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 .
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 02/26/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are pending for examination. Claims 9, 14 and 18 are cancelled.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takinami (USPGPUB 2014/0024904 - cited in previous action) in view of Murata et al. "A 24.3Me- Full Well Capacity and High Near Infrared Sensitivity CMOS Image Sensor with Lateral Overflow Integration Trench Capacitor" March 22, 2019 ITE Technical Report Vol.43, No.11 IST2019-17 – applicant cited. In regard to claims 1-2, Takinami discloses a biological information measurement device (Figs. 5 and 7-9 and associated descriptions), comprising: a light source that irradiates light (element 12, Fig. 7 and associated descriptions; wavelengths, [0031-0032]); an image sensor that receives the light irradiated from the light source transmitted, reflected or scattered in a living body, outputs information according to an amount of the received light (element 14 and a finger, Fig. 7 and associated descriptions; [0033]; S11, S12 and S14, Fig. 9 and associated descriptions), has a plurality of pixels arranged in an array (Fig. 7 and associated descriptions; array/ matrix, [0009]; matrix/ photodiode array, [0033]), and outputs information forming array/ matrix image information (the array/ matrix image information comprises information of two images with corresponding pixels/ detection elements generated by steps S11 and S12, Fig. 9 and associated descriptions); specific location selection circuitry that, in the same two-dimensional image information formed from the information obtained by the image sensor (in the same array/ matrix image information comprises information of two images generated by steps S11 and S12, Fig. 9 and associated descriptions), selects a measurement target location including a measurement target of the biological information and selects a reference location that does not include the measurement target of the biological information (elements 52/56/58, Figs. 7-8 and associated descriptions; S13, Fig. 9 and associated descriptions; corresponding pixel(s)/ location(s), in the same array/ matrix image information which comprises information of two images, with minimum S1/S2 associated with P1/ blood vessel site, [0075]; location(s), in the same array/ matrix image information which comprises information of two images, with maximum S1/S2 associated with P2/ tissue site, [0079]); and biological information acquisition circuit (elements 52/38, Figs. 7-8 and associated descriptions) that acquires the biological information from information obtained at the measurement target location selected in the same two-dimensional image information by using, as a reference, the information at the reference location selected in the same two-dimensional image information (S14-16, Fig. 9 and associated descriptions).
Takinami does not specifically disclose the image sensor has a plurality of pixels arranged in an array in a two-dimensional plane, and has a saturation charge number of 1,000,000 or more and an SN ratio of the image sensor is 60 dB or more.
Murata teaches a CMOS image sensor suitable for non-invasive blood glucose measurements with spectral response from 200-1100nm (abstract; Figs. 1-10) has a plurality of pixels arranged in an array in a two-dimensional plane (Figs. 1 and 6-7; Table 1), and has a saturation charge number of 1,000,000 or more (saturation charge number 24,300,000, section 4, page 31; see also [0073] of the specification of the PGPUB, AAPA) and an SN ratio of the image sensor is 60 dB or more (71.3 dB, Abstract; Fig. 9; see also [0073] of the specification of the PGPUB, AAPA).
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 device (Takinami) to incorporate the CMOS sensor and associated elements/ configurations/ functions as taught by Murata, since both devices are CMOS/ photodiode arrays suitable for blood glucose measurements and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the CMOS sensor as taught by Murata has higher sensitivity, SN ratio and/or saturation charge number in the spectral range of 200-1100nm (see Murata). The rationale would have been to obtain better/ more accurate optical measurements.
In regard to claims 5 and 13, Takinami as modified by Murata discloses an optical element having a transverse mode conversion function is arranged between the light source and the image sensor (diffuser, Fig. 12 of Murata).
In regard to claims 6-8, Takinami as modified by Murata discloses a diffuser (Fig. 12 of Murata) but does not specifically disclose the optical element is an aspherical lens; a diffractive optical element or a parallel flat plate of quartz. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that other optical elements for generating uniform radiance/ emission are commonly available (e.g. Abbink et al., USPGPUB 2003/0023152 – cited in previous action; Schick et al., USPGPUB 2022/0157044 – cited in previous action; Udagawa et al., USPGPUB 2006/0156927– cited in previous action …etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try different optical elements including aspherical lenses, diffractive optical elements and/or parallel flat plate of quartz, through experiments/ investigations in order to find the optimal optical elements for generating uniform emission. The rationale would have been “obvious to try”, see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 398, 421(2007).
In regard to claims 10 and 15, Takinami as modified by Murata discloses the measurement target location is a location including a blood vessel in the living body, and the reference location is a location not including the blood vessel in the living body (elements 52/56/58, Figs. 7-8 and associated descriptions; S13, Fig. 9 and associated descriptions; location(s) with minimum S1/S2 associated with P1/ blood vessel site, [0075]; location(s) with maximum S1/S2 associated with P2/ tissue site, [0079] of Takinami; referring to claim 1 above).
In regard to claims 11 and 16, Takinami as modified by Murata discloses the biological information is blood glucose in blood in the living body (glucose. [0070-0072] of Takinami).
Claims 3-4, 12, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Takinami and Murata as applied to claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 13, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Clift (USPN 5,452,716 – cited in previous action). In regard to claims 3 and 12, Takinami as modified by Murata discloses all the claimed limitations except the light source is a surface emitting type light emitting diode.
Clift teaches a device for measuring glucose in the blood (Figs. 1-19) comprising the use of surface emitting diodes with chosen light wavelengths for glucose measurements (Col 5 lines 25-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the light source (Takinami as modified by Murata) with the surface emitting light emitting diodes as taught by Clift to yield predictable results, since both light sources are alternative equivalent light sources for emitting light wavelengths for glucose sensing. The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
In regard to claim 4, Takinami as modified by Murata and Clift discloses all the claimed limitations except an in-plane variation of the surface emitting type light emitting diode is 10% or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try different surface emitting type light emitting diodes with different in-plane variations, including 10% or less, through experiments/ investigations in order to find optimal surface emitting diodes with acceptable in-plane variations for obtaining more accurate optical measurements.
In regard to claim 17, Takinami as modified by Murata and Clift discloses an optical element having a transverse mode conversion function is arranged between the light source and the image sensor (referring to claim 13 above).
In regard to claim 19, Takinami as modified by Murata and Clift discloses the measurement target location is a location including a blood vessel in the living body, and the reference location is a location not including the blood vessel in the living body (referring to claim 15 above).
In regard to claim 20, Takinami as modified by Murata and Clift discloses the biological information is blood glucose in blood in the living body (referring to claims 11 and 16 above),
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Remarks, filed on 02/26/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amended claims do not invoke 35 USC 112(f) interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Remarks, filed on 02/26/2026, with respect to claims 3-4, 12 and 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 3-4, 12 and 17-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to claim 1, applicant alleged that Takinami or in combination with Murata does not teach or suggest identifying both a measurement target location and a reference location by capturing only one image using a high-performance two-dimensional image sensor, as recited by amended Claim 1. In response, the combination of Takinami and Murata discloses the amended features (see above). It is noted that the argument of “identifying both a measurement target location and a reference location by capturing only one image” cannot be found in the claims. The applicant further alleged that “Applicant's Claim 1 recites that identification of a measurement target location and a reference location, as well as acquisition of biological information, can all be performed within the same image simply by capturing a single image”. However, claim 1 recites “an image sensor… outputs information forming two-dimensional image information”. It is noted that the claims recite transitional phrase “comprising” which is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (see MPEP 2111.03). The BRI of “information forming two-dimensional image information” may include two-dimensional image information containing one or more two-dimensional images. In addition, “a light source that irradiates light” does not exclude the light source from emitting light with multiple wavelengths. If the “single/ one image” feature is essential to the invention, it is suggested that “outputs a/ one/ single two-dimensional image” or similar language should be set forth.
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 CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-6pm).
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.
/CHU CHUAN LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791