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 .
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15 and 17-20 are hereby under examination.
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 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170035353A1 (Wu, Tung-Ke), previously cited and hereto referred as Wu, and in view of US20160154952A1 (Venkatraman et. al), previously cited and hereto referred as Venkatraman, and in view of US20140275852A1 (Hong et. al), previously cited and hereto referred as Hong.
As to claims 1 and 11, Wu teaches a light source configured to emit a detection light; a light sensor configured to sense the detection light reflected from an object (Wu, [0030], “That is to say, the optical sensor 120 is adapted to emit at least one optical signal L1, and receive at least one reflective signal R1”); a memory (Wu, [0025], “The wearable device 100 is, for example, a smart watch”; the examiner notes, a smart watch contains a memory); and a microcontroller electrically connected with the light source, the light sensor and the memory (Wu, [0025], “a controller 140”);
activating a light source of the wearable device to emit detection light; obtaining a light intensity sensed by a light sensor that is configured to sense the detection light reflected by or passing through an object (Wu, [0041], "the first optical signal is a green light emitted from the optical sensor 120 and the first reflective signal is a green light reflected back to the optical sensor 120");
in response to the light intensity, generating a registered high threshold that serves as an upper limit and a registered low threshold that serves as a lower limit that are referred to for detecting whether or not the wearable device is worn by a person for able to perform a function at least relating to security based on the light intensity skin (Wu, [0042], “As such, it may be determined whether or not the intensities reflected back from the test object falls in a range of intensity values of skin or not. When the value of the intensity of the infrared light falls in the intensity range of skin, it may be determined that the user is wearing the wearable device 100. When the value of the intensity of the infrared light falls outside the intensity range of skin, it may be determined that the user is not wearing the wearable device 100”; the examiner notes, the upper limit of the range of intensity values is interpreted as the registered high threshold and the lower limit of the range of intensity values is interpreted as the registered low threshold);
wherein, when the wearable device is in operation, a sensed light intensity is generated and compared with both the registered high threshold and the registered low threshold (Wu, [0042], “As such, it may be determined whether or not the intensities reflected back from the test object falls in a range of intensity values of skin or not”) so as to determine if the function at least relating to security executed in the wearable device is terminated (Venkatraman, [0078] “For example, certain biometric sensors 160 (including but not limited to the optical sensor 500) may be turned off or put into a power conservation mode when the wearable device 10 has been removed from the user”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu in view of Venkatraman because Wu already teaches determining if the device is worn or not (Wu, [0037], “a status that the user is not wearing the wearable device 100”) and Venkatraman teaches further use of the information that the device not being worn, and turning off the device can save energy.)
Wu-Venkatraman-Hong teaches a combination of light rays (Venkatraman, “The PPG sensor 500 may be formed within the device body 210 and may include one or more light sources (e.g., LEDs) 515”).
However, Wu-Venkatraman-Hong does not necessarily teach that the detection light is adjusted to emit at least a first combination of light rays and a second combination of light rays, and the first combination of light rays is determined as a specific light ray to be emitted to the object when the first combination of light rays causes a larger light intensity sensed by light sensor than the second combination of light rays. Hong teaches a relevant art of wearable heart rate monitor (Hong, title). Hong teaches the detection light is adjusted to emit at least a first combination of light rays and a second combination of light rays, and the first combination of light rays is determined as the specific light ray when the first combination of light rays causes a larger light intensity sensed by light sensor than the second combination of light rays (Hong, [0430], “The difference between the two pairs is labeled as D3. Additionally, four of the eight pulses have an intermediate and constant intensity”; Fig. 19E).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu-Venkatraman-Hong in view of Hong to include the detection light is adjusted to emit at least a first combination of light rays and a second combination of light rays, and the first combination of light rays is determined as the specific light ray when the first combination of light rays causes a larger light intensity sensed by light sensor than the second combination of light rays because Wu-Venkatraman-Hong already teaches a specific combination of light rays (Wu, [0041], "For example, the first optical signal is a green light"; [0042], "For example, the second optical signal is an infrared light"; the examiner notes, the specific light ray is interpreted as being either in the green light or the infrared light), and Hong supplies the details of the specific combination of light rays to detect various skin condition (Hong, [0430], “allow capturing light reflection in a range of likely conditions when the user is wearing the device: different skin colors, motions, sweat levels and compositions, ambient light conditions, etc”).
As to claims 2 and 12, Wu-Venkatraman-Hong teaches the detection light is adjusted to cover different wavelength ranges (Wu, [0041], "For example, the first optical signal is a green light"; [0042], "For example, the second optical signal is an infrared light"),
and the registered high threshold or the registered low threshold is determined based on the light intensity sensed when the detection light is emitted in a specific wavelength range (Wu, [0042], "When the value of the intensity of the infrared light falls in the intensity range of skin"; the examiner notes, the intensity range of skin is determined by using the specific wavelength range of the green light and the infrared light).
As to claims 3, 5, 13 and 15, Wu-Venkatraman-Hong teaches the detection light includes different light rays corresponding to different wavelengths, and the registered high threshold or the registered low threshold is obtained when a specific combination (Venkatraman, “The PPG sensor 500 may be formed within the device body 210 and may include one or more light sources (e.g., LEDs) 515”) of light ray is emitted to the object (Wu, [0041], "For example, the first optical signal is a green light"; [0042], "For example, the second optical signal is an infrared light"; the examiner notes, the specific light ray is interpreted as being either in the green light or the infrared light; [0055]).
As to claim 7, Wu-Venkatraman-Hong teaches the detection light includes different light rays corresponding to different wavelengths (Wu, [0041], "For example, the first optical signal is a green light"; [0042], "For example, the second optical signal is an infrared light"; the examiner notes, the green light and infrared light each have different light rays). However, Wu-Venkatraman-Hong does not necessarily at least two of the different light rays emit in different intensities. Hong teaches at least two of the different light rays emit in different intensities (Hong, Figs. 19E-F). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Wu-Venkatraman-Hong in view of Hong to include at least two of the different light rays emit in different intensities because Wu-Venkatraman-Hong already teaches the detection light includes different light rays corresponding to different wavelengths, and using different intensities of the detection lights can be used to analyze characteristics of the object according to the intensities, as shown in Figs. 19E-F.
As to claims 8 and 17, Wu-Venkatraman-Hong teaches the wearable device is in operation if the sensed light intensity is between the registered high threshold and the registered low threshold; and the function at least relating to security executed in the wearable device is terminated if the sensed light intensity is higher than the registered high threshold or is lower than the registered low threshold (Wu, [0037], “a status that the user is not wearing the wearable device 100”; [0042], “As such, it may be determined whether or not the intensities reflected back from the test object falls in a range of intensity values of skin or not”; Venkatraman, [0078] “For example, certain biometric sensors 160 (including but not limited to the optical sensor 500) may be turned off or put into a power conservation mode when the wearable device 10 has been removed from the user”).
As to claims 9-10 and 18, Wu-Venkatraman-Hong teaches the wearable device is configured to be worn on a wrist of the person, and the registered high threshold and the registered low threshold are used to detect whether the wearable device is away from the wrist, and the wearable device is not allowed to perform the function at least relating to security if the wearable device is determined to be away from the wrist (Wu, [0037], “a status that the user is not wearing the wearable device 100”; [0042], “As such, it may be determined whether or not the intensities reflected back from the test object falls in a range of intensity values of skin or not”; Venkatraman, [0078] “For example, certain biometric sensors 160 (including but not limited to the optical sensor 500) may be turned off or put into a power conservation mode when the wearable device 10 has been removed from the user”).
As to claims 19-20, Wu-Venkatraman-Hong teaches a single pixel light source or an arrayed light source (Venkatraman, “The PPG sensor 500 may be formed within the device body 210 and may include one or more light sources (e.g., LEDs) 515”). However, Wu-Venkatraman-Hong does not necessarily at least two of the different light rays emit in different intensities. Hong teaches at least two of the different light rays emit in different intensities (Hong, Figs. 19E-F). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Wu-Venkatraman-Hong in view of Hong to include at least two of the different light rays emit in different intensities because Wu-Venkatraman-Hong already teaches the detection light includes different light rays corresponding to different wavelengths, and using different intensities of the detection lights can be used to analyze characteristics of the object according to the intensities, as shown in Figs. 19E-F.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the 103 rejections, Applicant alleges on pg. 10, “neither Hong teach registering any threshold, i.e., the registered high threshold and the registered low threshold, nor the sensed light intensity that is generated and compared with both the registered high threshold and the registered low threshold so as to determine if the function at least relating to security executed in the wearable device is terminated.” However, Wu in view of Venkatraman clearly teaches:
registering thresholds (Wu, “outside the intensity range of skin”, the upper limit and lower limit of the range of skin is the registered lower and upper thresholds),
light intensity that is generated and compared with both thresholds (Wu, [0042], “[light] intensities reflected back from the test object falls in a range of intensity values of skin or not”, the range is interpreted as registered high and low threshold), and
determine if the function at least relating to security executed in the wearable device is terminated (Venkatraman, [0078] “[sensors] may be turned off or put into a power conservation mode when the wearable device 10 has been removed from the user”).
Applicant also alleges in pg. 10, “Wu or Venkatraman fails to generate the "registered high threshold" and the "registered low threshold" in response to the light intensity that is sensed by a light sensor when sensing the detection light reflected by or passing through an object, e.g., the user's hand or skin, and accordingly the "registered high threshold" and the "registered low threshold" are different to different users and are adaptive to different users who wear the wearable device.”. The claims do not necessarily recite whether or not the registered thresholds are adaptive to different users. Additionally, Wu does teach sensing the detection light reflected by or passing through an object, e.g., the user's hand or skin (Wu, [0042], “intensities reflected back from the test object”).
As such, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELINA S JANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Jennifer 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.
/ELINA SOHYUN JANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791