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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
In view of the IDS submitted 6/25/206, prosecution was re-opened after QPIDS request after Notice of Allowance 7/20/2026.
Upon further consideration of all claims, a new 112(b) Rejection is set forth below along with the 103 Rejection (based on the reference submitted in the IDS 6/25/2026).
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 1-20 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 language recites “determine a decay constant…decay constant indicates …function of the first separation distance and second separation distance”.
“The spatial relationship between the light emitters and array of detectors may be used to fit an exponential function to the measured light data as described herein. Additionally or alternatively, the spatial arrangement of the array of light detectors with respect to the light emitter(s) may be used to correct for alignment or other measurement error” [specification, 0063].
Therefore, as per the specification and the claim language, it is the “spatial decay constant” that is being determined as the measurement is based on how a quantity decreases over distance. It is not clear from the claim language why the claim term is referring to “decay constant” since the measurement is dependent on the separation distance and therefore should be the “spatial decay constant”.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are directed to the first and second measurements for the first and second detectors where the decay constant is determined based on the first and second measurements and first/second separation distances or first/second return of emitted light. Claims 7, 10, and 19 are directed to determining “the decay constant” using the third measurement and third return of the emitted light. Therefore, it is not clear if the decay constant determined in the independent claims is the same as the decay constant in the dependent claims with respect to the third measurement or third return of light. It is suggested the independent claims include the subject matter with respect to the third measurement or third return of light to determine the decay constant based on the first, second, and third measurements or the first/second/third measured return of emitted light.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese et al. (2021/0045686).
With respect to claims 1, 9, 15, and 16, Wiese et al. teach of a wearable optical device 100 and method of estimating body water content of a user comprising a housing or casing 107, a light emitter 102, and a detector array 103 [0035-0037]. Wiese et al. teach of the arranging the emitter array 102b at desired distances between the emitters and the detectors where ethe detectors spread over varying distances with the emitter at single position of the optical device [0048, 0049, fig. 1B]. Wiese et al. teach of providing three distinct emitter-detector distances where each of the D1-D4 distances may be varying between 5 and 50 mm and the device may include 5 or fewer detectors [0049]. Wiese et al. teach of causing the light emitter to emit light toward tissue of a user [0037], receive first and second measurements from the plurality of detectors that represents a first/second return of emitted light from the tissue of the user or where the three detectors are used to measure intensity of light lights for at least three different distances from the emitter array to provide an improved fitting of measured signals as a function of distance [0054]. Wiese et al. teach of the detectors increasing in size the farther they are from the emitter array 102b and therefore the differences in size and/or sensitivity of the detectors may be accounted for by scaling the detector output signals based on the known differences in size/sensitivity [0056, 0058, 0059]. Wiese et al. teach of determining a decay constant of the emitted light using the first/second measurements where the decay constant may indicate an exponential decay of the emitted light as a function of the separation distances [0083]. Wiese et al. teach of determining a water content metric of the user using the determined decay constant or measuring water content in the skin/tissue of the user [0088]. Wiese et al. teach of using of a greater number of wavelengths which permit fitting the water content of the skin/tissue [0093].
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Wiese et al. teach of determining the decay constant by fitting an exponential function for the plurality of measurements [0083, 0090, 0093, 0097].
With respect to claim 3, Wiese et al. teach of determining a signal magnitude with respect to each detector/measurement with the detector 103b1 producing an output signal of the greatest magnitude and detector 103b4 producing an output signal of the smallest magnitude among the detectors [0055, 0056] with decay constant determined using the signal magnitude/intensity [0083].
With respect to claim 8, Wiese et al. teach of a plurality of light emitters or a first light emitter configured to emit first light and second light emitter configured to emit second light [0043, 0044] with a first detector positioned at a separation distance from one of the light emitters and the second detector positioned at a different separation distance from the other light emitter (distances D1-D4 in fig. 1B, 0049, 0058, 0059). Wiese et al. teach of characterizing skin pigmentation or superficial skin lesions of the user using the first and second light [0050, 0051, 0093].
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Wiese et al. teach of the first light emitter being positioned on a first side of the array of light detectors and the third light emitter positioned on a second side of the array of light detectors (fig. 1b, 0056, 0058]). Wiese et al. teach of selecting a measurement based on comparison of measurement values determine decay constant [0083].
Wiese et al. do not teach of all the claimed elements in a single embodiment. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements from the different embodiments to provide indication of the user’s physical state and performance [0029].
Claim(s) 4-7, 10, 11, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese et al. in view of Lee et al. (10206619). With respect to claim 4, Wiese et al. teach of a plurality of light emitters or a first light emitter configured to emit first light and second light emitter configured to emit second light [0043, 0044] with a first detector positioned at a separation distance from one of the light emitters and the second detector positioned at a different separation distance from the other light emitter (distances D1-D4 in fig. 1B, 0049, 0058, 0059). Wiese et al. teach of measuring the decay of the intensity of emitted light along different distances of the detectors where the decay is exponential [0083] but do not explicitly teach of the claimed elements with respect to determining the first and second decay constants and determining the water content metric using the first and second decay constant. With respect to claims 4-7, 10, 11, and 17-19, In a similar field of endeavor Lee et al. teach of a device to determine concentration of water in the human body at a given time based on the concentration-related slope by generating a hydration slope by linear fit of the differential signal against the water absorption coefficient (col. 16 liens 61-64, equations 9a/b, 10, fig. 12c). Wiese et al. teach of the emitting light at a first wavelength and second light emitter configured to emit second light at a second wavelength different from the first wavelength [0093]. Wiese et al. in view of Lee et al. teach of using the third measurement from the third detector to represent third return of emitted light and determine the decay constant ((Wiese, distances D1-D4 in fig. 1B, 0049, 0058, 0059, Lee, col. 4 lines 12-26).
With respect to claim 20, Wiese et al. teach of the detectors may be sized based on the distance from the emitter and in some embodiments, detectors may be equally sized [0056] and the detectors and emitters may be arranged on the back side of the optical device [0058] where the detector closest to the emitter may provide a reference intensity [0059]. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the first emitter/detector may be the same as the fourth emitter/detector serving as the reference intensity against which intensities measured by the other detectors are measured.
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Lee et al. to modify Wiese et al. to more effectively monitor body hydration and reduce inaccuracy due to unknown optical properties of tissues or inaccuracy due to body motion (Lee, col. 2 lines 66-col. 3 lines 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 EST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights