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 .
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, 2, 4 – 6, 8, 11 – 13, 15 – 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (USPGPub 2020/0029873 - cited by Applicant). Park et al. (paragraphs [0027], [0028], [0091]-[0100]; fig. 3-6) discloses the features of an apparatus (300; paragraph [0091]: "antioxidant sensor") for estimating bioinformation comprising:
a sensor (320) configured to detect at least one first light signal and at least one second light signal (paragraphs [0094], [0098], [0100]), each of the at least one first light signal having a first light path from an object and each of the at least one second light signal having a second light path from the object that is different from the first light path (implicit by the different light sources 311, 312, 313; see also fig. 4, 5); and
a processor (330) configured to: obtain a first absorbance (paragraph [0027]) based on the at least one first light signal (paragraph [0092]), obtain a second absorbance (paragraph [0027]) based on the at least one second light signal (paragraph [0092]), and estimate bio-information ("hemoglobin index") based on a difference between the first absorbance and the second absorbance (paragraph [0028]), as well as to use the measured information to determine an antioxidant level (Figures 11, 13, etc).
Furthermore, Park et al. (figures 3-6, 8; paragraphs [0027], [0028], [0087] - [0100], [0130] - [0137]) discloses all features of a method (claim 12 of the instant application) of operating a device (800; fig. 5, 8) worn on a body part of a user (paragraph [0130]) for estimating an antioxidant level of the user ("antioxidant sensor"), the method comprising:
emitting, by a light source, light to the body part (implicit, paragraph [0134]: "the processor 820 may extract absorbance of a first wavelength");
detecting, by a first detector spaced apart from the light source (fig. 5), light scattered or reflected by the body part ("measured skin spectrum") from the light emitted by the light source as a first light signal (hemoglobin signal");
detecting, by a second detector (fig. 5: different distances of pixels of the spectrometer CCD) spaced further apart from the light source than the first detector (implicit), light scattered or reflected by the body part from the light emitted by the light source as a second light signal ("base signal"); and
estimating, by a processor (820), the antioxidant level of the user based on the first light signal and the second light signal (paragraph [0135]; "based on" does not define a direct correspondence).
Additionally, Park et al. (figures 3-6, 8; paragraphs [0027], [0028], [0087] - [0100], [0130] - [0137]) discloses the additional features consistent with claims:
claims 2, 4, 5, 8, and 20, based on the emitter/detector arrangements as discussed above and in light of the use of a CCD (necessarily comprising plural pixels), as shown in fig. 5;
claim 6, given the discussion of measurement parameters as given in paragraphs [0087], [0092];
claims 11 and 15, consistent with the discussion of paragraphs [0134]-[0137]; and
claim 18, as Park et al. implement their invention without discussing calibration of a light source.
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) 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 12, and 16 above. With regard to claim 3, the claim sets forth an alternative arrangement of detectors and light source(s) to that of claims 4 and 5 (as discussed in the rejection above). Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been within the skill level of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positioning of the emitters and detectors, since it has generally been held to be an obvious variation to rearrange the location of parts of a device without changing its manner of operation. With regard to claims 7 and 19, the use of blocking-type elements in optical physiological sensors, to minimize the amount of detected light that had not traveled into a subject’s tissue, was well known at the time of the invention. As such, absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality it would have been within the skill level of the art to incorporate a known element, such as a blocking partition, for its intended purpose since it has generally been held to be obvious to make such a modification. With regard to claims 9, 10, and 14, optical spectral/absorption measurements are known to be based upon a logarithmic relationship between intensity and concentration of the parameter of interest, and as such, it would have been within the skill level of the art to perform an analysis of the measured optical data consistent with this known relationship.
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