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 .
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 04/10/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-19 are pending for examination. Claim 20 is cancelled.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rice et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0296168). In regard to claim 1, Rice discloses a device (figs. 1-11 and associated descriptions), comprising: at least one laser (element 100, Figs. 1-4 and associated descriptions), a first laser of the at least one laser configured to generate light having a wavelength below 1200 nm (element 100, Figs. 1-4 and associated descriptions; visible and near infrared light, [0003]); an output port (the output port/ tip portion of element 100, Figs. 1-4 and associated descriptions) configured to output the light to a portion of a tissue of a user (finger or tissue, Figs. 1-4 and associated descriptions); a measuring portion including a measuring port (the receiving port/ tip portion of element 200, Figs. 1-4 and associated descriptions) connected to at least one detector (element 200, Figs. 1-4 and associated descriptions), and configured to measure optical information of speckle (SPG, Figs. 5-7 and associated descriptions; [0005-0006]; [0009]; [0039]; [0044-0045]) and an intensity of light received from the tissue (PPG, Figs. 5-7 and associated descriptions; [0003]; [0009]; [0037-0038]) at the measuring port (Figs. 1-4 and associated descriptions); and a processor (element 500, Figs. 2-3 and 5-7 and associated descriptions) configured to measure speckleplethysmography and photoplethysmography based on the optical information (SPG and PPG, Figs. 2-3 and 5-8 and associated descriptions).
In regard to claim 2, Rice discloses the first laser includes a ring resonator laser, a laser configured to generate light having a fixed wavelength, a laser being constructed using hybrid integration, and/or a tunable laser (discrete wavelengths, [0003]; a laser…a diode laser… VCSEL laser, [0031]; LD, [0035]; it is implicit that the disclosed laser(s) generates discrete wavelengths for PPG measurements).
In regard to claim 11, Rice discloses the device is configured to execute diffuse correlation spectroscopy (DCS), and/or wherein the device is configured to execute a measurement of pulse oximetry (SpO2), oxygen saturation, carboxy haemoglobin, methaemoglobin, or fractional oxygen saturation (PPG, Figs. 5-7 and associated descriptions; arterial oxygen saturation, [0003]).
In regard to claim 13, Rice discloses the device is a wearable device (Fig. 2 and associated descriptions; wearable, [0034]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice as applied to claims 1-2, 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Zilkie (USPGPUB 2017/0222398 – cited in previous action). In regard to claim 8, Rice discloses all the claimed limitations except the first laser is a tunable laser includes a reflective semiconductor optical amplifier (RSOA) and a tuning element, wherein the tuning element includes a micro-ring reflector and/or a sampled Distributed Bragg Reflector (DBR) grating, and wherein the tunable laser includes phase control section coupled between the RSOA and the tuning element for determining the phase of light.
Zilkie teaches a discrete wavelength tunable laser (Figs. 1-5 and associated descriptions) comprises a reflective semiconductor optical amplifier (RSOA) ([0051]) and a tuning element (DBR grating, [0051]), wherein the tuning element includes a micro-ring reflector and/or a sampled Distributed Bragg Reflector (DBR) grating (DBR grating, [0051]), and wherein the tunable laser includes phase control section coupled between RSOA and the tuning element (phase tuner between RSOA and DBR grating, [0051]) for determining the phase of light (intended use with insufficient patentable weights).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the laser (Rice) with the laser configurations and associated elements/functions as taught by Zilkie, since both devices are discrete wavelength laser systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the laser configurations as taught by Zilkie is an alternative equivalent system for providing discrete wavelengths (see Zilkie). The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice as applied to claims 1-2, 11 and 13 above, in view of LeBoeuf et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0049017) and further in view of in view of Ivanov (USPGPUB 2017/0138789 – applicant cited). In regard to claim 9, Rice discloses the first laser generates light having wavelength below 1000 nm (element 100, Figs. 1-4 and associated descriptions; visible and near infrared light, [0003]) but does not specifically discloses the device comprises a waveguide.
LeBoeuf teaches a finger type oximeter (Figs. 8 and 10 and associated descriptions; [0053]) comprises waveguides ( optical energies from the optical sources can be guided with waveguides, [0053]).
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 first laser (Rice) to incorporate the waveguide(s) as taught by LeBoeuf, since both devices are finger type oximetry sensors and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that waveguides facilitate guiding emission light to desired part(s) of the tissue (see LeBoeuf). The rationale would have been to better guide the emitted light from the light source to desired part(s) of the tissue.
Rice as modified by LeBoeuf does not specifically disclose a waveguide core made from silicon nitride (Si3N4).
Ivanov teaches a waveguide comprises a waveguide core made from silicon nitride (Si3N4) (higher-refractive index material of the waveguide… silicon nitride (Si3N4), [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the material of the waveguide core (Rice as modified by LeBoeuf) with the silicon nitride as taught by Ivanov to yield predictable results, since both waveguides are optical transmission devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that silicon nitride is an alternative equivalent for making a waveguide (see Ivanov). The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regard to claims 3, 10 and 12, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest each and every limitations recited in claims 3, 10 and 12 in combination with the other claimed elements/ steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of Remarks, filed on 04/10/2026, with respect to claims 1-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to claim 1 filed on 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in views of the new grounds of rejection.
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 CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-6pm).
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/CHU CHUAN LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights