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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
While not necessarily unclear, it is conceivable that the following terms could be interpreted in ways other than the manner in which they are interpreted herein. Accordingly, Examiner notes the following interpretations for the record.
For examination purposes, based on Applicants specification (FIG. 10: 61), the term “maximum emission direction” is being interpreted as a direction in which the intensity of light emitted by a light-emitting element is the greatest.
For examination purposes, based on Applicant’s specification (FIG. 10: 63) the term “maximum reception direction” interpreted as a direction in which the amount of light received by a light-receiving element is the greatest.
For examination purposes, based on Applicant’s specification [0056] the phrase “bent relative to each other” is being interpreted as requiring objects to be arranged along a curve and not arranged in a straight line.
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 1-17 and 19-20 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.
In re claim 1,
The limitation “wherein the inner peripheral surface includes a front surface that faces the finger and a back surface facing away from the front surface” raises a clarity concern. As known by one of ordinary skill in the art, the plain meaning of the term “a surface” is an outer boundary or top layer of an object (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface). It is therefore unclear how a single “inner peripheral surface” could be comprised of “a front surface” and “a back surface”. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted as requiring an inner peripheral layer/structure that includes a front surface that faces the finger and a back surface facing away from the front surface.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the body”, for examination purposes “the body” will be interpreted as “the non-flexible body”.
Examiner notes that claims 2-17 and 19-20 inherit the same deficiencies.
In re claim 2, the limitation “wherein a cross-sectional shape of the inner peripheral surface is elliptical” raises a clarity concern when viewed in combination with Applicant’s specification [0074]. As best understood “a cross sectional shape of the inner peripheral surface” is not elliptical but rather a shape that results from combining a plurality of portions of circles or ellipses having different curvature radi (see Applicant’s specification [0074]). Therefore, for examination purposes, the limitation “wherein a cross-sectional shape of the inner peripheral is elliptical” will be interpreted as requiring the cross-sectional shape of the inner peripheral surface to be a combination of a plurality of portions of circles (or ellipses) having different curvatures.
In re claim 6,
Regarding the limitations “wherein a cross-sectional shape of the inner peripeheral surface is elliptical” and “ellipse” see above (In re claim 2).
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the ellipse”. For examination purposes “the ellipse” will be interpreted as “the cross-sectional shape of the inner peripheral surface”, as that is the shape that is described as being “elliptical”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Mars et al. (US 11,850,069).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Mars discloses a sensing device (FIGS. 1A-1G: 100) comprising:
a non-flexible body (102)
configured to be worn on a finger of a user (col. 5, lines 66-67: “smart ring”) and
having an inner peripheral surface (104) that faces a pad, a back, an outer side surface, and an inner side surface of the finger when the body is worn on the finger (col. 2, lines 14-18); and
a biosensor (110) configured to measure biological information of the user through the finger (col. 8, lines 10-19),
the biosensor being disposed on the inner peripheral surface (FIG. 1D) in a position to face the pad of the finger when the body is on the finger (FIG. 1D; col. 6, lines 14-18),
wherein, in a cross-section of the inner peripheral surface (see Examiner FIG. 2 below),
a first distance (D1) between a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the pad of the finger and a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the back of the finger is shorter than a second distance (D2) between a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the outer side surface of the finger and a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the inner side surface of the finger (Examiner FIG. 2),
wherein the inner peripheral surface includes
a front surface (portion of 104 closest to finger) that faces the finger (FIG. 1C) and
a back surface (portion of 104 closest to 102) facing away from the front surface (FIG. 1C),
wherein a cross-sectional shape of the front surface of the inner peripheral surface is defined by a first arc (shape created by tracing portions 126, 121 and 124) and a second arc (shape created by tracing 122),
wherein the first arc has a first curvature radius (col. 6, lines 2-13: “less curved portions 124 and 126 (e.g. flat, larger radius of curvature…”) and continuously passes through the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the outer side surface of the finger, the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the pad of the finger, and the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the inner side surface of the finger (Examiner FIG. 1),
wherein the second arc has a second curvature radius and continuously passes through the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the outer side surface of the finger, the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the back of the finger, and the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the inner side surface of the finger (Examiner FIG. 1), and
the first curvature radius is greater than the second curvature radius (col. 6, lines 2-13: “less curved portions 124 and 126 (e.g. flat, larger radius of curvature portions compared to 121 and 122)” ).
PNG
media_image2.png
401
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, Mars discloses, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the inner peripheral surface is elliptical (Examiner FIG. 1; additionally see above section Claim Rejections 35 USC 112).
In re claim 14, Mars discloses, wherein the biosensor includes a temperature sensor (col. 8, lines 10-19: “temperature sensor”).
In re claim 19, Mars discloses, wherein the inner peripheral surface has a hollow shape (FIGS. 1A-1G: apparent as the device is worn on a finger (col. 2, lines 14-18).
PNG
media_image3.png
510
883
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 20, Mars discloses (all mapping directed to Examiner FIG. 3), wherein when
a direction (horizontal) of a line segment (dotted horizontal line) that connects the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the outer side surface of the finger to the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the inner side surface of the finger is an X-direction (see axis of Examiner FIG. 3),
a direction (vertical) of a line segment (vertical dotted line) that connects the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the pad of the finger to the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the back of the finger is an Y-direction (see axis Examiner FIG. 3), and
a direction in which the finger is inserted is a Z- direction (see axis Examiner FIG. 3),
a cross-sectional shape of the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the back of the finger taken along a plane that is parallel to an YZ plane and orthogonal to the X-direction projects to the hollow portion (Examiner FIG. 3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mars et al. (US 11,850,069), in view of Lusted et al. (US 9,711,060) [in view of Gunderson et al. (US 2021/0153751)].
In re claim 3, the proposed combination yields,
a sensing device according to Claim 1 (see above In re claim 1).
The proposed combination does not yield
A device set comprising:
a plurality of sensing devices that each include the sensing device according to Claim 1,
wherein the first distance and the second distance of the inner peripheral surface of a first sensing device of the plurality of sensing devices differ from the first distance and the second distance of the inner peripheral surface of a second sensing device of the plurality of sensing devices, and
wherein the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor including a light-emitting element and a light-receiving element.
wherein a distance between the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element is identical for each of the first and second sensing devices.
Lusted discloses an analogous ring-shaped sensing device configured to be worn on a finger of a user (abstract). To accommodate different sized fingers, Lusted discloses creating the ring-shaped sensing device in several different sizes (FIG. 9, FIG. 11A-FIG. 11C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination to include a device set comprising a plurality of differently sized sensing devices, as taught by Lusted. One would have been motivated to make this modification to accommodate different finger sizes (Lusted, col. 8, line 49-51). Accordingly, such a modification would yield “wherein the first distance and the second distance of the inner peripheral surface of a first sensing device of the plurality of sensing devices differ from the first distance and the second distance of the inner peripheral surface of a second sensing device of the plurality of sensing devices”.
Examiner also asserts that even in the absence of Lusted, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Mars to include a plurality of different sized sensing devices. One would have been motivated to make this modification not only to accommodate different finger sizes but because doing so would allow a company to capture a wider market. Accordingly, such a modification would yield multiple sensing devices created in the image of the sensing device of the proposed combination, with different first distance and second distance values.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor including a light emitting element and a light receiving element”
Mars further discloses, other embodiments of the biosensor including a blood oxygen sensor to determine a patient’s heart rate. As discussed in Mars, the patient’s heart rate is determined using reflection or transmission of LED light relative to the patient’s finger (col. 4, lines 58-67 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biosensor of the proposed combination to have a pulse wave sensor as taught by Mars. One would have been motivated to make this modification to have the ability to measure the patient’s heart rate (col. 4, lines 58-67).
Regarding the pulse wave sensor including “a light emitting element and a light receiving element”, Examiner asserts that it is apparent that the pulse wave sensor of Mars has both a light receiving element and light emitting element given that the patient’s heart rate is determine by detecting the amount of light transmitted or reflected to the patient’s finger (col. 4, lines 58-67). However, in so far as this is not explicitly stated claim 3 is alternatively rejected in view of Mars, Lusted and Gunderson as follows:
Gunderson discloses a sensing device (FIG. 7; abstract), that like Mars includes a pulse wave sensor (98, 96; [0083]). As shown in FIG. 7, the pulse wave sensor is comprised of a light emitting element (96) and a light receiving element (98). As disclosed by Gunderson, the light emitting element and light receiving element are located on an interior surface of the sensing device such that they face a tissue of the patient when the sensing device is worn [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulse wave sensor of Mars to include a light emitting element and a light receiving element as taught by Gunderson. One would have been motivated to make this modification because light emitting elements and light receiving elements are known components of pulse wave sensors, as evidenced by Gunderson. Accordingly, such a modification would yield, “wherein a distance between the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element is identical for each of the first and second sensing devices”, as changes to the first distance and second distance would not influence the distance between the components of the pulse wave sensor.
Claims 4, 5, 6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mars et al. (US 11,850,069), in view of Gunderson et al. (US 2021/0153751).
In re claim 4, Mars does not disclose, wherein:
the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor including a light-emitting element and a light-receiving element, and
a distance between the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element is shorter than a distance between the outer side surface of the finger and the inner side surface of the finger ().
Mars further discloses an alternative embodiment of the sensing device where the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor that uses reflection or transmission of light to determine a patient’s heart rate (col. 4, lines 58-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biosensor of Mars to include a pulse wave sensor including a light- emitting element and a light-receiving element, as taught by the alternative embodiment of Mars. One would have been motivated to make this motivation not only because pulse wave sensors are commonly used in biosensing devices but also to have the ability to measure the patient’s heart rate (Mars, col. 4, lines 58-63).
Examiner notes that it is apparent that the pulse wave sensor of Mars includes a light emitting element and a light receiving element given that it detects heart rate using reflection or transmission of light. However, in so far as this is not explicitly stated claim 4 is alternatively rejected in view of Gunderson as follows:
Gunderson discloses a sensing device (FIG. 7; abstract), that like Mars includes a pulse wave sensor (98, 96; [0083]). As shown in FIG. 7, the pulse wave sensor is comprised of a light emitting element (96) and a light receiving element (98). As disclosed by Gunderson, the light emitting element and light receiving element are located on an interior surface of the sensing device such that they face a tissue of the patient when the sensing device is worn [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulse wave sensor of Mars to include a light emitting element and a light receiving element, as taught by Gunderson. One would have been motivated to make this modification because pulse wave sensors are known to include both light-emitting elements and light- receiving elements, as evidenced by Gunderson. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “a distance between the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element is shorter than a distance between the outer side surface of the finger and the inner side surface of the finger” as evidenced by FIG. 7 of Gunderson and location of the biosensor in Mars (see Mars: FIG. 1D; col. 6, lines 13-24).
In re claim 5, regarding the limitation wherein: "the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor including a light-emitting element and a light-receiving element” see above In re claim 4.
The proposed combination further yields wherein:
the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are bent relative to each other (Gunderson, FIG. 7) and configured on the inner peripheral surface to face the pad of the finger when the body on the finger (Gunderson, FIG. 7; [0083]; Additionally see Examiner FIG. 1 and Mars: FIG. 1D).
In re claim 6, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Gunderson unless indicated otherwise)
a cross-sectional shape of the inner peripheral surface is elliptical (Examiner FIG. 3; regarding limitation “elliptical” see above section Claim Rejections 35 USC 112), and
the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are disposed symmetrically with respect to a short axis (FIG. 7, where “a short axis” is an imaginary line drawn through the middle of element 96) of the ellipse (regarding limitation “ellipse” see above section Claim Rejections 35 USC 112).
In re claim 9, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Gunderson), wherein a maximum emission direction of the light-emitting element and a maximum reception direction of the light receiving element are not parallel to each other (FIG. 7, apparent as “light emitting element” and “light receiving element” are arranged along a curved inner peripheral surface; [0083]).
In re claim 10, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Mars unless indicated otherwise) wherein the biosensor includes
a pulse wave sensor that includes a light emitting element, a light receiving element (see above modification In re claim 4, specifically paragraphs 36-40) and
a layer (abstract: “potting compound”) that encapsulates the light-emitting element and the light receiving element (abstract: “encapsulating the components”; col. 1, lines 37-50) .
The proposed combination does not disclose the biosensor including:
a resin layer that encapsulates the light receiving element.
Regarding the limitation “resin”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the layer out of resin since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “a resin layer that encapsulates the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element.”
In re claim 11, the proposed combination yields, wherein
the resin layer is configured such that an end portion and a corner portion of the resin layer are located outside a range of a directional angle of the light-emitting element (apparent see * below), or
the end portion and the corner portion of the resin layer are located outside a range of a directional angle of the light-receiving element (apparent see *below).
*Examiner notes that the term “portion”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a part of a whole. Examiner asserts that it is apparent that there is some “part” of a corner portion and some “part” of an end portion of the resin layer that would be located either outside a range of a directional angle of the light-emitting element or outside a range of a directional angle of the light-receiving element.
In re claim 12, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Mars unless indicated otherwise), wherein:
the light-emitting element is disposed on the inner peripheral surface such that the pad of the finger is located within the range of the directional angle of the light-emitting element when the body is worn on the finger (Examiner FIG. 3; col. 6, lines 13-21; Gunderson: [0083]), and
the light-receiving element is disposed on the inner peripheral surface such that the pad of the finger is located within the range of the directional angle of the light-receiving element when the body is worn on the finger (Examiner FIG. 3; col. 6, lines 13-21; Gunderson: [0083]).
In re claim 13, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Mars)
wherein the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are disposed in a cavity (FIGS. 1D-1E; col. 6, lines 13-21) formed in the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the pad of the finger (Examiner FIG. 3).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mars et al. (US 11,850,069), in view of Gunderson et al. (US 2021/0153751), in view of Robinson et al. (US 2022/0096007).
In re claim 7, the proposed combination does not yield, wherein a distance between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is approximately 10 mm.
Robinson discloses an analogous sensing device (FIG. 19), that like Mars, is configured as a ring to be worn on a finger. The sensing device also includes an optical sensor system comprising two light- emitting elements (1905, 1906) and two light-receiving elements (1907, 1908). The light-emitting elements of Robinson configured to emit different wavelengths of light including near infrared and green [0162]. As discussed in Robinson, the physical configuration of the light-emitting elements and the light-receiving elements should be adjusted depending on a wavelength of light emitted by the light-emitting elements [0121, 0122]. Specifically, Robinson discloses that it is advantageous to have less space ([0122]: “<5 mm”) between the light-emitting elements and the light-receiving elements when dealing with shorter wavelengths (e.g. green light) and more space ([0122]: “more than 10 mm”) when dealing with longer wavelengths (e.g. infrared light) [0122].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a distance between the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element to be approximately 10 mm, as taught by Robinson. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it is known that physically separating light-emitting elements and light- receiving elements by approximately 10 mm supports optical paths where a majority of the light interacts with artery and arteriole segments (Robinson, [0122]).
In re claim 8, the proposed combination yields, wherein the light emitting element is configured to emit light (Gunderson, [0083]).
The proposed combination does not yield,
wherein the light emitting element is configured to emit light of red to near infrared wavelengths.
As discussed in paragraph 54 above, the light-emitting elements of Robinson are configured to emit near infrared and green light [0162, 0121, 0122].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting element of the proposed combination to be configured to emit light of red to near infrared wavelengths, as taught by Robinson. One would have been motivated to make this modification because near infrared light can penetrate deeper into the tissue and interact with larger vasculature segments (Robinson, [0121]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mars et al. (US 11,850,069), in view of Yuan et al. (US 2020/0397101), in view of Robinson et al. (US 2022/0096007).
In re claim 15, Mars does not disclose wherein
the biosensor includes
a pulse wave sensor including a plurality of light-emitting elements that are configured to emit light of different wavelengths, respectively, and
a light-receiving element, and
the plurality of light- emitting elements are disposed at positions that differ in distance from the light-receiving element depending on the wavelengths, respectively.
As indicated above, Mars further discloses an alternative embodiment of the sensing device where the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor that uses reflection or transmission of light to determine a patient’s heart rate (col. 4, lines 58-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biosensor of Mars to include a pulse wave sensor including a light emitting element and a light receiving element, as taught by the alternative embodiment of Mars. One would have been motivated to make this motivation to have the ability to measure the patients heart rate (col. 4, lines 58-63).
Examiner notes that it is apparent that the pulse wave sensor of Mars includes light emitting elements and light receiving elements as it is capable of detecting heart rate using reflection or transmission of light. However, in so far as this is not explicitly stated claim 15 is alternatively rejected as follows:
Yuan discloses a sensing device (FIG. 4; abstract) that, like Mars, includes a pulse wave sensor (51, 52). As shown in FIG. 4, the pulse wave sensor includes two light emitting elements (51) and a light receiving element (52; [0020])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulse wave sensor of Mars to have a plurality of light emitting elements and a light receiving element given that such components are known to be included in pulse wave sensors, as evidenced by Yuan.
Regarding the plurality of light emitting elements being “configured to emit a plurality of different wavelengths respectively” and “the plurality of light- emitting elements are disposed at positions that differ in distance from the light-receiving element depending on the wavelengths, respectively.”
As discussed above in paragraph 54, Robinson discloses an analogous sensing device (FIG. 19) with two light emitting elements (1905, 1906). Robinson further discloses the light-emitting elements being configured to emit near infrared and green light [0161, 0121, 0122]. Robinson also discloses changing a distance between the light-emitting elements and the light-receiving elements depending on what type of light (i.e., shorter or longer wavelength) is being emitted [0121, 0122].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of light-emitting elements of the proposed combination to be configured to emit light of different wavelengths, respectively, as taught by Robinson. One would have been motivated to make this modification to have the ability to collect information at various tissue depths (Robinson, [0121, 0122]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the plurality of light emitting elements at positions that differ in distance from the light receiving element depending on the wavelengths respectively, as taught by Robinson. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would ensure sufficient photon detection for each wavelength (Robinson, [0121, 0122]).
In re claim 16, the proposed combination yields wherein the plurality of light-emitting elements includes a second light-emitting (Yuan, 51 left of 52) element that is configured to emit light of *blue to yellow green wavelengths (Robinson, [0162]: “emitting green light (e.g. peak wavelength 530 nm”).
*For examination purposes blue to yellow-green is being interpreted as visible light ranging between 450 nm to 580 nm.
In re claim 17, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Robinson) wherein a distance between the second light-emitting element and the light-receiving element is 2 to 3 mm ([0121], [0122]: “<5mm”).
Conclusion
The following prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Byung et al. (GB 2595171A) discloses a biosensing device (FIG. 6) shaped to ensure that sensors remain securely attached to a finger of a user during signal measurement [29; 78].
Wasson et al. (US 10,918,289) discloses an analogous biosensing device (abstract; FIG. 1: 104) that also includes a pulse wave sensor (col. 4, lines 13-26). Wasson further discloses the biosensing device having an opening that is elliptical or any other shape through which a user’s finger can pass (col. 3, lines 27-30).
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)-270-5625. 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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights