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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 5-7 and 9-15 have been amended. Claims 2-3 have been cancelled. New claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 1 and 4-22 remain pending.
The previously raised rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for Claims 7 and 14-15 are withdrawn because the issues have been properly corrected.
Response to Arguments
On Pages 16-17 of Remarks, Applicant argues that, regarding the amended Claim 1, the cited references fail to disclose the newly incorporated features, “a first light receiving unit disposed …”, “a second light receiving unit disposed …”, “a third light receiving unit disposed …”, and “the first distance corresponds to …, and the second distance corresponds to …”, and specifically, Venugopal fails to disclose “the configuration recited in claim 1, in which the plurality of light receiving units are disposed so as to have differing separation distances that correspond with different beam angles of a plurality of light emitting units”. Applicant further argues that the other cited references (Cho, Komoriya, Blahnik) fail to disclose the claimed “beam-angle-dependent positions” feature (i.e. disposing light receiving units with separation distance from light emitting units that correspond to specific beam angles of the light emitting units). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Venugopal shows multiple layouts of light emitters and detectors with equal emitter-detector distance (e.g. the cited Fig. 3 and Fig. 5A) and explicitly points out that “The emitters and detectors … may be located various distances from one another as appropriate” (Para 0076). Venugopal also discloses positioning 3 emitters along a radial direction in each emitter window, which further increases number of emitter-detector combinations with differing separation distances. Regarding correspondence between emitter-detector distance and beam angle, Venugopal explicitly disclose that “… should the distance between the emitters and detectors vary, the detecting angle between emitters and detectors may also vary …” (Para 0076), and further discusses in a detailed way the relationship between the separation distance and the angle in Fig. 4 and Para 0092-0096.
On Pages 17-18 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose the newly added feature of “the plurality of light receiving units are formed asymmetrically with respect to the right shape, and the plurality of light emitting units are formed asymmetrically with respect to the right shape”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Venugopal discloses that while the displayed layouts in its figures show equal separation distances between light emitters and detectors, the distances can be varied to be different values; further, Venugopal discloses light emitters being positioned differently along radial direction. In addition, a reference Horstmeyer cited in section of Conclusion also discloses explicitly that “the optical sources 30a and optical detectors 30b may be arranged or located in a symmetric or asymmetric array and/or may be arranged in a circular or radial pattern …”.
On Pages 18-19 of Remarks, Applicant argues that some disclosures (Para 0076, Figs. 8A-8D) of Venugopal “directs PHOSITA toward a proximal arrangement to ensure signal acquisition without increasing emission intensity”, but the claimed embodiment of Claim 1 disposes light receiving units with “differing separation distances that correspond with different beam angles of a plurality of light emitting units”. Applicant further argues that Cho “provides no suggestion or motivation to individually design specific separation distances for … with different beam angles”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Para 0072, Venugopal discloses “due to the heterogeneous nature of the tissue in the wrist, the distance between the emitters and the detectors may be maximized by arranging the emitters and detectors in a ring or ring-like shape, to image and/or encompass as much of the wrist tissue as possible for any given watch size … Due to the complexity of imaging and/or optically probing heterogeneous tissue, other factors may be considered for emitter and detector layouts, in addition to maximizing the distance between the emitters and detectors, such as false readings, emitter light clipping, path or channel lengths, battery life, power consumption, any combination thereof, and so forth.”. Venugopal considers multiple factors in determining layout or separation distance of emitter and detector, including battery life and power saving, but maximizing the distance is the primary one. Once the emitters and detectors are disposed along a ring shape, multiple differing distances (such as short and long paths as disclosed in Fig. 3) can be achieved in a relatively easy way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, Lines 26-27, recites “the first distance corresponds to the first beam angle of the first light emitting unit, and the second distance corresponds to the second beam angle of the second light emitting unit”. It is unclear what “distance corresponds to beam angle” means. Specification, Para 0139-0142 and Fig. 11 discuss the relationship between separation distance between light emitting unit and light receiving unit and beam angle of light emitted from light emitting unit, for low light loss. Based on the disclosure and for present purposes of examination, the recited phrase is interpreted as “the first distance, which is between the first light emitting unit and the first and third light receiving units, is configured so that the first and third light receiving units receive a reflection of light emitted from the first light emitting unit with the first beam angle, and the second distance, which is between the second light emitting unit and the second light receiving unit, is configured so that the second light receiving unit receives a reflection of light emitted from the second light emitting unit with the second beam angle”.
Claim 4, Lines 16-18, further recites “… the third distance correspond to … the third beam angle of the third light emitting unit …”. Similar to the above discussion for the first and second distance, for present purposes of examination, the recited phrase is interpreted as “… the third distance, which is between the third light emitting unit and the second and third light receiving units, is configured so that the second and third light receiving units receive a reflection of light emitted from the third light emitting unit with the third beam angle”.
Claim 1, Lines 29-31, recites “light receiving units are formed asymmetrically with respect to the ring shape … light emitting units are formed asymmetrically with respect to the ring shape”. Symmetry or asymmetry is typically with respect to a line or a point, so it is unclear what the underlined phrases mean. Specification does not provide descriptive details on the recited feature. For present purposes of examination, the recited phase is interpreted as “light receiving units are formed asymmetrically with respect to a central point of the ring shape … light emitting units are formed asymmetrically with respect to a central point of the ring shape ”.
Claims 7-8, 11-15 and 21-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, Lines 29-31, recites “light receiving units are formed asymmetrically with respect to the ring shape … light emitting units are formed asymmetrically with respect to the ring shape”. Specification does not provide descriptive details on the recited feature. For present purposes of examination, the recited phase is interpreted as “light receiving units are formed asymmetrically with respect to a central point of the ring shape … light emitting units are formed asymmetrically with respect to a central point of the ring shape ”.
Claims 4, 7-8, 11-15 and 21-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venugopal et al (US 20210093237 A1; hereafter Venugopal).
With regard to Claim 1, Venugopal discloses an electronic device (Venugopal, Para 0152; “… an electronic device 1000, and which may be the electronic device described with reference to FIGS. 1A-9B.”) comprising:
a plurality of light emitting units spaced apart from each other to form a ring shape (Venugopal, Para 0072; “The emitters 205a-205c of emitter windows 205, 210, 215, and 220 and the detectors 225a, 235a, 240a, and 250a in the layout 200 of FIG. 2, may be disposed in a ring about the central portion …”) on a printed circuit board (Venugopal, Para 0093; “In some cases, the emitter 405, the near detector 430, and the far detector 435 may be mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) …”);
a plurality of light receiving units disposed between the plurality of light emitting units (Venugopal, Para 0072; “… the emitters 205a-205c of emitter windows 205, 210, 215, and 220 may be arranged to alternate with the detectors 225a, 235a, 240a, and 250a.” See the cited Fig. 3 below) to form the ring shape with the plurality of light emitting units (Venugopal, Para 0072; “the distance between the emitters and the detectors may be maximized by arranging the emitters and detectors in a ring or ring-like shape” See the cited Fig. 3 below); and
a processor configured to analyze light generated from the plurality of light emitting units and incident to the plurality of light receiving units (Venugopal, Para 0007; “The wearable device may also include a processor configured to operate the first set of emitters and the second set of emitters; receive indicators of the amounts of at least the range of red light wavelengths and the range of infrared light wavelengths detected by the set of detectors; and determine a blood oxygenation level using at least a subset of the indicators.”),
wherein a separation distance between each of the plurality of light emitting units and the plurality of light receiving units is such that the plurality of light receiving units are configured to receive a reflection of light emitted at a beam angle from each of the plurality of light emitting units (Venugopal, Para 0084; “FIG. 3 depicts four emitters and four detectors, which may provide sixteen different optical paths between emitters and detectors.”. As demonstrated in Fig. 3 cited below, each detector receives reflected light from each of the emitters),
wherein the plurality of light emitting units (Venugopal, Para 0073; “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the layout 200 may be configured to accommodate eight windows, … in some examples, six windows, which may include three emitters and three detectors, may be used to accommodate the size of the watch.” Fig. 5A shows such an example with 3 emitters) includes:
a first light emitting unit having a first beam angle (emitter labeled with E1 in the cited Fig. 5A, which intrinsically has some beam angle, as disclosed in Fig. 4 for emitters 405);
a second light emitting unit having a second beam angle different from the first beam angle (emitter labeled with E2 in the cited Fig. 5A) (Venugopal, Para 0076; “The emitters and detectors … may be located various distances from one another as appropriate. Additionally, should the distance between the emitters and detectors vary, the detecting angle between emitters and detectors may also vary from the layout 200 depicted in FIG. 2. … In some examples, some of the emitters and detectors may be located closer together …”); and
a third light emitting unit having a third beam angle (emitter labeled with E3 in the cited Fig. 5A, which intrinsically has some beam angle, as disclosed in Fig. 4 for emitters 405),
wherein the plurality of light receiving units (Venugopal, Para 0073; “… six windows, which may include three emitters and three detectors, may be used to accommodate the size of the watch.” Fig. 5A shows such an example with 3 detectors) includes:
a first light receiving unit disposed at a first side of the first light emitting unit and spaced apart from the first light emitting unit by a first distance (detector labeled with D1 in the cited Fig. 5A; D1 is on a side of E1, and is spaced apart from E1 with some distance);
a second light receiving unit disposed at a first side of the second light emitting unit and spaced apart from the second light emitting unit by a second distance different from the first distance (detector labeled with D2 in the cited Fig. 5A; D2 is on a side of E2, and is spaced apart from E2 with some distance) (Venugopal, Para 0076; “The emitters and detectors are also depicted as being approximately equidistant from one another, but … may be located various distances from one another as appropriate”); and
a third light receiving unit disposed at a second side of the first light emitting unit and spaced apart from the first light emitting unit by the first distance (detector labeled with D3 in the cited Fig. 5A; D3 is on a different side of E1, and is spaced apart from E1 with some distance) (Venugopal, Para 0076; “The emitters and detectors are also depicted as being approximately equidistant from one another, but may be located equidistant from one another …”; as disclosed, D3 and D1 can be equally spaced apart from E1),
wherein the first distance corresponds to the first beam angle of the first light emitting unit, and the second distance corresponds to the second beam angle of the second light emitting unit (Venugopal, Para 0076; “… should the distance between the emitters and detectors vary, the detecting angle between emitters and detectors may also vary …”; this disclosure indicates that Venugopal considers matching the distance with the angle so that emitted light is received by light receiver as desired. Fig. 4 of Venugopal and Para 0095-0096 disclose more details), and
wherein the plurality of light receiving units are formed asymmetrically with respect to the ring shape, and the plurality of light emitting units are formed asymmetrically with respect to the ring shape (Venugopal, Para 0076; “The emitters and detectors … may be located various distances from one another as appropriate …”; when the distances between emitters and detectors vary from one another, the emitters and the detectors are both disposed in an asymmetrical form. Further, in the example of Fig. 3, i.e. 4 emitters and 4 detectors, 3 of the 4 emitters and 3 of the 4 detectors are both disposed in an asymmetrical form. The conclusion section includes additional references that disclose asymmetrically formed light emitter and detectors).
Fig. 3 of Venugopal Fig. 5A of Venugopal
PNG
media_image1.png
504
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
562
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 4, Venugopal discloses the electronic device of Claim 1,
wherein the second light emitting unit is disposed between the first light receiving unit and the second light receiving unit (Emitter E2 is between detector D1 and D2, in Fig. 5A cited above) and spaced apart from the first light receiving unit and the second light receiving unit by the second distance (Venugopal, Para 0076; “The emitters and detectors are also depicted as being approximately equidistant from one another, but may be located equidistant from one another …”), and
wherein the third light emitting unit is disposed between the second light receiving unit and the third light receiving unit (Emitter E3 is between detector D2 and D3, in Fig. 5A cited above) and spaced apart from the second light receiving unit and the third light receiving unit by a third distance different from the first distance and the second distance (Venugopal, Para 0076; “The emitters and detectors … may be located various distances from one another as appropriate. … In some examples, some of the emitters and detectors may be located closer together …” According to this disclosure, E3’s distance from D2 and D3 can be adjusted to be different from the distances of E1 and E2. Alternatively or additionally, each emitter window comprises 3 emitters along radial direction (see the cited part of Fig. 2 below), so emitter on 3 different radial positions can be chosen as E1, E2 and E2 respectively and such setting would result in different emitter-detector distances for E1, E2 and E3), and
wherein the first distance, the second distance, and the third distance correspond to the first beam angle of the first light emitting unit, the second beam angle of the second light emitting unit, and the third beam angle of the third light emitting unit respectively (Venugopal, Para 0076; “… should the distance between the emitters and detectors vary, the detecting angle between emitters and detectors may also vary …”; this disclosure indicates that Venugopal considers matching the distance with the angle so that emitted light is received by light receiver as desired. Fig. 4 of Venugopal and Para 0095-0096 disclose more details).
With regard to Claim 8, Venugopal discloses the electronic device of Claim 4, further comprising:
a first partition wall disposed between the first light emitting unit and the first light receiving unit, a second partition wall disposed between the first light receiving unit and the second light emitting unit, a third partition wall disposed between the second light emitting unit and the second light receiving unit, a fourth partition wall disposed between the second light receiving unit and the third light emitting unit, a fifth partition wall disposed between the third light emitting unit and the third light receiving unit, and a sixth partition wall disposed between the third light receiving unit and the first light emitting unit (Venugopal, Para 0102; “… the windows over both the emitters and the detectors may have optical barriers.”).
With regard to Claim 11, Venugopal discloses the electronic device of Claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of light emitting units is disposed to correspond to the at least one of the plurality of light receiving units in a one-to-one or one-to-many manner (Venugopal, Fig. 3, shows that each of the emitters can correspond to the detectors 325, 330, 335 and 340 in a one-to-many manner).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venugopal, as evidenced by Cho et al (US 20150062087 A1; hereafter Cho).
With regard to Claim 7, Venugopal discloses the electronic device of Claim 4, wherein the first light emitting unit has a larger beam angle than the third light emitting unit, and the third light emitting unit has a larger beam angle than the second light emitting unit (As discussed for Claim 4, choosing emitter with different radial positions for E1, E2 and E3 would result in distances different from one another. Venugopal further discloses in Para 0076, “Additionally, should the distance between the emitters and detectors vary, the detecting angle between emitters and detectors may also vary from the layout 200 depicted in FIG. 2.”) (Cho, Para 0102; “… the maximum distance between the light emitter and the light receiver enabling light emitted from the light emitter to be incident upon the light receiver may be increased as the radiation angle of light emitted from the light emitter increases.” This disclosure indicates that with increase separation distance between an emitter and a receiver, the radiation angle of emitted light can be increased so that the emitted light is detected by the receiver), and
wherein the first distance is longer than the third distance, and the third distance is longer than the second distance (As discussed above and for Claim 4, choosing emitter with different radial positions for E1, E2 and E3 would result in distances different from one another).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal, in view of Komoriya (US 20180132737 A1; hereafter Komoriya).
With regard to Claim 12, Venugopal discloses the electronic device of Claim 4, and further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
identify a current state of an object to be measured on which the electronic device is worn (Venugopal, Para 0099; “… window 563 may be employed to enable an optical sensor to detect whether the wearable device is contacting a user's skin …”. The disclosed “whether the wearable device is contacting a user's skin” can be regarded as a current state of a user); and
obtain a light signal through the plurality of light receiving units (Venugopal, Para 0087; “The processor may be configured to receive the signals (or indicators, or outputs) from one or more of the detectors.”).
Venugopal does not clearly and explicitly disclose controlling driving of at least one of the plurality of light emitting units depending on the current state of the object to be measured.
Komoriya in the same field of endeavor discloses controlling driving of at least one of the plurality of light emitting units depending on the current state of the object to be measured (Komoriya, Para 0054; “… the information processing device according to the embodiment raises the light emission intensity to correspond to the state of the user …”. The disclosed “state” can include “asleep”, “exercising” and “daily activities” as disclosed in Para 0044.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venugopal, as suggested by Komoriya, in order to control driving light emission based on current state of user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved performance of the monitoring device by achieving both stable monitoring and reduced power consumption (Komoriya, Para 0009; “According to the present disclosure, it is possible to achieve compatibility between stable detection of a pulse wave by the pulse wave sensor and a reduction in power consumption in the pulse wave sensor.”).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal, in view of Komoriya and Blahnik et al (US 20180345078 A1; hereafter Blahnik).
With regard to Claim 13, Venugopal and Komoriya disclose the electronic device of Claim 12. Venugopal further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain light signals emitted from the first light emitting unit, the second light emitting unit, and the third light emitting unit through the first light receiving unit, the second light receiving unit, and the third light receiving unit (Venugopal, Para 0086; “In some examples, all the emitters and detectors may be turned on at the same time.”; Para 0088; “… the processor may use all of the data received from the detectors.” These disclosures indicate that all the emitters and detectors can be turned on and the acquired signals can be used for analysis); and
obtain a light signal emitted from the second light emitting unit through the first light receiving unit and the second light receiving unit (Venugopal, Para 0086; “In some examples, emitter 305 may be turned on, … the adjacent detectors, detector 325 and detector 330, may be turned on …” In this disclosure, single emitter can be individually turned on, and adjacent detectors on either side of the emitter can be turned on at the same time. Para 0088; “the processor may be configured to select which of the detector measurements to use and may select a subset of the received detector measurements”. This disclosure further indicates that the detected signals can be selectively used for analysis).
Venugopal and Komoriya do not clearly and explicitly disclose operating the device differently when the object to be measured, on which the electronic device is worn, makes a movement exceeding or less than the predetermined distance.
Blahnik in the same field of endeavor discloses operating the device differently (Blahnik, Para 0045; “if the detected movement of the device corresponds to a physical activity of a first type and not of any other type, a stored value representing the aggregate amount of the first type of activity can be updated at operation 310, and other stored values representing other types of activity may not be updated.”) when the object to be measured, on which the electronic device is worn, makes a movement exceeding or less than the predetermined distance (Blahnik, Para 0037; “… the user engaging in a physical activity that meets a threshold intensity (e.g., movement that expends a threshold number of Calories per unit time, movement that exceeds a threshold distance per unit time, or the like) …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venugopal and Komoriya, as suggested by Blahnik, in order to perform control differently based on movement type of user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of precise assessment of user’s health status by analyzing measurement data separately for different movement types.
With regard to Claim 14, Venugopal and Komoriya disclose the electronic device of Claim 12. Venugopal further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
turn on the first light emitting unit, the second light emitting unit, the third light emitting unit, the first light receiving unit, the second light receiving unit, and the third light receiving unit (Venugopal, Para 0086; “In some examples, all the emitters and detectors may be turned on at the same time.”); and
turn off the first light emitting unit, the third light emitting unit, and the third light receiving unit and turn on the second light emitting unit and at least one of the first light receiving unit or the second light receiving unit (Venugopal, Para 0086; “In some examples, emitter 305 may be turned on, … the adjacent detectors, detector 325 and detector 330, may be turned on …” In this disclosure, single emitter can be individually turned on, and adjacent detectors on either side of the emitter can be turned on at the same time).
Venugopal and Komoriya do not clearly and explicitly disclose performing control differently when the object to be measured, on which the electronic device is worn, makes a movement exceeding or less than the predetermined distance.
Blahnik in the same field of endeavor discloses performing control differently (Blahnik, Para 0045; “if the detected movement of the device corresponds to a physical activity of a first type and not of any other type, a stored value representing the aggregate amount of the first type of activity can be updated at operation 310, and other stored values representing other types of activity may not be updated.”) when the object to be measured, on which the electronic device is worn, makes a movement exceeding or less than the predetermined distance (Blahnik, Para 0037; “… the user engaging in a physical activity that meets a threshold intensity (e.g., movement that expends a threshold number of Calories per unit time, movement that exceeds a threshold distance per unit time, or the like) …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venugopal and Komoriya, as suggested by Blahnik, in order to perform control differently based on movement type of user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of precise assessment of user’s health status by analyzing measurement data separately for different movement types.
With regard to Claim 15, Venugopal, Komoriya and Blahnik disclose the electronic device of Claim 14, including performing control differently when the object to be measured, on which the electronic device is worn, makes a movement exceeding or less than the predetermined distance.
Venugopal, Komoriya and Blahnik as discussed above do not explicitly and clearly disclose using emitted light of lower intensity when user makes less movement.
Komoriya further discloses using emitted light of lower intensity when user makes less movement (Komoriya, Para 0062; “… the information processing device according to the embodiment lowers the light emission intensity of the light source of the pulse wave sensor on the basis of the estimated state of the user.”. The disclosed “state” can include “asleep”, “exercising” and “daily activities” as disclosed in Para 0044.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venugopal, Komoriya and Blahnik, as further suggested by Komoriya, in order to adjust light intensity based on state of user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved performance of the monitoring device by achieving both stable monitoring and reduced power consumption (Komoriya, Para 0009; “According to the present disclosure, it is possible to achieve compatibility between stable detection of a pulse wave by the pulse wave sensor and a reduction in power consumption in the pulse wave sensor.”).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal, in view of Bechtel et al (US 20190320958 A1; hereafter Bechtel).
With regard to Claim 21, Venugopal discloses the electronic device of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of light receiving units and the plurality of light emitting units are spaced apart in a circumferential direction of the ring shape, and the plurality of light receiving units are disposed between the plurality of light emitting units (Venugopal, Para 0072; “As illustrated in the example of FIG. 2, the emitters 205a-205c of emitter windows 205, 210, 215, and 220 may be arranged to alternate with the detectors 225a, 235a, 240a, and 250a. … the distance between the emitters and the detectors may be maximized by arranging the emitters and detectors in a ring or ring-like shape …”).
Venugopal does not explicitly and clearly disclose wherein the plurality of light receiving units and the plurality of light emitting units are arranged along a circumference of a same circle defining the ring shape.
Bechtel in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the plurality of light receiving units and the plurality of light emitting units are arranged along a circumference of a same circle defining the ring shape (Bechtel, Para 0035; “The arrangement of the sources and detectors can be in circular pattern, such as at points along the arc of a circle …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venugopal, as suggested by Bechtel, in order to dispose light emitters and detectors on a circumference of a circle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of achieving various emitter-detector distances in a largest range, with long distance to enable deep tissue assessment, and measurements with large number of different distances for accuracy assessment (Bechtel, Para 0032; “With greater numbers of source-to-detector distances, this can be used to obtain greater accuracy, faster calibration, and redundancy (when duplicate source-to-detector distances are provided)”).
With regard to Claim 22, Venugopal and Bechtel disclose the electronic device of Claim 21. Venugopal further discloses wherein the distances between emitters and detectors can be unequal, and beam angles should be adjusted as the distances change (as discussed in Claim 1 and Claim 4, Venugopal discloses that emitter-detector distances and correspondingly beam angles for the different emitters may be various values or unequal as appropriate), and wherein the third light receiving unit is disposed at a first side of the third light emitting unit and spaced apart from the third light emitting unit by a third distance (detector labeled with D3 in the cited Fig. 5A above; D3 is on a side of E3, and is spaced apart from E3 with some distance).
Venugopal and Bechtel as discussed above do not explicitly and clearly disclose having three different distances between light emitters and detectors that are disposed along a circle.
Bechtel further discloses having three different distances between light emitters and detectors that are disposed along a circle (Bechtel, Para 0029; “Detectors 125 are positioned with respect to outer light sources 120a and 120c such that eight or more (e.g., fourteen) unique source-to-detector distances are created. … With the exception of the shortest source-to-detector distance and the longest source-to-detector distance for light sources 120a and 120c, the source-to-detector distances for light sources 120a and 120c may be unique.” This disclosure indicates that the detectors and the sources are positioned to have at least 3 different source-to-detector distances: the shortest, the longest, and all others in between). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venugopal and Bechtel, as further suggested by Bechtel, in order to position light sources and detectors apart with different distances. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of acquiring data from different ranges and depths of tissue so as to avoid measurement error and improve robustness (Bechtel, Para 0032; “With greater numbers of source-to-detector distances, this can be used to obtain greater accuracy, faster calibration, and redundancy (when duplicate source-to-detector distances are provided)”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Horstmeyer (US 20190336006 A1) discloses asymmetric arrangement of light emitters and detectors in a circular pattern.
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 LEI ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm E.T..
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/L.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights