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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 02/27/2026 in which claims 1, 8, 9, and 11-13 have been amended and claims 5-7 and 10 have been canceled. Currently, claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 11-17 are pending for examination in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 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.
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, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank (US 2020/0390337 A1) in view of Fujioka (JP 2006258457 A) and further in view of Kotov (US 2022/0206154 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Frank discloses a sensing device (Abstract) comprising:
a passive image sensor configured to obtain an image of a face of a user ([0015]: “Described herein are embodiments of systems and methods that utilize images of a user's face in order to detect temperature changes on a user's face for various purposes”; [0469]: “Some embodiments described herein involve utilization of at least one inward-facing head-mounted thermal cameras (such a camera is denoted below CAM) to take thermal measurements of a region below the nostrils.” A camera is a type of passive image sensor.);
a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor ([0515]: “the sensor 694 may include at least one of LiDAR system and a RADAR system.”);
and an optical spectroscopic sensor configured to extract biomarker information from one or more optical measurements of the area of the user's skin ([0205]: “Optionally, the system includes an additional camera configured to detect intensity of radiation that is reflected from a region of exposed skin of the user, where the radiation is in spectral wavelengths chosen to be preferentially absorbed by tissue water… measurements of the additional camera are utilized by the computer 340 as values indicative of the hydration level of the user.”).
Frank does not teach and Fujioka does teach wherein the passive image sensor is configured to identify a location of an eye of the user in the image ([0014]: “the specific image recognition unit recognizes a face or eyes as a specific image from the image acquired by the camera.”) and the LiDAR is configured to configured to scan a portion of the face of the user while avoiding the eye of the user identified in the image ([0015]: “When a predetermined human face or eye is detected, the laser irradiation output in the vicinity of that specific image is suppressed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Frank with the teaching of Fujioka to detect eyes in a passive image and suppress LiDAR (laser radar) irradiation in subsequent scans. Fujioka notes in [0056] that “a high level of safety can be ensured by preventing the laser from
irradiating the human eye, even with a simple process.”
Frank does not teach and Fujioka does not teach and Kotov does teach where the LiDAR identifies an area of the user’s skin ([0167]: “ As shown by the key 1002, the points 1004 of the point cloud 1000 corresponding to the head of the person are indicated as having material composition information corresponding to skin.”) and biomarker data is extracted from that area of the skin ([0180]-[0182]: “The LIDAR systems and other methods of the present disclosure can also be used in medical/cosmetic applications to identify, for example, areas of the skin that exhibit certain conditions and for diagnosis of skin diseases by mapping the skin surface and analyzing the polarimetry data from points corresponding to the skin surface of the patient scanned.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Frank in view of Fujioka with the teaching of Kotov to use LiDAR data to identify skin areas then extract biomarker information from those areas. Kotov notes in [0182] that “the LIDAR systems and other methods of the present disclosure can be utilized for detection of a health status of a live object, such as an organism like an animal.” Ascertaining the health status of humans and animals is highly valuable as it can result in faster and more accurate diagnosis of various conditions.
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Frank further discloses wherein the passive image sensor is an IR sensor ([0470]: “Optionally, a CAM from among the one or more of the CAMs includes at least one of the following sensors: a thermopile sensor, and a microbolometer sensor.” Both of these are types of IR sensors.)
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Frank further discloses wherein the biomarker information from one or more optical measurements of the user comprises one or more of body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, blood sugar, and/or hydration ([0205]: “Optionally, the system includes an additional camera configured to detect intensity of radiation that is reflected from a region of exposed skin of the user, where the radiation is in spectral wavelengths chosen to be preferentially absorbed by tissue water… measurements of the additional camera are utilized by the computer 340 as values indicative of the hydration level of the user.”).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Fujioka and further in view of Kotov and in view of Luff (US 2020/0363515 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Frank does not teach and Luff does teach that the LiDAR is an FMCW ([0020]) scanning (Figure 5, [0093], “steering waveguides” allow for scanning”) LiDAR.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LiDAR in the sensing device of Frank with the teaching of Luff to use an FMCW LiDAR system. Luff notes in [0020] that “the use of a FMCW LIDAR system effectively removes the effects of solar background activity on the performance of the LIDAR system,” which can improve the precision and the accuracy of the device over other ranging modalities.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Fujioka and further in view of Kotov and in view of Fish (EP 3002568 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Frank does not teach and Fish does teach wherein the optical spectroscopic sensor comprises one or more lasers ([0008]: “In some embodiments the light source array 112 may comprise a plurality of narrow band light sources, such as a plurality of lasers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensed device of Frank with the teaching of Fish to use one or more lasers in the device. Fish notes in [0008] that the range of individual lasers can be narrow, and an array of lasers at different wavelengths can expand the wavelength range of the overall device.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 3, Frank does not teach and Fish does teach wherein the optical spectroscopic sensor comprises: a silicon or silicon nitride transmitter photonic integrated circuit (PIC) ([0017]: “The PIC 100 may be formed of any semiconductor material suitable for photonic devices and photonic operation, such as silicon-based materials (e.g., silicon (Si), silicon nitride (SiN))”), the transmitter PIC comprising: a plurality of lasers ([0008]: “In some embodiments the light source array may comprise a plurality of narrow band light sources, such as a plurality of lasers), each laser of the plurality of lasers operating at a wavelength that is different from the wavelength of the others ([0045]: “In some embodiments, the plurality of heterogeneous lasers are configured to emit a plurality of wavelength ranges,”); an optical manipulation region, the optical manipulation region comprising one or more of: an optical modulator, optical multiplexer (MUX) ([0010]: “wherein the modulated outputs of the modulator array 114 are received by an optical multiplexer 170”); and one or more optical outputs for light originating from the plurality of lasers (Figure 1A, element 116, “Transmit Optical Element”; [0010]: “The modulated outputs of the light source array 112 are output from the PIC 100 via the transmit coupler array/aperture 116.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing device of Frank in view of Fish with the further teachings of Fish to use multiple lasers of differing wavelengths, an optical manipulation region, and an output for the plurality of the lasers. As above Fish notes in [0008] that the range of individual lasers can be narrow, and an array of lasers at different wavelengths can expand the wavelength range of the overall device, which is useful in spectroscopic instruments as it expands the sensing capabilities of the device. As noted in [0033], the multiplexer allows for the combination of light signals, which can then be output via a single port, thus reducing design complexity.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Fujioka and further in view of Kotov and in view of Berry (US 2013/0141697 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Frank does not teach and Berry does teach wherein an image taken by the passive image sensor is used to identify a user ([0063]: “Facial recognition technologies utilizing camera elements on the consumer device can also be used to identify a user and to match an appropriate test to a corresponding user profile.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing device of Frank with the teaching of Berry to use an image sensor to identify a user. Berry notes in [0063] that the user profile data “can be used to help facilitate the selection of an appropriate test for a particular user.” Such data could be used to improve outcomes for the user.
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 8, Frank does not teach and Berry does teach wherein the biomarker information extracted from one or more optical measurements of a user is a signed to a user profile that matches the identity of the user that is assigned based on the image taken by the passive image sensor ([0063]: “Facial recognition technologies utilizing camera elements on the consumer device can also be used to identify a user and to match an appropriate test to a corresponding user profile.”; Facial recognition technology necessarily extracts biomarker information from an optical measurement (e.g., the locations of various reference points on the face); [0056] notes that test results applied to a sure can subsequently be recorded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing device of Frank in view of Berry with the further teaching of Berry to use biomarker data to identify a user profile. Berry notes in [0062] that “facial recognition technologies to identify a user and to match an appropriate test to that user, based on the user's stored profile data.” Rapid identification of a user via unique biomarker data such as facial structure yields an effective and secure method of maintaining a user profile.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Fujioka and further in view of Kotov and in view of Lewis (US 2002/0173723 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Frank does not teach and Lewis does teach wherein the sensing device is configured to carry out an optical spectroscopic scan concurrently with a scan by the passive image sensor ([0042]: “Referring to FIG. 1, signal beam 110 is acquired and IR Beam-splitter 160 is placed in the path of signal beam 110 and accordingly, splits or diverts a portion of the infra-red signal beam 110 to infra-red focal plane array 120. 90/10 Visible Beam-splitter 130 is placed in signal beam 110 behind IR Beamsplitter 160. Visible Beam-splitter 130 splits the visible spectrum of signal beam 110 into two portions, wherein one portion is received by video camera 150, and the other is received by visible camera 150. One or multiple mirrors can be used for the beam splitter. This allows for the simultaneous acquisition of data from multiple modalities.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing device of Frank with the teaching of Lewis to simultaneously acquire optical spectroscopic data and passive image scans. Lewis notes in [0043] that “Fusion of broad band infrared and hyperspectral imaging methodologies may be useful to devise algorithms for wavelength selection that maximize the diagnostic information for a specific tissue state.”
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Fujioka and further in view of Kotov and in view of Russo (US 2017/0300740 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Frank does not teach and Russo does teach wherein the passive image sensor is configured to carry out: a first scan that sweeps over a first area with a first resolution; and a second scan that sweeps over a second area with a second resolution; wherein the first area is larger than the second area, and wherein the first resolution is lower than the second resolution ([0009]: “The sensor includes a first sensing region and second sensing region, the first sensing region having a resolution lower than a resolution of the second sensing region… In certain aspects, the first (e.g., lower resolution) sensing region (at least partially) circumscribes the second sensing region.; Figure 6B evidently shows that the first sensing region is larger than the second sensing region.; [0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing device of Frank with the teaching of Russo to have multi-resolution sensing regions. Russo notes in [0008] that “The area of higher resolution would be useful for anti-spoofing purposes, but because only a portion of the sensor is higher-resolution, advantageously it will not impact hardware costs nearly as much as a sensor that was higher resolution over its entire imaging area.”
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Fujioka and further in view of Kotov and in view of You (US 2022/0090964 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Frank does not teach and You does teach a wearable sensor device ([0019]: “As shown in FIG. 1, a wearable electronic device 10, which may be a wristwatch device, may have a housing 12, a display 14, and a strap 16. The wristwatch may attach to a user's wrist via strap 16, and provide skin contact on the user's wrist, by which sensors within device 10 may measure signs of physical assertion”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Franck with the teaching of You to package the sensor assembly as a wristwatch and attach it to a user’s wrist with a strap, rendering it a wearable device. You notes in [0020] that spectroscopic devices can provide health sensing information when mounted against a user’s skin. Wearable devices can therefore provide continuous and long-term information to the user given their proximity to the user’s body.
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 15, Frank does not teach and You does teach that the wearable sensing device is located on a watch strap ([0019]: “As shown in FIG. 1, a wearable electronic device 10, which may be a wristwatch device, may have a housing 12, a display 14, and a strap 16. The wristwatch may attach to a user's wrist via strap 16, and provide skin contact on the user's wrist, by which sensors within device 10 may measure signs of physical assertion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Franck with the teaching of You to package the sensor assembly as a wristwatch and attach it to a user’s wrist with a strap, rendering it a wearable device. You notes in [0020] that spectroscopic devices can provide health sensing information when mounted against a user’s skin. Wearable devices can therefore provide continuous and long-term information to the user given their proximity to the user’s body.
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 15, Frank does not teach and You does teach that the sensing device is located on a wearable band ([0019]: “As shown in FIG. 1, a wearable electronic device 10, which may be a wristwatch device, may have a housing 12, a display 14, and a strap 16. The wristwatch may attach to a user's wrist via strap 16, and provide skin contact on the user's wrist, by which sensors within device 10 may measure signs of physical assertion; The examiner reasonable asserts here that wearable bands are inclusive of watch straps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Franck with the teaching of You to package the sensor assembly as a wristwatch and attach it to a user’s wrist with a strap, which is a type of wearable band, rendering it a wearable device. You notes in [0020] that spectroscopic devices can provide health sensing information when mounted against a user’s skin. Wearable devices can therefore provide continuous and long-term information to the user given their proximity to the user’s body.
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 BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645