DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The action is in response to the application filed on 05/13/2024. Claims 2-19 are pending and examined below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11723563 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Shaga”) in view of US 20160345881 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sarantos”).
Regarding claim 2, Shaga teaches a wearable health monitoring device configured to be secured to a wrist area of a wearer (abstract; as shown in Figure 2A), the device comprising:
a housing including a front side and a back side (as shown in Figure 2A), the back side configured to face tissue of the wearer when the device is worn (as shown in Figures 4A-C); and
a sensor assembly positioned by the back side of the housing (as shown in Figure 4A) and comprising:
a raised surface projecting outward from the back side of the housing toward the tissue (as shown in Figure 4A-C);
one or more emitter chambers housing a plurality of emitters (emitter pairs 410 are positioned in own cavities 462; column 15, line 36 to column 16, line 46; as shown in Figures 4A-C), the emitter chambers forming emitter windows for optical radiation to pass through (column 15, line 36 to column 16, line 46; as shown in Figures 4A-C);
a plurality of detector chambers each housing one or more detectors, the detector chambers forming detector windows for optical radiation to pass through (column 15, line 36 to column 16, line 46; as shown in Figures 4A-C), each of the detector chambers having a cross sectional area at least as large as a respective unobstructed window area (as shown in Figures 4A-C); and
a light barrier positioned between the emitter chambers and the detector chambers, the light barrier configured to reduce light from the emitters from reaching the detectors without being attenuated by the tissue of the wearer (464; column 16, lines 34-46);
but Shaga does not explicitly teach each of the detector windows having an unobstructed window area between 10 mm2 and 16.6 mm2.
However, Sarantos teaches each of the detector windows having an unobstructed window area between 10 mm2 and 16.6 mm2 (paragraphs [0011], [0023], [0105]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shaga, to have a window area from 10 mm2 and 16.6 mm2, as taught by Santos, because doing so provides a direct optical path through the window to the photodetector while maintaining the compact dimensions desirable for a wrist-worn PPG sensor.
Regarding claim 3, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches wherein the unobstructed window area is between 10 mm2 and 12.5 mm2 (paragraphs [0011], [0023], [0105]; as taught by Sarantos).
Regarding claim 4, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches wherein the unobstructed window area is between 12.5 mm2 and 16.6 mm2 (paragraphs [0011], [0023], [0105]; as taught by Sarantos).
Regarding claim 5, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches wherein an aggregate detector window area is greater than about 100 mm2 (paragraphs [0011], [0023], [0105]; as taught by Sarantos; as shown in Figures 4A-C; as taught by Shaga).
Regarding claim 6, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches wherein the plurality of detector chambers surround the one or more emitter chambers (as shown in Figures 4A-C; as taught by Shaga).
Regarding claim 7, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches wherein the one or more emitter chambers comprises two emitter chambers (emitter pairs 410 are positioned in own cavities 462; column 15, line 36 to column 16, line 46; as shown in Figures 4A-C).
Regarding claim 8, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches wherein each detector chamber of the plurality of detector chambers houses one detector (as shown in Figures 4A-C; as taught by Shaga).
Regarding claim 9, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches having 4 chambers with detectors (as shown in Figures 4A-C; as taught by Shaga), but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of detector chambers comprises six detector chambers, wherein the one or more detectors comprises six detectors.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effectively filed to have wherein the plurality of detector chambers comprises six detector chambers, wherein the one or more detectors comprises six detectors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches having 4 chambers with detectors (as shown in Figures 4A-C; as taught by Shaga), but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of detector chambers comprises eight detector chambers, wherein the one or more detectors comprises eight detectors.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effectively filed to have wherein the plurality of detector chambers comprises eight detector chambers, wherein the one or more detectors comprises eight detectors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 11, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches having 4 chambers with detectors (as shown in Figures 4A-C; as taught by Shaga), but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of detector chambers comprises ten detector chambers, wherein the one or more detectors comprises ten detectors.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effectively filed to have wherein the plurality of detector chambers comprises ten detector chambers, wherein the one or more detectors comprises ten detectors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 12, Shaga teaches A wearable health monitoring device configured to be secured to a wrist area of a wearer (abstract; as shown in Figure 2A), the device comprising:
a housing including a front side and a back side (as shown in Figure 2A), the back side configured to face tissue of the wearer when the device is worn (as shown in Figures 4A-C); and
a sensor assembly positioned by the back side of the housing (as shown in Figures 4A-C) and comprising:
a raised surface projecting outward from the back side of the housing toward the tissue (as shown in Figure 4A-C);
a plurality of emitter chambers housing emitters (emitter pairs 410 are positioned in own cavities 462; column 15, line 36 to column 16, line 46; as shown in Figures 4A-C), the emitter chambers forming emitter windows for optical radiation to pass through (column 15, line 36 to column 16, line 46; as shown in Figures 4A-C);
a plurality of detector chambers each housing one detector, the detector chambers forming detector windows for optical radiation to pass through (column 15, line 36 to column 16, line 46; as shown in Figures 4A-C), each of the detector chambers having a cross sectional area at least as large a respective window area (as shown in Figures 4A-C); and
a light barrier positioned between the emitter chambers and the detector chambers, the light barrier configured to reduce light from the emitters from reaching the detectors without being attenuated by the tissue of the wearer (464; column 16, lines 34-46);
but Shaga does not explicitly teach each of the detector windows having an unobstructed window area between 10 mm2 and 16.6 mm2.
However, Sarantos teaches each of the detector windows having an unobstructed window area between 10 mm2 and 16.6 mm2 (paragraphs [0011], [0023], [0105]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shaga, to have a window area from 10 mm2 and 16.6 mm2, as taught by Santos, because doing so provides a direct optical path through the window to the photodetector while maintaining the compact dimensions desirable for a wrist-worn PPG sensor.
Regarding claim 13, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches wherein the window area is between 10 mm2 and 12.5 mm2 (paragraphs [0011], [0023], [0105]; as taught by Sarantos).
Regarding claim 14, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches wherein the window area is between 12.5 mm2 and 16.6 mm2 (paragraphs [0011], [0023], [0105]; as taught by Sarantos).
Regarding claim 15, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches wherein an aggregate detector window area is greater than about 100 mm2 (paragraphs [0011], [0023], [0105]; as taught by Sarantos; as shown in Figures 4A-C; as taught by Shaga).
Regarding claim 16, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches wherein the plurality of detector chambers surround the plurality of emitter chambers (as shown in Figures 4A-C; as taught by Shaga).
Regarding claim 17, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches wherein the plurality of emitter chambers comprises two emitter chambers (emitter pairs 410 are positioned in own cavities 462; column 15, line 36 to column 16, line 46; as shown in Figures 4A-C).
Regarding claim 18, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches having 4 chambers with detectors (as shown in Figures 4A-C; as taught by Shaga), but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of detector chambers comprises six detector chambers, wherein the one or more detectors comprises six detectors.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effectively filed to have wherein the plurality of detector chambers comprises six detector chambers, wherein the one or more detectors comprises six detectors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 19, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches having 4 chambers with detectors (as shown in Figures 4A-C; as taught by Shaga), but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of detector chambers comprises eight detector chambers, wherein the one or more detectors comprises eight detectors.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effectively filed to have wherein the plurality of detector chambers comprises eight detector chambers, wherein the one or more detectors comprises eight detectors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 20, Shaga, in view of Sarantos, teaches having 4 chambers with detectors (as shown in Figures 4A-C; as taught by Shaga), but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of detector chambers comprises ten detector chambers, wherein the one or more detectors comprises ten detectors.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effectively filed to have wherein the plurality of detector chambers comprises ten detector chambers, wherein the one or more detectors comprises ten detectors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights