DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Pages 8-12, filed 12/14/2025, with respect to USC 112 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Turgeon (US 2018/0156660 A1) in view of Turcott (US 7738935 B1).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turgeon (US 2018/0156660 A1) in view of Turcott (US 7738935 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 20 Turgeon discloses a physiological detection device (eg. Fig. 1-11), comprising: a first light source (eg. Fig. 1, sources 140 Fig. 3, light sources 240), configured to emit light toward a skin surface via an optical element (eg. Para. 85); and a first wavelength of the emitted light of the first light source having a first sensitivity to a motion artifact (eg. Para. 85, 101. 116 as described in the Applicant’s specification Para. 25, the emission of infrared inherently has a sensitivity to a motion artifact) a second light source (eg. Fig. 1, 3, second light source 140, 240, Para. 116), configured to emit light toward the skin surfac eand a second wavelength of the emitted light of the second light source having a second sensitivity, lower than the first sensitivity, to the motion artifact (eg. Fig. 1, 3, second light source 140, 240, Para. 116, green as described in the specification inherently has a lower sensitivity to motion artifacts) a first light sensor, configured to receive a first intensity light associated with the first light source and a second intensity light associated with the second light source from the skin surface to generate a first detection data (Eg. Fig. 1 and 3 detector 145 and 245); a second light sensor Eg. Fig. 1 and 3 detector 145 and 245), configured to receive a third intensity light associated with the first light source and the second intensity light associated with the second light source from the skin surface to generate a second detection data (eg. Para. 7, 10, 14, 17-18, Fig. 12, 44-47, 68, 71, 87, 145-147, 150-152, 175), wherein the emitted light from the first light source is configured to form the first intensity light and the third intensity light after passing through (this is an inherent quality since there is a first emitted light and a third scattered light that has a different intensity) which causes an intensity of the third intensity light to be lower than an intensity of the first intensity light (eg. Para. 7, 10, 14, 17-18, Fig. 12, 44-47, 68, 71, 87, 145-147, 150-152, 175, Fig. 11A, Para. 113-115, 181, control intensity of light sources); and a processor, configured to adjust a first emission intensity of the first light source and fix a second emission intensity of the second light source (Fig. 11A, Para. 113-115, 181, control intensity of light sources, capable of being varying or same intensities). Turgeon does not disclose to adjust a first emission intensity of the first light source and to keep a second emission intensity of the second light source unchanged.
It would have been obvious to have combined multiple embodiments of the LEDs to have adjustable or different colors/wavelengths and intensities to best optimize/enhance the quality of physiological data obtained by the detectors (eg. Para. 113-116, 120, 140, 167).
Turcott teaches adjusting the intensities multiple LEDs to minimize a motion artifact including adjusting one light signal while maintaining a second signal (eg. Col. 11, Ln. 28-48, Col. 15, 55 – Col. 16, Ln. 30, Col. 20, Ln. 55 – Col. 21, Ln. 11 Claims 1-2 and 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the invention of Turgeon to have adjustable intensities as taught by Turcott to provide the predictable result of minimizing motion artifacts in pulse oximeter readings (Col. 11, Ln. 28-48, Col. 15, 55 – Col. 16, Ln. 30, Col. 20, Ln. 55 – Col. 21, Ln. 11 Claims 1-2 and 13).
Claim(s) 2-9, 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turgeon (US 2018/0156660 A1) in view of Turcott (US 7738935 B1), in view of Venugopal (US 2021/0093237 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combined invention of Turgeon and Turcott discloses the invention of claim 1, but does not disclose the optical element is a view control film.
Venugopal discloses an optical sensor that uses a window with an optical mask that at least partially isolates the sensors from detecting undesirable light (eg. Fig. 1B, 107 and 120, Fig. 4, detectors 430 and 435 with window 445 and optical mask 407 Para. 5-6, 92, 102, 113, 121, 125, 132-134, 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the invention of Turgeon and Turcott with the window setup as taught by Venugopal to provide the predictable result of preventing the detection of undesired light (eg. Venugopal, Para. 5-6).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combined invention of Turgeon, Turcott, and Venugopal discloses the first light source is an infrared light source, and the second light source is a green light source (eg. Turgeon, Para. 101, 116, can have multiple LEDs that can have infrared and green lights and Venugopal, Para. 11, 19, 21, 69, 71, 74, 81, 86, 89).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combined invention of Turgeon, Turcott, and Venugopal discloses the first emission intensity is lower than 10% of the second emission intensity (eg. Turgeon, Para. 113, 115, 120, 140, 167, Venugopal, Para. 70-71, 144-146). While the art does not specifically recite 10%, one of ordinary skill would have been able to come to 10% through routine experimentation to minimize unwanted light to optimize physiological parameter sensing (eg. Turgeon, Para. 113, 115, 120, 140, 167, Venugopal, Para. 70-71, 144-146, vary intensities and possibly turn off LEDs).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the combined invention of Turgeon, Turcott, and Venugopal discloses the first intensity light is stronger than the third intensity light by more than two times (eg. Venugopal, Fig. 1B, 107 and 120, Fig. 4, detectors 430 and 435 with window 445 and optical mask 407 Para. 5-6, 92, 102, 113, 121, 125, 132-134, 140). The claim elements the functional language and statement of intended use of the invention, have been carefully considered but are not considered to impart any further structural limitations over the prior art (see MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 6, the combined invention of Turgeon, Turcott, and Venugopal discloses the processor is configured to determine an adjustment of the first emission intensity according to an intensity difference between the first detection data and the second detection data, and determine an adjusting direction of the first emission intensity according to an intensity variation of the first detection data wherein a magnitude of the intensity difference is configured to reflect the motion artifact. (eg. Turgeon, Para. 113, 115, 120, 140, 167, Venugopal, Para. 70-71, 144-146, the effect of the magnitude difference is inherent).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the combined invention of Turgeon, Turcott, and Venugopal discloses the processor is configured to reduce the first emission intensity by the adjustment upon the intensity variation being larger than or equal to a positive threshold, increase the first emission intensity by the adjustment upon the intensity variation being smaller than or equal to a negative threshold, and stop adjusting the first emission intensity upon the intensity variation being between the positive threshold and the negative threshold (eg. Turgeon, Para. 113, 115, 120, 140, 167, Venugopal, Para. 70-71, 144-146).
Regarding claim 8, the combined invention of Turgeon, Turcott, and Venugopal discloses configured to generate a photoplethysmography signal according to the first detection data without according to the second detection data (Eg. Turgeon, Para. 94-95).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, the combined invention of Turgeon, Turcott, and Venugopal discloses the first light source and the second light source are configured to emit light simultaneously (eg. Turgeon, Fig. 1, 3, second light source 140, 240, Para. 9, 68-71, 85, 87, 92, 98-101, 105-106, 168, 171-173, 181 and Venugopal, Para. 19-22, 50).
Regarding claim 15, the combined invention of Turgeon, Turcott, and Venugopal discloses a processor configured to generate a photoplethysmography signal according to the first detection data without according to the second detection data (eg. Turgeon, Para. 105-107, 122-133, capable of using one or multiple detectors).
Regarding claim 16, the combined invention of Turgeon, Turcott, and Venugopal discloses the intensity difference is larger, the adjustment is larger. (eg. Turgeon, Para. 113, 115, 120, 140, 167, Venugopal, Para. 70-71, 144-146).
Regarding claim 17, the combined invention of Turgeon, Turcott, and Venugopal discloses when the intensity variation indicates that the first detection data is increasing, the adjusting direction is to decrease the first emission intensity, and when the intensity variation indicates that the first detection data is decreasing, the adjusting direction is to increase the first emission intensity (eg. Turgeon, Para. 113, 115, 120, 140, 167, Venugopal, Para. 70-71, 144-146).
Regarding claim 19, the combined invention of Turgeon, Turcott, and Venugopal discloses the processor is further configured to keep a second emission intensity of the second light source unchanged. (Fig. 11A, Para. 113-115, 181, control intensity of light sources, capable of being varying or same intensities, Turcott, Col. 11, Ln. 28-48, Col. 15, 55 – Col. 16, Ln. 30, Col. 20, Ln. 55 – Col. 21, Ln. 11 Claims 1-2 and 13)
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 MICHAEL J LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-2317. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LAU/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights