DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/30/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Applicant has amended their claims, filed 06/30/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Applicant has canceled claims 11 and 15 and added claims 21-23. Claims 8-10, 12,-14, and 16-23 are pending and hereby under examination.
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 Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claims 19-20 are objected to as they depend on claim 21. Claims 19-20 should depend on any preceding 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng (CN 114166343).
Regarding claim 8, Deng teaches an optical wake-up circuit comprising a first photodiode (Fig. 2, photodiode 1), a second photodiode (Fig. 2, photodiode 2) and a switch (Fig. 2, switch array 7), wherein said first photodiode receives light incident on the circuit (Page 4, paragraph 5, “the first photodiode (1) receives ambient light”) and said second photodiode is masked such that its reception of said light is below a predetermined light threshold (Page 4, paragraph 5, “the photosensitive surface of the second photodiode (2) performs metal covering process to make it not receive the ambient light”; Examiner interprets the “not receive ambient light” as a predetermined light threshold as a “threshold” of no ambient light is received by the covered photodiode), and wherein the switch is controlled according to a differential between the current of the said first photodiode and the current of the second photodiode (Page 4, paragraph 5, “The output current of the second photodiode (2) is only dark current. the ratio of the cross-resistance gain of the first transimpedance amplifier (41) and the cross-resistance gain of the second transimpedance amplifier (42) is equal to the ratio of the photosensitive area of the first photodiode (1) and the photosensitive area of the second photodiode (2)”; Page 4, paragraph 5, “the differential amplifier (5) amplifies the difference value of the output voltage of the first transimpedance amplifier (41) and the second transimpedance amplifier (42) as the voltage signal, the voltage signal is used for controlling the switch array (7)”). Although the currents are amplified into voltage signals, the differential is caused by the current of the first photodiode and the current of the second photodiode. Therefore, Deng reads on the limitation of “a differential between the current of the first photodiode and the current of the second photodiode.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 114166343) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shimizu (US 20100218204).
Regarding claim 9, Deng teaches the wake-up circuit of claim 8. Deng further discloses wherein the switch is controlled by a change/differential between two voltage values as described above. Deng fails to disclose a capacitor.
Deng and Shimizu are in the same field of light detection devices. Shimizu teaches a light receiving device wherein a capacitor is arranged with one terminal set to a fixed electric potential and is charged by a photocurrent generated by the light receiving device (Paragraph 0049) such that when the capacitor reaches a threshold voltage between both terminals (Paragraph 0021), a switch is controlled (Paragraph 0062). A method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply measuring a threshold voltage across a capacitor to the base circuit with two photodiodes of Deng in the prior art and the results of controlling a switch with said threshold voltage would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit of Deng to incorporate the capacitor of Shimizu and the results of controlling a switch with a threshold voltage would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 114166343) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shelton (US 20220313874).
Regarding claim 10, Deng teaches the wake-up circuit of claim 8. Deng further discloses controlling the switching element based on the amount of light falling on the photodiodes as described above. Deng fails to teach switching to connect a battery to another circuit.
Shelton is pertinent art to Deng as Shelton discloses a method of treating tissue with a packaged implant that responds when being exposed to light. When the photosensor is exposed to light, it triggers a power source to begin providing power to a packaging unit’s communications interface. The photosensor is disposed in the packaging unit and is not exposed to light with the packaging unit unopened. This process helps the unit move from a low power mode to a high power mode when the packaging is opened (Paragraph 0502). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit of Deng to connect a power source to the rest of the unit as taught by Shelton to move the unit from a low power mode to a high power mode.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 114166343) and Shelton (US 20220313874) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yoshida (US 8514165).
Regarding claim 13, Deng and Shelton disclose the wake-up circuit of claim 10. Deng and Shelton disclose the circuit used in a product with packaging as described above. Deng as modified fails to disclose manipulating the current with current mirrors.
The combination of Deng/Shelton and Yoshida are in the same field of light detection devices. Yoshida teaches a photoelectric conversion device 101 with a photoelectric conversion element 115 used for an optical sensor which includes current mirror circuit 114 (Fig. 1A), which are useful for amplifying the current obtained from the photoelectric conversion element (Col 30, lines 17-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit of Deng as modified by Shelton to incorporate the current mirror circuit of Yoshida to amplify the current obtained from the photoelectric conversion element.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Deng, Shelton, and Yoshida disclose the wake-up circuit of claim 13. The combination of Deng/Shelton further disclose wherein the battery is disconnected from said another circuit while said packaging remains intact (Shelton: Paragraph 0502, as previously described with respect to claim 10).
Claims 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 114166343) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Biederman (US 20180042538).
Regarding claim 12, Deng teaches the wake-up circuit of claim 8. Deng fails to disclose the wake-up circuit used in a blood glucose monitoring unit.
Deng and Biederman are in the same field of wake-up circuits. Biederman teaches a biosensor for measuring glucose having a wake-up circuit (Fig. 4) wherein, when the wake-up circuit is activated, the battery is connected to a sensor element (Paragraph 0034). Including such a circuit is useful to save battery while in a package on a shelf (Paragraph 0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit of Deng to be used in a glucose monitor as taught by Biederman to save battery of the glucose monitor prior to use.
Regarding claim 22, Deng teaches the wake-up circuit of claim 8. Deng fails to explicitly teach or suggest that the switch is opened when said light is received by first photodiode and wherein the switch is closed by the removal of said light.
Deng and Biederman are in the same field of wake-up circuits. Biederman teaches a biosensor for measuring glucose having a wake-up circuit (Fig. 4) wherein, when the wake-up circuit is activated, the battery is connected to a sensor element (Paragraph 0034). Including such a circuit is useful to save battery while in a package on a shelf (Paragraph 0002). Deng recognizes that their optical sensor can be used in a large number of electronic devices (Deng: Page 1, paragraph 4 – Page 2, paragraph 1). Deng in combination with the glucose sensor of Biederman would necessarily connect the circuit when exposed to light and disconnect the circuit when still in the packaging in order to save battery life as suggested by Biederman. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit of Deng to be used in a glucose monitor as taught by Biederman to save battery of the glucose monitor prior to use.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 114166343), as evidenced by Brittanica Editors (“Ohm’s law”), hereinafter Brittanica.
Regarding claim 16, Deng discloses a method for implementing an optical wake-up circuit comprising the steps of receiving light incident on a first photodiode of said wake-up circuit (Page 4, paragraph 5, “the first photodiode (1) receives ambient light”), masking a second photodiode of said wake-up circuit such that its reception of said light is below a predetermined light threshold (Page 4, paragraph 5, “the photosensitive surface of the second photodiode (2) performs metal covering process to make it not receive the ambient light”; Examiner interprets the “not receive ambient light” as a predetermined light threshold as a “threshold” of no ambient light is received by the covered photodiode), determining a differential voltage between the current of the first photodiode and the current of the second photodiode, and controlling a switch based on the differential voltage (Page 4, paragraph 5, “The output current of the second photodiode (2) is only dark current. the ratio of the cross-resistance gain of the first transimpedance amplifier (41) and the cross-resistance gain of the second transimpedance amplifier (42) is equal to the ratio of the photosensitive area of the first photodiode (1) and the photosensitive area of the second photodiode (2)”; Page 4, paragraph 5, “the differential amplifier (5) amplifies the difference value of the output voltage of the first transimpedance amplifier (41) and the second transimpedance amplifier (42) as the voltage signal, the voltage signal is used for controlling the switch array (7)”).
While Deng does not explicitly recite that the differential is based on a current differential, Deng does disclose using a voltage differential based on the output currents from the photodiodes that are amplified into voltage signals. However, as evidenced by Brittanica, the voltage in a circuit is directly proportional to the current. Brittanica describes Ohm’s law and the relationship between current and voltage. Brittanica states “if the voltage V (in units of volts) between two ends of a wire made from one of these materials is tripled, the current I (amperes) also triples; and the quotient V/I remains constant” (Paragraph 1). Therefore, using the current or the voltage as the differential measurement is merely a design choice that one of ordinary skill would recognize to use in a circuit to achieve a differential.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 114166343) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Shimizu (US 20100218204).
Regarding claim 17, Deng discloses the method of claim 16. Deng further discloses wherein the switch is controlled by a change/differential between two voltage values as described above. Deng fails to disclose a capacitor.
Deng and Shimizu are in the same field of light detection devices. Shimizu teaches a light receiving device wherein a capacitor is arranged with one terminal set to a fixed electric potential and is charged by a photocurrent generated by the light receiving device (Paragraph 0049) such that when the capacitor reaches a threshold voltage between both terminals (Paragraph 0021), a switch is controlled (Paragraph 0062). A method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply measuring a threshold voltage across a capacitor to the base circuit with two photodiodes of Deng in the prior art and the results of controlling a switch with said threshold voltage would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit of Deng to incorporate the capacitor of Shimizu and the results of controlling a switch with a threshold voltage would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 114166343) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yoshida (US 8514165).
Regarding claim 18, Deng discloses the method of claim 16. Deng fails to disclose manipulating the current with current mirrors.
Deng and Yoshida are in the same field of light detection devices. Yoshida teaches a photoelectric conversion device 101 with a photoelectric conversion element 115 used for an optical sensor which includes current mirror circuit 114 (Fig. 1A), which are useful for amplifying the current obtained from the photoelectric conversion element (Col 30, lines 17-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit of Deng to incorporate the current mirror circuit of Yoshida to amplify the current obtained from the photoelectric conversion element.
Claims 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 114166343) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Biederman (US 20180042538).
Regarding claim 21, Deng discloses the method of claim 16. Deng fails to disclose wherein said optical wake-up circuit is used in an electronic device with a load circuit that receives power from a power source, the method further comprising the step of using the switch to control power supply from the power source to the load circuit.
Deng and Biederman are in the same field of wake-up circuits. Biederman teaches a biosensor for measuring glucose having a wake-up circuit (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0017) wherein, when the wake-up circuit is activated, the battery is connected to a sensor element (Paragraph 0034) through an activator such as a DC-DC converter or a processor (Paragraph 0037). Including such a circuit is useful to save battery while in a package on a shelf (Paragraph 0002). In combination with Deng, the switch of Deng would necessarily be used as the connection for the battery to the sensor element packaged implant when exposed to light, in order to activate the battery when exposed to light or keep the battery disconnected when in a package. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit of Deng to be used in a glucose monitor as taught by Biederman to save battery of the glucose monitor prior to use.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Deng and Biederman disclose the method of claim 21. Deng discloses controlling the switching element based on the amount of light falling on the photodiodes as described above. Biederman discloses that the electronic device’s packaging is used to prevent light from reaching the photodiodes and the removal of the packaging to allow light to influence the photodiode (Paragraphs 0034 and 0037, as described above). In combination with Deng, the wake-up circuit would necessarily use the switch to connect/disconnect the battery to the rest of the circuit, which would save battery while still in a package on the shelf (Paragraph 0002, as described above).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Deng and Biederman disclose the method of claim 21. Biederman discloses the wake-up circuit in use in a glucose sensor (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0017, as described above).
Regarding claim 23, Deng discloses the method of claim 16. Deng fails to explicitly teach or suggest that the switch is opened when said light is received by first photodiode and wherein the switch is closed by the removal of said light.
Deng and Biederman are in the same field of wake-up circuits. Biederman teaches a biosensor for measuring glucose having a wake-up circuit (Fig. 4) wherein, when the wake-up circuit is activated, the battery is connected to a sensor element (Paragraph 0034). Including such a circuit is useful to save battery while in a package on a shelf (Paragraph 0002). Deng recognizes that their optical sensor can be used in a large number of electronic devices (Page 1, paragraph 4 – Page 2, paragraph 1). Deng in combination with the glucose sensor of Biederman would necessarily connect the circuit when exposed to light and disconnect the circuit when still in the packaging in order to save battery life as suggested by Biederman. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit of Deng to be used in a glucose monitor as taught by Biederman to save battery of the glucose monitor prior to use.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the claims regarding the terms previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Applicant has amended the claims to remove the terms “switching element” and “load element”. The term “electronic device” has been deleted from some of the claims and is no longer modified by functional language. As such, these terms are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has removed the language substantially from the claims. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the optical wake-up circuit of claim 8 uses differential current between the first photodiode and the second photodiode to control the switch, and that Deng does not disclose controlling the switch according to a different current. Rather, as Applicant argues, Deng uses a differential between the voltages. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 8 does not require that the differential be a current differential; rather, the differential as claimed is a differential between the current of the first and second photodiodes. As disclosed by Deng, the photodiodes output a signal current. Although they are amplified into a voltage signal, the differential is still caused by the current output of the photodiodes. As such, Deng discloses the claim limitations of claim 8.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the optical wake-up circuit of claim 16 uses differential current between the first photodiode and the second photodiode to control the switch, and that Deng does not disclose controlling the switch according to a different current. Rather, as Applicant argues, Deng uses a differential between the voltages. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As disclosed by Deng, the photodiodes output a signal current. Although they are amplified into a voltage signal and the voltage differential is used to turn on/off the switch, the differential is still caused by the current output of the photodiodes. As described above, Brittanica discloses the relationship of voltage and current via Ohm’s Law, wherein the voltage and current are proportional to each other given a set resistance. Thus, the use of voltage or current is merely a design choice by one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, Deng as evidenced by Brittanica discloses the claim limitations of claim 16.
Deng and Deng evidenced by Brittanica read on the limitations of independent claims 8 and 16. Thus, the rejection of the claims remains. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the amendments.
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 NOAH MICHAEL HEALY whose telephone number is (703)756-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/NOAH M HEALY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights