as taught by Horstmeyer).
Regarding claim 13, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches further comprising one or more additional lasers such that the first PIC comprises a plurality of lasers (paragraph [0112]; as taught by Horstmeyer).
Regarding claim 14, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches wherein each laser of the plurality of lasers has a different wavelength or wavelength range of operation (paragraph [0112]; as taught by Horstmeyer).
Regarding claim 15, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches wherein the plurality of lasers are configured to be operated one laser at a time (paragraph [0112]; as taught by Horstmeyer).
Regarding claim 16, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches wherein the one or more detectors comprise a plurality of detectors (paragraphs [0096]-[0097]; as shown in Figure 6; as taught by Horstmeyer).
Regarding claim 20, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches comprising a plurality of separate inputs, for receiving light from the tissue, respectively optically connected to the plurality of detectors, each of the plurality of separate inputs being configured to receive only approximately one speckle grain of the speckle within the larger speckle pattern (paragraph [0084]; as taught by Sobek).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20140136755 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Hyde”).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches further comprising a processing device, said processing device is configured to calculate temporal autocorrelation of a detected intensity and wherein the processing device is configured to carry out speckle contrast measurements between measurements obtained by different detectors of the one or more detectors (an arithmetic unit 106 (e.g., а subtractor) to remove the DC component from the interference light pattern 66 and obtain the AC component of the interference light pattern 66 (i.e., to extract the beat pattern (as the amplified signal light 50) from the interference light pattern 66), and digitally outputs the physiological encoded electrical signal 102 in the form of positive and negative intensity values, which are ambiguous due to the complex conjugate of the electrical signal 102, but from which the intensity values and phases values for the respective speckle grains can be derived; paragraph [0096]; Figure 6); but Horstmeyer does not explicitly teach the processing device to be a ASIC or FPGA.
However, Hyde, a blood flow sensor device (paragraph [0044]), teaches using an ASIC (paragraph [0207]). 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 Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, to have the processing device be an ASIC, as taught by Hyde, because making this modification merely combines prior art elements according to known methods well known in the industry (see MPEP 2143, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20180358342 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Hon”).
Regarding claim 7, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, teaches a waveguide and the waveguide in optical communication with a respective one or more detectors (paragraphs [0027], [0084], [0087]), but does not explicitly teach further comprising a multimode waveguide adapted to receive light from the portion of tissue of the user.
However, Hon teaches further comprising a multimode waveguide adapted to receive light from the portion of tissue of the user (paragraphs [0019]-[0020]). 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 Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, to have a multimode waveguide, as taught by Hon, because it would be the simple substitution of one known element (the waveguide of Horstmeyer) with another (the waveguide of Hon) in order to achieve a predictable result namely a means of directing light to a detector.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 20200359948 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Dunn”).
Regarding claim 17, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, does not explicitly teach where the photonic integrated device is configured to obtain a speckleplethysmography (SPG) measurement based on the measurements taken by the plurality of detectors.
However, Dunn, a speckle contrast measuring device, teaches where the photonic integrated device is configured to obtain a speckleplethysmography (SPG) measurement based on the measurements taken by the plurality of detectors (obtains a SPG using a photodiode array (multiple detectors); paragraph [0005]). 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 Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek, to obtain a SPG, as taught by Dunn, because doing so allows a user to determine physiological parameters of a user.
Regarding claim 18, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek and Dunn, teaches wherein the photonic integrated device is configured to measure blood pressure via the SPG measurement (paragraphs [0005], [0020], [0031]-[0032]; as taught by Dunn).
3. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek and Dunn, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 20180296168 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Rice”).
Regarding claim 19, Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek and Dunn, teaches wherein the SPG measurement is based on a spatial standard deviation of speckle intensity of the measurements taken by the plurality of detectors.
However, Rice an SPG non-invasive hemodynamic device, teaches wherein the SPG measurement is based on a spatial standard deviation of speckle intensity of the measurements taken by the plurality of detectors (paragraph [0009], [0031]-[0032]). 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 Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek and Dunn, have SPG measurement based on spatial deviation of speckle intensity, as taught by Rice, because doing so provides an effective means of generating a SPG signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/24/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made by Horstmeyer, in view of Sobek.
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 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