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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species B, in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. Presently, Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11-15 remain pending.
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 7 and 14-15 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 7, Lines 4-5, recites “the first distance is longer than the third distance, and the third distance is shorter than the second distance”; that is to say, the first distance > the third distance < the second distance. Para 119 of Specification discloses that “The third light emitting unit 913 having a beam angle narrower than that of the first light emitting unit 911 and wider than that of the second light emitting unit 912 may be spaced apart from the second light receiving unit 922 and the third light receiving unit 923 by a third distance Dc shorter than the first distance Da and longer than the second distance Db.” Based on this disclosure of Specification, the first distance > the third distance > the second distance. For present purposes of examination, the “the first distance is longer than the third distance, and the third distance is shorter than the second distance” is interpreted as “the first distance is longer than the third distance, and the third distance is longer than the second distance”.
Claim 14, Lines 7-8, recites “turn on at least one of the second light emitting unit, the first light receiving unit, or the second light receiving unit”. Claim 14 is dependent on Claim 13, which on Lines 6-7 recites “obtain a light signal emitted from the second light emitting unit through the first light receiving unit and the second light receiving unit”. If ONLY ONE of the second light emitting unit, the first light receiving unit, or the second light receiving unit is turned on, as Claim 14 claims, no light signal would be obtained in Claim 13. For present purposes of examination, the above recited phrase of Claim 14 is interpreted as “turn on the second light emitting unit, and at least one of the first light receiving unit or the second light receiving unit”.
Claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it inherits the indefiniteness of Claim 14 it depends 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 1-2, 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) …”);
at least one light receiving unit (the detectors 225a, 235a, 240a, and 250a) 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.”); and
a processor configured to analyze light generated from the plurality of light emitting units and incident to the at least one light receiving unit (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 at least one light receiving unit is such that the at least one light receiving unit is configured to receive reflected light from 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).
Fig. 3 of Venugopal
PNG
media_image1.png
504
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 2, Venugopal discloses the electronic device of Claim 1, wherein the at least one light receiving unit includes a plurality of light receiving units (the detectors 225a, 235a, 240a, and 250a), and
wherein at least one separation distance among separation distances between the plurality of light emitting units and the plurality of light receiving units is different from the remaining separation distances (Venugopal, Para 0076; “The emitters and detectors … may be located equidistant from one another, or may be located various distances from one another as appropriate. … In some examples, some of the emitters and detectors may be located closer together …”).
With regard to Claim 4, Venugopal discloses the electronic device of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of light emitting units include a first light emitting unit, a second light emitting unit, and a third light emitting unit (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) having different beam angles (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 …”),
wherein the at least one light receiving unit includes a first light receiving unit, a second light receiving unit, and a third light receiving unit (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),
wherein the first light emitting unit is disposed between the first light receiving unit and the third light receiving unit (Venugopal, Para 0072; “the emitters … may be arranged to alternate with the detectors …”. Emitter E1 is between detector D1 and D3, in Fig. 5A cited below) and spaced apart from the first light receiving unit and the third light receiving unit by a first distance (Each of E1, E2 and E3 in the cited Fig. 5A contains 3 emitters that are disposed as in Fig. 2 partially cited below. For E1, one can choose the emitter 205a (the farthest away from the center) in the cited Fig. 2, which we can denote as e1, and e1 is away from D1 and D3 by a distance d1),
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 below) and spaced apart from the first light receiving unit and the second light receiving unit by a second distance different from the first distance (For E2, one can choose the emitter 205c (closest to the center) in the cited Fig. 2, which we can denote as e2, and e2 is away from D1 and D2 by a distance d2. Based on geometric calculation, d2 is shorter than d1), 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 below) 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 (For E3, one can choose the emitter 205b (disposed between 205a and 205c) in the cited Fig. 2, which we can denote as e3, and e3 is away from D2 and D3 by a distance d3. Based on geometric calculation, d3 is shorter than d1, and is longer than d2).
Fig. 5A of Venugopal Part of Fig. 2 of Venugopal
PNG
media_image2.png
562
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
433
357
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 light receiving unit 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 (See our discussion for Claim 4, where distance d1 is longer than d3, which is further longer than d2. 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 (See our discussion for Claim 4, where distance d1 is longer than d3, which is further longer than d2).
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:
identifies 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
obtains a light signal through the at least one light receiving unit (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 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, Komoriya and Blahnik disclose the electronic device of Claim 13, 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 further discloses wherein the processor:
turns 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
turns 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).
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.”).
Conclusion
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
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798