DETAILED ACTION
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
The action is in response to amendments filed on 05/06/2026. Claims 12, 22 have been amended. Claims 12-27 are pending and examined below.
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.
Claim(s) 12-13, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160058300 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Yoon”).
Regarding claim 12, Yoon, an optical sensor device, teaches a wearable device (paragraph [0063]-[0065]) for monitoring blood flow of a patient (paragraph [0008], [0090]-[0093]), the wearable device comprising:
a housing configured for attachment to the patient (paragraphs [0063]-[0064]; as shown in Figure 3);
a light source positioned in the housing to transmit light toward the patient when the housing is attached to the patient (110; paragraph [0085]; Figure 5A);
an optical sensor positioned in the housing to receive light from the patient when the housing is attached to the patient (120; paragraph [0085]; Figure 5A); and
a lens assembly positioned in the housing to relay light from the patient onto the optical sensor, the lens assembly including a first lens and a second lens, first lens positioned closer to the optical sensor and the second lens positioned closer to the patient when the housing is attached to the patient (1112 (first lens) and 1111 (second lens); paragraphs [0127]; as shown in Figures 9 and 11A-A), and the second lens is positioned to direct light from the patient through the first lens to the optical sensor (paragraphs [0127]; as shown in Figures 9 and 11A-A).
Regarding claim 13, Yoon teaches wherein the first lens is positioned in the housing in a first orientation and the second lens is positioned in the housing in a second orientation, where the second orientation is different than the first orientation (paragraph [0130]; as shown in 11B-F).
Regarding claim 16, Yoon teaches wherein the optical sensor and the lens assembly are positioned to allow the optical sensor to receive at least some of the light transmitted toward the patient by the light source after it is reflected back from the patient (paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 18, Yoon teaches further comprising a processor (130; Figure 5A) connected to the optical sensor and the light source (as shown in Figure 5A), the processor programmed to:
control the light source to transmit light toward the patient (paragraphs [0095]-[0096]);
receive data produced by the optical sensor in response to light received from the patient (paragraphs [0095]-[0096]);
and produce an output based on the received data (paragraphs [0095]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 19, Yoon teaches wherein the processor is programmed to produce the output based on the received data by determining a laser speckle flow index based on the received data (paragraphs [0095]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 20, Yoon teaches further comprising a wireless communication interface and the processor is further programmed transmit the output based on the received data through the wireless communication interface (paragraph [0179]).
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) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 20160157736 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Huang”).
Regarding claim 14, Yoon does not explicitly teach wherein the second lens has a different focal length from the first lens to achieve magnification.
However, Huang, a laser speckle optical sensor device, teaches wherein the second lens has a different focal length from the first lens to achieve magnification (paragraph [0028]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yoon, to have the lens achieve magnification, as taught by Huang, because doing so provides for optimal data detection.
Regarding claim 15, Yoon does not explicitly teach wherein the first lens is adjustable to adjust a focal plane of the lens assembly.
However, Huang, a laser speckle optical sensor device, teaches wherein the first lens is adjustable to adjust a focal plane of the lens assembly (paragraph [0028]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yoon, to have an adjustable lens, as taught by Huang, because doing so provides for optimal data detection.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 20140206980 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lee”).
Regarding claim 17, Yoon does not explicitly teach wherein the optical sensor and the lens assembly are positioned to allow the optical sensor to receive at least some of the light transmitted toward the patient by the light source after it is transmitted through the patient.
However, Lee teaches wherein the optical sensor and the lens assembly are positioned to allow the optical sensor to receive at least some of the light transmitted toward the patient by the light source after it is transmitted through the patient (paragraph [0023], [0040]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lee, to have a transmission type optical mode, as taught by Lee because it would be the simple substitution of one known element (the reflection system of Yoon) with another (the transmission system of Lee) in order to achieve a predictable result namely a mode of collecting light data off of a user.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 20160198961 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Homyk”).
Regarding claim 21, Yoon does not explicitly teach further comprising a battery to provide power to the light source, the optical sensor, and the processor.
However, Homyk, a laser speckle optical sensor device, teaches further comprising a battery to provide power to the light source, the optical sensor, and the processor (paragraph [0081]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yoon, to have a battery, as taught by Homyk, because doing so provides power to allows the device to function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “receive the plurality of frames of data produced by the camera sensor; determine a speckle contrast index k' for each frame of data based on an average of image intensity in the frame of data along a column, a row, or a diagonal of a square sliding window and an average of squared image intensity in the frame of data along the column, the row, or the diagonal of the square sliding window; and provide an output based on the speckle contrast index k' for each frame of data” in combination with the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant traverses the prior art rejection.
Specifically, Applicant argues that that prior art does not teach or suggest “the second lens is positioned to direct light from the patient through the first lens to the optical sensor” in combination with the other limitations of the claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Yoon teaches “the lens assembly including a first lens and a second lens, first lens positioned closer to the optical sensor and the second lens positioned closer to the patient when the housing is attached to the patient (1112 (first lens) and 1111 (second lens); paragraphs [0127]; as shown in Figures 9 and 11A-A), and the second lens is positioned to direct light from the patient through the first lens to the optical sensor (paragraphs [0127]; as shown in Figures 9 and 11A-A)”. Light passes through the 1111 (second lens), reflects of a user’s skin, and returns to the sensor, by passing through 1112 (first lens) (paragraphs [0127]; as shown in Figures 9 and 11A-A). Thus under the broadest reasonable interpretation Yoon teaches the limitations of the claims. As such Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
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 ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights