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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on February 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 5, 11 – 13, 20, 22, and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 25, 2026.
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 1, 4, 6 – 10, 17 – 19, 21, and 23 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.
With regard to claims 1 and 17, the claims define “a test optical signal” as a center portion of “an original light spot” and indicate an adjustment structure located on an output optical path of “the test optical signal”. Further indicating the adjustment structure as acting on the test optical signal to convert “the original light spot” into a test light spot; however, by indicating the adjustment structure relative to “the test optical signal” rather than the original light spot as a whole, it is somewhat unclear how “the original light spot” can be converted.
With regard to claims 4, 6, 7, 21, and 23, Examiner notes that throughout the specification Applicant refers to various different known optical properties (diffract, reflect, lens/refract or focus) and appears to recognize the differences between them with respect to how light interacts with a corresponding structure adapted to impart the corresponding property on the light. However, while the independent claims indicate that the “adjustment structure is configured to scatter” light, the dependent claims 4, 6, 7, 21, and 23 attempt to map this property (scatter) to other/distinct properties, in particular lens/refract or focus. Since all of these optical properties are recognized in the art to refer to distinct interactions between light and a structure, it is unclear what Applicant intendeds to convey in the dependent claims by inferring refraction/focus are “scattering” properties of a material, in contradiction to the known meaning of these terms as well as in contradiction to how Applicant uses the terms in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8 – 10, and 17 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nadeau et al. (USPGPub 2017/0164848 – cited by Applicant). Nadeau et al. teach an arrangement for light field management in an optical biological sensor (Figures 1, 7, for example). Of particular relevance, the arrangement of Figure 7 includes optical emitter (706) and detector (718) elements, wherein emitted light passes a light exit structure (714A) and then an adjustment structure (714B/738) before interacting with the skin of the user. The adjustment structure acts on the light to ‘scatter’ it away from a center of the light beam (paragraphs [0087] – [0088]). After passing through the tissue, the light is collected (740) and provided to the detector.
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(s) 4, 6, 7, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeau et al., as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, further in view of Baek et al. (USPGPub 2017/0372152 - cited by Applicant). Nadeau et al. teach an optical measurement arrangement including emitter, exit, and adjustment structures as detailed above. In addition, Nadeau et al. recognize that their sensor may include lens elements (paragraph [0022]) but do not teach a lens with the particular structure of claims 4, 17 or those that depend therefrom. However, Baek et al. teach an alternate optical sensing arrangement that can include a lens with any of several configurations (Figures 5D-F, of particular relevance). As such, it would have been within the skill level of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the sensor of Nadeau et al., with a lens as disclosed in Baek et al., since Nadeau et al. recognize that a lens may be an optical component of their measurement sensor device, and the lens of Baek et al. would provide the needed optical response consistent with the configuration of Nadeau et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC FRANK WINAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 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, Chuck Marmor, II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791