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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-15, 17, 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable copending Application No. 18597928 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application recites all the structure & relationships of the instant claims, in addition Bartz (US 5350922) teaches a wall between the light source and light detector (Figure 1, element 28) and the inverse-square law of light intensity over distance is well-known in the art of optics.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application Claim 1
US 18/597928 Claim 1
1. A detection device comprising:
1. A detection device comprising:
a substrate;
a substrate;
a first light emitting unit that emits first light and is provided at the substrate;
a first light emitting unit that emits first light and is provided at the substrate;
a first light receiving unit that receives the first light, is parallel to the substrate when viewed in a first direction parallel to the substrate, and is provided at the substrate side by side with the first light emitting unit in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction;
a first light receiving unit that receives the first light and is provided, when viewed in a first direction parallel to the substrate, at the substrate side by side with the first light emitting unit in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction among directions parallel to the substrate;
a first optical member that transmits the first light and covers the first light emitting unit at the substrate;
a first optical member that transmits the first light and covers the first light emitting unit at the substrate;
a second optical member that transmits the first light and covers the first light receiving unit at the substrate; and
a second optical member that transmits the first light and covers the first light receiving unit at the substrate; and
an accommodating member that is provided at the substrate and formed with a first opening accommodating the first light emitting unit and the first optical member and a second opening accommodating the first light receiving unit and the second optical member,
an accommodating member that is provided at the substrate and formed with a first opening accommodating the first light emitting unit and the first optical member and a second opening accommodating the first light receiving unit and the second optical member,
wherein at least one of the first optical member and the second optical member protrudes from an opening formed in the accommodating member in a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction.
wherein the first optical member protrudes from the first opening of the accommodating member in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction,
the second optical member protrudes from the second opening of the accommodating member in the third direction, the accommodating member includes a wall portion provided between the first optical member and the second optical member, a first distance in the second direction from the first light emitting unit to the wall portion is a distance that satisfies a predetermined condition, and the condition is that, among values that change depending on the first distance, a first value that has a negative correlation with an intensity of noise of light received by the first light receiving unit is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold.
Further correspondences between the claims are shown below:
Instant Claim
US 18/597928
2
5
3
6
4
17
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
8
11
9
14
12
15
17
17
15
19
18
20
20
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are at least:
“first light emitting unit” claims 1, 5-6
“first light receiving unit” claims 1, 5-6, 14, 16, 19
“second light emitting unit” claims 14, 16, 19
“first optical member” claims 1-5, 7, 12-14, 17-18, 20
“second optical member” claims 1-4, 6-7, 12-13, 15-18
“second light receiving unit” claims 14, 16, 19
“accommodating member” claims 1-3, 5-7, 12, 14, 16, 19-20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
The claim recites phrases that are difficult to interpret or make reference to one of the Figures, to the extent that the claim cannot be confidently interpreted as to the applicant’s intent.
For example, line 2 recites “a surface in the third direction … is orthogonal to the third direction” while lines 4-6 indicate that this surface has a maximum height at a vertex portion. This is indefinite as a vertex is a highest point but the surface has been defined as orthogonal, i.e. it’s a flat plane. Lines 12-21 appear to indicate line segments that indicate a difference in maximum heights between the optical elements but a review of the Figures does not show one with differing side wall heights or protrusion distances, and the claim language is sufficiently difficult such that a precise determination cannot be made.
For purposes of examination, examiner reads claim 16 as indicating there are a plurality of surfaces & optical elements with varying heights & dispositions.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eletr et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20200229767) in view of Lin et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20220133188), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “EL”.
As to claim 1, Eletr teaches a detection device comprising:
a substrate (Figure 1Q, paragraph 0032 “substrate 105a”);
a first light emitting unit that emits first light and is provided at the substrate (Figure 1Q, paragraph 0032 “LEDs 111c”);
a first light receiving unit that receives the first light, is parallel to the substrate when viewed in a first direction parallel to the substrate, and is provided at the substrate side by side with the first light emitting unit in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (Figure 1Q, paragraph 0032 “photodiodes 112d”);
a first optical member that transmits the first light and covers the first light emitting unit at the substrate (Figure 1Q, element 121d covering element 111c, paragraph 0034 “This silicone layer or covering 121/121a/121b/121c/121d/121e may reduce the light lost to reflection off the skin, and thereby greatly increase the signal and reduce the noise caused by motion of the skin relative to the sensor. In some implementations this silicone might be referred to as a light pipe and in some situations may be clear, colorless, and/or medical grade silicone.”);
a second optical member that transmits the first light and covers the first light receiving unit at the substrate (Figure 1Q, element 121d covering element 111c, paragraph 0034 “This silicone layer or covering 121/121a/121b/121c/121d/121e”); and
an accommodating member that is provided at the substrate and formed with a first opening accommodating the first light emitting unit and the first optical member and a second opening accommodating the first light receiving unit and the second optical member (Figure 1Q, paragraph 0047 “external barrier 123” and “barrier wall 122”),
wherein the accommodating member forms an opening in a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction (Figure 1Q, the walls 123 and 122 are open on top to let light in/out).
Eletr does not teach wherein at least one of the first optical member and the second optical member protrudes from an opening formed in the accommodating member in a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction. However, Eletr teaches the top surface of the optical member can be a lens (Figure 1Q, paragraph 0034 “lens surface 121e”) and a protruding lens is taught by Lin. Lin teaches a sensor that is pressed against the skin (Abstract “A topical subcutaneous microcirculation detection device”) including a light source and detector on a substrate (Figure 4, elements 130, 160 on line 110a) with lenses protruding beyond the side walls (Figure 4), wherein at least one of the first optical member and the second optical member protrudes from an opening formed in the accommodating member in a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction (Figure 4, the lens surfaces 144, 146 protrude above the side walls 114a-b, see paragraph 0016). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify the lens surface of Eletr with the protruding surfaces of Lin and have at least one of the first optical member and the second optical member protrudes from an opening formed in the accommodating member in a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction, in order to insure the top, in order to perform a more quantitative measurement with known pressing distances.
As to claim 2, EL Teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Lin teaches a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the accommodating member is orthogonal to the third direction (Figure 1Q, walls 122, 123 have flat tops that are parallel to the substrate 105a).
Eletr does not teach a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in at least one of the first optical member and the second optical member includes a curved surface having a positive gradient in the third direction. However, it is known in the art as taught by Lin. Lin teaches a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in at least one of the first optical member and the second optical member includes a curved surface having a positive gradient in the third direction (Figure 4, the lens surfaces are curved). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in at least one of the first optical member and the second optical member includes a curved surface having a positive gradient in the third direction, in order to increase the depth & surface area of the skin being measured.
As to claim 3, EL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Lin teaches a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the accommodating member is orthogonal to the third direction (Figure 4, the walls 114a-b are perpendicular to the substrate 110a, which would be in the ‘up’ direction when applied to the surface 121e of Eletr), the first optical member protrudes from the first opening of the accommodating member in the third direction (Figure 4, the lens surface would curve in the ‘up’ direction when applied to the surface 121e of Eletr), the second optical member protrudes from the second opening of the accommodating member in the third direction (Figure 4, each of the sections has a lens above the side walls, and when this concept is applied to the invention of Eletr Figure 1Q, each lens surface 121e would have a curved surface), a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the first optical member includes a curved surface having a positive gradient in the third direction (Figure 4 has the lenses cupped above the substrate, similar to applicant’s Figure 12), and a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the second optical member includes a curved surface having a positive gradient in the third direction (Figure 4 has curved lenses and when this concept is applied to the invention of Eletr Figure 1Q, each lens surface 121e would have a curved surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the accommodating member is orthogonal to the third direction, the first optical member protrudes from the first opening of the accommodating member in the third direction, the second optical member protrudes from the second opening of the accommodating member in the third direction, a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the first optical member includes a curved surface having a positive gradient in the third direction, and a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the second optical member includes a curved surface having a positive gradient in the third direction, in order to better contact the skin with a known depth.
As to claim 4, EL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 3, in addition Lin teaches, when viewed in the first direction, a shape of the surface in the third direction among the surfaces included in the first optical member and a shape of the surface in the third direction among the surfaces included in the second optical member are different from each other (Figure 4 shows different shapes of lenses). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have, when viewed in the first direction, a shape of the surface in the third direction among the surfaces included in the first optical member and a shape of the surface in the third direction among the surfaces included in the second optical member are different from each other, in order to better focus and/or collect the light used to examine the skin.
As to claim 5 and 6, EL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of explicitly teaching the claimed surface shapes. However, Eletr teaches the use of a lens surface (Figure 1Q, paragraph 0034 “lens surface 121e”), Lin teaches the use of multiple surface shapes (Figure 4, surfaces P2-P3 are curved surfaces possessing a vertex) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use any or many shapes of lenses in any desired configuration, since the selection and placement of any of these known equivalents to the claimed lens shapes would be an obvious matter of engineering choice within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable the claimed shapes and placements, in order to better obtain data from a given surface and for a desired purpose.
As to claim 7, EL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Lin teaches a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the accommodating member is orthogonal to the third direction, and a height in the third direction from the accommodating member to a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in at least one of the first optical member and the second optical member is a height equal to or higher than a first height that satisfies a predetermined first condition and equal to or lower than a second height that satisfies a predetermined second condition (Figure 4, the heights of the lenses P1 and P2 are heights T1 and T2 above the flat surface P1, and when applied to the invention of Eletr would produce a structure that reads on the claimed limitations). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the accommodating member is orthogonal to the third direction, and a height in the third direction from the accommodating member to a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in at least one of the first optical member and the second optical member is a height equal to or higher than a first height that satisfies a predetermined first condition and equal to or lower than a second height that satisfies a predetermined second condition, in order to press only a desired distance into the surface.
As to claim 12, EL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Eletr teaches a surface in the third direction (in Figure 1Q the third direction is upward, normal to the substrate 105a) among surfaces included in the accommodating member is orthogonal to the third direction, a contour of a cross-section of the first optical member along a virtual plane including the surface in the third direction among the surfaces included in the accommodating member coincides with a shape of an inner edge of the first opening when viewed in the third direction, and a contour of a cross-section of the second optical member along a virtual plane including the surface in the third direction among the surfaces included in the accommodating member coincides with a shape of an inner edge of the second opening when viewed in the third direction (Figure 1Q, paragraph 0031 “a silicone layer or covering 121 and/or 121a and/or 121b and/or 121c and/or 121d is shown covering/surrounding the light conduits and/or sensors/LEDs” and elements 121d are shown as conforming to the shape defined by the substrate & walls, including the top opening).
As to claim 13, EL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 12, in addition Eletr teaches the third direction is orthogonal to the substrate, when viewed in the first direction, a shape of a region that overlaps the first opening among regions included in the first optical member is a rectangular shape, and, when viewed in the first direction, a shape of a region that overlaps the second opening among regions included in the second optical member is a rectangular shape (Figure 1Q, elements 121d are in a rectangular shape).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EL, and further in view of Marriott et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20230172499).
As to claim 8, EL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 7, with the exception of the first condition is a height at which contact with human skin is not reduced. However, it is known in the art as taught by Marriott. Marriott teaches the first condition is a height at which contact with human skin is not reduced (paragraph 0104 “the PPG sensor protrudes from device substrate by a sufficient thickness – at least 0.1 mm, typically 0.5 mm – to compress patient’s skin and veins”) indicating that a distance between 0.1 mm would read on the claimed limitation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the first condition is a height at which contact with human skin is not reduced, in order to have the device not cause unwanted compression.
As to claim 9, EL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 8, with the exception of the first height is 0.2 mm. However, it is known in the art as taught by Marriott. Marriott teaches the first height is 0.2 mm (paragraph 0104 “the PPG sensor protrudes from device substrate by a sufficient thickness – at least 0.1 mm, typically 0.5 mm – to compress patient’s skin and veins”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the first height be 0.2 mm, in order to not cause undesired compression.
Additionally, Lin and Marriott are directed to measuring capillary blood (Lin paragraph 0006 “quantitatively measuring topical subcutaneous microcirculation”, Marriott Abstract “pulse oximetry method”) which is known to be from microns to millimeters deep, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the claimed distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges (amounts, proportions, etc) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
As to claim 10, EL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 7, with the exception of the second condition is a height at which capillary vessels in human dermis do not collapse. However, it is known in the art as taught by Marriott. Marriott teaches the second condition is a height at which capillary vessels in human dermis do not collapse (paragraph 0046 “In FIG. 5D, a compressible adhesive foam 513 is used allowing the PPG sensor 511 to protrude from device, thereby increasing pressure applied on patient’s body and leading to compression of venous capillaries (V) so that they contribute less to PPG signal whereas blood pressure keeps arteria (A) well open so that they contribute normally to PPG signal.” indicating that the compression is such that the arterial capillaries to be measured are not collapsed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the second condition is a height at which capillary vessels in human dermis do not collapse, in order to ensure the blood flow through the capillaries is not stopped.
As to claim 11, EL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 10, with the exception of the second height is 1.2 mm. However, it is known in the art as taught by Marriott. Marriott teaches the second height is 1.2 mm (paragraph 0104 “the PPG sensor protrudes from device substrate by a sufficient thickness – at least 0.1 mm, typically 0.5 mm – to compress patient’s skin and veins”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the second height is 1.2 mm, in order to not have the sensor compress the arterial capillaries that are to be measured.
Additionally, Lin and Marriott are directed to measuring capillary blood (Lin paragraph 0006 “quantitatively measuring topical subcutaneous microcirculation”, Marriott Abstract “pulse oximetry method”) which is known to be from microns to millimeters deep, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the claimed distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges (amounts, proportions, etc) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EL, and further in view of Qi et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20180279892)
As to claim 14, EL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Eletr teaches a second light emitting unit that emits second light having a wavelength band different from a wavelength band of the first light (Figure 1N, paragraph 0037 “one or multiple LED emitters 111c/111d (and/or 111e and/or 111f) of selected wavelengths”) and is provided at the substrate side by side with the first light emitting unit in the first direction (Figure 1N is a top view showing light sources 111c-d are adjacent to one another along an axis that is perpendicular to the direction of the detectors 112f & 112e);
a third optical member that transmits the second light and covers the second light emitting unit at the substrate; and a fourth optical member that transmits the second light and covers the second light receiving unit at the substrate (Figure 1N shows both of the light detectors 112c-d are covered, and paragraph 0031 teaches covering all light sources & detectors “silicone layer or covering 121 and/or 121a and/or 121b and/or 121c and/or 121d is shown covering/surrounding the light conduits and/or sensors/LEDs 111c/111d/112c”);
the first optical member is configured integrally with the third optical member (Figures 1N through 1Q show the light sources & detectors integrated on a single substrate, see also Figure 1).
While Eletr as modified by Lin above teaches multiple sensors (Figure 1N has four sensors 112c-f), Eletr does not teach a second light receiving unit that receives the second light and is provided at the substrate side by side with the first light receiving unit in the second direction. However, Qi teaches using light to measure the characteristics of skin (Abstract “a vital sign measuring device and method”, and the majority of the Figures show light on or through the epidermis & dermis) teaching many arrangements of light sources and sensors (Figures 10-12, 14-27d) among which are sensors side-by-side in the second direction relative to the light source, indicating that the number & placement of light sources & detectors affect the signals being measured. As the number & placement are results effective variables and there are a finite number of possible numbers & positions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable the claimed limitations, in order to increase the system detection ability. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
While Eletr as modified by Lin above does not teach wherein the accommodating member is formed with a fourth opening in which the second light receiving unit and the fourth optical member are accommodated, the first opening accommodates the second light emitting unit and the third optical member together with the first optical member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have as many holes as there are light sources & detectors, since while Eletr does not explicitly teach four openings, Eletr teaches an opening for each light source & detector (e.g. Figure 1Q). It is known in the art of optics to have an opening for each optical element, doing so would have taken only ordinary engineering experience, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable the claimed limitation, in order to better guide light to & from each optical element as desired.
As to claim 15, EL in view of Qi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 14, in addition Lin teaches, when viewed in the first direction, a shape of a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the second optical member and a shape of a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the fourth optical member are different from each other (Figure 4 shows different shapes of lenses applied to different areas). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have, when viewed in the first direction, a shape of a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the second optical member and a shape of a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the fourth optical member are different from each other, in order to better enable the light transmission and collection for a particular experimental setup.
As to claims 16, 17, 18, EL in view of Qi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claims 15, 14, 14 respectively, with the exception of the claimed surfaces and placements. However, Eletr teaches the use of a lens surface (Figure 1Q, paragraph 0034 “lens surface 121e”), Lin teaches the use of multiple surface shapes (Figure 4, surfaces P2-P3 are curved surfaces possessing a vertex) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use any or many shapes of lenses in any desired configuration, since the selection and placement of any of these known equivalents to the claimed lens shapes would be an obvious matter of engineering choice within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable the claimed surfaces and placements, in order to better obtain data from a given surface and for a desired purpose.
As to claim 19, EL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Eletr teaches a second light emitting unit that emits second light having a wavelength band different from a wavelength band of the first light (Figure 1N, paragraph 0037 “one or multiple LED emitters 111c/111d (and/or 111e and/or 111f) of selected wavelengths”) and is provided at the substrate side by side with the first light emitting unit in the first direction (Figure 1N is a top view showing light sources 111c-d are adjacent to one another along an axis that is perpendicular to the direction of the detectors 112f & 112e);
a third optical member that transmits the second light and covers the second light emitting unit at the substrate; and a fourth optical member that transmits the second light and covers the second light receiving unit at the substrate (Figure 1N shows both of the light detectors 112c-d are covered, and paragraph 0031 teaches covering all light sources & detectors “silicone layer or covering 121 and/or 121a and/or 121b and/or 121c and/or 121d is shown covering/surrounding the light conduits and/or sensors/LEDs 111c/111d/112c”);
While Eletr as modified by Lin above teaches multiple sensors (Figure 1N has four sensors 112c-f), Eletr does not teach a second light receiving unit that receives the second light and is provided at the substrate side by side with the first light receiving unit in the second direction. However, Qi teaches using light to measure the characteristics of skin (Abstract “a vital sign measuring device and method”, and the majority of the Figures show light on or through the epidermis & dermis) teaching many arrangements of light sources and sensors (Figures 10-12, 14-27d) among which are sensors side-by-side in the second direction relative to the light source, indicating that the number & placement of light sources & detectors affect the signals being measured. As the number & placement are results effective variables and there are a finite number of possible numbers & positions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable the claimed limitations, in order to increase the system detection ability. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
While Eletr as modified by Lin above does not teach wherein the accommodating member is formed with a third opening in which the second light emitting unit and the third optical member are accommodated and a fourth opening in which the second light receiving unit and the fourth optical member are accommodated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have as many holes as there are light sources & detectors, since while Eletr does not explicitly teach four openings, Eletr teaches an opening for each light source & detector (e.g. Figure 1Q). It is known in the art of optics to have an opening for each optical element, doing so would have taken only ordinary engineering experience, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable the claimed limitation, in order to better guide light to & from each optical element as desired.
As to claim 20, EL in view of Qi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim19, in addition Eletr teaches teaches a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the accommodating member is orthogonal to the third direction (Figure 1Q, walls 122, 123 have flat tops that are parallel to the substrate 105a).
Eletr as modified by Qi above does not teach, when viewed in the second direction, a shape of a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the first optical member and a shape of a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the third optical member are different from each other. However, it is known in the art as taught by Lin. Lin teaches when viewed in the second direction, a shape of a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the first optical member and a shape of a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the third optical member are different from each other (Figure 4 shows different shapes of lenses applied to different areas). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have, when viewed in the second direction, a shape of a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the first optical member and a shape of a surface in the third direction among surfaces included in the third optical member are different from each other, in order to better enable the light transmission and collection for a particular experimental setup.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877