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 .
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.
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(s) 1 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0037932) in view of Tchertkov et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0079534).
Regarding claim 1, Min discloses a smart ring for sensing a biometric signal by coming in contact with the skin, the smart ring (e.g. Fig. 1) comprising: at least one light-emitting circuit (e.g. 172 and ¶ 49); a switch that controls each of the at least one light-emitting circuit (e.g. ¶ 50); and a sensing circuit configured to obtain reflected light that is output from the at least one light-emitting circuit and reflected from the inside of the skin (e.g. ¶ 68). Min fails to discloses first to third light sources that respectively generate light of first to third wavelengths.
However, Tchertkov teaches including first to third driving circuits and light sources (e.g. 185) that respectively generate light of first to third wavelengths incident on the inside of the skin at non-overlapping first to third points in time (e.g. ¶ 54). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the light sources as taught by Min with the light sources having different wavelengths as taught by Tchertkov, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of using an optimal wavelength to improve the signal, reduce noise, deal with dark skin colors, measure the blood's oxygen content, or penetrate to different depths of the user's body (e.g. Tchertkov ¶ 54).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Min discloses the claimed invention as described above, but fails to explicitly recite at least one light-emitting circuit comprises first and second light-emitting circuits provided on an inner side surface where the smart ring and the skin contact each other, and the first and second light-emitting circuits are arranged adjacent to each other.
Tchertkov teachers it is known that at least one light-emitting circuit comprises first and second light-emitting circuits provided on an inner side surface where the smart ring and the skin contact each other, and the first and second light-emitting circuits are arranged adjacent to each other. (e.g. ¶ 83 and Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting circuits as taught by Min with the adjacent circuits as taught by Tchertkov, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a modification would provide the predictable results of sensing at different points around the ring.
Regarding claim 4, neither Min nor Tchertkov specifically recites the first and second light-emitting circuits are arranged such that a distance between the first and second light-emitting circuits is equal to a diameter of the smart ring. However, it would have been an obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the distance between the light-emitting circuits with the claimed dimensions, because Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed dimensions provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the light-emitting circuits arranged around the ring as shown in Fig. 7, because it effectively provides a PPG sensor and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Min in view of Tchertkov.
Regarding claim 5, Min discloses the claimed invention as described above, but fails to explicitly recite the at least one light-emitting circuit comprises first to nth light-emitting circuits (where n is a natural number equal to or greater than 3) provided on an inner side surface where the smart ring and the skin contact each other, and the first to nth light-emitting circuits are uniformly disposed on the inner side surface.
Tchertkov teachers it is known that the first to nth light-emitting circuits are uniformly disposed on the inner side surface r. (e.g. Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting circuits as taught by Min with the adjacent circuits as taught by Tchertkov, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a modification would provide the predictable results of sensing at different points around the ring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 – 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 6, recites the inner side surface of the smart ring, which is in contact with the skin, is formed as a polygonal pillar, each light-emitting circuit is provided on each side of the polygonal pillar, and a first light-emitting circuit group of the at least one light-emitting circuit operates in a first operation mode, and a second light-emitting circuit group of the at least one light-emitting circuit operates in a second operation mode. The prior art fails to teach this limitation in addition to the other limitations of independent claim 1. Claims 7 – 13 depend upon objected claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796