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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 6: “reflected in” should be “reflected from in”;
in claim 8, line 10: “arranged near the light source and second inclined plates” should be “arranged nearer to the light source than second inclined plates”; and
in claim 8, line 11: “more away” should be “farther away”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-9 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 6 recites “comprising a plurality of the light sources” in lines 2-3; however, it is not clear which structure (i.e., device) comprises the plurality of light sources, or if respective devices each comprise a light source. This causes additional confusion with the recitation “the light detection devices are configured to sequentially detect reflected light of light emitted by the light sources”, as it is not clear which light sources send light to which (or multiple) light detectors. This confusion renders claim 6 indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “and is configured to define an angle” in lines 6-4, but it is not clear what is configured to define the angle. It appears as if the filter is supposed to define the angle. Amending the claim to read “and the filter is configured to define an angle” would overcome the present rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claims 8-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 7.
Claim 8 recites “the first inclined plates and the second inclined plates are inclined so as to be closer to the light source as being more away from the light-receiving surface” in lines 13-15, which is grammatically awkward and generally unclear. It is further not clear how changing the incline angle would change the distance to the light source or the distance to the light receiving surface. These inconsistencies render claim 8 indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this recitation is not being given patentable weight.
Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 8.
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.
The succeeding art rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Silveira et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0230743), hereinafter Silveira.
Regarding Claim 1, Silveira teaches a medical sensor including multiple sets of optical components to obtain regional oxygen saturation measurements (see abstract and Fig. 1). Silveira teaches a transcutaneous muscle oxygen saturation detection device (see abstract and Fig. 1) comprising:
a light source configured to emit light into a body (¶[0023] and ¶[0050]-[0051] the sensor 12 with the two emitters 16A/16B, ¶[0027] the emitters 16 are configured to emit light into a tissue of a patient; Fig. 5); and
a first light detector and a second light detector that are configured to detect reflected light reflected in the body (¶[0023] and ¶[0050]-[0051] the four detectors 18A, 18B, 18D, and 18E corresponding to emitter 16A, the four detectors 18A, 18C, 18D, and 18F corresponding to emitter 16B, ¶[0027] the detectors 18 are configured to detect light after it has been reflected and/or absorbed by the blood and/or tissue of the patient; Fig. 5),
wherein the second light detector is circumferentially displaced about the light source from a first imaginary line connecting the light source to the first light detector (see labeled Fig. 5 below, approximate red lines indicating the first and second imaginary lines, and the circles indicating the circumferential displacement, 18A may be considered the first light detector and 18D may be considered the second light detector, circumferentially displaced about the light source, the emitter 16A).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Labeled Fig. 5, emitter 16A and corresponding detectors 18A, 18B, 18D, and 18E.
Regarding Claim 2, Silveira teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Silveira further teaches the light source is configured to emit red light and infrared red (¶[0034] each of the emitters 16 may include two LEDs, configured to each emit a wavelength, such as red and infrared).
Regarding Claim 3, Silveira teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Silveira further teaches a second imaginary line connecting the light source to the second light detector intersects the first imaginary line at a crossing angle of at least 5 degrees (¶[0043] and ¶[0053], the angles 128/130 may be in Fig. 5 as described in Fig. 3, such as between 10-90 degrees, 20-80 degrees, 30-70 degrees, 40-60 degrees, or between about 45-55 degrees, and may be the same or different; see also labeled Fig. 5 below).
The angle as depicted in the labeled Fig. 5 below from the red first/second imaginary lines would be dependent on the angles 128/130. As an example, if the angles are both 90 degrees, as taught by Silveira, then the angle of the red first/second imaginary lines would 90 degrees, which would be at least 5 degrees. Silveira teaches other angles that are possible, which would also be at least 5 degrees.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Labeled Fig. 5, emitter 16A and corresponding detectors 18A, 18B, 18D, and 18E.
Regarding Claim 4, Silveira teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Silveira further teaches comprising a light detection device provided with a plurality of light detectors on a substrate, wherein the light detectors comprise the first light detector and the second light detector (¶[0027] the sensor 12 may provide a sensor body 44, such as a substrate, for the emitters 16 and the detectors 18; Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Silveira teaches the device of claim 4 as stated above. Silveira further teaches comprising a plurality of the light detection devices (¶[0023] there may be two, three, four, or more sensors 12 coupled to the monitor 14; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Silveira teaches the device of claim 5 as stated above. Silveira further teaches a plurality of the light sources (¶[0023] and ¶[0050]-[0051] the sensor 12 with the two emitters 16A/16B; Fig. 5),
wherein the light detection devices are configured to sequentially detect reflected light of light emitted by the light sources (¶[0037] a time processing unit (TPU) 58 may be utilized to control the timing of the activation of the emitters 16, such that, if multiple light sources are used, the multiplexed timing for the different light sources is utilized, so that the light from each of the one or more emitters 16 may be emitted in staggered, or alternating, manner; Figs. 2 and 5). Here, as the emitter 16 activation is staggered, the light received by the detectors would also be staggered, or sequential.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silveira as applied to claim 4 above, and in view of Yamamoto et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0170852), hereinafter Yamamoto.
Regarding Claim 7, Silveira teaches the device of claim 4 as stated above. Silveira teaches that filtering may be utilized (see ¶[0037]), but does not specifically teach a filter that is located between the light detection device and the body and is configured to define an angle of the reflected light emitted from inside the body and incident on the light detectors.
Yamamoto teaches a detecting device with a first emitter/detector group for a green wavelength and a second emitter/detector group for a red/infrared wavelength (see abstract and ¶[0030]-[0038]; Fig. 2), in which the light-receiving unit 12 includes the light-receiving unit 51 includes an angle-limiting filter 511 that limits an incidence angle of the received green light, in between the body and the light-receiving element 510 (see ¶[0061]-[0063] and Fig. 4), and the light-receiving unit 12 also includes the light-receiving unit 61 includes an angle-limiting filter 611 that limits an incidence angle of the received red/IR light, in between the body and the light-receiving element 610 (see ¶[0066]-[0067] and Fig. 4), in which the angle-limiting layers 511/611 comprise a silicon oxide layer 512 that forms a light path and is inclined more than a predetermined angle (see ¶[0063]; Figs. 4 and 6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the dual receiver light receiving unit with angle-limiting filters as taught in Yamamoto with the light detectors of Silveira because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the angle-limiting filters would help to reduce noise (i.e., achieve a high S/N ratio) from stray light (i.e., SL1, SL2, SL3, and SL4) entering into the light-receiving unit 12 (see Yamamoto ¶[0078]-[0083] and ¶[0088]-[0092]; Fig. 6); and/or (3) the inclusion of green light would help to reduce noise from motion artifacts (see for example Alharbi et al., “Oxygen Saturation Measurements from Green and Orange Illuminations of Multi-Wavelength Optoelectronic Patch Sensors”, Sensors, 19, 118, published 31 December 2018, abstract).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silveira in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Uematsu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0036133), hereinafter Uematsu.
Regarding Claim 8, Silveira in view of Yamamoto teaches the device of claim 7 as stated above. The modified Silveira further teaches the filter comprises a louver (see Yamamoto ¶[0063], the silicon oxide layer 512 that forms a light path and is inclined more than a predetermined angle; Figs. 4 and 6),
the light detection device has a light-receiving surface on which the reflected light is incident (see Yamamoto ¶[0061]-[0063] and ¶[0067]-[0068], the light-receiving elements 510/610; Fig. 4),
the louver comprises a plurality of first blades that divide the light-receiving surface in a direction away from the light source, the first blades comprise first inclined plates arranged near the light source and second inclined plates that are arranged at locations more away from the light source than the first inclined plates are, the first inclined plates and the second inclined plates are inclined so as to be closer to the light source as being more away from the light-receiving surface (see Yamamoto ¶[0061]-[0063] and ¶[0067]-[0068], the silicon oxide layer 512 that forms a light path and is inclined more than a predetermined angle, the light path is perpendicular to the direction of the light source, the first inclined plates is the angle-limiting filter 511 and the second inclined plates is the angle-limiting filter 611; Figs. 4 and 6).
The modified Silveira is silent regarding that the first inclined plates are inclined at a larger angle than that of the second inclined plates.
Uematsu teaches an optical sensor that suppresses reduction of spectroscopic characteristics, including an angle limiting filter that limits an incident angle of the incident light transmitted through an optical filter (see abstract; Fig. 1), in which there may be a first angle limiting filter 41 and a second angle limiting filter 42 of intersecting blades (see ¶[0082]-[0091]; Figs. 8-9) for use with light of different wavelengths (see ¶[0091]-[0092]), in which the inclined structure 50 is formed on the angle limiting filters 41/42, and has inclined surfaces at different inclination angles in response to the transmission wavelengths of the optical bandpass filters 61/62 (see ¶[0091]-[0092]; Figs. 9-10B), in which the angle of θ2 may be greater than θ1 (see ¶[0110]-[0111]; Figs. 10A-10B). Note, that as the angle θ2 is larger, then the incline will be less than the include of θ1, as the angle is less (see Fig. 10A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the first/second angle limiting filters and inclined structure as taught in Uematsu with the first/second angle-limiting filters (i.e., 511/611) of the modified Silveira because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Silveira requires angle-limiting filters and Uematsu teaches such filters; and/or (3) such an angle-limiting filter would help to suppress reduction of spectroscopic characteristics (see Uematsu abstract and ¶[0008]).
Regarding Claim 9, Silveira in view of Yamamoto and Uematsu teaches the device of claim 8 as stated above. The modified Silveira further teaches the louver comprises a plurality of second blades extending in a direction intersecting the first blades (see Uematsu ¶[0082]-[0091], the first angle limiting filter 41 and the second angle limiting filter 42 of intersecting blades; Figs. 8-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kasahara (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0214195) teaches a flow rate measuring device including a light bending member that bends the light to be inclined on a surface of the object to be measured (see abstract and Fig. 1).
Pang et al. (WIPO Publication WO 2021/232375 A1 – citing to translation from Espacenet) teaches a blood oxygen parameter detection device with a light signal filtering modulate 320 (see abstract and Figs. 1-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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, JENNIFER M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/J.D.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791