Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/195,862

Wearable Device Including Self-Mixing Interferometry Sensor

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 10, 2023
Examiner
BENNETT, JENNIFER D
Art Unit
2878
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
633 granted / 860 resolved
+5.6% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
893
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
49.5%
+9.5% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 860 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed October 15, 2025. Claim 1, 2 and 4-20 are currently pending. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed October 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 4-12. In regards to the argument that since Mutlu et al. (US 20210072833) notes that the uses the sensors to determine the relationship between the device housing and a surface, while not taking into consideration sensor data that is not capturing light from said surface (paragraph 36, 37 and 40), therefore the sensors do not determine a relationship from the skin (palm or nearby body part) of the user and would not be combinable with Cihan that directs light toward skin or a portion of the device housing (Applicant’s arguments, page 7-8), Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Mutlu in paragraph 40 is interested in determining relationship between the housing and a surface, which is not the users palm/finger, therefore ignores sensor outputs that capture information from a surface within a threshold, which happens to be the user’s palm or the like in this example. Later in Mutlu, in paragraph 53, the sensors can be used to determine the orientation of the device housing to the user’s palm/finger, therefore light would be directed at skin. The object of paragraph 40 in Mutlu is to not direct light and sense light from the skin, but to ignore information from sensors that are not directed at a specific surface to be used to determine an orientation. From this argument Mutlu is capable of measuring a relationship/orientation between multiple types of surfaces including skin or other surface and the device housing which includes the sensor(s). Second, in regards to the specific elements in claim 1 and now claim 8, the SMI directs light to a portion of the band interior, therefor detects movement of a surface that is not directly skin. So, whether or not Mutlu directs light to the skin or not is moot. Third, in regards to claim 8, that Mutlu ignores signals corresponding to the user’s body and therefore would not be used with the sensors of Cihan which are positioned to emit electromagnetic radiation toward a band interior (Applicant’s arguments, page 9), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated before, paragraph 40 describes an option for the sensors of the wearable device, where the sensors are determining orientation/a relationship between a surface that is not part of the user’s body and the device housing, but later in paragraph 53, another option is to determine the orientation of the device housing to the user’s palm/finger, therefore light would be directed at skin. So instead of using SMIs emitting at an object surface, the data on orientation would be determined by SMIs emitting toward the skin. Also, Mutlu, was brought in to show the use of subset of sensors to determine data. One of ordinary skill would have thought to use a subset of the SMI sensors similar to Mutlu with the plurality of SMIs in Cihan in order to only use the output signals that are relevant providing for more efficient data collection. From these above arguments the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-12 remain proper in view of Cihan as modified by Mutlu. Applicant’s arguments, see arguments and amendments, filed October 15, 2025, with respect to claim 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 13 and its corresponding dependents has been withdrawn. 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) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cihan et al. (US 20210085245) in view of Mutlu et al. (US 20210072833). Re claim 1: Cihan teaches Cihan teaches a wearable device (abstract, fig. 1, 2, 3, 6b, 7 and 9), comprising: a band (305/610/705) having a band interior opposite band exterior (see fig. 3 and 4, the band is a ring, win an interior and exterior), the band (305/610/705) operable to attach the wearable device (102) to a user (101) (see fig. 1, 2 and 3), the band (305/610/705) defining a cavity (region where 310 is located in band 305/610/705, see fig. 6b and 7), and a portion of the band interior (610/705 of 305/610/705) separating the cavity (region where 310 is located in band 305/610, see fig. 6b) from the user (101/301) (see fig. 1, 3 and 6b); and a set of one or more self-mixing interferometry (SMI) sensors (310) disposed in the cavity (region where 310 is located in band 305/610/705, see fig. 6b and 7) and configured to: emit electromagnetic radiation toward the portion of the band interior (610/705 of 305/610/705) (see fig. 6b and 7); and generate a set of one or more SMI signals including information indicative of movement of the portion of the band interior (610/705 of 305/610/705) (fig. 6b, 7 and 9, paragraph 51, 55, 56 and 58-62, the membrane moves reflects light back to SMI to measure movement of the user) and processing circuitry (210/405) configured to operate the set of one or more SMI sensors (216/310) and characterize movement of the user (101/301) based, at least in part, on the set of one or more SMI signals (fig. 1, 2, 6b, 7 and 9, paragraph 29-31, 51, 55, 56 and 58-62), but does not specifically teach the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a hand gesture performed by the user based, at least in part, on the set of one or more SMI signals. Mutlu teaches wherein a processing circuitry is further configured to determine a hand gesture performed by a user based, at least in part, on a set of one or more SMI signals (paragraph 29 and 51-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the SMI and processing circuitry of Cihan to determine movement of skin by way of the portion to determine a hand gesture similar to Mutlu providing for a more versatile design determining various biometric information of the user. Re claim 2: Cihan as modified by Mutlu teaches the wearable device, wherein the processing circuitry (Cihan, 210/405) configured to operate the set of one or more SMI sensors (Cihan, 216/310) and characterize movement of the user (Cohan, 101/301) based, at least in part, on the set of one or more SMI signals (Cohan, fig. 1, 2, 6b, 7 and 9, paragraph 29-31, 51, 55, 56 and 58-62). Re claim 4: Cihan as modified by Mutlu wherein the gesture is a hand gesture performed by a user based, at least in part, on a set of one or more SMI signals (Mutlu, paragraph 29 and 51-61). Re claim 6: Cihan as modified by Mutlu teaches the wearable device, wherein: the portion of the band interior (Cihan, 610/705 of 305/610/705) defines a first cavity wall (Cihan, see fig. 6b and 7); a second cavity wall is opposite the first cavity wall (Cihan, wall opposite 610/705, fig. 6b and 7); a cavity sidewall joins the first cavity wall and the second cavity wall (Cihan, sidewalls around 310 connecting 610/705 and wall opposite); the first cavity wall is deformable (Cihan, 610/705 are deformable, paragraph 54 and 55); and the second cavity wall and the cavity sidewall are rigid (Cihan, see fig. 6b and 7, all walls except 610/705 of the cavity around 310 are rigid). Re claim 8: Cihan teaches a method of operating a wearable device (fig. 1, 2, 3, 6b, 7 and 9), the method comprising: generating a plurality of self-mixing interferometry (SMI) signals (paragraph 1, 22 and 39), each from a respective SMI sensor disposed in a band (305) and positioned to emit electromagnetic radiation toward a band interior (see fig. 6b) of the band (305), the band (305) operable to attach the wearable device (102) to a user (101/301) (see fig. 1, 2 and 3); identifying, by a processor (405/210) of the wearable device, the plurality of SMI signals relevant to the determination of biometric data about the user (paragraphs 27, 28, 48 and 58-62); and determining, by the processor (405/210) of the wearable device (102) and based, at least in part, on the plurality of SMI signals, the biometric data about the user (paragraphs 27, 28, 48 and 58-62, fig. 1, 2, 3, 6b, 7 and 9), but does not specifically teach identifying, by the processor of the wearable device, a subset of the plurality of SMI signals relevant to the determination of biometric data about the user. Mutlu teaches identifying, by a processor of a wearable device, a subset of a plurality of SMI signals relevant to a determination of biometric data about an user (paragraph 40, 51, 52, 100, 103, 109 fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to identify a subset of SMIs to determine information similar to Mutlu with the plurality of SMIs in Cihan in order to only use the output signals that are relevant providing for more efficient data collection. Re claim 11: Cihan as modified by Mutlu teaches the method, wherein identifying the subset of the plurality of SMI signals relevant to the determination of biometric data about the user comprises identifying which of the plurality of SMI signals include information related to desired biometric data of the user (Mutlu, paragraph 28, 29, 30, 40, 41 and 52 Cihan, paragraph 1, 25, 50 and 51, blood pressure, heart rate from movement of skin). Re claim 12: Cihan as modified by Mutlu teaches the method, wherein the biometric data about the user comprises at least one of: blood flow; blood pressure; heart rate; respiration rate; or movement (Mutlu, movement, paragraph 28, 29, 30, 40, 41 and 52, Cihan, paragraph 1, 25, 50 and 51, blood pressure, heart rate from movement of skin). Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cihan et al. (US 20210085245) as modified by Mutlu et al. (US 20210072833) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Connor (US 20170164878). Re claim 5: Cihan as modified by Mutlu teaches the wearable device, further comprising: wherein, the processing circuitry (Cihan, 405/210) is disposed in the band (Cihan, 305/610/705); and the band (Cihan, 305/610/705) includes a set of one or more signal carriers (Cihan, paragraph 28 and 48, fig. 2 and 4), the set of one or more signal carriers coupling the processor (Cihan, 405/210) to the set of one or more SMI sensors (Cihan, 310, paragraph 28 and 48, fig. 2 and 4), but does not specifically teach a housing attached to the band; wherein, the processing circuitry is disposed in the housing. Connor teaches a housing (five segments/housings, fig. 61, paragraphs 721-723) attached to a band (6101); wherein, processing circuitry (paragraphs 721-723, fig. 61) is disposed in the housing (paragraphs 721-723, fig. 61); and the band (6101) includes a set of one or more signal carriers, the set of one or more signal carriers coupling the processor to the set of one or more SMI sensors (paragraphs 721-723, fig. 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a housing with the processing circuit attached to the band of Cihan as modified by Mutlu similar to Connor in order to protect the processing circuit from environmental factors providing for a longer lasting design. Re claim 7: Cihan as modified by Mutlu teaches the wearable device, wherein when the wearable device is worn by the user the portion of the band interior contacts (Cihan, a finger, but the sensor could in a wrist device, see fig. 1, 2, 4, 6b and 7, paragraph 19), but does not specifically teach contacting a portion of the volar aspect of the wrist of the user. Connor teaches wherein when a wearable device is worn by a user the portion of a band interior contacts a portion of the volar aspect of the wrist of the user (see fig. 63 and 64, sensing device is wearable on wrist in contact with palm side/volar). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the portion of the band interior of Cihan as modified by Mutlu be a part of a wrist band and in contact with the volar part of the wrist similar to Connor in order to read biometric information from the wrist of the user providing for a versatile design. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cihan et al. (US 20210085245) as modified by Mutlu et al. (US 20210072833) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cihan et al. (20210010797 herein after Cihan '797). Re claim 9: Cihan as modified by Mutlu teaches the method, wherein identifying the subset of the plurality of SMI signals relevant to the determination of biometric data about the user comprises identifying which of the plurality of SMI signals has a signal within a threshold distance (Mutlu, paragraph 40), but does not specifically teach a signal to noise ratio above a threshold. Cihan '797 teaches wherein identifying a subset of a plurality of SMI signals relevant to a determination of biometric data about a user comprises identifying which of the plurality of SMI signals has a signal to noise ratio above a threshold (paragraph 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to identify a subset of SMI signals with high SNR in Cihan as modified by Mutlu similar to Cihan '797 in order to ensure signals with less noise are used to determine the target to be used for biometric data providing for a more accurate device. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cihan et al. (US 20210085245) as modified by Mutlu et al. (US 20210072833) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20190246977). Re claim 10: Cihan as modified by Mutlu teaches the method, wherein identifying the subset of the plurality of SMI signals relevant to the determination of biometric data about the user comprises identifying which of the plurality of SMI signals include information related to desired biometric data of the user (Mutlu, paragraph 28, 29, 30, 40, 41 and 52, Cihan, paragraph 1, 25, 50 and 51, blood pressure, heart rate from movement of skin), but does not specifically teach identifying which of the plurality of SMI signals includes information about one or more anatomical features of interest of the user. Miller teaches wherein identifying a subset of a plurality of sensor signals relevant to the determination of biometric data about a user comprises identifying which of the plurality of sensor signals includes information about one or more anatomical features of interest of the user (paragraph 76, fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to identify a subset of SMI signals includes information about one or more anatomical features of interest of the user in Cihan as modified by Mutlu similar to Miller in order to ensure only signals of a desired anatomical feature to be used for biometric data providing for a more accurate device. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13-20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claim 13, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach a wearable device as claimed, comprising: more specifically in combination with a band operable to attach the wearable device to a user; a first set of self-mixing interferometry (SMI) sensors disposed in the band and configured to: emit electromagnetic radiation toward a first anatomical feature of the user; and generate a first set of SMI signals including information about the first anatomical feature; a second set of SMI sensors disposed in the band and configured to: emit electromagnetic radiation toward a second anatomical feature of the user; and generate a second set of SMI signals including information about the second anatomical feature; and processing circuitry communicably coupled to the first set of SMI sensors and the second set of SMI sensors and configured to determine information about the user using one or more SMI signals from the first set of SMI sensors and one or more SMI signals from the second set of SMI sensors. Claims 14-20 are allowed because of their dependency on claim 13. 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 JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F. 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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. /JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 10, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 26, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 26, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593132
CAMERA OPTICAL AXIS CALIBRATING SYSTEM AND CAMERA OPTICAL AXIS CALIBRATING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579635
PATTERN INSPECTION APPARATUS AND PATTERN INSPECTION METHOD INSPECTING A PATTERN USING AN IMAGE CORRECTED USING OFFSET AMOUNT BASED UPON DARK NOISE LEVELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578283
AIRCRAFT FUEL SYSTEM CONTAMINATION DETECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571661
Position Encoder Apparatus with Sensor Having Individually Activatable Rows
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569311
Fiber Optic Shape Sensing Management
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+18.6%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 860 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month