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 .
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 04/10/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-14 are pending for examination. Claims 15-20 are cancelled.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mannheimer et al. (USPN 5,218,962, hereinafter Mannheimer ‘962 – cited in previous action). In regard to claim 1, Mannheimer ‘962 discloses a method for performing calibration of a wearable device (calibration and probes, Figs. 1-9 and associated descriptions), comprising: receiving, from the wearable device, a first measure of oxygen saturation associated with a user based at least in part on a first oxygen saturation measurement (data from elements 118 and/or 134, Figs. 2-3 and associated descriptions), wherein the first oxygen saturation measurement is performed at first locality of a first anatomical feature of the user (element 118, Fig. 2 and associated descriptions; one of the tissue areas associated with different probe configurations, Figs. 4 and 6-9 and associated descriptions); receiving, from the wearable device, a second measure of oxygen saturation associated with the user based at least in part on a second oxygen saturation measurement (data from elements 122 and/or 138, Figs. 2-3 and associated descriptions), wherein the second oxygen saturation measurement is performed at a second locality of a second anatomical feature of the user, wherein the first locality and the second locality are different localities (element 122, Fig. 2 and associated descriptions; another one of the tissue areas associated with different probe configurations, Figs. 4 and 6-9 and associated descriptions); determining an oxygen saturation calibration value based at least in part on comparing the first measure of oxygen saturation and the second measure of oxygen saturation (elements 142/143, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions; a confidence value… differences of two measurements…weighting factor, Col 5 lines 29-59); and calibrating the second measure of oxygen saturation according to the determined oxygen saturation calibration value (calibrate the Sat2 to calculate a final saturation value based on the a confidence value/ differences/ weighting factor, Col 5 lines 29-59; Fig. 3 and associated descriptions).
In regard to claim 2, Mannheimer ‘962 discloses causing a graphical user interface of a user device to display an indication of the calibrated second measure of oxygen saturation associated with the user (element 114, Figs. 2-3 and associated descriptions; final oxygen saturation value…display, Col 3 line 22 – Col 4 line 3).
In regard to claim 6, Mannheimer ‘962 discloses calibrating the second measure of oxygen saturation comprises: filtering the second oxygen saturation measurement based at least in part on a position of the wearable device, an orientation of the wearable device, a pressure applied to the wearable device, or any combination thereof, wherein the second measure of oxygen saturation is based at least in part on the filtering (when Sat1 is measured according to Fig. 6 and Sat2 is measured according to Fig. 7, the Sat2 is rejected when the difference is larger than ẟ, e.g. a position of the wearable device, an orientation of the wearable device, a pressure applied to the wearable device of Fig. 7, Col 5 lines 29-59).
In regard to claim 9, Mannheimer ‘962 discloses determining the oxygen saturation calibration value comprises: determining a difference between the first measure of oxygen saturation and the second measure of oxygen saturation, wherein the oxygen saturation calibration value is further based at least in part on the difference (Fig. 3 and associated descriptions; a confidence value… differences of two measurements…weighting factor, Col 5 lines 29-59).
In regard to claim 10, Mannheimer ‘962 discloses the oxygen saturation calibration value is based at least in part on a pulse rate of the user, a signal interference value for the second oxygen saturation measurement, an environmental factor, accelerometer data, pressure data, or any combination thereof (The confidence value may be a function of the difference between the two measurements, optical signal quality, correlation between the optical pulse rate and a measured ECG signal, or other factors, Col 5 lines 29-37).
In regard to claim 12, Mannheimer ‘962 discloses the first anatomical feature and the second anatomical feature are a same human body part of the user (under the same probe area, Figs. 4 and 8 and associated descriptions).
In regard to claim 13, Mannheimer ‘962 discloses the first anatomical feature is a first human body part of the user and the second anatomical feature is a second human body part of the user (separate probes, Fig. 9 and associated descriptions).
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 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheimer ‘962 as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 9-10, and 12-13 above, and further in view of LeBoeuf et al. (USPGPUB 2019/0380655). In regard to claim 11, Mannheimer ‘962 discloses all the claimed limitations except the first oxygen saturation measurement corresponds to a first sampling rate and the second oxygen saturation measurement corresponds to a second sampling rate different from the first sampling rate.
LeBoeuf teaches a pulse oximeter (Figs. 1-9 and associated descriptions; pulse oximetry, [0088]) comprises to change the signal analysis frequency/ sampling rate according to the change of user’s activity (Figs. 6-7A and associated descriptions) or the change in environmental conditions (Figs. 8-9 and associated descriptions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method (Mannheimer ‘962) to incorporate the adjustments of signal analysis frequency/ sampling rate and associated steps/functions/elements as taught by LeBoeuf, since both devices are pulse oximetry systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that changing signal analysis frequency/ sampling rate according to activities of the user and/or environmental conditions may allow or finer, more accurate sensor data to be collected during periods of rapid body activity or reducing power usage during inactivity (see LeBoeuf). The rationale would have been to change signal analysis frequency/ sampling rate when activity and/or environmental conditions changed between the first and second oxygen saturation measurements.
In regard to claim 14, Mannheimer ‘962 as modified by LeBoeuf discloses all the claimed limitations except the wearable device comprises a wearable ring device. LeBoeuf further teaches the wearable pulse oximetry sensor can be a wearable ring device (Figs. 3A-3B and associated descriptions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the probe configuration(s) with the wearable ring configuration to yield predictable results, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that wearable ring configuration is an alternative equivalent configuration for pulse oximetry measurements. The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regard to claims 3, 5 and 7-8, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest “the first oxygen saturation measurement is performed according to a set of orientations of the wearable device, the method comprising: determining an orientation of the wearable device based at least in part on the second oxygen saturation measurement, wherein the oxygen saturation calibration value is in accordance with the orientation of the wearable device”; “the first oxygen saturation measurement is performed according to a set of forces applied to an exterior surface of the wearable device, the set of forces changing a first distance between the wearable device and the first anatomical feature of the user, a second distance between the wearable device and the second anatomical feature of the user, or both, the method comprising: determining a force applied to the exterior surface of the wearable device based at least in part on the second oxygen saturation measurement, wherein the oxygen saturation calibration value is in accordance with the force”; “the first measure of oxygen saturation is received at a first time, the method comprising: receiving, from the wearable device, a third measure of oxygen saturation associated with the user based at least in part on a third oxygen saturation measurement performed at a second time, wherein a duration between the first time and the second time satisfies a threshold; determining an updated oxygen saturation calibration value based at least in part on comparing the third measure of oxygen saturation and the second measure of oxygen saturation; and calibrating the second measure of oxygen saturation according to the determined updated oxygen saturation calibration value”; “and “generating a data structure based at least in part on comparing the first measure of oxygen saturation and the second measure of oxygen saturation, the data structure mapping one or more measures of oxygen saturation to one or more of a position of the wearable device, an orientation of the wearable device, or a pressure applied to the wearable device, wherein determining the oxygen saturation calibration value is further based at least in part on the data structure”, in combination with the other claimed elements/ steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of Remarks, filed on 04/10/2026, with respect to claim 1 under Mannheimer ‘756 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to claim 1, applicant alleged that Mannheimer ‘962 discloses a confidence value but not a calibration value. In response, amended claim 1 recites “determining an oxygen saturation calibration value based at least in part on comparing the first measure of oxygen saturation and the second measure of oxygen saturation; and calibrating the second measure of oxygen saturation according to the determined oxygen saturation calibration value”. First of all, the “calibration value” under the BRI can be interpreted as “a value for calibration”. The confidence value/ difference value between two measurements as taught by Mannheimer ‘962 is a value for calibration, i.e. when the value satisfies a condition, calibration/ averaging step is performed. Secondly, the claim recites “calibrating the second measure of oxygen saturation according to the determined oxygen saturation calibration value”. In Mannheimer ‘962, the calibration/ averaging of the second measure of oxygen saturation is performed according to the comparison of the confidence value/ difference value with a threshold. It is noted that the claim 1 does not recite any detail of how to calibrate the second measure of oxygen saturation according to the calibration value, e.g. claim 1 is silent to any mathematical or computational step(s)/ detail(s) of using or applying the calibration value in the calibrating step. The term “according to” is interpreted as/ broad enough to cover any possible ways of using/ applying the calibration value/ confidence value/ difference value in a calibration related calculation process(es). It is also noted that the claim recites transitional phrase “comprising” which is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (see MPEP 2111.03). Therefore, the rejections are maintained for the reasons of record.
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 CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-6pm).
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.
/CHU CHUAN LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights