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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Applicant’s arguments page 11, that the posture determination of Igami is based on the reliability degree r, which measures a change in value, rather than directly measuring the incident light amount. Examiner disagrees with this assessment; although [0185] teaches that abrupt motion will decrease the reliability degree, Figure 21 illustrates that the measurement of pulse wave signal is not merely a measurement of posture stability. Each of the 3 postures reaches an equilibrium at a different value. Thus, the posture can be determined based on these values. Additionally, the pulse wave signals are determined via PPG signals, as taught in [0166], and these PPG signals comprise light of the certain wavelength reflected by the body. Therefore, the measurements depicted in Figure 21 represent the incident light amount. Examiner upholds the use of Igami to teach this limitation.
Regarding the amended limitations, Examiner upholds the combination of Igami and Chen. Examiner asserts that, with information of Figure 21 of Igami available, and [0185] of Igami teaching that the device instructs the user to maintain a specific posture, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the device can be made to instruct the user to maintain one of the 3 postures depicted in Figure 21 based on the measurements made at each posture. Nevertheless, [0049] & [0055] of Chen teach using the lower limit of received light intensity as the threshold by which to determine that the device is being worn. Examiner asserts that the combination teaches the full scope of the claim—that the posture of Igami having the lowest light intensity can be used to determine the wearing state of the device via the threshold-setting step of Chen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-11, 14-16, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igami (US 2020/0155018) in view of Chen (US 2022/0087529).
Regarding claim 1, Igami teaches a wearable electronic device (wearable device 10, [0059]) wearable on a part of a body of a user ([0069]), the wearable electronic device comprising:
a light emitter (small laser, [0070]) that emits light with a certain wavelength ([0070]);
a light receiver (photo diode, [0070]) that measures an incident light amount of the light with the certain wavelength ([0070]) from a bottom surface of the device ([0069] & [0170], Figure 23);
a posture measurer (motion sensor section 124, [0073]); and
at least one hardware processor (control unit 130, [0077]) configured to:
determine, in a case in which the wearable electronic device is being worn on the part of the body, a posture of the part of the body where the device is being worn based on a measured result measured by the posture measurer ([0164]);
obtain the incident light amount (Figure 21) of the light with the certain wavelength emitted from the light emitter ([0070]), the incident light amount including an amount of the light with the certain wavelength reflected by the part of the body on which the device is being worn ([0069]) and measured by the light receiver ([0070]), for each of a plurality of postures of the part of the body on which the device is being worn ([0166] & Figure 21);
compare the incident light amount obtained for each of the plurality of postures (Figure 21);
specify a posture in which the incident light amount becomes minimum among the plurality of postures (Figure 21) as a standard posture ([0185]), based on a comparison result (Figure 21); and
Figure 21 demonstrates the pulse wave signal measured at 3 arm postures. Per [0166], the pulse wave signals are determined via the PPG signals, which would comprise the reflections of the light at the certain wavelength. Paragraph [0185] teaches instructing the user to maintain a specific posture. Although this specific posture is not the posture that results in a minimum amount of incident light, as is recited by the claims, Examiner asserts that, with the measurements of Figure 21 available, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the device can instruct the user to maintain one of the 3 specific postures. If so desired, the posture resulting in the minimum amount of incident light can be selected to be the standard posture.
in response to determining that the part of the body where the device is being worn is in a standard posture ([0166]), determine whether or not the device is being worn on the body based on the incident light amount ([0070] & [0172]), as measured by the light receiver in a state in which the part of the body is in the standard posture ([0166]).
Paragraph [0070] states that pulse wave signals are determined based on the reflected light. Thus, measuring the pulse wave signals in a specific posture, as taught in [0166], and using the pulse wave signals to determine a proper wearing state, as taught in [0172], are made based on the incident light measured by the light receiver.
However, Igami fails to disclose setting a first standard value for determining whether or not the device is being worn on the body.
Chen teaches setting ([0043] & [0049]) a first standard value (low threshold 703, [0055]) for determining whether or not the device (wearable device 20, [0037]) is being worn on the body ([0043]).
Although Examiner upholds the use of Igami to teach the limitation of specifying the posture in which the incident light amount becomes minimum as the standard posture, [0049] & [0055] of Chen explicitly teach that the lower value of reflected light intensity can be selected to serve as a threshold by which to determine if the device is being worn. Examiner asserts that this can be properly combined with the multiple-posture-determination and -instruction of Igami to set the lowest incident light amount amongst the plurality of postures as the first standard value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Igami to include setting a first standard value for determining whether or not the device is being worn on the body, as taught by Chen. Because the amount of received incident light may be different from user to user, a step of setting the first standard value allows the value to be optimized for each user.
Regarding claim 3, Igami in view of Chen teach the wearable electronic device according to claim 1, and Chen further teaches an operation receiver (computer sequence executed in the wearable device, [0049]), wherein the processor is configured to perform a process regarding a setting of the first standard value in a case that the operation receiver receives a request to set the first standard value ([0043] & [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Igami to include an operation receiver, wherein the processor is configured to perform a process regarding a setting of the first standard value in a case that the operation receiver receives a request to set the first standard value, as taught by Chen. Because the first standard value is determined based on the received incident light amount, this allows the device to wait until the incident light has been received in order to set the first standard value.
Regarding claim 4, Igami in view of Chen teach the wearable electronic device according to claim 1, and Igami further teaches that the processor is configured to determine whether or not the device is being worn on the body ([0172]), determine whether or not the part of the body where the device is being worn is in the standard posture ([0166] & [0185]), and obtain the incident light amount in response to determining that the part of the body where the device is being worn is in the standard posture ([0166]).
Chen further teaches setting the first standard value ([0043] & [0049]), and adjusting the first standard value based on a change over time in the obtained incident light amount ([0043] & [0049]).
Paragraphs [0043] & [0049] teach that the threshold value is selected based on one of the light intensities of the reflected lights. In the event that the intensities of the reflected lights change, it is expected that the threshold value will change with them.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Igami to include setting the first standard value, and adjusting the first standard value based on a change over time in the obtained incident light amount, as taught by Chen. Because the incident light amount is expected to change in various conditions, adjusting the first standard value allows the wearing state to be more accurately determined.
Regarding claim 7, Igami in view of Chen teach the wearable electronic device according to claim 5, and Igami further teaches a notification operator (output unit 110, [0067]) that performs a notification operation to a user ([0067]), wherein: each of the plurality of postures is a predetermined posture ([0166] & Figure 21), and the processor is configured to control the notification operator to perform the notification operation to indicate to the user each posture among the plurality of postures ([0185]), and is configured to obtain the incident light amount while the user is in each of a plurality of postures ([0166] & Figure 21).
Paragraph [0185] teaches that the user is guided to maintain a specific posture. Paragraph [0166] & Figure 21 teach of three postures that can be measured and identified. Although [0185] does not explicitly teach to which posture the user is guided, Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that, if [0185] teaches guiding the user to one posture, the device would be able to guide the user to each of the three postures taught in [0166].
Regarding claim 8, Igami in view of Chen teach the wearable electronic device according to claim 5, and Igami further teaches that the processor is configured to obtain the incident light amount for each of the plurality of postures in a case that it is determined that a user is maintaining each of the plurality of postures based on the measurement by the posture measurer ([0164] & [0166], Figure 21).
Regarding claim 9, Igami in view of Chen teach the wearable electronic device according to claim 1, and Chen further teaches that the processor is configured to compare the incident light amount with a second standard value (high threshold 701, [0055]) larger than the first standard value ([0043] & [0055]) and, in a case that it is determined that the incident light amount is larger than the second standard value, determine that the device is not being worn ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Igami such that the processor is configured to compare the incident light amount with a second standard value larger than the first standard value and, in a case that it is determined that the incident light amount is larger than the second standard value, determine that the device is not being worn, as taught by Chen. An upper threshold value creates a range of acceptable incident light values said that the device does not erroneously determine that it is being worn if it receives an abnormally high value.
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Igami teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (storage unit 150, [0079]), storing a program (program, [0079]) executable by the one or more processors in the wearable electronic device ([0079]). The remainder of claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 7.
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 ADAM KOLKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1:00PM-10:00PM EDT.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached on (572)-270-1790. 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.
/ADAM D. KOLKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights