DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments received 22 June 2026. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn; claims 1-10 are pending.
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, see “Remarks”, filed 22 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under Goldstein 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 in view of Wentz.
Specification
In view of the amendments (see “Remarks”, pages 10-11) received 22 June 2026, the Examiner withdraws the objection to the Specification.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein (U.S. 2017/0112671) in view of Wentz (U.S. 2019/0239753). Goldstein discloses (Figures 1A-B) an in-ear fixture configured to fit in an ear canal of a user (par. 0057); an emitter (par. 0185-0190) mounted on the in-ear fixture and configured to emit a first electromagnetic radiation onto the ear canal of the user (par. 0185, “the same optical emitter/detector configuration used in earpiece pulse oximetry can be employed for hydration monitoring. However, mid-IR or blue optical emitters and detectors may be required. Additionally, monitoring the ratio of blue-green to other transmitted or reflected wavelengths may aid the real-time assessment of blood hydration levels.”); a detector (see previous citation, “emitter/detector”) configured to provide a signal indicative of a second electromagnetic radiation from the ear canal of the user; and a processor (4 in Figures 1A-B, par. 0064) that is coupled to an augmented reality headset (par. 0065, “The user interface 3C can be a camera on a phone or a pair of virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) “glasses” or other pair of glasses for detecting a wink or blink of one or both eyes.”), the processor configured to identify a health condition of the user based on the signal, wherein the second electromagnetic radiation includes at least a portion of the first electromagnetic radiation reflected from a tissue in the ear canal of the user (par. 0185-0190, especially “Organ function monitoring includes monitoring, for example, the liver, kidneys, pancreas, skin, and other vital or important organs. Liver quality can be monitored noninvasively by monitoring optical absorption and reflection at various optical wavelengths. For example, optical reflection from white LEDs or selected visible-wavelength LEDs can be used to monitor bilirubin levels in the skin and blood, for a real-time assessment of liver health.”).
Goldstein disclose the claimed invention except for a time-multiplex code. Wentz, however, discloses (par. 0047) an emitter and detector, including electromagnetic radiation emission of a time multiplex code (par. 0043) and decoding a signal according to a time multiplex code (par. 0060) using a processor coupled to an AR headset (par. 0071). Goldstein and Wentz both disclose AR systems for emitting and detecting electromagnetic radiation. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Goldstein’s in-ear fixture with Wentz’s time multiplex code and decoding in order to provide a refined model for the pulse propagation path through the medium (e.g., ear tissue) as in Wentz’s par. 0060.
Regarding claim 2, Goldstein discloses the first electromagnetic radiation includes one of a near-infrared (par. 0172) or green light (par. 0185, “Blood hydration can also be monitored optically, as water selectively absorbs optical wavelengths in the mid-IR and blue-UV ranges, whereas water can be more transparent to the blue-green wavelengths. Thus, the same optical emitter/detector configuration used in earpiece pulse oximetry can be employed for hydration monitoring. However, mid-IR or blue optical emitters and detectors may be required. Additionally, monitoring the ratio of blue-green to other transmitted or reflected wavelengths may aid the real-time assessment of blood hydration levels.”), and the health condition of the user includes a cardio-respiratory condition (par. 0172, “various types of hemoglobin, such as methemoglobin and carboxyhemoglobin can be differentiated by measuring and comparing the optical absorption at key red and near-infrared wavelengths. Additional wavelengths can be incorporated and/or replace conventional wavelengths. For example, by adding additional visible and infrared wavelengths, myoglobin, methemoglobin, carboxyhemoglobin, bilirubin, SpCO2, and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) can be estimated and/or monitored in real-time in addition to the conventional pulse oximetry SpO2 measurement.”).
Regarding claim 3, Goldstein discloses (par. 0083 and 0186) a difference between the first electromagnetic radiation and the second electromagnetic radiation is indicative of a trace amount of a selected molecule in the ear canal of the user (“A variety of techniques can be used for monitoring blood metabolites via an earpiece module, such as wearable monitoring device 80.”).
Regarding claim 4, Goldstein discloses (par. 0186) a difference between the first electromagnetic radiation and the second electromagnetic radiation is indicative of a glucose content in a blood stream of the user (“A variety of techniques can be used for monitoring blood metabolites via an earpiece module, such as wearable monitoring device 80. For example, glucose can be monitored via iontophoresis at the surface of the skin combined with enzyme detection.”).
Regarding claim 5, Goldstein discloses (par 0177) a chip having a functional layer including a photochemical substance that changes an optical property in a presence of a pre-selected target substance (par. 0209, “a sensor for monitoring particle size and concentration is an optical particle counter. A light source is used (e.g., a laser or a laser diode), to illuminate a stream of air flow. However, a directional LED beam, generated by a resonant cavity LED (RCLED), a specially lensed LED, or an intense LED point source, can also be used for particle detection. The optical detector which is off-axis from the light beam measures the amount of light scattered from a single particle by refraction and diffraction. Both the size and the number of particles can be measured at the same time. The size of the monitored particle is estimated by the intensity of the scattered light.”), wherein the second electromagnetic radiation is indicative of a change in the optical property of the functional layer.
Regarding claim 6, Goldstein discloses (par. 0177) a chip having a metallic layer configured to form a plasmon resonance (par. 0208) in response to the first electromagnetic radiation, wherein the metallic layer further includes a chemically sensitive layer that changes the plasmon resonance to the second electromagnetic radiation in a presence of a pre-selected target substance (par. 0208, “These polymers change size or electrical or optical properties in response to analyte(s) from the environment (such as those described above). The electrical signal from these absorptive polymer electronic sensors can be correlated with the type and intensity of environmental analyte.”).
Regarding claim 7, Goldstein discloses (par. 0177) a chip having a layer of nanometallic particles configured to change a plasmon resonance (par. 0208) to the second electromagnetic radiation localized within a size of a nanometallic particle in a presence of a pre-selected target substance.
Regarding claim 8, Goldstein discloses (par. 0064) an electrode mounted on the in-ear fixture, and configured to receive an electronic signal indicative of a cardio-respiratory activity of the user, and the processor is configured to identify the health condition of the user based on a correlation of the signal with the electronic signal.
Regarding claim 9, Goldstein discloses (par. 0185) the emitter includes a pulsed radiation source, and the processor is configured to filter the signal from the second electromagnetic radiation according to the pulsed radiation source (par. 0207).
Regarding claim 10, Goldstein discloses (par. 0209) a thin film filter to adjust a spectral bandwidth of the first electromagnetic radiation or the second electromagnetic radiation (par. 0207).
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 DEBORAH L MALAMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-2106. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 1:00-9:30 Eastern.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/DEBORAH L MALAMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights