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 07/01/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “teaches wherein the optical data sensing device is set at substrate, wherein a projection image of the first light emitting device to the substrate is not overlapped with a projection image of the optical sensor to the substrate”. However it is unclear as to what how the light emitting device projects an image or how the optical sensor projects an image. As such the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of this examination the claim is interpreted to read as the emitter is angled.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the optical data sensing device is set at a substrate, wherein a projection image of the first light emitting device to the substrate is not overlapped with a projection image of the optical sensor to the substrate, and a projection image of the second light emitting device to the substrate is not overlapped with the projection image of the optical sensor to the substrate”. However, it is unclear as to how the light emitting devices project an image or how the optical sensor projects an image. As such the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of this examination the claim is interpreted to read as the emitters are angled while the sensor is not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140127996 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Park, an optical biometric sensor device, teaches an optical data sensing device of a biological information measuring device (abstract; Figures 8-10), comprising:
an optical sensor (paragraphs [0057]-[0066]; Figures 8-10);
a first light emitting device, configured to emit first light away from the optical sensor (paragraphs [0057]-[0066]; Figures 8-10); wherein an emitting direction of the first light is not perpendicular with a sensing surface of the optical sensor (LED emitter is slanted and thus not perpendicular; as shown in Figure 10); and
a first opaque isolation component, located between the optical sensor and the first light emitting device, configured to reduce the first light received by the optical sensor (paragraphs [0057]-[0066]; Figures 8-10).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches a cover, configured to cover the first light emitting device, wherein the cover comprises at least one transparent portion such that the first light can be emitted away from the optical sensor via the transparent portion (paragraphs [0057]-[0066]; as shown in Figures 8-10).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches wherein the cover protrudes from a surface of the biological information measuring device or is in the surface (paragraphs [0057]-[0066]; as shown in Figures 8-10).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches further comprising:
an extra light emitting device, configured to emit extra light away from the optical sensor, wherein the extra light emitting device is not overlapped with the optical sensor and the first light emitting device (paragraphs [0057]-[0066]; as shown in Figures 8-10); and
an extra opaque isolation component, located between the optical sensor and the extra light emitting device, configured to reduce the extra light received by the optical sensor (paragraphs [0057]-[0066]; as shown in Figures 8-10).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches wherein the first opaque isolation component comprises at least one protruding part, configured to block the first light received by the optical sensor and to block the first light emitted from the first light emitting device (paragraphs [0060]-[0062]; Figure 10).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches wherein a width of the protruding part is wider than a narrowest width of the first opaque isolation component (as shown in Figure 10).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches wherein the optical data sensing device is set at substrate, wherein a projection image of the first light emitting device to the substrate is not overlapped with a projection image of the optical sensor to the substrate (as shown in Figure 10).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches wherein a plane from which the first light is emitted outward and a plane by which the optical sensor receives light are different planes ( the LED is slanted compared to the optical sensor and thus is not on the same plane; as shown in Figure 10).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches wherein a color filter is provided on a surface of the transparent portion from which the first light is emitted outward, or provided on a sensing surface of the optical sensor, wherein the sensing surface of the optical sensor is configured to receive light (teaches having a filter that selectively transmits light at certain wavelengths (colors); paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 10, Park, an optical biometric sensor, teaches an optical data sensing device of a biological information measuring device (abstract), comprising:
an optical sensor (paragraphs [0057]-[0066]; Figure 10);
a first light emitting device, configured to emit first light in a first direction (paragraphs [0057]-[0066]; Figure 10);
a second light emitting device, configured to emit second light in a second direction different from the first direction (paragraphs [0057]-[0066]; Figure 10) wherein an emitting direction of the first light is not perpendicular with a sensing surface of the optical sensor (LED emitter is slanted and thus not perpendicular; as shown in Figure 10);; and
a first opaque isolation component, located between the optical sensor and the first light emitting device, and between the optical sensor and the second light emitting device, configured to reduce the first light and the second light received by the optical sensor (paragraphs [0057]-[0066]; Figure 10).
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches wherein the optical data sensing device is set at a substrate, wherein a projection image of the first light emitting device to the substrate is not overlapped with a projection image of the optical sensor to the substrate, and a projection image of the second light emitting device to the substrate is not overlapped with the projection image of the optical sensor to the substrate (as shown in Figure 10).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 20020007114 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Elghazzawi”).
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches an on/off control for a light source (Figures 17 and 20), but does not explicitly teach wherein the first light and the second light are not simultaneously emitted.
However, Elghazzawi, a physiological sensor, teaches wherein the first light and the second light are not simultaneously emitted (paragraph [0016]). 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 Park, to have the lights emit alternately, as taught by Elghazzawi, because doing so avoids the lights interfering with one another.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Elghazzawi, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 20170000350 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kwon”).
Regarding claim 12, Park, in view of Elghazzawi does not explicitly teach wherein the optical data sensing device is set at a substrate, wherein a smallest angle among angles between the first direction and the substrate is smaller than a smallest angle among angles between the second direction and the substrate.
However, Kwon, a biological detection device, teaches wherein the optical data sensing device is set at a substrate, wherein a smallest angle among angles between the first direction and the substrate is smaller than a smallest angle among angles between the second direction and the substrate (paragraphs [0010]-[0018], [0125]-[0127]). 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 Park, in view of Elghazzawi, to have the emitters at different angles, as taught by Kwon, as doing so allows the light to reach different areas of a user’s skin.
Regarding claim 13, Park, in view of Elghazzawi and Kwon, teaches wherein the second light emitting device emits the second light for computing a heart rate but the first light emitting device does not emit the first light, when the biological information measuring device computes the heart rate (uses a single green light to determine heart rate; paragraph [0058]; as taught by Park).
Regarding claim 14, Park, in view of Elghazzawi and Kwon, teaches wherein the first light emitting device emits the first light for computing oxygen saturation but the second light emitting device does not emit the second light, when the biological information measuring device computes the oxygen saturation (can use a IR or red light to determine oxygen saturation; paragraph [0058]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 20140243633 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Addison”).
Regarding claim 19, Park does not explicitly teach wherein the biological information measuring device determines a wearing state thereof according to a difference between light amount of the first light received by the optical sensor and light amount of the second light received by the optical sensor.
However, Addison, a pulse oximetry data confidence indicator, teaches wherein the biological information measuring device determines a wearing state thereof according to a difference between light amount of the first light received by the optical sensor and light amount of the second light received by the optical sensor (paragraph [0003]). 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 Park, to determine if the device is properly worn, as taught by Addison, because doing so allows a user to know that the sensor data is reliable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 12048536 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the claims of the Instant Application are taught by the limitations of claims 1-19 of US 12048536 B2.
Conclusion
Claims 15 and 17, and claims dependent thereof (claims 16 and 18) are rejected under a Double Patenting Rejection, but contain subject matter not found in the prior art search.
Regarding claim 15, US 8311601 B2 teaches switching between a transmission and reflectance mode depending on signal quality (abstract).
US 6845256 B2 teaches activating transmission and reflectance sensors depending on motion (Figures 17-18 and associated description).
the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein the second light emitting device emits the second light but the first light emitting device does not emit the first light, when the biological information measuring device operates in a low noise mode” in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 17, US 8311601 B2 teaches switching between a transmission and reflectance mode depending on signal quality (abstract).
US 6845256 B2 teaches activating transmission and reflectance sensors depending on motion (Figures 17-18 and associated description).
the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein the first light emitting device emits the first light but the second light emitting device does not emit the second light, when the biological information measuring device operates in a high noise mode” in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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