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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed January 25, 2024 has/have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0003 of the Specification filed January 25, 2024 recites, “FIG.1 is illustrates an example…” which is awkwardly worded. Examiner suggests amending the Specification to read, “FIG.1 . Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph 0031, line 7 of the Specification filed January 25, 2024 recites, “The sensor control unit 10 supplies a power supply voltage and a control signals (CTRL)…”, where the term signals is pluralized and should be singular. Examiner suggests amending the Specification to read, “The sensor control unit 10 supplies a power supply voltage and a control signal (CTRL)…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites, “…a photodiode configured to generates a current…”, in which the word “generates” is pluralized and should be singular with respect to the “a photodiode”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Transmission unit in claim 2.
External device in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In the instant case, the transmission unit is interpretably tied to the USB IF circuit 13 as per figure 1 and paragraph 0035 – “The USB IF circuit 13 transmits the sensor data transmitted from the MCU 12 to the PC 3 via the USB cable 3a”.
In the instant case, the external device is interpretably tied to the PC 3 as per figure 1 and paragraph 0035 – “The USB IF circuit 13 transmits the sensor data transmitted from the MCU 12 to the PC 3 via the USB cable 3a”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract ideas) without significantly more.
Step 1):
Claims 1-7 are tied to a sensor device, which satisfies the 4 statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim 8 is tied to a sensing method, which satisfies the 4 statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of patent-eligible subject matter.
The framework for establishing a prima facie case of lack of subject matter eligibility requires that the Examiner determine: (1) Does the claim fall within the four categories of patent eligible subject matter; (2a) prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon and (2a) prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; and (2b) Does the claim recite additional elements that amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2a) Prong One:
Independent claim(s) 1 recite(s):
A sensor device comprising: a sensor configured to detect reflected light from a sensing target or transmitted light of the sensing target; a control unit configured to cause the sensor to perform sensing and receive a detection signal from the sensor; and a processor configured to determine presence or absence of the sensing target based on a detection signal of the sensor and obtain biometric information of the sensing target based on fluctuations in the detection signal over a certain period of time, wherein the control unit is configured to cause the sensor to perform first sensing; the control unit is configured to cause the sensor to perform second sensing when the processor determines the presence of the sensing target during the first sensing; and power consumption during the first sensing is less than power consumption during the second sensing.
Independent claim(s) 8 recite(s):
A sensing method for a sensor device comprising: a sensor configured to detect reflected light from a sensing target or transmitted light of the sensing target; a control unit configured to cause the sensor to perform sensing and receive a detection signal from the sensor; and a processor configured to determine presence or absence of the sensing target based on a detection signal of the sensor and obtain biometric information of the sensing target based on fluctuations in the detection signal over a certain period of time, the method comprising: causing by the control unit the sensor to perform first sensing; and causing by the control unit the sensor to perform second sensing when the processor determines the presence of the sensing target during the first sensing, wherein power consumption during the first sensing is less than power consumption during the second sensing.
Claims 1 and 8 are all directed to MENTAL PROCESSES (i.e. detecting, receiving, determining), where nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. In the instant case, a person could mentally detect something by investigating, identifying and discerning something. A person could mentally receive something by being given information, and mentally processing the information. A person could mentally make a determination by analyzing and ascertaining/concluding based on known variables.
Dependent claims 2-7 further contain no additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the dependent claims are also directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2a) Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. The Court defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1-8, do not disclose using the result of the mental process steps (i.e. detecting, receiving and determining), for prophylactic treatment of a particular medical condition under MPEP 2106.05(e). In the instant case, there is no specific treatment in the form of stimulation/pacing pulses, drug therapy, radiation therapy, or other forms of treatment that is ultimately used to treat a particular condition as a result of the mental process steps (i.e. detecting, receiving and determining as per claims 1 and 8), but only to a form of sensing without any practical application applied to practice the abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-8 do not disclose using the result of the mental processes steps for prophylactic treatment of a particular medical condition under MPEP 2106.05(e).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1-8, do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any the technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a). Specifically, the claims recite the well-understood, routine and conventional elements of a sensor, as well as a control unit and processor, but these elements have not been described with sufficient detail to constitute an improvement in the tech field, as such these features merely define the field of use for the current invention by generally linking mental processes to generic computer elements as a tool to execute the abstract ideas (mental processes). By failing to explain how these elements are different from conventional computer elements, it is reasonable that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the additional elements is just a conventional computer performing generic functions (e.g., data analysis and data transfer). Conventional computer elements performing basic data analysis is directed to the components of a system amounting to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the abstract idea as identified above, and merely including instructions to implement abstract ideas on a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception into a Practical Application. Furthermore, the sensor is used as an additional element as mere insignificant pre-solution for data-gathering, and is considered a nominal or tangential addition to the claims as they do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim, and is therefore not considered practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2-7 do not further recite additional elements which practically integrate the judicial exception(s) of the current invention.
Step 2b)
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than
simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the
claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed
abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at
1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more
than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct.
at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features'
to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id.
(quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more
than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited sensor, control unit and processor are recognized as generic computer interfaces and generic computers (or computer components), because the claims do not describe these features as having distinguishing element(s) over their generic counterparts, which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry
As shown in the reference as taught by Rabinovich (US 20180184920 A1) used in the rejection below, which teaches a sensor device comprising a sensor configured to detect reflected light from a sensing target or transmitted light of the sensing target (figure 5, PPG sensor 100), control unit (figure 5, processor/control unit 92) and processor (figure 5, processor/control unit 92).
Additionally, Rothkopf (US 20160058375 A1) used in the rejection below, teaches a sensor device comprising a sensor (PPG sensor, paragraph 0022), control unit (paragraph 0286) and processor (processing unit 102, paragraph 0085).
Thus, the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus claims 1-8 are not patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
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(s) 1, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20180184920 A1 – hereinafter Rabinovich) in view of Arnold (US 20160007934 A1 – hereinafter Arnold).
Re. claim 1, Rabinovich teaches a sensor device (abstract – “The wearable includes a pressure sensor array for monitoring blood pressure, means for attaching the pressure sensor to a user's body for measuring a region, a processor operative to record pressure signals from said sensor array and to calculate quality of pressure sensor contact to measurement area score, and a display operative to determine and display the quality of the placement and contact of the pressure sensor”) comprising:
a sensor configured to detect reflected light from a sensing target or transmitted light of the sensing target (figure 5, PPG sensor 100, which are known to detect reflected light to measure blood flow; paragraph 0075 – “…a light source and a photodetector to form a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor…”);
PNG
media_image1.png
464
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a control unit configured to cause the sensor to perform sensing and receive a detection signal from the sensor (figure 5, processor/control unit 92 which couples to PPG sensor 100 and pressure sensor 98 to receive their data);
PNG
media_image2.png
464
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a processor configured to determine presence or absence of the sensing target based on a detection signal of the sensor (figure 5, pressure sensor 98 and PPG sensor 100 couple to a sensor contact user feedback 95, which is a part of the processor/control unit 92 shown above; paragraph 0096 – “The placement and contact quality metric (i.e. validity score, quality score or simply score) 168 output from the pulse analysis system 166 is displayed via display 172 for the user as a number 178 between zero and one hundred…a score is provided for each individual sensor in the array”; paragraph 0116 – “If the sensor measures close to standard human skin temperature, then the cause for poor signal reception is incorrect placement (i.e. anatomical) of the wristband indicating that the pressure sensors are not located optimally above the artery”),
PNG
media_image3.png
396
706
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and obtain biometric information of the sensing target based on fluctuations in the detection signal over a certain period of time (paragraph 0075 – “The optical (e.g., PPG) sensor or sensors may be used to compute various health metrics including, without limitation, heart rate, a respiration rate, blood oxygenation level, blood volume estimate, blood pressure, or a combination thereof”, all of which are known to fluctuate over time; figure 5, processor/control unit 92 which couples to PPG sensor 100 and pressure sensor 98 to receive their data),
wherein the control unit is configured to cause the sensor to perform first sensing (figure 10, blood pressure/pulse detection step 194 after receiving sensor data 190; paragraph 0101 – “If no blood pressure signal is detected by blood pressure detection (step 194), the pressure waveform 221, and systolic/diastolic blood pressure data is not displayed. Rather, feedback is provided to the user (step 206)”);
and the control unit is configured to cause the sensor to perform second sensing when the processor determines the presence of the sensing target during the first sensing (paragraph 0102 – “In the event that blood pressure/pulse was detected (step 194), a quality metric is calculated reflecting a measure of the quality of the placement and contact of the device on the user (step 196). If the quality metric is below a threshold (step 198), negative feedback is provided to the user as described supra (step 206) and the method ends. If the quality metric is above a threshold, then positive feedback is provided to the user (e.g., the score 178 is displayed) (step 199) and the method proceeds with processing the sensor data (step 200)”).
PNG
media_image4.png
754
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Rabinovich does not explicitly teach power consumption during the first sensing is less than power consumption during the second sensing.
Arnold teaches a similar wearable sensor device (Arnold abstract – “Aspects of generating movement measures that quantify motion data samples generated by a wearable electronic device are discussed herein”; figure 10A).
PNG
media_image5.png
344
422
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Arnold further teaches first sensing PPG signals (Arnold paragraph 0170), wherein power consumption of the first sensing is less than power consumption during the second sensing (Arnold paragraph 0172 – “At reference 812, responsive to a state of the user, as tracked by the wearable electronic device, transitioning into an asleep state, the wearable electronic device increases power consumption of at least one of the photoplethysmographic sensor and motion sensor. As previously described, the increasing of the power consumption provides additional PPG data or motion data for sleep stage detection”, allowing for increased power consumption at a second sensing, or additional PPG data sensing).
Rabinovich and Arnold all teach within the field of wearable sensor devices, specifically with PPG sensors as stated above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device of Rabinovich, to incorporate the increased power consumption at a second/additional PPG data sensing as taught by Arnold, since such modification would predictably result in, for example, “to achieve a better estimate of the heart rate variability” (Arnold paragraph 0166).
Re. claim 5, the combined invention of Rabinovich and Arnold (hereinafter the combined invention) further teaches wherein the biometric information is indicative of a breathing rate or a pulse rate (Rabinovich paragraph 0075 – “The optical (e.g., PPG) sensor or sensors may be used to compute various health metrics including, without limitation, heart rate, a respiration rate, blood oxygenation level, blood volume estimate, blood pressure, or a combination thereof”).
PNG
media_image6.png
464
403
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 8, Rabinovich teaches a sensing method for a sensor device (abstract – “The wearable includes a pressure sensor array for monitoring blood pressure, means for attaching the pressure sensor to a user's body for measuring a region, a processor operative to record pressure signals from said sensor array and to calculate quality of pressure sensor contact to measurement area score, and a display operative to determine and display the quality of the placement and contact of the pressure sensor”) comprising:
a sensor configured to detect reflected light from a sensing target or transmitted light of the sensing target (figure 5, PPG sensor 100, which are known to detect reflected light to measure blood flow; paragraph 0075 – “…a light source and a photodetector to form a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor…”);
PNG
media_image1.png
464
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a control unit configured to cause the sensor to perform sensing and receive a detection signal from the sensor (figure 5, processor/control unit 92 which couples to PPG sensor 100 and pressure sensor 98 to receive their data);
PNG
media_image2.png
464
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a processor configured to determine presence or absence of the sensing target based on a detection signal of the sensor (figure 5, pressure sensor 98 and PPG sensor 100 couple to a sensor contact user feedback 95, which is a part of the processor/control unit 92 shown above; paragraph 0096 – “The placement and contact quality metric (i.e. validity score, quality score or simply score) 168 output from the pulse analysis system 166 is displayed via display 172 for the user as a number 178 between zero and one hundred…a score is provided for each individual sensor in the array”; paragraph 0116 – “If the sensor measures close to standard human skin temperature, then the cause for poor signal reception is incorrect placement (i.e. anatomical) of the wristband indicating that the pressure sensors are not located optimally above the artery”),
PNG
media_image3.png
396
706
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and obtain biometric information of the sensing target based on fluctuations in the detection signal over a certain period of time (paragraph 0075 – “The optical (e.g., PPG) sensor or sensors may be used to compute various health metrics including, without limitation, heart rate, a respiration rate, blood oxygenation level, blood volume estimate, blood pressure, or a combination thereof”, all of which are known to fluctuate over time; figure 5, processor/control unit 92 which couples to PPG sensor 100 and pressure sensor 98 to receive their data),
the method comprising:
causing by the control unit the sensor to perform first sensing (figure 10, blood pressure/pulse detection step 194 after receiving sensor data 190; paragraph 0101 – “If no blood pressure signal is detected by blood pressure detection (step 194), the pressure waveform 221, and systolic/diastolic blood pressure data is not displayed. Rather, feedback is provided to the user (step 206)”);
and causing by the control unit the sensor to perform second sensing when the processor determines the presence of the sensing target during the first sensing (paragraph 0102 – “In the event that blood pressure/pulse was detected (step 194), a quality metric is calculated reflecting a measure of the quality of the placement and contact of the device on the user (step 196). If the quality metric is below a threshold (step 198), negative feedback is provided to the user as described supra (step 206) and the method ends. If the quality metric is above a threshold, then positive feedback is provided to the user (e.g., the score 178 is displayed) (step 199) and the method proceeds with processing the sensor data (step 200)”);
PNG
media_image4.png
754
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Rabinovich does not explicitly teach wherein power consumption during the first sensing is less than power consumption during the second sensing.
Arnold teaches a similar wearable sensor device (Arnold abstract – “Aspects of generating movement measures that quantify motion data samples generated by a wearable electronic device are discussed herein”; figure 10A).
Arnold further teaches first sensing PPG signals (Arnold paragraph 0170), wherein power consumption of the first sensing is less than power consumption during the second sensing (Arnold paragraph 0172 – “At reference 812, responsive to a state of the user, as tracked by the wearable electronic device, transitioning into an asleep state, the wearable electronic device increases power consumption of at least one of the photoplethysmographic sensor and motion sensor. As previously described, the increasing of the power consumption provides additional PPG data or motion data for sleep stage detection”, allowing for increased power consumption at a second sensing, or additional PPG data).
Rabinovich and Arnold all teach within the field of wearable sensor devices, specifically with PPG sensors as stated above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device of Rabinovich, to incorporate the increased power consumption at a second/additional PPG data sensing as taught by Arnold, since such modification would predictably result in, for example, “to achieve a better estimate of the heart rate variability” (Arnold paragraph 0166).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20180184920 A1 – hereinafter Rabinovich) in view of Arnold (US 20160007934 A1 – hereinafter Arnold), in further view of Mollicone (US 20130053656 A1 - hereinafter Mollicone).
Re. claim 2, the combined invention of Rabinovich and Arnold (hereinafter the combined invention) further teaches a transmission unit configured to receive the detection signal and transmits the detection signal to an external device (Rabinovich figure 5, communications module 108 which transmits data to external device 120),
PNG
media_image7.png
464
704
media_image7.png
Greyscale
But does not explicitly teach wherein the transmission unit is configured to operate in low power mode; and the transmission unit is configured to operate in normal power mode when the processor detects a fluctuation in the detection signal.
Mollicone teaches a similar wearable sensor device (Mollicone paragraph 0047 – “…a device 200 is a wrist-worn device that monitors physical motion, such as an actigraph. In addition, device 200 may record light levels, on-wrist/off-wrist state, heart rate, or other physiological variables”; figure 2) for sensing heart rate (Mollicone paragraph 0049 – “…device 200 is also capable of receiving one or more physiological parameters from subject 101a, 101n, such as heart rate, temperature, and/or the like”).
PNG
media_image8.png
462
354
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Mollicone further teaches a transmission unit (Mollicone paragraph 0050 – “…a wireless data transmitter…”) configured to operate in low power mode (Mollicone paragraph 0050 – “Systems for transferring data from the sensor to the computer may include a wireless data transmitter with that can be configured in a low power operation mode, operation mode, a searching for a connection to a wireless data receiver mode, and a transmitting data with a wireless data receiver mode”),
And the transmission unit is configured to operate in normal power mode when the processor detects a fluctuation in the detection signal (Mollicone teaches transitioning from a low-power mode to a searching for a connection and transmitting data mode in paragraph 0050 – “Transition to the searching for a connection mode may occur at connection polling interval… If a connection while the wireless transmitter is in searching for a connection mode, then the sensor may transmit data that has not yet been confirmed uploaded to the computer… In between communication-establishing polling attempts, the wireless transmitter may advantageously enter a low-power mode to reduce energy consumption”).
The combined invention and Mollicone all teach within the field of wearable sensor devices, as stated above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device of the combined invention, specifically the transmission unit, to incorporate the low-power and transition to normal power mode data transfer as taught by Mollicone, since such modification would predictably result in, for example, to allow reduced energy consumption (Mollicone paragraph 0050 – “…the wireless transmitter may advantageously enter a low-power mode to reduce energy consumption”).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20180184920 A1 – hereinafter Rabinovich) in view of Arnold (US 20160007934 A1 – hereinafter Arnold), in further view of Joe (US 20200146630 A1 – hereinafter Joe).
Re. claim 3, the combined invention of Rabinovich and Arnold (hereinafter the combined invention) further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to cause the sensor to periodically perform the first sensing until the processor determines the presence of the sensing target (Rabinovich paragraph 0101 – “If no blood pressure signal is detected by blood pressure detection (step 194), the pressure waveform 221, and systolic/diastolic blood pressure data is not displayed. Rather, feedback is provided to the user (step 206)”; paragraph 0102 – “In the event that blood pressure/pulse was detected (step 194), a quality metric is calculated reflecting a measure of the quality of the placement and contact of the device on the user (step 196)”);
PNG
media_image9.png
754
458
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The combined invention does not explicitly teach the first sensing is performed by a first period; and the second sensing is performed by a second period.
Joe similarly teaches a wearable sensor device (Joe paragraph 0091 – “Referring to FIG. 4, the electronic device 401 may be a wearable electronic device in a watch or band form. For example, the electronic device 401 may include a housing 410, a touch screen display 420 (e.g., the touch screen display 260), and a fastening structure 430”; figure 4).
PNG
media_image10.png
502
300
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Joe further teaches the first sensing is performed by a first period and the second sensing is performed by a second period (Joe paragraph 0288 – “According to FIGS. 13A and 13B described above, the electronic device may calculate the signal value of the PPG sensor, which was initially measured, for a specified period of time, may then automatically adjust the distance between the electronic device and a body part of the user such that the straps of the electronic device come into tighter contact with the users skin, may measure a signal value of the PPG signal again for a specified period of time…”, shown in the flowchart of figure 13A).
PNG
media_image11.png
424
346
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The combined invention and Joe all teach within the field of wearable sensor devices as stated above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device of the combined invention, specifically the control unit, to incorporate the first and second sensing periods as taught by Joe, since such modification would predictably result in accurately measuring desired signals from a sensor by comparison of sensed signals.
The newly combined invention including Joe teaches the first and second PPG sensing for specified periods of time as stated above, but does not explicitly teach the second sensing period, which is longer than the first period.
However, Joe teaches that the specified period of time for sensing may be 3 seconds or 60 seconds (Joe paragraph 0257 – “…the specified period of time may be determined in consideration of the pulse period of the user. For example, the specified period of time may be 3 seconds or 60 seconds”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try modifying the newly combined invention including Joe, specifically the first and second sensing periods of time, to try incorporating the first sensing performed by a first period of 3 seconds, and the second sensing performed by a second period of 60 seconds, which is longer than the first period, as taught by Joe, since such modification would predictably result in accurately measuring desired signals from a sensor by comparison of sensed signals.
Re. claim 4, the newly combined invention including Joe further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to cause the sensor to continuously perform the second sensing until the processor determines that there is no sensing target (Rabinovich paragraph 0094 – “…the pulse analysis system 166 is operative to compute a continuous metric (or score) related to the quality of placement and contact, where zero represents no discernible contact, and 100 represents optimal contact”; figure 10 shows the flowchart for the sensor to sense until no data is detected in step 194, paragraph 0101 – “If no blood pressure signal is detected by blood pressure detection (step 194), the pressure waveform 221, and systolic/diastolic blood pressure data is not displayed. Rather, feedback is provided to the user (step 206)”).
PNG
media_image9.png
754
458
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20180184920 A1 – hereinafter Rabinovich) in view of Arnold (US 20160007934 A1 – hereinafter Arnold), in further view of Uchida (US 20230005291 A1 – hereinafter Uchida) and Park (US 20200390344 A1 – hereinafter Park).
Re. claim 6, the combined invention of Rabinovich and Arnold (hereinafter the combined invention) further teaches the known element of a light source used in PPG sensors (Rabinovich paragraph 0075 – “…a light source and a photodetector to form a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor …”), but does not explicitly teach the sensor comprises: a plurality of units arranged in a one-dimensional or two-dimensional array; each of the plurality of units comprises: a photodiode configured to generates a current in response to the reflected light or the transmitted light wherein an end of the photodiode is connected to an output terminal of the unit; and a capacitor charged by the current.
Uchida teaches a similar sensor device (Uchida paragraph 0019 – “…a sensor unit 10…”; figure 2),
PNG
media_image12.png
732
462
media_image12.png
Greyscale
And further teaches a plurality of units arranged in a one-dimensional or two-dimensional array (Uchida figures 3-4, partial detection regions PAA), each comprising a photodiode (PD) (Uchida figures 3-4; paragraph 033 – “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the sensor unit 10 includes a plurality of partial detection regions PAA arrayed in a matrix having a row-column configuration. As illustrated in FIG. 4, each partial detection region PAA includes a photodiode PD…”),
PNG
media_image13.png
660
514
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Each photodiode configured to generate a current in response to the reflected light or the transmitted light (Uchida paragraph 0023 – “Each photodiode PD included in the sensor unit 10 outputs an electric signal…”; paragraph 0035 – “…current in accordance with the quantity of the light flows to the photodiode PD…”),
wherein an end of the photodiode is connected to an output terminal of the unit (Uchida paragraph 0021 – “The detection region AA is a region overlapping a plurality of photodiodes PD (refer to FIG. 4) included in the sensor unit 10”; paragraph 0023 – “Each photodiode PD included in the sensor unit 10 outputs an electric signal…”; paragraph 0026 – “Accordingly, the signal line selection circuit 16 outputs the detection signal Vdet of each corresponding photodiode PD to the detector 40”),
and a capacitor charged by the current (Uchida paragraph 0033 – “As illustrated in FIG. 4, each partial detection region PAA includes a photodiode PD, a capacitor Ca…”; paragraph 0035 – “When the partial detection region PAA is irradiated with light, current in accordance with the quantity of the light flows to the photodiode PD, and accordingly, electric charge is accumulated in the capacitor Ca”).
The combined invention and Uchida all teach within the field of sensor devices, as stated above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device of the combined invention, to incorporate the plurality of units comprising the photodiodes and capacitors, as taught by Uchida, since such modification would predictably result in measuring biometric information such as fingerprint detection (Uchida paragraphs 0002, 0019).
The newly combined invention including Uchida does not explicitly teach a first transistor configured to set a voltage at the end of the photodiode to a reset voltage; a second transistor configured to flow a constant current in accordance with a charged voltage of the capacitor; and a third transistor configured to be conductive for a certain period of time and output the constant current from the unit.
Park similarly teaches a sensor device (Park paragraph 0002 - “Embodiments relate to a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor and a method of operating the same”; figure 1 diagram of PPG sensor 1).
PNG
media_image14.png
588
386
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Park further teaches PPG sensor 1 comprises a plurality of units as a pixel array 100 (Park figure 1), which comprises three transistors and a photodiode (Park paragraph 0019 – “…the pixel array 100 may be implemented as a three-transistor active pixel sensor (3-Tr APS) in which one pixel includes three transistors and one photodiode”).
Furthermore, it is reminded that the term “configured to” in the claim(s) may be interpreted as intended use. Intended use/functional language does not require that references teach or disclose the intended use of an element. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP section 2114. II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART. Therefore, it is interpreted that Park sufficiently teaches the structural elements of the claim.
The newly combined invention including Uchida and Park all teach within the field of sensor devices, as stated above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device of the newly combined invention including Uchida, to incorporate the known elements of three transistors, as taught by Park as stated above, since such modification would predictably result in allowing current flow from the photodiodes to an output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art searched and prior art of record fails to anticipate and/or render obvious to claim 7 in its entirety, including to at least to the first transistor including a first metal oxide semiconductor type field effect transistor (MOSFET) connected between a terminal of the reset voltage and the end of the photodiode; the capacitor connected in parallel to the photodiode; the second transistor including a second MOSFET; a gate of the second MOSFET is connected to the end of the photodiode; and the third transistor including a third MOSFET connected between the second MOSFET and the output terminal.
As stated above in claim 6, the combined invention of Rabinovich (US 20180184920 A1 – hereinafter Rabinovich) in view of Arnold (US 20160007934 A1 – hereinafter Arnold), in further view of Uchida (US 20230005291 A1 – hereinafter Uchida) and Park (US 20200390344 A1 – hereinafter Park) teaches the capacitor (Uchida paragraph 0033 – “As illustrated in FIG. 4, each partial detection region PAA includes a photodiode PD, a capacitor Ca…”; paragraph 0035 – “When the partial detection region PAA is irradiated with light, current in accordance with the quantity of the light flows to the photodiode PD, and accordingly, electric charge is accumulated in the capacitor Ca”) and the three transistors of the sensor device along with a photodiode in the pixel array 100 (Park paragraph 0019 – “…the pixel array 100 may be implemented as a three-transistor active pixel sensor (3-Tr APS) in which one pixel includes three transistors and one photodiode”), however none of the references, alone or in combination, further teach the elements of claim 7 in its entirety as stated above.
Prior art searched includes Bartling (US 20170202465 A1 – hereinafter Bartling) which similarly teaches a sensor device (abstract – “A pulse oximetry measurement system uses a pseudo-random noise generator to stimulate one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs)”) comprising a pulse oximetry measurement system 100 (Bartling figure 1),
PNG
media_image15.png
544
736
media_image15.png
Greyscale
And further teaches a light sensor 120, MOSFET switches 124, 126, and a bipolar transistor (Bartling paragraph 003 – “at least one light sensor (e.g., photodiode, phototransistor) 120, a current sensing resistor 122, and switches 124 and 126, e.g., metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET), bipolar transistor”), but does not expressly render obvious to at least the three MOSFET transistors, capacitor connected in parallel to the photodiode, a gate of the second MOSFET is connected to the end of the photodiode, and the third MOSFET connected between the second MOSFET and the output terminal as required by claim 7 stated above.
Other prior art includes Greene (US 20180271401 A1 – hereinafter Greene) which teaches a system for identifying RFID tags (Greene paragraph 0002) which uses a MOFSET transistor 116 and photodiodes 118, however Greene does not pertain to any analogous sensor device, and Greene similarly further fails to anticipate and/or render obvious to the three MOSFET transistors, capacitor connected in parallel to the photodiode, a gate of the second MOSFET is connected to the end of the photodiode, and the third MOSFET connected between the second MOSFET and the output terminal as required by claim 7 stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anh-Khoa N. Dinh whose telephone number is (571)272-7041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-4:00pm 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, CARL LAYNO can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/ANH-KHOA N DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 3796