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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC 112 have been made in light of newly-introduced claims 46-47.
Regarding the amendments to claim 16, previously-found references of Grundfest and Han have been incorporated into the rejection. Paragraph [0059] of Han teaches an instance in which it is beneficial to obtain data from the medium-distance and remote light paths, but not the near light path. Examiner upholds the use of Han to teach this limitation.
Regarding the amendments to claim 25, previously-found reference of Al-Ali has been incorporated into the rejection. The claim states that the weight is based on the number of times the light signals are used as an “obtaining basis in a history record”. Examiner asserts that the amount of times the PD of Al-Ali is activated represents the number of times it obtains data. Nevertheless, it is expected that the amount of times the PD obtains data is equivalent to the amount of times it is used for a final physiological measurement. Additionally, the ability to use this value in a calculation demonstrates that it is stored in a history record. Examiner upholds the use of Al-Ali to teach this limitation.
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 46-47 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.
Claims 46-47 incorrectly claim the order of elements—it is claimed that the plurality of LEDs encircle the PDs; however, the specification, drawings, and other claims teach an embodiment in which the plurality of PDs encircle the LEDs. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the LEDs in claims 46-47 refer to the PDs and the PDs refer to the LEDs.
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.
Claims 16, 20-21, 24, 33-34, 46, & 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi (US 2022/0022814) in view of Johnson (US 2013/0267854), Ahmed (US 2014/0073486), To (WO 2013/029738), Venugopal (US 2021/0093237), Grundfest (US 2016/0022223), and Han (US 2016/0058312).
Regarding claims 16 & 24, Xi teaches a wearable device based on photoplethysmography (PPG), wherein the wearable device comprises:
a PPG module, comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (optical transmitters 810 & 820, [0081]) and a plurality of photodiodes (PDs) (optical sensors 830 & 840, [0081]);
wherein the plurality of PDs are distributed on a surface (back surface of the watch face 310, [0074]) of the wearable device (smartwatch 300, [0074]);
each LED of the plurality of LEDs is configured to emit light signals ([0081]), and each LED is a tricolor integrated LED in which red light, green light, and infrared light are comprised ([0081]), and the light signals emitted by each LED comprises: a green light signal, a red light signal, or an infrared light signal ([0081]);
wherein each PD of the plurality of PDs is configured to receive the light signals from the plurality of LEDs ([0082]), and transmit the light signals to the processor (processor 110, [0050]);
wherein the processor is configured to obtain a heart rate feature (heart rate, [0050]) based on the light signals received from the plurality of PDs ([0050]); and
wherein each of the light signals transmitted by the plurality of PDs to the processor comprises intensity of the respective light signal.
All signals comprise an intensity (amplitude).
However, Xi fails to disclose that the plurality of PDs are distributed around the plurality of LEDs in a surrounding structure, wherein the structure of the PPG module is a concentric circular structure.
Johnson teaches that the plurality of PDs (detectors 106, [0021]) are distributed around the plurality of LEDs (light sources 104a & 104b, [0020]) in a surrounding structure ([0022], Figure 1b), wherein the structure of the PPG module is a concentric circular structure (Figure 1b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearable device taught by Xi such that the plurality of PDs are distributed around the plurality of LEDs and a surrounding structure, wherein the structure of the PPG module is a concentric circular structure, as taught by Johnson. This arrangement minimizes the average distance to the LEDs, resulting in stronger, higher quality signals.
However, Xi in view of Johnson fail to disclose controlling each LED of the plurality of LEDs to: emit a green light signal at a first frequency based on detecting that the wearable device is in a moving state; and emit an infrared light based on detecting that the wearable device is not in the moving state.
Ahmed teaches controlling each LED (light emitters, e.g., LEDs, [0121]) of the plurality of LEDs to:
emit a green light signal ([0130]) at a first frequency based on detecting that the wearable device is in a moving state (higher level of motion, [0130]); and
emit an infrared light ([0130]) based on detecting that the wearable device is not in the moving state (lower level of motion, [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Xi and Johnson to include controlling each LED of the plurality of LEDs to: emit a green light signal at a first frequency based on detecting that the wearable device is in a moving state; and emit an infrared light based on detecting that the wearable device is not in the moving state, as taught by Ahmed. When a user is in an active state, it is expected that they will have a higher level of blood perfusion. Per [0130]-[0132] of Ahmed, shorter wavelengths are more effective in these scenarios, at the cost of higher power consumption. Adjusting the color the LEDs emit based on a level of motion ensures that the highest quality data is being received at the most critical periods (i.e., user exercise or activity) while maximizing power consumption efficiency.
However, Xi in view of Johnson and Ahmed fail to disclose: emitting a green light signal based on detecting that an ambient light intensity is greater than or equal to a light intensity threshold; and emitting an infrared light based on detecting that an ambient light intensity is less than the light intensity threshold.
To teaches:
emitting a green light signal based on detecting that an ambient light intensity is greater than or equal to a light intensity threshold; and
emitting an infrared light based on detecting that an ambient light intensity is less than the light intensity threshold (Page 6, Paragraph 5).
Page 6, Paragraph 5 of To teaches that the system has either a red or infrared light source, and that “to detect the field of view (ROI) in the dark it is better to use near infrared light”. Conversely, this suggests using the visible light source when it is not dark. When the teachings of To are applied to a system with a green light and an infrared light, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand to use the green light (i.e., visible light) in high ambient light conditions. Although no light intensity threshold is explicitly taught in To, one must exist in order to consider an environment dark enough to use the near infrared light source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Xi, Johnson, and Ahmed to include: emitting a green light signal based on detecting that an ambient light intensity is greater than or equal to a light intensity threshold; and emitting an infrared light based on detecting that an ambient light intensity is less than the light intensity threshold, as taught by To. Because light of different wavelengths propagates differently in tissue, preventing a color that may require a higher level of sensitivity to be captured from being emitted during bright ambient conditions will allow the system to only use colors that will result in the highest quality data.
However, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, and To fail to disclose: emitting a green light signal at a first frequency and a green light signal at a second frequency, wherein the second frequency is less than the first frequency, and wherein the green light signal at the second frequency is emitted based on detecting that the wearable device is not in the moving state.
Venugopal teaches emitting a green light signal at a first frequency and a green light signal at a second frequency (range of green light wavelengths, [0011]), wherein the second frequency is less than the first frequency.
In a range of green light wavelengths, there will inherently be a wavelength with a frequency less than another wavelength.
Ahmed teaches in [0130] that the wavelength emitted can be changed based on the detected level of motion. In the examples provided, the light with the lower wavelength is always used during higher levels of motion versus the light with the higher wavelength. Frequency is the inverse of wavelength, so this corresponds to using a lower frequency at lower motion levels. In a system such as that of Venugopal with multiple green wavelengths, the teachings of Ahmed would be applied such that the green light at the lower frequency would be emitted based on detecting that the wearable device is not in the moving state.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Xi, Johnson, Ahmed, and To to include emitting a green light signal at a first frequency and a green light signal at a second frequency, wherein the second frequency is less than the first frequency, as taught by Venugopal. This provides an additional wavelength to those detailed in Xi, and the teachings of Ahmed provide functionality of selecting one green wavelength over the other.
However, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, and Venugopal fail to disclose that each of the light signals transmitted by the plurality of PDs to the processor comprises an identifier of an LED that emits the respective light signal.
Grundfest teaches that each of the light signals transmitted by the plurality of PDs to the processor comprises an identifier of an LED that emits the respective light signal ([0037]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearable device taught by Xi, Johnson, Ahmed, To, and Venugopal such that each of the light signals transmitted by the plurality of PDs to the processor comprises an identifier of an LED that emits the respective light signal, as taught by Grundfest. The ability to identify which LED emitted a particular signal allows for a relationship between distance and signal strength to be determined, resulting in a more accurate calculation of a physiological signal.
However, Xi in view of Johnson Ahmed, To, Venugopal, and Grundfest fail to disclose that a light path relationship between each LED and each PD is stored in the processor, and each light path relationship comprises: a near light path, a remote light path, or a medium-distance light path; and wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a second light signal belonging to a remote light path and a third light signal belonging to a medium-distance light path from the light signals from the plurality of PDs, and obtain the blood oxygen feature based on the second light signal and the third light signal, wherein a signal belonging to a near light path relationship is not considered in obtaining the blood oxygen feature.
Han further teaches that a light path relationship between each LED and each PD is stored in the processor ([0055]), and each light path relationship comprises: a near light path (light path 721 corresponding to separation distance d1, [0055] & [0059], Figure 7), a remote light path (light path 733 corresponding to separation distance d4, [0055] & [0059], Figure 7), or a medium-distance light path (light paths 729; 727 & 735; 723 & 731; & 725, [0055] & [0059], Figure 7); and
Although light paths 721 & 729 correspond to the shortest separation distance d1, light path 721 corresponds to the green light emitter 706, and light path 729 corresponds to the infrared light emitter 716. Per [0059], “An IR light source can effectively travel further distances through a user’s skin than other light sources”. Thus, even though the distance between light emitter 706 and light sensor 704 is equal to the distance between light emitter 716 and light sensor 714, light path 721 is shorter than light path 729 because it uses green light. For similar reasons, light path 733 corresponding to infrared light emitter 716 is longer than light path 725 corresponding to green light emitter 706, despite both having the longest separation distance d4. Therefore, all remaining light paths can be considered the medium-distance light path.
wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain a second light signal belonging to a remote light path (light path 733, [0059]) and a third light signal belonging to a medium-distance light path (light paths 729; 727 & 735; 723 & 731; & 725, [0059]) from the light signals from the plurality of PDs, and obtain the blood oxygen feature based on the second light signal and the third light signal, wherein a signal belonging to a near light path relationship (light path 721, [0059]) is not considered in obtaining the blood oxygen feature ([0059]).
Paragraph [0059] teaches that, in a low power mode, the light paths corresponding to the infrared light source 716 (light paths 727, 729, 731, & 733) are used. These light paths represent the medium-distance and remote light paths.
Although obtaining the blood oxygen feature is not explicitly taught in Han, obtaining blood oxygenation values from PPG signals is known. Paragraph [0017] of Johnson, for example, teaches that oxygen concentration in blood vessels can be derived from PPG signals. Thus, the PPG signals corresponding to the remote and medium-distance light paths can be used to obtain the blood oxygen feature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearable device taught by Xi, Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, and Grundfest such that a light path relationship between each LED and each PD is stored in the processor, and each light path relationship comprises: a near light path, a remote light path, or a medium-distance light path; and wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a second light signal belonging to a remote light path and a third light signal belonging to a medium-distance light path from the light signals from the plurality of PDs, and obtain the blood oxygen feature based on the second light signal and the third light signal, wherein a signal belonging to a near light path relationship is not considered in obtaining the blood oxygen feature, as taught by Han. Per [0059] of Han, obtaining the blood oxygen feature from the medium-distance and remote light paths consumes less power, so this would be advantageous when the device needs to conserve power.
Regarding claim 20, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han teach the wearable device according to claim 16.
However, Xi in view of Johnson Ahmed, To, Venugopal, and Grundfest fail to disclose that the processor is further configured to: obtain a fourth light signal belonging to a near light path and a fifth light signal belonging to a medium-distance light path from the light signals from the plurality of PDs, and obtain the heart rate feature based on the fourth light signal and the fifth light signal.
Han further teaches that the processor is further configured to: obtain a fourth light signal belonging to a near light path (light path 721, [0059]) and a fifth light signal belonging to a medium-distance light path (light paths 727 & 731, [0059]) from the light signals from the plurality of PDs ([0059]), and obtain the heart rate feature based on the fourth light signal and the fifth light signal ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearable device taught by Xi, Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, and Grundfest such that the processor is further configured to: obtain a fourth light signal belonging to a near light path and a fifth light signal belonging to a medium-distance light path from the light signals from the plurality of PDs, and obtain the heart rate feature based on the fourth light signal and the fifth light signal, as taught by Han. Per [0057] of Han, there exists an inverse relationship between PPG signal strength and perfusion index based on the relative separation distances of the LEDs and PDs. Obtaining a light signal from the near light path results in the heart rate signal having the highest signal strength.
Regarding claim 21, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han teach the wearable device according to claim 16.
However, Xi in view of Johnson Ahmed, To, Venugopal, and Grundfest fail to disclose that the processor is further configured to: obtain a fourth light signal having the strongest signal intensity from the light signals from the plurality of PDs, and obtain a heart rate feature from the fourth light signal.
Han teaches that the processor is further configured to: obtain a fourth light signal having the strongest signal intensity from the light signals from the plurality of PDs ([0055], [0057], & [0059]), and obtain a heart rate feature from the fourth light signal ([0034] & [0052]).
Paragraph [0057] teaches that the signal strength of the PPG signal is higher the closer a light emitter is to a light sensor. Therefore, using the light sensor associated with light path 721, which has the shortest separation distance of the light paths, as is taught in [0059], would result in the claimed fourth light signal having the strongest signal intensity of the light signals from the plurality of PDs. Per [0034], the PPG signal is equivalent to the heart rate signal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearable device taught by Xi, Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, and Grundfest such that the processor is further configured to: obtain a fourth light signal having the strongest signal intensity from the light signals from the plurality of PDs, and obtain a heart rate feature from the fourth light signal, as taught by Han. Using the strongest of the obtained signals allows for a more accurate determination of heart rate.
Regarding claim 33, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han teach the wearable device according to claim 16, and Johnson further teaches that the processor is further configured to: obtain a fourth light signal by calculating an average value of the light signals from the plurality of PDs ([0034]-[0035]), and obtain the blood oxygen feature from the fourth light signal ([0034]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Xi such that the processor is further configured to: obtain a fourth light signal by calculating an average value of the light signals from the plurality of PDs, and obtain the blood oxygen feature from the fourth light signal, as taught by Johnson. Averaging the signals removes any outliers from the data, ensuring the most accurate data to determine physiological metrics of the patient.
Regarding claim 34, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han teach the wearable device according to claim 16, and Johnson further teaches that the processor is further configured to: obtain a fifth light signal by a weighting calculation based on the light signals from the plurality of PDs and a weight of each PD ([0034]-[0035]), and obtain the heart rate feature ([0002] & [0031]) or the respiration rate feature ([0002]) based on the fifth light signal ([0034]-[0035]), wherein the weight of each PD is preset ([0034]-[0035]).
An average is a weight in which all elements have the same weight. By taking the average, the weights of each of the detectors 106 are preset.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Xi such that the processor is further configured to: obtain a fifth light signal by a weighting calculation based on the light signals from the plurality of PDs and a weight of each PD, and obtain the heart rate feature or the respiration rate feature based on the fifth light signal, wherein the weight of each PD is preset, as taught by Johnson. Averaging the signals removes any outliers from the data, ensuring the most accurate data to determine physiological metrics of the patient.
Regarding claim 46, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han teach the wearable device according to claim 16, and Johnson further teaches that the plurality of PDs completely encircle the plurality of LEDs (Figure 1b).
Regarding the limitation that each PD contacts at least two adjacent PDs of the plurality of PDs, additional PDs can be added to a device under routine optimization. Incremental increases of a component would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, and [0023] of Johnson teaches “embodiments contemplated herein may include more or less than eight detectors 106 in an array”. Because the PDs have a definitive size, a specific amount of PDs exists in which each PD contacts at least two adjacent PDs when adding additional PDs into the circle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Xi such that the plurality of PDs completely encircle the plurality of LEDs, and each PD contacts at least two adjacent PDs of the plurality of PDs, as taught by Johnson. Encircling the PDs around the LEDs creates a symmetrical, compact design, and arranging the PDs such that they contact at least two adjacent PDs ensures the maximum amount of PDs are present in the design. This allows for the maximum amount of data to be obtained in order to make a more informed diagnosis.
Regarding claim 48, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han teach the wearable device according to claim 16, and Xi further teaches that a quantity of LEDs of the plurality of LEDs is two (Figure 8).
Johnson teaches that a quantity of PDs of the plurality of PDs is twelve ([0023], See rejection of claim 46).
Although Johnson definitively depicts an embodiment comprising 8 PDs, increasing the number of PDs would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art absent a specific teaching which necessitates or otherwise makes novel the specific arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Xi such that a quantity of PDs of the plurality of PDs is twelve, as taught by Johnson. A higher number of PDs increases the amount of data that can be obtained, allowing a more informed diagnosis to be made.
Claims 22 & 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han, as applied to claim 16, above, in further view of Piercey (US 10,742,048).
Regarding claims 22 & 42-43, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han teach the wearable device according to claim 16.
However, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han fail to disclose that the PPG module further comprises: charging pins, wherein the charging pins are provided outside the plurality of PDs, and the charging pins are configured to provide a charging interface for the wearable device, wherein the charging pins and the PPG module are both on a side of the wearable device that is configured to face a user’s wrist when the wearable device is worn by the user, wherein the charging pins comprise a first charging pin and a second charging pin, and a shortest virtual line that extends between the first charging pin and the second charging pin intersects the PPG module.
Piercey teaches that the PPG module (LEDs and heart rate CMOS sensor, Figure 7A) further comprises: charging pins (metal contacts, Column 3, Lines 11-12), wherein the charging pins are provided outside the plurality of PDs (Figures 7A & 11A-B), and the charging pins are configured to provide a charging interface for the wearable device (Column 3, Lines 14-17), wherein the charging pins and the PPG module are both on a side of the wearable device that is configured to face a user’s wrist when the wearable device is worn by the user (caseback, Column 1, Lines 45-46, Figures 7A & 11A-B), wherein the charging pins comprise a first charging pin (one of the metal contacts, Figures 11A-B) and a second charging pin (the metal contact located opposite the first metal contact, Figures 11A-B), and a shortest virtual line that extends between the first charging pin and the second charging pin intersects the PPG module (Figures 7A & 11A-B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearable device of Xi, Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han such that the PPG module further comprises: charging pins, wherein the charging pins are provided outside the plurality of PDs, and the charging pins are configured to provide a charging interface for the wearable device, wherein the charging pins and the PPG module are both on a side of the wearable device that is configured to face a user’s wrist when the wearable device is worn by the user, wherein the charging pins comprise a first charging pin and a second charging pin, and a shortest virtual line that extends between the first charging pin and the second charging pin intersects the PPG module, as taught by Piercey. Providing a charging interface for the device eliminates the need for batteries. Additionally, two charging pins opposite from each other allow for a stable charging connection when attached to the charger.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han, as applied to claim 16, above, in further view of Mendelson (US 2002/0042558).
Regarding claim 23, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han teach the wearable device according to claim 16, and Xi further teaches that the quantity of LEDs of the plurality of LEDs is two (Figure 8).
Johnson further teaches that a quantity of PDs of the plurality of PDs is eight (Figure 1b), and the eight PDs are arranged in an eight-equal distribution (Figure 1b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearable device taught by Xi such that the quantity of PDs of the plurality of PDs is eight, and the eight PDs are arranged in an eight-equal distribution, as taught by Johnson. This arrangement minimizes the average distance between a LED and a PD, ensuring higher quality signals.
However, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han fail to disclose that the PDs are arranged with a midpoint of a connecting line of the two LEDs as a circle center.
Mendelson teaches that the PDs (detectors 16 & 18, [0075]) are arranged with a midpoint of a connecting line of the LEDs (light emitting elements 12a, 12b, & 12c, [0075]) as a circle center (Figure 7).
Although Mendelson teaches 3 LEDs, both Xi and Johnson teach 2 LEDs. The arrangement of Mendelson would be incorporated into a device with 2 LEDs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearable device taught by Xi, Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han such that the PDs are arranged with a midpoint of a connecting line of the LEDs as a circle center, as taught by Mendelson. This ensures that no LED is directly in the circle center; thus, each LED will have both near and far PDs associated with it.
Claims 25, 29, 37, 39, 41, & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han, in further view of Al-Ali (JP 5652777).
Claim 25 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 16. Johnson further teaches that obtaining the blood oxygen feature based on the light signals received from the plurality of PDs comprises: obtaining a fifth light signal by performing a weighting calculation based on the light signals from the plurality of PDs and a weight of each PD ([0034]-[0035]), and obtaining the blood oxygen feature based on the fifth light signal ([0034]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Xi such that obtaining the blood oxygen feature based on the light signals received from the plurality of PDs comprises: obtaining a fifth light signal by performing a weighting calculation based on the light signals from the plurality of PDs and a weight of each PD, and obtaining the blood oxygen feature based on the fifth light signal, as taught by Johnson. Weighting the received signals allows the system to focus on the more relevant data while ignoring outliers.
However, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han fail to disclose that the weight of each PD is determined by the processor based on a quantity of times that the light signals emitted by each PD are used as an obtaining basis in a history record.
Al-Ali teaches that the weight of each PD is determined by the processor based on a quantity of times that the light signals emitted by each PD (sensor activation times, Claim 1) are used as an obtaining basis in a history record.
It is expected that the number of times the sensor is activated represents the number of times the sensor obtains data. Additionally, to use this number in the weighting demonstrates that it is recorded in a history record.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Xi, Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han such that the weight of each PD is determined by the processor based on a quantity of times that the light signals emitted by each PD are used as an obtaining basis in a history record, as taught by Al-Ali. This allows the system to favor the PDs that contributed more to the blood feature determination, resulting in a more accurate and representative calculation.
Claim 29 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 20.
Claim 37 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 33.
Regarding claim 39, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han teach the method according to claim 25.
However, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han fail to disclose that the weights of at least two of the PDs are different from each other.
Al-Ali teaches that the weights of at least two of the PDs (photodiode detector, Page 2, Background-Art Paragraph 2 and detector, Claim 1) are different from each other (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Xi, Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han such that the weights of at least two of the PDs are different from each other, as taught by Al-Ali. Weighting the received signals allows the system to focus on the more relevant data while ignoring outliers.
Regarding claim 41, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han teach the method according to claim 25.
However, Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han fail to disclose that a higher weight of a respective PD corresponds to the respective PD being selected to be used to obtain the heart rate feature, the blood oxygen feature, or the respiration rate feature in the history record a higher number of times.
Al-Ali teaches that a higher weight of a respective PD corresponds to the respective PD being selected to be used to obtain the heart rate feature or the blood oxygen feature in the history record a higher number of times (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Xi, Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, and Han such that a higher weight of a respective PD corresponds to the respective PD being selected to be used to obtain the heart rate feature or the blood oxygen feature in the history record a higher number of times, as taught by Al-Ali. This allows the system to favor the PDs that contributed more to the blood feature determination, resulting in a more accurate and representative calculation.
Claim 47 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 46.
Claims 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi in view of Johnson, Ahmed, To, Venugopal, Grundfest, Han, and Al-Ali, as applied to claim 25, above, in further view of Piercey.
Claim 44 is rejected for similar reasons to claims 22 & 42.
Claim 45 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 43.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM KOLKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1:00PM-10:00PM EDT.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached on (572)-270-1790. 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.
/ADAM D. KOLKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights