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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been considered and are moot in view of the grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s claim amendments and unpersuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9: “That is, Abdul's shielded detector assembly 1000, which includes detector 820 enclosed by the EMI shield 1010 within the low noise optical housing 400, is an independent component assembled independently from the sensor. Thus, Abdul fails to teach a faraday cage "defined by the flap portion of the body being folded over the detector and an end of the flap portion being inserted into the slot of the body to align an aperture of the flap portion with the detector," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added)”.
This argument is moot as the examiner is now interpreting the faraday cage to be elements 400 and 1010 combined in figure 10C, [0046]. The combination will shield the detector 820 from electromagnetic interference and optical shielding ([0042] discloses (“detector EMI shielding and optical shielding (FIGS. 9-11)”). The examiner understands the applicant’s position that only element 1010 provides the electromagnetic interference shielding and thus the applicant is interpreting element 1010 as only the faraday cage. However, elements 1010 and 400 are formed together in figure 10C, thus may be interpreted together as “a faraday cage”. The combination will yield a “flap portion of the body being folded over the detector” (e.g. see figure 10C, [0046]) “to align an aperture of the flap portion with the detector” (e.g. see [0039], [0046]). Stronger, more specific structural claim language would negate said broadest reasonable interpretation by the examiner.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10: “Schulz fails to compensate for the deficiencies of Abdul. Schulz appears to describe an optical probe for use in measurements on tissue material of a patient. (See Schulz, Abstract.) The Examiner relies upon Schulz to teach a "slot and end of the flap portion is inserted into the slot of the body." (See Office Action at 3). However, claim 1 recites the limitation "a faraday cage formed around the detector, wherein the faraday cage is defined by the flap portion of the body being folded over the detector and an end of the flap portion being inserted into the slot of the body to align an aperture of the flap portion with the detector." This limitation does not merely require the presence of a flap portion being inserted into a slot somewhere in the device, but a specific relationship between them to form a faraday cage as recited in the claim language. The Office Action does not consider the claim "as a whole" and is predicated on an improper analysis of the limitations of claim 1 by selectively decoupling the claim into individual elements and selectively mapping those elements to unrelated disclosures in multiple references. Applicant traverses the §103 rejection because the Examiner's analysis as it is contrary to 35 U.S.C. §103 and MPEP 2143. In particular, claim 1 recites "a faraday cage defined by the flap portion of the body being folded over the detector and an end of the flap portion being inserted into the slot of the body to align an aperture of the flap portion with the detector" (emphasis added). However, the Office Action relies upon Abdul to teach a faraday cage, and Schulz to teach a flap and slot portion that defines the faraday cage. (See Office Action, at 3-4.) In contrast, obviousness must be determined based on the claimed invention as a whole. Together, the cited references neither teach nor suggest the claimed faraday cage, nor do they provide any articulated reasoning for the proposed modification. Thus, Schulz also fails to teach or suggest, "a faraday cage defined by the flap portion of the body being folded over the detector and an end of the flap portion being inserted into the slot of the body to align an aperture of the flap portion with the detector," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). As such, claim 1 is allowable over Abdul in view of Schulz”.
These arguments are unpersuasive. In response to the applicant’s assessment of “selectively mapping those elements to unrelated disclosures in multiple references”, both Abdul (e.g. see [0042]) and Schulz (e.g. see [0051]) are directed towards devices for minimizing light and EMI in an optical sensor, thus are related disclosures. In response to the applicant’s argument that “the cited references neither teach nor suggest the claimed faraday cage”, elements 1010 and 400 are formed together in figure 10C and are now being interpreted together as “a faraday cage”. The combination will shield the detector 820 from electromagnetic interference and optical shielding ([0042] discloses (“detector EMI shielding and optical shielding (FIGS. 9-11)”). In response to the applicant’s argument that “nor do they provide any articulated reasoning for the proposed modification”, Schulz discloses said modification would provide the predictable results of minimizing noise within the probe while allowing removability of the shield (e.g. see [0055]). This is a relevant motivation to combine as it is solving the same problem that the applicant is solving, improved shielding while still maintaining the ability to connect and disconnect the wearable sensor.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-10, and 12-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdul-Hafiz et al. (Pub. No.: US 2004/0039272 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Abdul”, in view of Schulz et al. (Pub. No.: US 2001/0009265 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Schulz”.
Regarding claim 1, Abdul discloses a sensor, comprising: a body (e.g. see figure 4 element 400, [0033]) comprising a flap portion (e.g. see figure 4A, portion of element 460 that folds, [0037]-[0038]), wherein the flap portion is foldable at a hinge portion (e.g. see figure 4A element 480, [0037]-[0038]); a light-emitting diode (LED) (e.g. see figure 8A element 830, [0042], [0002]-[0003]) disposed on the body; a detector (e.g. see figures 6A and 10C element 820, [0039], [0046]) disposed on the body by the hinge portion, the detector configured to detect light emitted by the LED (e.g. see figures 6A and 10C element 820, [0039], [0046]); and a faraday cage (e.g. see figure 10C elements 400 and 1010 combined together, [0046]) formed around the detector (e.g. see [0046]) by the flap portion of the body being folded over the detector (e.g. see figure 10C, [0046]) to align an aperture of the flap portion with the detector (e.g. see [0039], [0046]).
Abdul discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to a slot and an end of the flap portion being inserted into the slot of the body. Schulz teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in figure 6A elements 222 and 224, [0053]-[0055] (element 224 is the slot and element 222 is the inserted portion) to minimize noise within the probe while allowing removability of the shield (e.g. see [0055]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to insert a portion of the flap into a slot to secure/attach the folding portion as taught by Schulz in the system of Abdul, since said modification would provide the predictable results of minimizing noise within the probe while allowing removability of the shield.
Regarding claim 4, Abdul discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the end comprises a tapered end that inserts into the slot of the body. Schulz teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in figure 6A elements 222 and 224 (In figure 6A, element 222 is smaller than the portion of 220 abutting 225a and 225b and thus is “tapered”) to minimize noise within the probe while allowing removability of the shield (e.g. see [0055]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed use a tapered end that inserts into the slot as taught by Schulz in the system of Abdul, since said modification would provide the predictable results of minimizing noise within the probe while allowing removability of the shield.
Regarding claim 5, Abdul discloses the aperture comprises one or more openings through the flap portion (e.g. see figures 4-6 element 470, [0037], [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Abdul discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the end comprises a locking member to block dislodgement of the end from the slot. Schulz teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in figure 6A elements 225a and 225b, [0053] to support the tabs when the latter are inserted into the channels, thereby adding additional rigidity to the shield tabs (e.g. see [0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed use a locking member to block dislodgement as taught by Schulz in the system of Abdul, since said modification would provide the predictable results of supporting the tabs when the latter are inserted into the channels, thereby adding additional rigidity to the shield tabs.
Regarding claims 9, 19, and 21, Abdul discloses the body comprises a visual indicator to facilitate alignment between the aperture and the detector (e.g. see figure 4A elements 422, 470, 480. Note: All 3 of the elements will facilitate alignment and thus may be interpreted as a “visual indicator”).
Regarding claim 10, Abdul discloses the claimed invention (see the rejection for claims 1 above) and further discloses a communication interface to communicate with a monitor (e.g. see [0042], figure 8B element 810, “flexible circuit substrate”. Note: The examiner is interpreting the circuit portion of the “flexible circuit substrate” as the communication interface. It is configured to communicate with either a patient monitoring device or a monitor display device as it is circuitry that transmits sensed signals from the detector 820).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Abdul discloses the hinge portion comprises a notch, and the notch comprises a weak point that bends to adjust the flap portion from the unfolded configuration to the folded configuration (e.g. see figure 4A element 480, [0037]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Abdul discloses the sensor comprises a cable, and the cable is configured to connect a plug to the body of the sensor (e.g. see [0040], “cable connector”).
Regarding claim 14, Abdul discloses the monitor (e.g. see figure 1 element 160, [0002], [0042]. Note: The circuit portion of the “flexible circuit substrate” 810 may communicate with either a patient monitoring device or a monitor display device as it is circuitry that transmits sensed signals from the detector 820. Thus, the circuit portion is capable of and/or configured to be used with element 160), wherein the sensor is coupled to the monitor via the plug (e.g. see figure 1 elements 140. Note: The circuit portion of the “flexible circuit substrate” 810 may communicate with either a patient monitoring device or a monitor display device as it is circuitry that transmits sensed signals from the detector 820. Thus, the circuit portion is capable of and/or configured to be used with element 140).
Regarding claim 15, Abdul discloses the sensor is reusable, disposable, partially reusable, partially disposable, or any combination thereof (e.g. see claim 20 of Abdul).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Abdul discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the folded flap portion is secured to the body by an adhesive. Schulz teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0055] to minimize noise within the probe (e.g. see [0055]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed use an adhesive as taught by Schulz in the system of Abdul, since said modification would provide the predictable results of minimizing noise within the probe.
Regarding claim 18, Abdul discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the tapered end includes a locking end that is temporally deformable to be inserted into the slot. Schulz teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0054] to permit removal from and insertion into the channels of the housing element, while allowing some degree of flexibility so as to adapt to the shape and size of each individual patient's finger when the probe is fitted on the patient (e.g. see [0054]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed use a temporally deformable locking end as taught by Schulz in the system of Abdul, since said modification would provide the predictable results of permitting removal from and insertion into the channels of the housing element, while allowing some degree of flexibility so as to adapt to the shape and size of each individual patient's finger when the probe is fitted on the patient
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdul and Schulz as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of MacNeish (Pub. No.: US 2009/0095926 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Abdul and Schulz disclose the claimed invention except for the one or more openings comprise a plurality of openings through the flap portion. MacNeish teaches that it is known to use such a modification as set forth in figure 8A element 812, [0052] to provide windows of any shape appropriate to allow the passage of light but block electromagnetic noise (e.g. see [0052]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a plurality of openings/windows as taught by MacNeish in the system of Abdul and Schulz, since said modification would provide the predictable results of windows of any shape appropriate to allow the passage of light but block electromagnetic noise.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdul and Schulz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Besko et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0323267 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Besko”.
Regarding claim 7, Abdul and Schulz disclose the claimed invention except for the aperture extends beyond a dimension of the detector to facilitate alignment between the aperture and the detector. Besko teaches that it is known to use such a modification as set forth in figures 7B, 8B elements 42 and 50 to provide a substantial portion of the photodetector assembly being shielded from electromagnetic and static fields (e.g. see [0030]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a window that extends beyond the detector as taught by Besko in the system of Abdul and Schulz, since said modification would provide the predictable results of providing a substantial portion of the photodetector assembly being shielded from electromagnetic and static fields.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdul and Schulz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pinto Rogrigues et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0137943 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Pinto”.
Regarding claims 22-23, Abdul and Schulz disclose the claimed invention but are silent as to the sensor is a fabric adhesive sensor. Pinto teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0137]-[0142], [0054] to provide a silicone adhesive that protects the sensor from water and its welding areas, and allows air to enter, to avoid the vacuum effect in the inner layer of the sensor (e.g. see [0142]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a fabric adhesive sensor as taught by Pinto in the system of Abdul and Schulz, since said modification would provide the predictable results of a silicone adhesive that protects the sensor from water and its welding areas, and allows air to enter, to avoid the vacuum effect in the inner layer of the sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-1804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00-5:00 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/P.C.E/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights