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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (previously presented claims 1-8 and 17-20, new claims 21-28) in the reply filed on 27 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 and 17-28 are pending and under consideration for patentability; claims 9-16 have been cancelled; claims 1, 4, and 20 have been amended; and claims 21-28 have been added as new claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 27 August 2024 has been acknowledged and considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 17-19, 21-23, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lamminmaki et al. (US 2020/0138349 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 21, Lamminmaki describes an apparatus, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and method for capturing measurements related to health of a subject ([0012]), comprising
a plurality of light sources comprising a first light source 202 and a second light source 204, each configured to emit electromagnetic radiation ([0035])
one or more memories, individually or in combination, having instructions ([0033] - [0034])
one or more processors, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to ([0033] - [0034])
determine to perform a first set of measurements on the subject within a time window ([0023], [0029]), wherein the first set of measurements comprise a first measurement performed with the first light source using a first optimal voltage and a second measurement performed with the second light source using a second optimal voltage ([0035]), wherein the first measurement and the second measurement are performed in a contiguous sequence within the time window ([0029]), and wherein the first optimal voltage is different from the second optimal voltage ([0037] - [0038])
apply the first optimal voltage to the first light source ([0035])
apply the second optimal voltage to the second light source ([0035])
Regarding claims 2, 18, and 22, Lamminmaki describes wherein the first optimal voltage is applied to the first light source at a first time instance ([0035]), wherein the second optimal voltage is applied to the second light source at a second time instance ([0035]), and wherein a delay between the first time instance and the second time instance is equal to or less than 1 millisecond ([0029], each light source is illuminated several hundred times per second).
Regarding claims 3, 19, and 23, Lamminmaki describes wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to cause the apparatus to perform a test on each of the first light source and the second light source, wherein the test is configured to detect the first optimal voltage associated with the first light source and the second optimal voltage associated with the second light source ([0012], [0053]).
Regarding claims 7 and 27, Lamminmaki describes wherein the test is performed prior to performance of the first set of measurements and in response to the determination to perform the first set of measurements ([0012]).
Regarding claims 8 and 28, Lamminmaki describes wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to cause the apparatus to
detect a voltage condition associated with the first light source upon application of the first optimal voltage to the first light source ([0020, [0022], detecting voltage drops)
perform a test on the first light source in response to detection of the voltage condition, wherein the test is configured to detect a third optimal voltage associated with the first light source ([0022], measuring LED voltages to calculate a voltage drop in the LEDs, dynamically optimizing LED drive voltages)
apply the third optimal voltage to the first light source ([0052] - [0053])
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 4, 5, 20, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamminmaki in view of Hatch (US 2020/0085321 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 20, and 24, Lamminmaki describes the apparatus of clam 3, the computer-readable medium of claim 19, and the method of claim 23. Lamminmaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, being configured to cause the apparatus to perform the test on each of the first light source and the second light source, are further configured to cause the apparatus to
apply an initial voltage to the first light source
reduce the voltage applied to the first light source incrementally at each of a sequential series of steps
detect a voltage condition associated with the first light source after the voltage applied to the first light source is reduced
determine the first optimal voltage based on the voltage condition
However, Hatch also describes an apparatus and method for optimizing the voltage of an optical sensor ([0017] - [0018]), including a processor configured to
apply an initial voltage to a first light source ([0114])
reduce the voltage applied to the first light source incrementally at each of a sequential series of steps ([0114], incrementing the LED voltage by one 12-bit step at a time)
detect a voltage condition associated with the first light source after the voltage applied to the first light source is reduced ([0114], detecting the output resolution of the LED to determine if it has reached at least 85% full scale)
determine the first optimal voltage based on the voltage condition ([0113] - [0114], applying the optimized voltage to the LED)
As Hatch is also directed towards determining an optimal voltage for an optical sensor and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a step-up or step-down procedure similar to that described by Hatch when using the apparatus described by Lamminmaki, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting apparatus to determine the optimum voltage level for a particular light source.
Regarding claims 5 and 25, Lamminmaki describes wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to cause the apparatus to store the determined first optimal voltage ([0044]).
Claims 6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamminmaki in view of Baru et al. (US 2019/0255333 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 26, Lamminmaki describes the apparatus of claim 3 and method of clam 23, but Lamminmaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the test comprises a binary search of a range of voltage values. However, Baru also describes an apparatus and method for determining an optimal voltage within the context of a medical device, including the use of a binary search of a range of voltages ([0050], [0075]). As Baru also describes voltage management in a medical device and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a binary search scheme similar to that described by Baru when using the apparatus and method described by Lamminmaki, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting system to determine the optimum voltage level for a particular application.
Statement on Communication via Internet
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet e-mail, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Ankit D. Tejani, whose telephone number is 571-272-5140. The Examiner may normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30AM through 5:00PM 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, Carl Layno, can be reached by telephone at 571-272-4949. 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 at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Ankit D Tejani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights