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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 ,5, 7, 10-12, 15, 17, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding Claims 1 and 11, the specification fails to provide support for the limitations recited in lines 16-17 of Claim 1 and lines 18-19 pf Claim 11. More specifically, the specification fails to provide support for the following elements:
“boosting a percentage modulation of the pulsatile content in the first and second detected signals by creating a combined photoplethysmography (PPG) signal”.
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 10 and 20 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.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, the limitation “the sensor” lacks proper antecedent basis and makes these claims indefinite. It is not clear if “the sensor” in line 1 of these claims is referring to the “medical device sensor” recited in Claims 1 and 11 above or if this “sensor” is something different. It is being interpreted by the examiner to mean “medical device sensor”.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on the above claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 ,5, 7, 10-12, 15, 17, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of Claim 1 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites a method configured to emit light via an emitter, detect light reflection through a user’s tissue via a detector, and calculate signals based on the emitted and detected light via a processor. Thus, this claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
This claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The step of boosting a percentage modulation of the pulsatile content in the first and second detected signals by creating…a ratio of the first detected signal and the second detected signal sets forth a judicial exception. This step describes a mathematical relationship between the first and second signal through the use of subtraction. Thus, this claim is drawn to Mathematical Concepts, which are Abstract Ideas.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The boosting step does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the subtraction, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea. It is noted that while the claim recites that the boosting step provides an improved signal-to-noise ratio, it is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, Claim 1 recites providing a medical device sensor and operating the medical device sensor in a reflective mode. The providing and operating steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to insignificant pre-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. Additionally, the recited “processor” is a computer configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the steps of identifying a pulse rate and displaying the pulse rate to a user amount to insignificant post-solution activity. These identifying and displaying steps do not result in a particular change or treatment. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes them from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention.
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 11, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited “medical device sensor” is a generically claimed device element configured to perform insignificant routine pre-solution data gathering activity. The recited “processor” and step of “wirelessly transmitting” is a computer and computer program configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The rest of the dependent claims fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data gathering that can be performed by mentally comparing data to criteria and calculations that can be performed by using pen and paper. The emitting of light, detecting of light reflection, and calculating of signals recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 15, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati et. al.’836 (U.S. Publication Number 20160249836 – previously cited) in view of Tran'606 (U.S. Publication Number 20210212606), and further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588 (WO Patent Publication 2014210588 – previously cited).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Gulati et. al.’836 discloses providing a medical device sensor including:
a wrist-worn housing (Paragraph [0445] - analyzer 100 forms a concave surface that couples to a convex skin tissue surface area of the subject 170, such as with a radius of curvature of more than 0.3, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 centimeters to couple with a finger, wrist; Paragraph [0549] - the analyzer to be semi-continuously worn in a non-conspicuous location) comprising:
an emitter configured for emission of light through tissue (Paragraph [0062] – The detector array and/or individual detection elements thereof optionally optically couple to a plurality of optical transmission filters, optically couple to a plurality of light directing micro-optics, and/or optically couple to an array of light-emitting elements, such as laser diodes and/or light-emitting diodes);
a first detector spaced apart from the emitter at a first distance (Paragraph [0205] - such as an illustrative set of seven detectors 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, are positioned radially outward from the illumination zone along the x,y plane to provide a set of detection zones relative to the illumination zone; Figure 5B);
a second detector spaced apart from the emitter at a second distance greater than the first distance (Paragraph [0205] - such as an illustrative set of seven detectors 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, are positioned radially outward from the illumination zone along the x,y plane to provide a set of detection zones relative to the illumination zone; Figure 5B);
operating said medical device sensor in reflective mode at a wrist of a user such that light from the emitter travels through tissue via reflection to the first detector at a first depth to provide a first detected light intensity signal over time and such that light from the emitter travels through the tissue via reflection to the second detector at a second depth greater than the first depth to provide a second detected light intensity signal over time (Paragraph [0052] - signals from each individual sample illumination zone to detection zone distance, as measured using individual detector elements, a subset of detector elements, and/or a detector array yields pathway and/or pathlength information; Paragraph [0148] - By coupling first analyzer elements sensitive to wavelengths of light diffusely reflected from a first source zone to a first detection zone and coupling second, third, fourth, and n.sup.th to analyzer elements sensitive to wavelengths of light diffusely reflected from a second, a third, a fourth, and an n.sup.th source zone to detection zone distance, the n wavelengths are at least partially resolved as a function of distance), wherein
the first and second detected signal each comprise a baseline content from superficial tissue at the wrist (Paragraph [0090]; Paragraph [0390]; and Paragraph [0535] - detecting sub-surface anomalies, sample interferences, and/or for discarding data so that subsequent correlations established between observed signals and an analyte property, such as a glucose concentration, are more robust, accurate, and/or precise).
Gulati et. al.’836 fails to disclose pulsatile content from perfused tissue at the wrist; boosting a percentage modulation of the pulsatile content in the first and second detected signals by creating a combined photoplethysmography (PPG) signal. wherein creating the combined PPG signal comprises creating a ratio of the first detected signal and the second detected signal, wherein the ratio cancels the baseline content from the first and second detected signals; identifying from the combined PPG signal a pulse rate of the user and an arterial oxygen saturation at the wrist of the user; or displaying the pulse rate or the arterial oxygen saturation of the user on a visual display.
Tran’606 teaches observing pulse rate – pulsatile content based on detected light signals (Paragraph [0298] - When the heart beats, blood flow increases temporarily and more red blood cells flow through the windows, which increases the light reflected back to the detector. The light can be reflected, refracted, scattered, and absorbed by one or more detectors; Paragraph [0342] - One embodiment uses photoplethysmogram (PPG) to estimate glucose/insulin level. The insulin resistance in adipocytes caused by the increasing levels of free fatty acids in plasma can result in an exaltation of blood viscosity, which alters the blood flow in the capillaries, thus changing the shape of the PPG pulse). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method and system of Gulati et. al.’836 to include measuring pulsatile rate via light absorption in order to account for PPG’s effect on capillaries that indicates glucose levels of a user as seen in Tran’606.
Tran’606 further teaches filtering PPG data in order to eliminate noise within readings (Paragraph [0101] - The light is first modulated to provide light signals which can be processed to minimize background noise resulting from ambient light and other stray signals and directed to the source; Paragraph [0240] - the common mode noise is automatically cancelled out using a matched differential amplifier; Paragraph [0247] - The electrode output signals are processed to obtain a differential measurement enhancing the signal to noise ratio; Paragraph [0342] - PPG from non-invasive sensor and from blood glucose meters are captured for training, and raw PPG data is filtered, sampled, and processed into a plurality of different variables for processing by a neural network. Data filtering is done to remove outliers and movement noise). Bozkurt et. al.’588 teaches using differential measurement – a form of subtraction – between photodiodes – detectors – in order to reduce the effect of superficial layers and as a result increase – improve - the signal-to-noise ratio of the device (Paragraph [0056] - Two sensors can be located at two different distances (around 1 cm and 2 cm) to sense the back-scattered photons from multiple depths. A differential measurement between these two photodiodes reduces the effect of the superficial layers (scalp muscles and skin) to focus the recording on the cortical layer, and thereby increasing the SNR). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method and system of the analyzer of Gulati et. al.’836 in view of Tran’606 to go beyond discarding data and to include using differential measurement between photodiodes that work to subtract superficial layers from the data in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the device and identify a more accurate measurement reading as seen in Bozkurt et. al.’588.
Regarding Claim 1, Gulati et. al.’836 discloses displaying measurement data on a visual display (Paragraph [0141] - The remote system 194 optionally and preferably relays the analyte and/or glucose concentration back to the user where it is displayed; [0550] - a displayed analyte concentration, a description of detection of an analyzer error, and/or an alert), but fails to disclose displaying the pulse rate or the arterial oxygen saturation of the user on a visual display. Tran’606 further teaches providing a visual display containing heart rate – pulse rate – and pulse oximetry values (Paragraph [0232] - the blood pressure, and heart rate, and pulse oximetry values to characterize the patient's cardiac condition. These programs, for example, may provide a report that features statistical analysis of these data to determine averages, data displayed in a graphical format, trends, and comparisons to doctor-recommended values). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Gulati et. al.’836 to include displaying pulse rate and pulse oximetry measurements in order for a user to compare their values to doctor-recommended values as seen in Tran’606.
Regarding Claim 11, Gulati et. al.’836 discloses wirelessly transferring measurement data to a communication device (Paragraph [0519] - Optionally, the data transfer uses the personal communication device 192 and/or the wireless communication system 196), but fails to disclose transmitting the pulse rate and the arterial oxygen saturation to an external monitor. Tran’606 teaches providing a visual display containing heart rate – pulse rate – and pulse oximetry values – oxygen saturation (Paragraph [0232] - the blood pressure, and heart rate, and pulse oximetry values to characterize the patient's cardiac condition. These programs, for example, may provide a report that features statistical analysis of these data to determine averages, data displayed in a graphical format, trends, and comparisons to doctor-recommended values). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Gulati et. al.’836 to include transmitting pulse rate and oxygen saturation measurements to an external device in order for a user to compare their values to doctor-recommended values as seen in Tran’606.
It is noted by the examiner that Gulati et. al.’836 discloses each embodiment can include any combination or permutation of any of the analyzer or sensor elements described within their application (Paragraph [0552]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Gulati et. al.’836 in view of Tran'606 and further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588 discloses the method and systems outlined in Claims 1 and 11 above. Gulati et. al.’836 further discloses the emitter and first and second detectors are positioned along a common axis (Paragraph [0205] - such as an illustrative set of seven detectors 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, are positioned radially outward from the illumination zone along the x,y plane to provide a set of detection zones relative to the illumination zone; Figure 5B).
Regarding Claims 21 and 25, Gulati et. al.’836 in view of Tran'606 and further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588 discloses the method and systems outlined in Claims 1 and 11 above. Gulati et. al.’836 further discloses a second detected signal with a greater SNR than a first detected signal that is closer to an illuminator (Paragraph [0402] - Increasing the detector element size as a function of radial distance away from an illuminator allows an enhanced/tuned signal-to-noise ratio as the detector aperture is larger as the number of photons exiting the skin with increased radial distance decreases).
Regarding Claims 22 and 24, Gulati et. al.’836 in view of Tran'606 and further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588 discloses the method and systems outlined in Claims 1 and 11 above. Gulati et. al.’836 further discloses first and second detectors that are off-axis (Paragraph [0338] - a portion of the detector array is tilted off of the perpendicular axis, such as less than 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, or 15 degrees toward the skin of the subject 170, which yields a range of applied pressures between the two-dimensional detector array and the skin when the two-dimensional detector array 134 or a layer thereon contacts the skin…The off-axis configuration provides a range of contact forces on the skin ensuring contact in some algorithmically detected areas (emphasis added)).
Regarding Claim 23, Gulati et. al.’836 in view of Tran'606 and further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588 discloses the method and systems outlined in Claims 1 and 11 above. Gulati et. al.’836 further discloses wirelessly transferring medical data (Paragraph [0519] - Optionally, the data transfer uses the personal communication device 192 and/or the wireless communication system 196).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati et. al.’836 (U.S. Publication Number 20160249836 – previously cited) in view of Tran'606 (U.S. Publication Number 20210212606), further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588 (WO Patent Publication 2014210588 – previously cited) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Makinen et. al.’794 (U.S. Publication Number 20230081794 – previously cited).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Gulati et. al.’836 in view of Tran'606 and further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588 discloses the method and systems outlined in Claims 1 and 11 above. Gulati et. al.’836 further discloses the medical device sensor wherein the emitter emits light at red and infrared wavelengths (Paragraph [0125] - the source system 110 generates photons in any of the visible – red is a form of visible light, infrared, near-infrared, mid-infrared, and/or far-infrared spectral regions; Paragraph [0126] - at wavelength longer than any of 400, 700, 800, 900, 1000, and 1100 nm), but fails to disclose the sensor comprises a pulse oximetry sensor. Makinen et. al.’794 teaches a sensor comprising a pulse oximetry sensor (Paragraph [0026] – some electronic devices…may measure…pulse oximetry; Paragraph [0106] - The wearable device may use the light propagation from the LEDs 320 to the PDs 325 through tissue for physiological measurements, such as PPG and SpO2 measurements. That is, the wearable device may use light 330 from LED 320-a, which may include red and infrared wavelengths, to measure SpO2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method and system of the analyzer of Gulati et. al.’836 in view of Tran’606 and further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588 to include pulse oximeter sensors that analyze readings indicative of oxygen saturation measurements (SPO2) in the blood in order to better understand signals being detected from red and infrared light emissions into a user’s body as seen in Makinen et. al.’794.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati et. al.’836 (U.S. Publication Number 20160249836 – previously cited) in view of Tran'606 (U.S. Publication Number 20210212606), further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588 (WO Patent Publication 2014210588 – previously cited) as applied to Claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Shadgan et. al.’673 (U.S. Publication Number 20220346673 – previously cited).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Gulati et. al.’836 in view of Tran'606 and further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588 discloses the method and systems outlined in Claims 1 and 11 above. Gulati et. al.’836 further discloses a pulsatile tissue depth of between about 3 and 5 millimeters deep (Paragraph [0288] - a third element of the optical detector filter is preferably a filter designed for an intermediate optically probed mean tissue pathlength, such as about 1.5 to 5.0 millimeters). Gulati et. al.’836 fails to disclose wherein the first distance is between 2 and 6 millimeters as well as wherein the second distance is between 6 and 15 millimeters. Shadgan et. al.’673 teaches spacing for a detector is within a range of 5 millimeters and 35 millimeters – which encompasses the ranges 2-6mm and 6-15mm - from the emitter (Paragraph [0237] - The distances between the different pairs of light sensor and photodetector may, for example, be in the range of 5 to 35 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the setup of the detectors and emitters of the analyzer of Gulati et. al.’836 in view of Tran’606 and further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588 to include a spacing between 2 and 6 millimeters as well as a spacing between 6 to 15 millimeters between one of the detectors and emitters in order to reach tissue layers at different depths as seen in Shadgan et. al.’673. Shadgan et. al.’673 teaches how tissue depth reached by the light increases as the space between the emitter and detector increases as well as how different distances between the emitter and detector results in the acquisition of optical measurement parameters for different depths of tissue (Paragraph [0237]).
With the teaching by Shadgan et. al.’673 that different distances give you different depth data, it would have been obvious, through routine experimentation, to have determined the optimal emitter-detector distance for each emitter-detector distance, particularly within the range of 5-35mm, which would include the claimed limitations of distances between 2-6mm as well as 6-15mm.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati et. al.’836 (U.S. Publication Number 20160249836 – previously cited), in view of Tran'606 (U.S. Publication Number 20210212606), further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588 (WO Patent Publication 2014210588 – previously cited), further in view of Shadgan et. al.’673 (U.S. Publication Number 20220346673 – previously cited) as applied to Claims 7 and 17 above, and further in view of Makinen et. al.’794 (U.S. Publication Number 20230081794 – previously cited).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Gulati et. al.’836 in view of Tran’606, further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588, and further in view of Shadgan et. al.’673 discloses the method and system outlined in Claims 7 and 17, but fails to disclose the sensor is incorporated into a watch and wherein the emitter is provided on a printed circuit board. Makinen et. al.’794 teaches sensor incorporated into a watch having multiple detectors provided on a printed circuit board in a watch housing (Paragraph [0095] - the wearable device in wearable device diagram 300-a through wearable device diagram 300-c may include an electronic substrate 315, such as a printed wiring board (PWB) or PCB. The PWB may have both flexible and rigid sections. One or more sensors may be embedded in the electronic substrate 315. For example, the electronic substrate may include one or more LEDs 320 and PDs 325…The wearable device may include any number of LEDs, PDs, and respective optical channels for physiological data measurements. In some cases, LED 320-a may be a red and infrared LED). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the analyzer of Gulati et. al.’836 in view of Tran’606, further in view of Bozkurt et. al.’588, and further in view of Shadgan et. al.’673 to include red and infrared LEDs and detectors on a printed circuit board in a watch housing as seen in Makinen et. al.’794 in order for the analyzer device to be as close to the user’s skin/body as possible. Makinen et. al.’794 teaches good contact between the analyzer and the user’s skin is important in order to avoid inaccurate measurements (Paragraph [0003] - poor contact between a user's skin and one or more sensors of a wearable device may result in inaccurate measurements).
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 07 October 2025 have been fully considered and they are not entirely persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior specification objections.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior claim objections.
Applicant’s amendments have caused additional 35 U.S.C. 112a rejections to be addressed above in Paragraph 3.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome a majority of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112b rejections, but a rejection in Claims 10 and 20 remains and has been addressed above in Paragraph 4.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, but the reasonings were found not to be persuasive. The examiner addresses these reasonings above in Paragraph 5. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the applicant must provide evidence as to how their invention provides an advantage or improvement over other medical devices beyond just stating "this claim is directed to an improved method". The examiner has failed to provide evidence within the specification that states how “boosting a percent modulation” is beneficial beyond improving “signal-to-noise” which is covered by the prior art above and is well-known in the art. Additionally, the examiner notes that the prior art discloses technology that involves identifying pulsatile rates at a wrist as cited in the above paragraphs rather than just at a finger as argued by the applicant.
Claims 1-2 ,5, 7, 10-12, 15, 17, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 with additional references cited as necessitated by amendments, as discussed in Paragraphs 6-9 above.
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 SARAH ANN WESTFALL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4:30pm EST.
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.
/SARAH ANN WESTFALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791