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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s argument is that the cladding taught by Wagner to surround the light guides is not disclosed to surround the optical source taught by Wagner, as now required by claim 1; however, this argument is moot. In particular, Wagner is not relied on to teach that a material surrounding the emitter device is the same as the material surrounding the first optical fiber element.
As claim 1 is not allowable, its dependent claims are not automatically allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the optical light guide element" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The optical light guide element is interpreted as encompassing to the first optical fiber element, which has antecedent basis and is claimed as being configured to guide light.
Claims 2-18 and 26-32 are indefinite for depending on at least one indefinite claim.
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.
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) 1-6, 8-18, 26, and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US Patent Publication 20170118551) in view of Lasarov (US patent publication 20190076036).
Regarding claim 1, Wagner teaches an optoelectronic biosensor comprising:
a housing (FIG. 2, housing 30) with a transparent support surface (FIG. 2, curved outer surface 32);
an emitter device in a first region of the housing adapted to generate and emit light toward the support surface (FIG. 2, optical source 24);
a detector device in a second region of the housing (FIG. 2, optical detector 26); and
a first optical fiber element between the detector device and the support surface (FIG. 2, second light guide 42. Also see paragraph 98, final sentence, which states that second light guide 42 can comprise one or more optical fibers.), the first optical fiber element being configured to guide light incident on the support surface at an angle less than a predetermined angle to a normal to the detector device, and the predetermined angle depending at least on a difference in refractive indices at an interface between the optical fiber element and a material surrounding the optical light guide element (Optical fibers can only accept light entering within a particular range of angles of incidence, those angles less than the fiber’s acceptance angle. See Paschotta 1 (Non-Patent Literature “Acceptance Angle in Fiber Optics”), which gives a formula for the acceptance angle in terms of the refractive indices of the core, cladding, and surrounding medium),
While Wagner does teach a material surrounding the first optical emitter device (paragraph 101, the cladding material, when it surrounds the light guide 40. Note that the cladding may also surround light guide 42), Wagner does not characterize the cladding as surrounding optical source 24, so does not explicitly teach all part of the limitation that a material surrounding the emitter device in the first region is the same as the material surrounding the first optical fiber element.
In the same field of endeavor of photoplethysmography and similar optical sensors, Lasarov does teach that a material surrounding the emitter device in the first region is the same as the material surrounding the first optical fiber element (paragraph 61 points out that, in an embodiment otherwise similar to the one shown in FIG. 8, a gap between window element 808, which contains optical fibers, and LED 202 could be filled with suitable optical material, giving examples of epoxy, silicone, and acrylic type materials. Due to the taper of window element 808, such a material would surround both the optical fibers in window element 808 and LED 202 with the optical material). By using a suitable optical material in a place that would surround both the optical source and a light guide, Lasarov is able to couple the optical elements as desired without leaving an empty air gap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical sensor of Wagner with the encapsulant of Lasarov, predictably moving light from a light emitter to a light guide, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor of claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that a material of the first optical fiber element comprises a higher refractive index than the material surrounding the first optical fiber element (paragraph 101).
Regarding claim 3, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the predetermined angle is proportional to an arc sine of a root of the difference of the two respective squared refractive indices (This is the formula for the acceptance angle of an optical fiber. See Paschotta 1 (Non-Patent Literature “Acceptance Angle in Fiber Optics”). Unless designed otherwise, which Wagner does not require, this formula will govern the acceptance angle of an optical fiber.).
Regarding claim 4, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that at least the second region is filled with the material surrounding the first optical fiber element up to a height of the support surface (FIG. 2, the second light guide 42 and its cladding extend all the way to curved surface 32).
Regarding claim 5, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the material surrounding the first optical fiber element is transparent (paragraph 101, choosing a cladding that has a lower refractive index would at least partially confine the light within light guides 40, 42, as described in paragraph 101).
Regarding claim 6, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that a surface of the housing facing the second region is configured to be absorbent of the light emitted by the emitter device (paragraph 101, if a dark, e.g., black, cladding is used).
Regarding claim 8, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches a second optical fiber element disposed between the emitter device and the support surface for guiding light emitted from the emitter device (FIG. 2, first light guide 40. Also see paragraph 98, final sentence, which states that first light guide 40 can comprise one or more optical fibers.).
Regarding claim 9, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 8 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the first optical fiber element and/or the second optical fiber element comprises at least one of the following materials:
silicon (paragraph 98 lists several light transmissive materials for use in first and second light guides 40, 42, including silicone (which contains silicon) and glass. Note that the most commonly used glass for optical fibers is silica, SiO2, which contains silicon (see Paschotta 2 (Non-Patent Literature “Fibers”)));
polycarbonates (paragraph 98 lists polycarbonate as an exemplary light transmissive material for use in first and second light guides 40, 42); or
glass with a refractive index greater than 1.5.
Regarding claim 10, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 8 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the first optical fiber element and/or the second optical fiber element comprises a cross-section tapering towards the support surface (FIG. 11B, center portion of second light guide 42 shows a taper as it goes away from optical detectors 26. The center-left portion of first light guide 40 shows a taper as it goes away from optical source 24).
Regarding claim 11, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the first optical fiber element and/or the second optical fiber element comprises a cross-section that increases towards the support surface (FIG. 11B, the top portions of both first light guide 40 and second light guide 42 increase in cross-sectional area going toward the surface of the device).
Regarding claim 12, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the first region of the housing is separated from the second region of the housing by an absorbent region extending from a bottom of the housing to the support surface (paragraph 101 states that the light guides 40 and 42 may be clad in a dark (i.e., absorbent) material, as well as FIG. 2, the portion of housing 30 between light guides 40 and 42).
Regarding claim 13, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the support surface is structured in the first and/or second region (FIG. 2, the distal end surfaces 40c and 42c are shown with a rounded structure. Also see paragraph 101, which teaches a texturized surface for one or both of 40c and 42c, and paragraph 107, which teaches both curved structures and flat structures, depending on the desired light collection angle).
Regarding claim 14, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches a first optical element, wherein the first optical element is arranged above the supporting surface above the first optical light guide element, or the first optical element is a part of the first optical fiber element adjacent to the support surface (FIG. 2, end surface 42c is shown with a curved end. A curved interface between materials with different refractive indices, such as air and glass, is a lens, which is a type of optical element. Note that the end surface 42c is shown both above curved outer surface 32 and as part of light guide 42 adjacent to curved outer surface 32.).
Regarding claim 15, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 8 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches a second optical element, wherein the second optical element is arranged in a beam path of the emitter device, or the second optical element is a part of the second optical fiber element adjacent to the supporting surface (FIG. 2, end surface 40c is shown with a curved end. A curved interface between materials with different refractive indices, such as air and glass, is a lens, which is a type of optical element. Note that the end surface 40c is shown both above curved outer surface 32 and as part of light guide 40 adjacent to curved outer surface 32).
Regarding claim 16, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the emitter device comprises: a light emitting diode with an essentially Lambertian radiation pattern (paragraph 93, one or more light-emitting diodes or organic LEDs. While Wagner does not explicitly discuss the emission patterns of LEDs, Paschotta 4 (Non-Patent Literature “Light-emitting Diodes”) does teach that light emitted from LEDs is originally emitted in all directions (section “Emission Properties”, first paragraph, sentence 2), the hallmark of an essentially Lambertian radiation pattern.).
Regarding claim 17, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the emitter device is configured to generate and emit light of different wavelengths (paragraph 93 mentions several options for light sources, including compact incandescent bulbs and IR blackbody sources that produce broadband (i.e., multiwavelength) illumination).
Regarding claim 18, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches a control circuit disposed in the second region of the housing and on which the detector device is placed (FIG. 2, base 22, on which the detector device is placed. Also see paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 26, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the emitter device comprises a laser device (paragraph 93, a laser diode is a laser device).
Regarding claim 30, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 14 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the first optical element is a lens (FIG. 2, end surface 42c is shown with a curved end. A curved interface between materials with different refractive indices, such as air and glass, is a lens).
Regarding claim 31, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 15 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the second optical element is a lens (FIG. 2, end surface 40c is shown with a curved end. A curved interface between materials with different refractive indices, such as air and glass, is a lens).
Regarding claim 32, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 15 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the second optical element is arranged in the beam path of the emitter device above the supporting surface (FIG. 2, end surface 40c is shown both above curved outer surface 32 as part of light guide 40, which is in the optical path of optical source 24).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US Patent Publication 20170118551) in view of Lasarov (US patent publication 20190076036), further in view of Paschotta 2 (Non-Patent Literature “Fibers”).
Regarding claim 7, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner is silent as to the exact materials used to surround the light guides, so does not explicitly teach that the material surrounding the first optical fiber element comprises at least one of the following materials:
low refractive plastic;
epoxy resin; or
transparent material with a refractive index less than 1.5.
In the same field of endeavor of directing light using optical fiber waveguides, Paschotta 2 teaches that the material surrounding the first optical fiber element comprises at least one of the following materials:
low refractive plastic;
epoxy resin; or
transparent material with a refractive index less than 1.5 (page 10, last paragraph of section Main Parameters, lists a typical step-index silica fiber as having a pure silica cladding with a refractive index around 1.444, which is less than 1.5. Pure silica is a transparent material.). A pure silica cladding allows for fibers with desirable properties, including a low propagation losses and high mechanical strength, which make silica a popular material for optical fiber (page 2, final paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the optoelectronic biosensor of Wagner using the teachings of Paschotta 2 by choosing an optical fiber cladding with refractive index less than 1.5, such as silica due to the well-known usefulness of silica in optical fibers, including the cladding of optical fibers.
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US Patent Publication 20170118551) in view of Lasarov (US patent publication 20190076036), further in view of Paschotta 3 (Non-Patent Literature “Laser Diodes”).
Regarding claim 27, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 26 (as described above).
Wagner does not explicitly teach that the laser device is a VCSEL laser.
In the same field of endeavor semiconductor-based lighting, Paschotta 3 teaches laser devices that are VCSEL lasers, (page 4, final list item), which generate a substantially directional light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a VCSEL as taught by Paschotta 3 when building the optoelectronic biosensor of Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, motivated by the high beam quality and advantageous surface-emitting geometry of VCSELs.
Regarding claim 28, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner does not explicitly teach that the emitter device comprises an edge-emitting laser.
In the same field of endeavor semiconductor-based lighting, Paschotta 3 teaches emitter devices that are edge-emitting lasers, (page 3, section Types of Laser Diodes, first sentence, which describes most laser diodes as edge-emitting lasers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen an edge-emitting laser as taught by Paschotta 3 when building the optoelectronic biosensor of Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, motivated by the usefulness of edge-emitting lasers as laser diodes and how common they are.
Regarding claim 29, Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, teaches or renders obvious the optoelectronic biosensor according to claim 1 (as described above).
Wagner further teaches that the emitter device is with a deflection device (FIG. 2, first light guide 40, which deflects the light to guide it, perhaps with the help of a cladding/barrier material (see paragraph 101))
Wagner does not explicitly teach that the emitter device comprises an edge-emitting laser.
In the same field of endeavor semiconductor-based lighting, Paschotta 3 teaches emitter devices that are edge-emitting lasers, (page 3, section Types of Laser Diodes, first sentence, which describes most laser diodes as edge-emitting lasers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen an edge-emitting laser as taught by Paschotta 3 when building the optoelectronic biosensor of Wagner, as modified by Lasarov, motivated by the usefulness of edge-emitting lasers as laser diodes and how common they are.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights