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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 19 recites a computer program and 20 recites a computer readable media without reciting that it is a non-transitory so the media could be a signal which is not statutory category.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: control unit in claim 17 which has the structure of at least a processor according to ¶26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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. The claim recites “generating a control signal… such that the amplitude approximates the target value”. It is unclear what range is considered approximate as it is a relative term of degree.
Claim 2 is 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. It is unclear what the quotient of the minimum target value is. It is unclear if this means target value and the second input are divided by each other or if it means quotient as in a degree or amount or percentage. The specification does not clarify what the quotient is. Thew and/or also makes it unclear if only one of the limit value or deviation are determined as claimed.
Claims 3-5 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. It is unclear if with the “and/or” if the determination of the second deviation is part of the an/or alternative. Additionally, claim 5 recites “an average value” but it is unclear what this is an average value of.
Claim 13 is 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. It is unclear with the “and/or” if both equation are needed to define P.
Claims 17-20 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. It is unclear if the claims are device claims or method claims.
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, 2, 6-7 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. US 6,863,652
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a method for controlling a light source of a pulse oximeter, the pulse oximeter further comprising a light sensor configured to convert a light component transmitted and/or reflected by a body part on irradiation with light from the light source into a sensor signal, wherein the method comprises:
receiving a first input value indicating an electrical variable in relation to the light source, the electrical variable comprising an electrical current flowing through the light source and/or an electrical voltage present at the light source ([Col. 13 line 9-22] the emitted signal 20 power level is determined for comparison);
receiving a second input value indicating an amplitude of the sensor signal ([FIG.2][Col. 6 line 44-67] the system receives a signal and determines its power);
determining at least one limit value for the electrical variable using the second input value, the at least one limit value being assigned to a minimum target value or a maximum target value of a target value range in which the amplitude is to lie ([Col. 6 line 21-42][Col. 10 line 34-47] the quality can be an amplitude or power level);
determining at least one deviation value indicating a deviation of the first input value from the at least one limit value ([Col. 13 line 24-56] the system checks the emitted signal 20 and modulated signal 26 that is received and determines if it is within range);
generating a control signal for controlling the light source using the at least one deviation value, such that the amplitude approximates the target value range ([Col. 13 line 45-56] the control signal to the light source is adjusted).
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses wherein the at least one deviation value is determined by subtracting the first input value from the at least one limit value ([Col. 13 line 45-56] the control signal to the light source is adjusted).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Huang discloses an adjustment value is determined using the at least one deviation value and an assignment rule, by which possible deviation values are each assigned an adjustment value; wherein an output value is determined using the first input value and the adjustment value; and wherein the control signal is generated using the output value ([Col. 13 line 45-56] the control signal to the light source is adjusted based on the determined deviation. The adjustment is a known amount based on some preset rule or relationship).
Regarding claim 17, Huang discloses the control unit comprises elements configured for carrying out the method of claim 1 ([FIG.1] control unit 14).
Regarding claim 18, Huang discloses a pulse oximeter, wherein the pulse oximeter comprises: a light source ([FIG.3] emitters 80 and 84); a light sensor configured for converting a light component transmitted and/or reflected by a body part on irradiation with light from the light source into a sensor signal ([FIG.3] detectors 92 and 94); and the control unit of claim 17 ([FIG.1] control unit 14).
Regarding claim 19 and 20, Huang discloses a computer program, wherein the program comprises commands which cause a processor to carry out the method of claim 1 when the processor executes the computer program ([FIG.2][Col. 3 line 34-49][Col. 5 line 47-62] the control unit and its processors are inherently programmed to perform their associated functions).
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) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US 6,863,652 in view of Huiku et al. US 10,874,352.
Regarding claim 3, Huang does not disclose the at least one limit value comprises a lower limit value assigned to the minimum target value, a first deviation value being determined by subtracting the first input value from the lower limit value, the control signal being generated using the first deviation value; and/or wherein the at least one limit value comprises an upper limit value assigned to the maximum target value, a second deviation value being determined by subtracting the first input value from the upper limit value, the control signal being generated using the second deviation value. Huiku teaches a similar oximetry device that determines a deviation value by subtracting the first input value from the lower limit value, the control signal being generated using the first deviation value ([FIG.4][Col. 10 line 54-67] the difference from the target SNR is used to adjust the LED current). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Huang with the teachings of Huiku in order to operate at lower power consumption ([Col. 1 line 47-57]).
Regarding claim 4, Huiku teaches the first deviation value and the second deviation value are compared with each other and the control signal is generated only if a sign of the first deviation value matches a sign of the second deviation value ([FIG.4][Col. 10 line 54-67] the difference from the target SNR is used to adjust the LED current. The differences are absolute values so they are the same sign).
Regarding claim 5, Huiku teaches an average value is determined from the first deviation value and the second deviation value and the control signal is generated using the average value as the at least one deviation value ([Col. 9 line 47-67][Col. 11 line 29-65] the deviation values are used to adjust the drive current based on what current matches in the graphs. Huiku does not specifically disclose an average but determining an average value is well within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art as it is a basic statistical calculation).
Regarding claim 6, Huiku teaches an adjustment value is determined using the at least one deviation value and an assignment rule (the CTR in Huiku), by which possible deviation values are each assigned an adjustment value; wherein an output value is determined using the first input value and the adjustment value; and wherein the control signal is generated using the output value ([Col. 9 line 47-67] the graph that corresponds the SNR to the LED drive current is used to adjust).
Regarding claim 7, Huiku teaches an output value is determined using the first input value and the adjustment value by adding the first input value and the adjustment value ([Col. 9 line 47-67] the graph that corresponds the SNR to the LED drive current is used to adjust).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kadlec et al. US 10,188,330 and Chew et al. US 7,120,480 both related to adjust LED drive signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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.
/MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights