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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 14, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blank et al (US 2017/0143208 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blank et al shows in Figs.1A-2 the following elements of applicant’s claim: an elastic light-transmissive layer (18) having an optical property that changes in response to deformation of the light-transmissive layer (paragraphs 61-62); a first light source (left 20; Fig.2) configured to emit a first incident light through the light-transmissive layer towards the skin surface; a second light source (right 20; Fig.2) configured to emit a second incident light towards the skin surface; and a photodetector (52) configured to detect a first reflected light, which represents a reflection of the first incident light by a cutaneous tissue layer or at or adjacent a skin surface, and a second reflected light, which represents a reflection of the second incident light by a subcutaneous tissue layer (paragraphs 63-64).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 65 of Blank et al.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 64 of Blank et al.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.2 of Blank et al.
Regarding claim 17, Blank et al shows in Figs.1A-2 the following elements of applicant’s claim: a light-transmissive layer (18) elastically deformable to cause a corresponding change in an optical characteristic of light traversing through the light-transmissive layer (paragraphs 61-62); a first light emitting component (left 20; Fig.2) configured to emit light through the light-transmissive layer towards a skin site for reflection by a corresponding epidermis skin portion; a second light emitting component (right 20; Fig.2) configured to emit light towards the skin site for reflection by a corresponding non-epidermis skin portion; and a photodetector (52) configured to detect light reflected by epidermis and non-epidermis skin portions (paragraphs 63-64).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 64 of Blank et al.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.2 of Blank et al.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 9, 11-13, 15-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank et al (US 2017/0143208 A1).
Regarding claim 2, although Blank et al does not explicitly disclose that the photodetector is located on the light-transmissive layer, the specific placement of the photodetector would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the desire to improve the size of the sensor device and to meet different design requirements.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.2 Blank et al (reflective coating 28).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.2 of Blank et al.
Regarding claims 5, 9, 11 and 19, the specific dimension utilized for the light-transmissive layer and the specific wavelengths and configuration utilized for the light sources would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of the particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the specific configuration utilized for the sensor device of Blank et al (paragraph 12) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claim 12, the specific element utilized to apply a bias force would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 81 of Blank et al.
Regarding claim 15, Blank et al discloses that its sensor device is able to detect subcutaneous tissue characteristics (paragraphs 61-65) and the specific scheme utilized for the detection would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of the particular application and does no more than yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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: Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a sensor device for detecting subcutaneous tissue movement from a skin surface of a user comprising, in addition to other recited features of claim 1 and 2, the details and functions of a second light source in the manner recited in claim 6.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Talgorn et al (US 11,185,279 B2) is cited for disclosing techniques for detecting erythema.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878