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 10/27/2025. Claims 44, 52, and 60 have been amended. Claims 64 has been added. Claims 44-64 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 (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.
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) 44-45, 50, 52-53, 58, 60-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190053754 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Gowda”) in view of US 20080242958 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Al-Ali”) and US 20120253153 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Trumble”).
Regarding claims 44, 52, and 60, Gowda teaches a method applied to an electronic device and an electronic device (abstract), the method and electronic device comprising:
at least a light source (paragraphs [0042]-[0044]);
multiple photoelectric detectors (PDs) (paragraphs [0042]-[0044]);
a processor (paragraphs [0107]-[0108]); and
a memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the processor (paragraphs [0107]-[0108]), cause the electronic device to perform operations including:
collecting, a plurality of pieces of detection data from multiple photoelectric detectors (PDs) of the electronic device when the electronic device performs blood oxygen detection, wherein the electronic device further comprises at least a light source (has multiple photodiodes; paragraph [0044]; measures SpO2; paragraph [0042]); and
performing/determining to perform calculation based on an accumulated current output by the at least one PD to obtain blood oxygen saturation (paragraphs [0042]-[0044]); but does not explicitly teach the multiple PDs are connected in parallel and to detect light of at least one same wavelength from the light source and selecting based on the plurality of pieces of detection data from the multiple PDs, at least one PD from the multiple PDs.
However, Al-Ali, and optical sensor device, teaches multiple PDs are connected in parallel (paragraphs [0009], [0069]). 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 Gowda, to have photodetectors in parallel, as taught by Al-Ali, because doing so provides an advantageous for detecting signals for measuring blood parameters (paragraph [0069]; as taught by Al-Ali).
Further Trumble, an optical medical sensor, teaches to detect light of at least one same wavelength from the light source (paragraph [0023], [0025]) and selecting based on the plurality of pieces of detection data from the multiple PDs, at least one PD from the multiple PDs (paragraphs [0014], [0021], [0033]-[0034]). 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 Gowda, in view of Al-Ali, to select specific detectors, as taught by Trumble, because doing so ensures optimal signals are used for processing.
Regarding claims 45 and 53, Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, teaches wherein the at least the light source is configured to emit at least one of red light, infrared light, or green light (paragraph [0043]; as taught by Gowda).
Regarding claims 50 and 58, Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, teaches wherein the performing the calculation based on the accumulated current output by the at least one PD to obtain the blood oxygen saturation comprises:
obtaining temperature data of a current environment in which the blood oxygen detection is performed (paragraph [0027]; as taught by Gowda); and
performing the calculation based on the accumulated current output by the at least one PD and the temperature data to obtain the blood oxygen saturation (paragraph [0027]; as taught by Gowda).
Regarding claim 61, Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, teaches wherein the detection data comprises at least one of a first photoplethysmography (PPG) signal corresponding to red light, a second PPG signal corresponding to infrared light, a third PPG signal corresponding to green light, or a PD detection current, wherein the PD detection current comprises an electrical signal obtained through photoelectric conversion on an optical signal that is received by at least one PD and that is generated after a light beam emitted by the at least the light source is reflected by human tissue of a detected user (paragraphs [0014], [0021], [0026], [0033]-[0034]; as taught by Trumble).
Regarding claim 64, Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble teaches wherein the multiple PDs are connected in parallel to detect the reflected light of at least two same wavelengths from the light source (paragraphs [0009], [0069]; as taught by Al-Ali), wherein the at least one PD is a subset of the multiple PDs and includes at least two PDs (paragraphs [0042]-[0044]; as taught by Gowda), wherein the at least one PD is selected based on the plurality of pieces of detection data indicating that the at least one PD is operating normally, and wherein the multiple PDs simultaneously receive the reflected light from the light source driven by a same drive current (paragraphs [0014], [0021], [0033]-[0034]; as taught by Trumble), and the accumulated current output by the at least one PD is based on a sum of individual detection currents output by the at least one PD (paragraphs [0014], [0021], [0033]-[0034]; as taught by Trumble).
Claim(s) 46-47, 49, 54, 55, 57, 62-63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, as applied to claims 44, 52, and 60 above, and further in view of US 20190274628 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Duan”).
Regarding claims 46 and 54, Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, does not explicitly teach performing the calculation based on the accumulated current output by the at least one PD to obtain the blood oxygen saturation further comprises: performing the calculation based on the accumulated current output by the at least one PD to obtain the blood oxygen saturation based on a quantity of the at least one PD being greater than a threshold.
However, Duan teaches performing the calculation based on the accumulated current output by the at least one PD to obtain the blood oxygen saturation further comprises: performing the calculation based on the accumulated current output by the at least one PD to obtain the blood oxygen saturation based on a quantity of the at least one PD being greater than a threshold (paragraph [0025]). 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 Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, to have a threshold of the detected signals, as taught by Duan, because doing so determine a wearing state of a user (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]; as taught by Duan).
Regarding claims 47 and 55, Gowda, in view of Al-Ali, Trumble, and Duan, teaches the method further comprising:
prompting to re-adjust a wearing state based on the quantity of the at least one PD being less than the threshold (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]; as taught by Duan).
Regarding claims 49 and 57, Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic device further comprises an inertial sensor, and the collecting the plurality of pieces of detection data comprises: monitoring data obtained by the inertial sensor, the data indicating whether a current wearing state of the electronic device meets a wearing specification.
However, Duan, teaches wherein the electronic device further comprises an inertial sensor, and the collecting the plurality of pieces of detection data comprises: monitoring data obtained by the inertial sensor, the data indicating whether a current wearing state of the electronic device meets a wearing specification (paragraph [0026]). 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 Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, to use an inertial sensor to determine a wearing state of a user, as taught by Duan, because doing so determines if the user is properly wearing the sensing device.
Regarding claim 62, Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, does not explicitly teach determining, based on the plurality of pieces of detection data and preset thresholds corresponding to the detection data, whether PDs corresponding to the detection data are abnormal; and determining, based on whether a quantity or proportion of normal PDs in the multiple PDs meets a preset condition, the category of the scenario in which the electronic device currently performs the blood oxygen detection.
However, Duan based on the plurality of pieces of detection data and preset thresholds corresponding to the detection data, whether PDs corresponding to the detection data are abnormal; and determining, based on whether a quantity or proportion of normal PDs in the multiple PDs meets a preset condition, the category of the scenario in which the electronic device currently performs the blood oxygen detection (paragraph [0025]). 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 Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, to have a threshold of the detected signals, as taught by Duan, because doing so determine a wearing state of a user (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]; as taught by Duan).
Regarding claim 63, Gowda, in view of Al-Ali, Trumble, and Duan, teaches wherein the category of the scenario in which the electronic device currently performs the blood oxygen detection is determined as a third category based on the quantity or proportion of the normal PDs in the multiple PDs being greater than or equal to a first threshold (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]; as taught by Duan), and
the operations further comprising:
determining an accumulated PD detection current corresponding to the normal PDs in the multiple PDs connected in parallel as an output current to perform oxygen saturation calculation, to obtain a corresponding oxygen saturation parameter (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]; as taught by Duan).
Claim(s) 48, 51, 56, 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble as applied to claim 44, 50, 52 above, and further in view of US 11051706 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Nadeau”).
Regarding claims 48 and 56, Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, does not explicitly teach wherein corresponding distances between at least two of the multiple PDs and the light source are different.
However, Nadeau, an optical sensor device, teaches wherein corresponding distances between at least two of the multiple PDs and the light source are different (as shown in Figure 1H). 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 Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, to have differing distances between emitter and detector, because doing so accounts for different wavelengths (column 12, lines 19-31; as taught by Nadeau).
Regarding claims 51 and 59, Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, does not explicitly teach wherein the performing the calculation based on the accumulated current output by the at least one PD and the temperature data to obtain the blood oxygen saturation comprises: obtaining the blood oxygen saturation through the calculation based on the accumulated current output by the at least one PD that is selected from the multiple PDs and that has a relatively short distance from the light source when the temperature data corresponds to a short spacing category; or obtaining the blood oxygen saturation through the calculation based on the accumulated current output by the at least one PD that is selected from the multiple PDs and that has a relatively long distance from the light source when the temperature data corresponds to a long spacing category.
Nadeau teaches wherein the performing the calculation based on the accumulated current output by the at least one PD and the temperature data to obtain the blood oxygen saturation comprises: obtaining the blood oxygen saturation through the calculation based on the accumulated current output by the at least one PD that is selected from the multiple PDs and that has a relatively short distance from the light source when the temperature data corresponds to a short spacing category (column 26, line 7-33); or obtaining the blood oxygen saturation through the calculation based on the accumulated current output by the at least one PD that is selected from the multiple PDs and that has a relatively long distance from the light source when the temperature data corresponds to a long spacing category (column 26, line 7-33). 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 Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble, to account for temperature when determining which detector to user, as taught by Nadeau, because doing so accounts for different factors that may corrupt acquired data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 44, 52, and 60 under 35 USC 103 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 Gowda, in view of Al-Ali and Trumble.
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