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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered.
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.
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) 1-11 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat et al. (US 2020/0342194 A1, Oct. 29, 2020) (hereinafter “Bhat”) in view of Ruegheimer et al. (US 2020/0287072 A1, Sep. 10, 2020) (hereinafter “Ruegheimer”).
Regarding claim 1: Bhat discloses a sensor module for detecting a vital sign parameter, the sensor module comprising: a sensor body with a first main surface and a second main surface opposite the first main surface (sensor chip 62); an integrated circuit integrated into the sensor body (system logic 70); a photodetector integrated into the sensor body and arranged on the first main surface, the photodetector being controllable by means of the integrated circuit (photodiodes 14, [0094]); and at least one μLED ([0046]).
Bhat does not explicitly state that the sensor body is a semiconductor body. Additionally, while contact elements/electrical connection between the μLED and the integrated circuit is considered to be implicitly disclosed as such a connection would be necessary for the μLED to function, Bhat does not explicitly specify that the at least one μLED is arranged on two contact elements.
Ruegheimer, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a semiconductor body for a vital sign sensor ([0006]) with a first main surface and a second main surface opposite the first main surface (semiconductor body 1); an integrated circuit integrated into the semiconductor body ([0038]-[0039]); a photodetector with a photosensitive area integrated into the semiconductor body and arranged such that the photodetector or the photosensitive area of the photodetector is located in the first main surface of the semiconductor body, the photodetector being controllable by means of the integrated circuit (active zone 11, [0050]-[0051]); a plurality of contact elements on the first main surface of the semiconductor body, which are electrically connected to the integrated circuit (contacts 23 which are mounted to semiconductor body 1, [0082]); at least one LED, wherein the at least one LED is arranged on two of the plurality of contact elements and is electrically connected thereto ([0082]). Ruegheimer further discloses that a flatter device is desirable for various biological sensors ([0006]-[0007]) and that the disclosed design provides a flatter semiconductor component with reduced crosstalk ([0047]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the sensor module of Bhat using the semiconductor package structure of Ruegheimer in order to achieve a desirable flatter profile in view of the further teachings of Ruegheimer.
Regarding claim 2: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer further discloses at least two μLEDs, which are each configured to emit light of a different wavelength ([0046]).
Regarding claim 3: It is noted that “manufactured using CMOS technology” could refer to any manufacturing process which uses any kind of CMOS technology (e.g. a manufacturing process comprising a step of image-based inspection performed with a CMOS sensor could reasonably be described as “using CMOS technology”). Since this is a product-by-process claim, with no process steps set forth, and the claimed process (“manufactured using CMOS technology”) does not appear to impart any specific structural limitations on the product (the semiconductor body), it is determined that either the sensor body of Bhat or the semiconductor body of Ruegheimer could have been made “using CMOS technology” as claimed. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 4: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer further discloses wherein the photodetector is formed by a broadband photodiode ([0046]).
Regarding claim 5: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer further discloses wherein the photodetector is formed by a photodiode array comprising a plurality of photodiode segments ([0046]).
Regarding claim 6: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer further discloses wherein the photodetector comprises a plurality of selective light filters, each being associated with one of the plurality of photodiode segments ([0049], [0097], [0134], [0140]).
Regarding claim 7: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer further discloses wherein the at least one μLED is configured to emit one of green, red and infrared light ([0046]).
Regarding claim 8: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer further discloses wherein the at least one μLED comprises a conversion layer by means of which a light of a first wavelength emitted by the μLED is converted into light of a second wavelength different from the first wavelength ([0129] - phosphor-converted LEDs, as evidenced by Phosphor.com (phosphor.com/what-are-led-phosphors/; retrieved 06/18/2025)).
Regarding claim 9: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer further discloses wherein the at least two μLEDs are arranged symmetrically around the photodetector on the first main surface (fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer discloses the sensor module according to claim 1. Liu further discloses a plurality of solder balls which are arranged on the second main surface and by means of which the sensor module is electrically connectable ([0034]).
Regarding claim 11: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer further discloses an optical barrier arranged between the photodetector and the at least one μLED on the first main surface (light blocking wall 40). Additionally, Ruegheimer further discloses an optical barrier arranged between the photodetector and the at least one light source on the first main surface ([0047], at least fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14: Bhat as modified Ruegheimer discloses the sensor module of claim 1 further comprising a transparent mold compound covering the photodetector and the at least one light emitting device (μLED) (Bhat – light guide 32 and/or lenses 68, [0079], [0094]).
Regarding claim 15: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer discloses a wearable electronic device comprising a sensor module according to claim 1, wherein the sensor module is integrated into a side of the device facing the skin of a human wearer of the device ([0090]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 16: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer discloses an apparatus comprising the sensor module according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above). In another embodiment, Bhat further discloses a display wherein the display comprises a plurality of pixels arranged in rows and columns, and each pixel comprises at least one light- emitting component ([0046], pixels 11 with micro-LEDs 12; figs. 20-23 and [0125]-[0141]). Bhat also discloses that while some embodiments have a light guide (e.g. the embodiment of figure 9), the device may optionally function as a display where the display pixels are behind the light guide ([0010]) which provides synergy and integration ([0010]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiments of Bhat in the manner suggested by Bhat in order to provide synergy and integration in the device, since it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art, Boston Scientific v. Cordis Fed. Cir. 2009.
Regarding claim 17: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer discloses the apparatus according to claim 16. Bhat further discloses wherein each pixel comprises at least three light-emitting components which are configured to emit light with the colors red, green and blue ([0046], pixels 11 with micro-LEDs 12; figs. 20-23 and [0125]-[0141]).
Regarding claim 18: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer discloses the apparatus according to claim 16. Bhat further discloses wherein at least two uLEDs of the sensor module are arranged on the first main surface of the semiconductor body in such a way that their distance to each other correlates with the distance between the light-emitting components of a pixel of the display ([0046], pixels 11 with micro-LEDs 12; figs. 20-23 and [0125]-[0141]; since the pixels are the display pixels, the positioning of the pixel “correlate” with the display pixels).
Regarding claim 19: Bhat as modified by Ruegheimer discloses the apparatus according to claim 16. Bhat further discloses wherein the display is a uLED display (at least [0046]).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat in view of Ruegheimer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuura (US 2020/0375475 A1, Dec. 3, 2020) (hereinafter “Matsuura”).
Regarding claim 12: Bhat and Ruegheimer disclose the sensor module according to claim 1, where the sensor module may be incorporated into a wearable device such as a watch or a ring (Bhat – [0090]-[0091]), but are silent on a carrier substrate on which the semiconductor body is arranged.
Matsuura, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a wearable device for biological signal measurement (figs. 2 and 17, [0035], [0099]) comprising a sensor module (sensor board 14, [0039], fig. 4) which is arranged on a carrier substrate (main board 19, fig. 4, [0048]). Matsuura further discloses that main board 19 contains the various electronics required to operate a wearable measurement device such as a CPU and memory ([0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sensor module of Bhat and Ruegheimer on a carrier substrate as taught by Matsuura in order to produce a functioning wearable sensor such as a watch in view of the teachings of both Bhat and Matsuura.
Regarding claim 13: Bhat, Ruegheimer, and Matsuura disclose the sensor module according to claim 12, further comprising at least one bonding wire electrically connecting one of the plurality of contact elements to the carrier substrate (Matsuura – connectors 18 and 21, [0047], fig. 4; where Bhat discloses that electrical connections are embodied as a metal trace or wire – [0121]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of pending claims 1-19, filed 12/12/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated rejections necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLYN A PEHLKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3484. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm (Central Time), Monday - Friday.
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, Chris Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/CAROLYN A PEHLKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799