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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
In re claim 18, “a first curvature radius”
In re claim 18, “a second curvature radius”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 seeks correction or confirmation of the following claim interpretations.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In re claim 1, the limitation “the biosensor being biosensor being disposed on the inner peripheral surface in a position to face the pad of the finger when the body on the finger” should read “the biosensor being biosensor being disposed on the inner peripheral surface in a position to face the pad of the finger when the body is on the finger”
In re claim 5, see above (In re claim 1).
In re claim 10, the limitation “wherein the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor that includes including a light-emitting element”, should read “wherein the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor that includes a light-emitting element or “wherein the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor including a light-emitting element”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
In re claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the body”. For examination purposes, any instance of the limitation “the body” will be interpreted as “the non-flexible body”. Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-20 inherit the same deficiencies.
In re claim 2, the limitation “wherein a cross-sectional shape of the inner peripheral surface is a substantial ellipse”, specifically the phrase “substantial ellipse”, raises a clarity concern. The term “substantial” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes the limitation “wherein a cross-sectional shape of the inner peripheral surface is a substantial ellipse” will be interpreted as requiring a cross section of the inner peripheral surface to have an elliptical shape.
In re claim 18,
The limitations “wherein a first curvature radius is defined by a curvature radius of a curve that passes through a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the outer side surface of the finger, 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 inner side surface of the finger, wherein a second curvature radius is defined by a curvature radius of a curve that passes through a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the outer side surface of the finger, a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the back of the finger, and a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the inner side surface of the finger, and the first curvature radius is greater than the second curvature radius.”, present a clarity concern. Under the broadest most reasonable interpretation a curve is defined as any non-straight object. Examples of objects that would qualify as a curve would include a circle, a parabola or an ellipse. Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to draw a first curve (i.e., circle, parabola, ellipse, etc.) that “passes that passes through a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the outer side surface of the finger, 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 inner side surface of the finger” and a second curve “passes through a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the outer side surface of the finger, a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the back of the finger, and a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the inner side surface of the finger”, where the curvature radius of the first curve is greater than the curvature radius of the second curve. Accordingly, Examiner asserts that the above limitations do not provide any meaningful geometric constraints. Based on Applicant’s specification, Examiner believes the above limitations are trying to geometrically capture the cavity that is formed in the portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the pad of the finger [0031], and notes that the claim will be treated accordingly during examination.
The limitation, “inner peripheral surface”, presents a clarity concern. Specifically, looking at Applicant’s FIG. 10 it is unclear if the inner peripheral surface is referring to the inside line of 12 (indicated by markers 15/C1/C2) or the entire region of 12 (i.e., region extending from the inside line of 12 to the dotted line that separates 12 and 13). For examination purposes, the “inner peripheral surface” is being interpreted as referring to the inside line of 12 (indicated by markers 15/C1/C2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan et al. (2020/0085360).
PNG
media_image1.png
537
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Yuan discloses a sensing device (abstract; Examiner FIG. 1) comprising:
a non-flexible body (1; abstract: “rigid ring body”) configured to be worn on a finger of a user (abstract) and having an inner peripheral surface (2) 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 (Examiner FIG. 1; apparent); and
a biosensor (4,5) configured to measure biological information (abstract: “blood oxygen saturation”) of the user through the finger,
the biosensor being disposed on the inner peripheral surface in a position to face the pad of the finger when the body on the finger (FIG. 5),
wherein, in a cross-section of the inner peripheral surface, a first distance (D1) between a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the pad of the finger (bottom dotted line of D1) and a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the back of the finger (top dotted line of D1) is shorter than a second distance (D2) between a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the outer side surface of the finger (left dotted line of D2) and a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the inner side surface of the finger (right dotted line of D2; FIG. 5).
In re claim 2, Yuan discloses wherein a cross-sectional shape of the inner peripheral surface is a substantial ellipse (FIG. 5; apparent that the shape is an ellipse given that D1 < D2).
In re claim 4, Yuan discloses wherein:
the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor including a light-emitting element (5) and a light-receiving element (4), 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 (D2; Examiner FIG. 1; Apparent as the distance between elements 4 and 5 is less than the distance between the outer side surface of the finger and the inner side surface of the finger i.e., D2).
In re claim 5, Yuan discloses wherein:
the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor including a light-emitting element (5) and a light-receiving element (4), and
the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are bent relative to each other (See above section Claim Interpretation; apparent as elements are arranged along a curved inner peripheral surface) and configured on the inner peripheral surface to face the pad of the finger when the body on the finger (Examiner FIG. 1; [0028]).
In re claim 6, Yuan discloses wherein:
a cross-sectional shape of the inner peripheral surface is a substantial ellipse (Examiner FIG. 1; apparent as D1 < D2), and
the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are disposed symmetrically with respect to a short axis (Examiner FIG. 1: imaginary vertical line cutting through the middle of the ring) of the substantial ellipse.
PNG
media_image2.png
404
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 9, Yuan discloses wherein a maximum emission direction of the light-emitting element (Examiner FIG. 2: dashed line) and a maximum reception direction of the light-receiving element (dotted line) are not parallel to each other (Examiner FIG. 2; Regarding the limitations “maximum emission direction” and “maximum reception direction” see above section Claim Interpretation).
In re claim 19, Yuan discloses wherein the inner peripheral surface has a hollow shape (Examiner FIG. 1; Apparent as device is worn on a finger (abstract)).
PNG
media_image3.png
565
1099
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 20, Yuan discloses wherein,
when
a direction of a line segment 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 (Examiner FIG. 3: dotted line),
a direction of a line segment 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 (Examiner FIG. 3: dashed line), and
a direction in which the finger is inserted is a Z-direction (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.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (2020/0085360) in view of Lusted et al. (US 9,711,060).
In re claim 3, Yuan discloses,
a sensing device according to Claim 1 (see above In re claim 1),
wherein the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor including a light-emitting element and a light-receiving element (see above In re claim 1).
Yuan does not disclose
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 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 Yuan 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 a plurality of sensing devices “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 a distance between the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element is identical for each of the first and second 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 Yuan 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 disclosed by Yuan in Claim 1, with different D1 and D2 values (see above In re claim 1).
In re claim 14, Yuan does not disclose, wherein the biosensor includes a temperature sensor.
Lusted discloses an analogous ring-shaped sensing device configured to be worn on a finger of a user (abstract). The ring-shaped device is equipped with sensors for measuring electrodermal response, photoplethysmography (PPG), temperature and acceleration (col. 4, lines 17-41).
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 taught by Yuan to include a temperature sensor, as taught by Lusted. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would enable the sensing device to collect additional biological information about the user.
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (2020/0085360), in view of Robinson et al. (US 2022/0096007).
In re claim 7, Yuan does not disclose, 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 Yuan, 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, Yuan discloses wherein light-emitting element is configured to emit light.
Yuan does not disclose wherein the light-emitting element is configured to emit light of red to near-infrared wavelengths.
As discussed in paragraph 44 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 Yuan 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]).
In re claim 15, Yuan discloses wherein the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor including a plurality of light-emitting elements (5 left, 5 right), and a light-receiving element (4).
Yuan does not disclose
a plurality of light-emitting elements that are configured to emit light 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 44, Robinson 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 Yuan’s plurality of light-emitting elements 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]).
In re claim 16, the proposed combination yields wherein the plurality of light-emitting elements includes a second light-emitting (Yuan, Examiner FIG. 1: 5 right) 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”).
Claim 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (2020/0085360), in view of Cihan et al. (US 2021/0085245).
In re claim 10, Yuan discloses wherein the biosensor includes a pulse wave sensor (4, 5) that includes including a light-emitting element (5) and a light-receiving element (4).
Yuan does not disclose a pulse wave sensor that includes a light-emitting element, a light-receiving element, and a resin layer that encapsulates the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element.
Cihan discloses an analogous sensing device, that like Yuan, is configured as a ring to be worn on a user’s finger (FIG. 3). The sensing device includes an encapsulated sensor (FIG. 4: 310; [0049]: “encapsulant…positioned over”) located on an inside surface of the sensing device. Cihan further discloses placing the encapsulated sensor inside a cavity (403) within the inside surface (FIG. 4).
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 to include a layer that encapsulates the sensor, as taught by Cihan. One would have been motivated to make this modification to protect the sensor from external factors like dust, debris, oil and moisture (Cihan, [0049]). Examiner notes that the pulse wave sensor includes a light-emitting element and a light-receiving element, therefore such a modification would yield a layer that “encapsulates the light-emitting element and 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 (all mapping directed to Examiner FIG. 1), wherein the resin layer (see above In re claim 10) is configured such that
an end portion (left face of 5 (on left) or right face of 5 (on right)) and a corner portion (bottom left corner of 5 (on left) or bottom right corner of 5 (on right)) of the resin layer are located outside a range of a directional angle of the light-emitting element, 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 (left face of 5 (on left) and bottom left corner of 5 (on left) or right face of 5 (on right) and bottom right corner of 5 (on right)).
In re claim 12, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Yuan) 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 [0028], 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 [0028].
In re claim 13, the proposed modification does not yield wherein the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are disposed in a cavity of the inner peripheral surface.
As discussed in paragraph 60, Cihan discloses placing the encapsulated sensor in a cavity defined within the inside surface (FIG. 4).
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 sensor of Yuan to be disposed in a cavity of the inner peripheral surface, as taught by Cihan. One would have been motivated to make this modification to better protect the sensor from external factors. Examiner notes that the sensor of Yuan includes a light-emitting element and a light-receiving element. Thus, such a modification would yield “wherein the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are disposed in a cavity of the inner peripheral surface”.
In re claim 18, Yuan discloses,
wherein a first curvature radius is defined by a curvature radius of a curve that passes through a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the outer side surface of the finger, 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 inner side surface of the finger (Examiner FIG. 3),
wherein a second curvature radius is defined by a curvature radius of a curve that passes through a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the outer side surface of the finger, a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the back of the finger, and a portion of the inner peripheral surface that faces the inner side surface of the finger (Examiner FIG. 3), and
the first curvature radius is equal to the second curvature radius (Examiner FIG. 3).
Yuan does not disclose wherein:
the first curvature radius is greater than the second curvature radius.
For substantially the same reasons as described above In re claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yuan to be disposed in a cavity of the inner peripheral surface, as taught by Cihan (see above section Claim Rejection 112 (In re claim 18 (i))). Accordingly, such a modification would yield two curves where “the first curvature radius is greater than the second curvature radius”.
Conclusion
The prior following art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Laakkonen et al. (US 11,291,378) discloses an analogous sensing device (FIG. 1) with a pulse wave sensor (144, 142) positioned on an inside surface (116) of the sensing device.
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