fantaDETAILED 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
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 06/13/2025.
Examiner notes that Attorney of Record Roger Sampson (Reg. no. 44314) was contacted 08/11/2025 and 01/23/2026 to respond to the interview request made in the remarks. During the first call applicant’s counsel requested examiner call after examination has been completed. Examiner subsequently called to inquire about the interview request after examination but before the mailing of this office action. Applicant’s counsel requested any potential interview to be postponed until after receiving this office action.
The amendments filed on 06/13/2025 have been entered. Applicant has canceled claims 5, 8, 12, 20, 23, and 27. Accordingly claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-19, 21-22, 24-26, and 28-30 remain pending. Claims 1, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21-22, 24-25, and 28 are presently amended.
The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments to claims 7, 9, 13, 15, 19, 21-22, 24-25 and the canceling of claims 8, 20, 23.
The previous rejections of claims 12 and 27 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of applicant's canceling of claims 12 and 27.
The previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/13/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of the amended claims have been fully considered and are persuasive, in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of newly discovered prior art Yang et al. Examiner notes that Kitchens is not relied on to teach the amended limitation argued by applicant pertaining to the off time interval. Examiner also notes that applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action. The claim amendments incorporated elements of previously pending dependent claims 5 and 8 which were not previously examined in combination. These amendments result in a scope change that changes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
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:
“receiver system” in claim 28 and all dependents thereof;
“control means” in claim 28 and all dependents thereof.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Regarding the “receiver system” the specification discloses “the receiver system 102, is, or includes, an ultrasonic receiver system.” ([0032] of instant specification). Therefore, the means-plus-function limitation of “receiver system” has been interpreted as ultrasonic receiver or any equivalents thereof in light of the specification.
Regarding the “control means” the specification discloses “The control system 106 may include one or more general purpose single- or multi-chip processors, digital signal processors (DSPs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) or other programmable logic devices, discrete gates or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or combinations thereof. The control system 106 also may include (and/or be configured for communication with) one or more memory devices, such as one or more random access memory (RAM) devices, read-only memory (ROM) devices, etc.” ([0043] of instant specification). Therefore, the means-plus-function limitation of “control means” has been interpreted as processor (associated algorithm is provided in the form of a flow diagram in e.g., Fig. 7 and in prose at least in [0088]-[0092]) or any equivalents thereof in light of the specification.
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 § 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.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-19, 21-22, 24-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitchens et al. (US 2022/0175258, June 9, 2022, hereinafter “Kitchens”) in view of Yang et al. (US 2022/0287758, September 15, 2022).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Kitchens discloses a method and corresponding one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (“disclosed methods” Abstract; [0019]), comprising:
controlling, by a control system, a light source system to direct two or more pulse groups of light towards a target object during a total light transmission time interval, wherein a pulse repetition frequency (PRF) of light pulses in a pulse group of the two or more pulse groups is in a range from 0.5 to 200 kilohertz (includes a pulse repetition frequency within this range, see “Other examples may involve other pulse repetition frequencies that are in a range between 10 Hz and 100 kHz, e.g., in a range between 50 Hz and 1000 Hz” [0103]; also see Fig., 8, reproduced below, and corresponding description, examiner notes that e.g., the first pulse group would be pulses 802a-e and the second pulse group would be pulses 802f-j), the target object being part of a human or animal body (“disclosed methods involve controlling, via a control system, a light source system to emit a plurality of light pulses into biological tissue at a pulse repetition frequency, the biological tissue including blood and blood vessels at depths within the biological tissue” Abstract; also see light pulses 802a, 802b, and 802n in [0103] and description of “at least a first subset [group] of the plurality of light pulses” in [0174], [0180] and “at least a second subset [group] of the plurality of light pulses” in [0184]);
PNG
media_image1.png
486
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receiving, by the control system and from an ultrasonic receiver system, acoustic signals corresponding to photoacoustic (PA) responses of a target object to the two or more pulse groups (“receiving, by the control system, signals from the piezoelectric receiver corresponding to acoustic waves emitted from portions of the biological tissue, the acoustic waves corresponding to photoacoustic emissions from the blood and the blood vessels caused by the plurality of light pulses” Abstract); and
determining, by the control system, one or more heart rate waveforms of the human or animal body based on the acoustic signals (“detecting, by the control system, heart rate waveforms in the signals, determining, by the control system, a first subset of detected heart rate waveforms corresponding to vein heart rate waveforms and determining, by the control system, a second subset of detected heart rate waveforms corresponding to artery heart rate waveforms.” Abstract).
Kitchens fails to disclose each pulse group time interval within the total light transmission time interval being separated from a successive pulse group time interval by an off time interval during which no light is being transmitted towards the target object, wherein each off time interval is in a range from 2 to 5 seconds.
However, Yang teaches in the same field of endeavor, each pulse group time interval within the total light transmission time interval being separated from a successive pulse group time interval by an off time interval during which no light is being transmitted towards the target object, wherein each off time interval is in a range from 2 to 5 seconds (“a pulse train was delivered with 33% duty cycle (2 s laser on, 4 s laser off) for 30 min. For EMG recording, a pulse train of 2 seconds was delivered.” [0195]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kitchens with each pulse group time interval within the total light transmission time interval being separated from a successive pulse group time interval by an off time interval during which no light is being transmitted towards the target object, wherein each off time interval is in a range from 2 to 5 seconds as taught by Yang in order to limit unnecessary light exposure to a subject.
Regarding claim 17, Kitchens discloses an apparatus (“One innovative aspect of the subject matter described in this disclosure can be implemented in an apparatus, or in a system that includes the apparatus.” [0005]), comprising:
a light source system (“The apparatus may include an ultrasonic receiver (e.g., a piezoelectric receiver), a light source system and a control system.” [0005]);
an ultrasonic receiver system (“The apparatus may include an ultrasonic receiver (e.g., a piezoelectric receiver), a light source system and a control system.” [0005]); and
a control comprising one or more general purpose single- or multi-chip processors, digital signal processors (DSPs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) or other programmable logic devices, discrete gates or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or combinations thereof (“The apparatus may include an ultrasonic receiver (e.g., a piezoelectric receiver), a light source system and a control system.” [0005]), the control system being configured for electrical communication with the light source system (“The control system may be configured for controlling the light source system to emit a plurality of light pulses into biological tissue at the pulse repetition frequency.” [0006]) and the receiver system (“The control system may be configured for receiving signals from the piezoelectric receiver corresponding to acoustic waves emitted from portions of the biological tissue.” [0007]), the control system being further configured to:
control the light source system to direct two or more pulse groups of light towards a target object during a total light transmission time interval (“disclosed methods involve controlling, via a control system, a light source system to emit a plurality of light pulses into biological tissue at a pulse repetition frequency, the biological tissue including blood and blood vessels at depths within the biological tissue” Abstract; also see “at least a first subset [group] of the plurality of light pulses” in [0174] and “at least a second subset [group] of the plurality of light pulses” in [0184]), wherein a pulse repetition frequency (PRF) of light pulses in a pulse group of the two or more pulse groups is in a range from 0.5 to 200 kilohertz (includes a pulse repetition frequency within this range, see “Other examples may involve other pulse repetition frequencies that are in a range between 10 Hz and 100 kHz, e.g., in a range between 50 Hz and 1000 Hz” [0103]; also see Fig., 8, reproduced below, and corresponding description, examiner notes that e.g., the first pulse group would be pulses 802a-e and the second pulse group would be pulses 802f-j), the target object being part of a human or animal body (“the biological tissue including blood and blood vessels at depths within the biological tissue” Abstract);
PNG
media_image2.png
366
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
receive, via the receiver system, receiver signals corresponding to acoustic waves caused by photoacoustic (PA) responses of a target object to the two or more pulse groups (“receiving, by the control system, signals from the piezoelectric receiver corresponding to acoustic waves emitted from portions of the biological tissue, the acoustic waves corresponding to photoacoustic emissions from the blood and the blood vessels caused by the plurality of light pulses” Abstract); and
determine one or more heart rate waveforms of the human or animal body based on the receiver signals (“detecting, by the control system, heart rate waveforms in the signals, determining, by the control system, a first subset of detected heart rate waveforms corresponding to vein heart rate waveforms and determining, by the control system, a second subset of detected heart rate waveforms corresponding to artery heart rate waveforms.” Abstract).
Kitchens fails to disclose each pulse group time interval within the total light transmission time interval being separated from a successive pulse group time interval by an off time interval during which no light is being transmitted towards the target object, wherein each off time interval is in a range from 2 to 5 seconds.
However, Yang teaches in the same field of endeavor, disclose each pulse group time interval within the total light transmission time interval being separated from a successive pulse group time interval by an off time interval during which no light is being transmitted towards the target object, wherein each off time interval is in a range from 2 to 5 seconds (“a pulse train was delivered with 33% duty cycle (2 s laser on, 4 s laser off) for 30 min. For EMG recording, a pulse train of 2 seconds was delivered.” [0195]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kitchens with disclose each pulse group time interval within the total light transmission time interval being separated from a successive pulse group time interval by an off time interval during which no light is being transmitted towards the target object, wherein each off time interval is in a range from 2 to 5 seconds as taught by Yang in order to limit unnecessary light exposure to a subject.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Kitchens further discloses estimating one or more cardiac features based, at least in part, on the one or more heart rate waveforms (“the control system may be further configured for extracting heart rate waveform features from the heart rate waveforms. According to some such implementations, the control system may be further configured for making a blood pressure estimation based, at least in part, on extracted heart rate waveform features.” [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Kitchens further discloses wherein estimating the one or more cardiac features involves estimating blood pressure (“blood pressure estimation” [0008]).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Kitchens modified by Yang discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 17, respectively, as stated above. Yang was relied on to teach the pulse group time interval. Yang further teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein each pulse group time interval is in a range from 0.0014 to 7 seconds (“a pulse train was delivered with 33% duty cycle (2 s laser on, 4 s laser off) for 30 min. For EMG recording, a pulse train of 2 seconds was delivered.” [0195]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kitchens with wherein each pulse group time interval is in a range from 0.0014 to 7 seconds as taught by Yang in order to limit unnecessary light exposure to a subject.
Regarding claim 6, Kitchens modified by Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above but is silent on wherein the total light transmission time interval is in a range from 5 to 25 seconds because Kitchens is silent on total light transmission time. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the total light transmission time interval in a range from 5 to 25 seconds would limit unnecessary light exposure to a subject, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is also noted that the applicant has not provided criticality in the specification for the particular range claimed.
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Kitchens further discloses wherein a width of each light pulse in a pulse group of the two or more pulse groups is in a range from 50 to 500 nanoseconds (“the light pulses 802a, 802b and 802n may have a duration that is in the range of 50 nanoseconds to 500 nanoseconds” [0103]).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Kitchens further discloses wherein each light pulse in a pulse group of the two or more pulse groups has a peak amplitude in a wavelength range from 600 to 1064 nanometers (“the wavelength(s) of light emitted by the light source system 204 to be in the range of 750 to 850 nm, e.g., 808 nm” [0070]).
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Kitchens modified by Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yang further teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein an exposure duration equals one pulse group time interval plus one off time interval (a pulse train was delivered with 33% duty cycle (2 s laser on, 4 s laser off) for 30 min [0195]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kitchens with wherein an exposure duration equals one pulse group time interval plus one off time interval as taught by Yang in order to limit unnecessary light exposure to a subject.
Regarding claims 11 and 26, Kitchens modified by Yang discloses the limitations of claims 10 and 25, respectively, as stated above but is silent on wherein an average optical power density during the exposure duration is in a range from 0.01-1.00 W/cm2 because Kitchens is silent on the average optical power density. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an average optical power density during the exposure duration in a range from 0.01-1.00 W/cm2 would limit unnecessary light exposure to a subject, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is also noted that the applicant has not provided criticality in the specification for the particular range claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Kitchens modified by Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yang was relied on to teach the off time interval and each pulse group time interval. Yang further teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the off time interval is greater than each pulse group time interval (“a pulse train was delivered with 33% duty cycle (2 s laser on, 4 s laser off) for 30 min.” [0195]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kitchens with wherein the off time interval is greater than each pulse group time interval as taught by Yang in order to limit unnecessary light exposure to a subject.
Regarding claim 14, Kitchens modified by Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yang was relied on to teach the pulse group time interval and the off time interval. Although Yang suggests wherein an exposure duration equals one pulse group time interval plus one off time interval and wherein a ratio of off time interval to pulse group time interval is such that over exposure duration the optical power density is below a threshold (“pulse train was delivered with 33% duty cycle (2 s laser on, 4 s laser off) for 30 min” [0195]), Kitchens modified by Yang is silent on wherein a ratio of off time interval to pulse group time interval is such that over the exposure duration the average optical power density is below a threshold.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a ratio of off time interval to pulse group time interval being such that over the exposure duration the average optical power density is below a threshold because doing so would limit unnecessary light exposure to a subject, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is also noted that the applicant has not provided criticality in the specification for the particular range claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Kitchens further discloses wherein the control system is further configured to estimate one or more cardiac features based, at least in part, on the one or more heart rate waveforms, wherein estimating the one or more cardiac features involves estimating blood pressure (“the control system may be further configured for extracting heart rate waveform features from the heart rate waveforms. According to some such implementations, the control system may be further configured for making a blood pressure estimation based, at least in part, on extracted heart rate waveform features.” [0008]).
Regarding claim 21, Kitchens modified by Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above but is silent on wherein the total light transmission time interval is in a range from 9 to 25 seconds because Kitchens is silent on total light transmission time. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the total light transmission time interval in a range from 9 to 25 seconds would limit unnecessary light exposure to a subject, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is also noted that the applicant has not provided criticality in the specification for the particular range claimed.
Regarding claim 28, Kitchens discloses an apparatus (“One innovative aspect of the subject matter described in this disclosure can be implemented in an apparatus, or in a system that includes the apparatus.” [0005]), comprising:
a light source system (“The apparatus may include an ultrasonic receiver (e.g., a piezoelectric receiver), a light source system and a control system.” [0005]);
a receiver system (“The apparatus may include an ultrasonic receiver (e.g., a piezoelectric receiver), a light source system and a control system.” [0005]); and
control means (“The apparatus may include an ultrasonic receiver (e.g., a piezoelectric receiver), a light source system and a control system.” [0005]) for:
controlling the light source system to direct two or more pulse groups of light towards a target object during a total light transmission time interval (“disclosed methods involve controlling, via a control system, a light source system to emit a plurality of light pulses into biological tissue at a pulse repetition frequency, the biological tissue including blood and blood vessels at depths within the biological tissue” Abstract; also see “at least a first subset [group] of the plurality of light pulses” in [0174] and “at least a second subset [group] of the plurality of light pulses” in [0184]), wherein a pulse repetition frequency (PRF) of light pulses in a pulse group of the two or more pulse groups is in a range from 0.5 to 200 kilohertz (includes a pulse repetition frequency within this range, see “Other examples may involve other pulse repetition frequencies that are in a range between 10 Hz and 100 kHz, e.g., in a range between 50 Hz and 1000 Hz” [0103]; also see Fig., 8, reproduced below, and corresponding description, examiner notes that e.g., the first pulse group would be pulses 802a-e and the second pulse group would be pulses 802f-j) the target object being part of a human or animal body (“the biological tissue including blood and blood vessels at depths within the biological tissue” Abstract);
PNG
media_image2.png
366
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
receiving, via the receiver system, acoustic signals corresponding to photoacoustic (PA) responses of a target object to the two or more pulse groups (“receiving, by the control system, signals from the piezoelectric receiver corresponding to acoustic waves emitted from portions of the biological tissue, the acoustic waves corresponding to photoacoustic emissions from the blood and the blood vessels caused by the plurality of light pulses” Abstract); and
determining one or more heart rate waveforms of the human or animal body based on the acoustic signals (“detecting, by the control system, heart rate waveforms in the signals, determining, by the control system, a first subset of detected heart rate waveforms corresponding to vein heart rate waveforms and determining, by the control system, a second subset of detected heart rate waveforms corresponding to artery heart rate waveforms.” Abstract).
Kitchens fails to disclose each pulse group time interval within the total light transmission time interval being separated from a successive pulse group time interval by an off time interval during which no light is being transmitted towards the target object, wherein each off time interval is in a range from 2 to 5 seconds.
However, Yang teaches in the same field of endeavor, each pulse group time interval within the total light transmission time interval being separated from a successive pulse group time interval by an off time interval during which no light is being transmitted towards the target object, wherein each off time interval is in a range from 2 to 5 seconds (“a pulse train was delivered with 33% duty cycle (2 s laser on, 4 s laser off) for 30 min. For EMG recording, a pulse train of 2 seconds was delivered.” [0195]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kitchens with each pulse group time interval within the total light transmission time interval being separated from a successive pulse group time interval by an off time interval during which no light is being transmitted towards the target object, wherein each off time interval is in a range from 2 to 5 seconds as taught by Yang in order to limit unnecessary light exposure to a subject.
Regarding claim 29, Kitchens further discloses wherein the control means includes means for estimating one or more cardiac features based, at least in part, on the one or more heart rate waveforms (“the control system may be further configured for extracting heart rate waveform features from the heart rate waveforms. According to some such implementations, the control system may be further configured for making a blood pressure estimation based, at least in part, on extracted heart rate waveform features.” [0008]).
Regarding claim 30, Kitchens further discloses wherein estimating the one or more cardiac features involves estimating blood pressure (“blood pressure estimation” [0008]).
Conclusion
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 AMINAH ASGHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0527. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, F 9am-5pm 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797