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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
Data module of Claim 1, 12
Transmitter module of Claim 1, 12
Receiver module of Claim 1, 12
Correlation module of Claim 1, 12
Detection module of Claim 1, 12
Input module in the data module of Claim 4
Skin attribute extraction module in the data module of Claim 4
Skin type vector determining sub-module of Claim 5 and 19
Sweat amount determining sub-module of Claim 5 and 19
Gain controlling sub-module of Claim 9
Radiation vector creation sub-module of Claim 10
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.
Claim 10 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.
In regard to Claim 10, the limitation “identifying a deviation” is indefinite because it is unclear what deviation is being referred to and how that relates to the rest of the claim. Clarification is requested.
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.
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) 1-3 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf et al (US Pub No. 20160029964) in view of Mestha et al (US Pub No. 20180303351).
In regard to Claims 1, 12, and 15, LeBoeuf et al disclose a system and method with a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, for adjusting heart rate measurement accuracy of a wearable device (Figure 2A-B), the method comprising:
obtaining, by a data module (within processor 40 – 0065, 0081), best seen in Figure 4-5,
a plurality of pieces of data including user activity data 502 (Figure 14), user information (from location sensor 80 – 0103), best seen in Figure 5, and environment conditions related to a user – “The processor is configured to change signal analysis frequency and/or sensor interrogation power in response to detecting, via the sensor or another sensor, a change in the at least one environmental condition, such as temperature, humidity, air quality, barometric pressure, radiation, light intensity, and sound” (0013), from a plurality of data sources;
determining a skin attribute of the user based on the obtained plurality of pieces of data, e.g. skin humidity – “a sensor module maybe include… one or more skin humidity sensors” (0080), or perspiration rate – “detecting a change in subject activity comprises detecting a change in at least one subject vital sign, such as… subject perspiration rate” (0010);
emitting, by a transmitter module – necessarily associated with an optical emitter in the device – “the processor instructs the at least one optical emitter to emit shorter wavelength light (e.g., a decrease in wavelength by 100 nm or more) in response to detecting an increase in subject activity, and instructs the at least one optical emitter to emit longer wavelength light (e.g., an increase in wavelength by 100 nm or more) in response to detecting an decrease in subject activity” (0019)
infrared (IR) radiation and visible light at an intensity level – “pulse oximetry via a PPG sensor… the processor 40 may select a different optomechanical polling routine for indoors vs. outdoors. For example, when indoors, a visible and IR emitter may be engaged to facilitate SpO2” (0088) for measuring a heart rate of the user – “metrics derived from PPG data, such as heart rate” (0003);
receiving, by a receiver module – necessarily included in the optical detector (0019), scattered IR radiation resulting from interaction of the transmitted IR radiation and the transmitted visible light based on a skin condition of the user and the environment conditions, as would be standard in PPG and oximeter art – “Photoplethysmography (PPG) is based upon shining light into the human body and measuring how the scattered light intensity changes with each pulse of blood flow. The scattered light intensity will change in time with respect to changes in blood flow or blood opacity associated with heart beats, breaths, blood oxygen level (SpO2)” (0003);
determining, by a detection module, a wavelength of the visible light to be adjusted based on the scattered IR radiation – “the sensor module (or modules) comprises PPG sensor functionality, readings from the sensor module (for example, readings from optical sensors…) can be used to trigger changes to the optomechanical engine (the optical emitter, detector, and associated optics)… the detection of low activity may change the polling of the optomechanical engine… a detection of low activity may change the optical wavelength used for PPG. In this example, if the activity level processed by the processor 40 is deemed to be “low”, the primary wavelength of detection may shift from visible (such as green or yellow) wavelengths to infrared wavelengths”(0086); and
adjusting, by the transmitter module, the wavelength of the visible light – step 504 of Figure 14 and Figure 15.
However, LeBoeuf et al do not expressly disclose determining, by a correlation module, a scattered radiation vector based on the scattered IR radiation that leads to the wavelength adjustment. It is noted that the claims do not specify what constitutes said scattered radiation vector.
Mestha et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous PPG sensing system to measure heart rate (0025) comprising by a correlation module, i.e. in processor (abst), that determines a scattered radiation vector – defined as skin parameter vector p that constitutes various skin attributes (i.e. the epidermis layer, the melanin concentration of skin, the volume fraction of a dermis layer, and the scattering coefficient of the dermis and the epidermis layer) and includes a scattering coefficient (0042, claim 6) based on the scattered IR radiation (claim 3) to effectively determine the heart rate – considered a physiological parameter – “In addition, the proposed approach uses the pulse signal (e.g., representative physiological signal) with the improved SNR obtained according to the techniques provided herein to extract physiological parameters (e.g., pulsating blood concentration parameters, blood oxygen saturation, heart rate variability, heart rate, blood pressure, etc.,) by inverting a parameterized optical model of the human skin” (0025).
by taking into account said skin attributes – “the one or more processors to calculate one or more physiological parameters using the representative physiological signal comprise iteratively varying at least one of the skin characteristics to remove a difference between the image signal and the representative physiological signal” (Claim 7 of the application).
Thus, Mestha et al teach that it is advantageous to determine a scattered radiation vector based on the scattered IR radiation that constitutes skin attributes already taught by LeBoeuf et al to effectively enhance the determination of heart rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify LeBoeuf et al such that the method includes determining, by a correlation module, a scattered radiation vector based on the scattered IR radiation as taught by Mestha et al to effectively enhance the determination of heart rate already taught by LeBoeuf et al such that the wavelength adjustment of LeBoeuf et al takes into the scattered radiation vector and thus various skin attributes as modeled by Mestha et al, and already taught by LeBoeuf et al (0010, 0080).
2, 13, 16. LeBoeuf et al disclose wherein the user activity data comprises physical activity data of the user (0019), wherein the user information comprises at least one of electronic health record data, disease information, age, gender, and location of the user (0103), and wherein the environment conditions comprise a temperature and a humidity of an environment of the user (0013).
3, 14, 17. LeBoeuf et al disclose wherein the plurality of data sources comprise at least one of an electronic health record data of the user, a photoplethysmography sensor (0003), a temperature sensor (0013), an accelerometer (0095), and a gyroscope (0095).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf et al (US Pub No. 20160029964) in view of Mestha et al (US Pub No. 20180303351) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kartoun et al (US Pub No. 20200365269).
In regard to Claim 4 and 18, LeBoeuf et al in combination with Mestha et al disclose further comprising: determining, using an input module (user interface 70) included in the data module 40 (0102); and
determining, using a skin attribute extraction module necessarily included in the data module 40, the skin attribute as defined above – skin humidity or perspiration rate, based on at least one of electronic health record data, physical activity data, temperature data, and humidity data obtained from the plurality of data sources (0010, 0013, 0080).
However, LeBoeuf et al as modified do not expressly disclose inputting user demographics based on the user information obtained from the plurality of data sources to determine the skin attribute.
Kartoun et al teach that it is well-known in the art to use user demographics data in an electronic medical record (EMR) within a system that determines analogous skin attributes such as skin conditions, best seen in Figure 4 (0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify LeBoeuf et al as modified by Mestha et al such that user demographics data within an EMR is inputted as suggested by Kartoun et al to effectively enable the skin attribute already taught by LeBoeuf et al to be determined because it provides another relevant data source for the skin attribute as it directly relates to the user demographic data such as stored in an EMR.
6, 20. LeBoeuf et al in combination with Kartoun et al disclose wherein the user demographics, the plurality of pieces of data, and the skin attribute of the user are stored in a database such as within the processor and/or known memory sources (0083, 0126, 0128 of LeBoeuf et al).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf et al (US Pub No. 20160029964) in view of Mestha et al (US Pub No. 20180303351) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of JP 2018518323.
LeBoeuf et al in combination with Mestha et al disclose the invention above including determining an intensity level of the light – “The term “polling” typically refers to controlling the intensity of an energy emitter of a sensor or to the “polling rate” and/or duty cycle of an energy emitter element in a sensor, such as an optical emitter in a PPG sensor” (0069). LeBoeuf et al also disclose emitting, using a modulator included in the transmitter module – necessarily associated with an optical emitter in the device – “the processor instructs the at least one optical emitter to emit shorter wavelength light (e.g., a decrease in wavelength by 100 nm or more) in response to detecting an increase in subject activity, and instructs the at least one optical emitter to emit longer wavelength light (e.g., an increase in wavelength by 100 nm or more) in response to detecting an decrease in subject activity” (0019), the desired intensity of light as described in paragraph 0069. LeBoeuf et al also disclose emitting green light as well as other wavelengths (0086) in addition to IR radiation (0086-0088).
However, LeBoeuf et al do not expressly disclose receiving, using a controller included in the transmitter module, input from the data module and the detection module and determining the intensity level of the visible light based on a red light coefficient and a green light coefficient, wherein the visible light includes red light and green light; and emitting the IR radiation along with the green light and the red light based on the determined intensity level.
JP 2018518323 teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous PPG system “One or more of: a wave) (also known as PPG), pulse oximetry” such that a red light coefficient (red frame signal) and a green light coefficient (green frame signal) determines an intensity level of the light (intensity change) to effectively reduce noise of the overall signals – “Some desirable / and / or alternative methods described in the specification include a red frame signal (a signal representing a change in intensity of a red light signal) and an infrared frame signal (IR frame signal, a signal representing an intensity change within a frame of an infrared light signal) and / or a green frame signal (a signal representing an intensity change within a frame of a green light signal, a green light signal) ) Is present (if / when), the gain between multiple specific signals (gain, the intensity ratio between the signals, such as between the red and infrared frame signals and / or the green frame signal) A step of determining a gain coefficient, a linear gain coefficient, and the like. To find them (the gain), first, the two frames (the original red frame and the infrared frame that are synchronized) are averaged together (averaging together at each time) Averaging). As a result of this, one signal with reduced noise may be obtained.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify LeBoeuf et al as modified by Mestha et al such that there is a controller included in the transmitter module, input from the data module and the detection module and determining the intensity level of the visible light based on a red light coefficient and a green light coefficient, wherein the visible light includes red light and green light, as taught by JP 2018518323, and then in combination emitting the IR radiation along with the green light and the red light based on the determined intensity level, to effectively reduce noise of the overall signals. Also see the 112 rejection above.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf et al (US Pub No. 20160029964) in view of Mestha et al (US Pub No. 20180303351) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pologe (US Pat No. 5891022).
LeBoeuf et al in combination with Mestha et al disclose the invention above but do not expressly disclose at least one of: separating different wavelengths of light using a wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) splitter; and combining the different wavelengths of light into one output channel using a WDM combiner.
Pologe teach that it is well-known in the art to provide a WDM combiner to effectively enable signals from multiple optical emitters to output into one channel into a single multiplexed signal which allows “all of the light pulses exist on a single transmission line, the light pulses may be directed from the probe into the tissue under test from a single point source, thereby eliminating measurement errors due to differing optical paths” (Col.2: 29-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of filing to modify LeBoeuf et al in combination with Mestha et al such that there is combining the different wavelengths of light into one output channel using a WDM combiner as taught by Pologe to effectively reduce measurement errors associated with differing optical paths of the multiple light sources.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf et al (US Pub No. 20160029964) in view of Mestha et al (US Pub No. 20180303351) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hong et al (US Pat No. 11096601) and Lamego et al (US Pub No. 20060009688).
LeBoeuf et al in combination with Mestha et al disclose the invention above including
detecting the scattered IR radiation and converting the scattered IR radiation into an electrical signal using a photo detector (0019). Certainly, LeBoeuf et al disclose concerned with reducing SNR (0085).
However, LeBoeuf et al in combination with Mestha et al do not expressly disclose
amplifying the electrical signal using a preamplifier; filtering the electrical signal based on filter coefficients using a filter, wherein the filter coefficients depend on the wavelength of the visible light; improving a quality of the electrical signal using at least one of an amplifier and a limiter; improving a signal-to-noise ratio, reducing a distortion, and minimizing an interference of the electrical signal using a gain controlling sub-module; processing the electrical signal using a decision circuit comprising at least one of a low-pass filter and a comparator; and providing the electrical signal to the correlation module.
Lamego et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous optical sensor system to have amplifying the electrical signal using a preamplifier 342 (0043); filtering the electrical signal based on filter coefficients necessarily included with using a filter 344, wherein the filter coefficients depend on the wavelength of the visible light (0043); improving a quality of the electrical signal using at least one of an amplifier 346 (0043) and a limiter 356 0049); improving a signal-to-noise ratio, reducing a distortion, and minimizing an interference of the electrical signal using a gain controlling sub-module 348 (0046); processing the electrical signal using a decision circuit comprising at least one of a low-pass filter 350 (0048), best seen in Figure 4, to provide an effective filtering and processing functions for the optical device.
Hong et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous optical PPG sensor system with a comparator – “ each photodetector associated with comparators for comparing the intensity between neighboring detectors—obtaining a so-called speckle pattern which may be tracked using a variety of image tracking techniques such as optical flow, template matching, edge tracking, etc. In this embodiment, the light source used for motion tracking may be different than the light source used in the optical heart rate monitor” (Col.32: 33-54). Hong et al also teach the use of limiters such as shown in Figures 11A-11G.onHoHo
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include amplifying the electrical signal using a preamplifier; filtering the electrical signal based on filter coefficients using a filter, wherein the filter coefficients depend on the wavelength of the visible light; improving a quality of the electrical signal using at least one of an amplifier and a limiter; improving a signal-to-noise ratio, reducing a distortion, and minimizing an interference of the electrical signal using a gain controlling sub-module; processing the electrical signal using a decision circuit comprising at least one of a low-pass filter as taught by Lamego et al and a comparator and limiter, as taught by Hong et al, to effectively provide well-known structures to perform the desired filtering and processing of the signals of LeBoeuf et al, where in combination, would include providing the electrical signal to the correlation module.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf et al (US Pub No. 20160029964) in view of Mestha et al (US Pub No. 20180303351) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Shevde (WO 2024226047).
LeBoeuf et al in combination with Mestha et al disclose the invention above including receiving, by a photoplethysmography sensor (0003), the scattered IR radiation from the receiver module of the optical detector, which necessarily includes amount of absorbed IR radiation and an amount of absorbed visible light, wherein the absorbed visible light comprises at least one of green light and red light (0086).
LeBoeuf et al in combination with Mestha et al also disclose determining, by a radiation vector creation sub-module in the processor of Mestha et al (abst), the scattered radiation vector as described above but do not disclose identifying a deviation by correlating an amount of IR radiation absorption and visible light absorption with similar wavelength absorption corresponding to a plurality of skin attributes stored in a database using a machine learning model.
Shevde teach that it is well-known in the art that analogous PPG sensor system can take into account absorption amount due to skin tone of the user and that a machine learning model can perform this, which constitutes correlating an amount of IR radiation absorption and visible light absorption with similar wavelength absorption corresponding a database using a machine learning model – “The processing circuitry of the wearable device then sets a parameter of the PPG sensor measurement based on the skin tone value or performs a calibration operation on the PPG sensor based on the skin tone value... The calibration of the PPG sensor is performed, in some implementations, using a lookup table or a machine learning engine” (0003) to effectively take into account the skin tone of the user as reflected in the absorption of the light on a particular user.
Since LeBoeuf et al and Mestha et al already disclose the skin attributes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify LeBoeuf et al in combination with Mestha et al such that there is included identifying a deviation by correlating an amount of IR radiation absorption and visible light absorption with similar wavelength absorption corresponding to a plurality of skin attributes stored in a database using a machine learning model as suggested by Shevde to effectively take into account the skin tone of the user as reflected in the amount of absorbed IR radiation and an amount of absorbed visible light.
Also see 112 rejection above.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf et al (US Pub No. 20160029964) in view of Mestha et al (US Pub No. 20180303351) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of JP 2018518323 and Drakos (US Pub No. 20220296105).
LeBoeuf et al in combination with Mestha et al disclose the invention above including emitting green light as well as other wavelengths (0086) and determining an intensity level of the light – “The term “polling” typically refers to controlling the intensity of an energy emitter of a sensor or to the “polling rate” and/or duty cycle of an energy emitter element in a sensor, such as an optical emitter in a PPG sensor” (0069). LeBoeuf et al also disclose using machine learning to change the intensity of the device – "Changing signal analysis frequency and/or sensor module interrogation power may be based on stored profiles (such as a look-up table) or learned profiles (such as machine learning with human input)” (0096).
However, LeBoeuf et al in combination with Mestha et al do not expressly disclose determining, by the detection module, a red light coefficient and a green light coefficient based on the scattered radiation vector; and determining the intensity level of the visible light based on the determined red light coefficient and the determined green light coefficient using a coefficient generation neural network.
JP 2018518323 teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous PPG system “One or more of: a wave) (also known as PPG), pulse oximetry” such that a red light coefficient (red frame signal) and a green light coefficient (green frame signal) determines an intensity level of the light (intensity change) to effectively reduce noise of the overall signals – “Some desirable / and / or alternative methods described in the specification include a red frame signal (a signal representing a change in intensity of a red light signal) and an infrared frame signal (IR frame signal, a signal representing an intensity change within a frame of an infrared light signal) and / or a green frame signal (a signal representing an intensity change within a frame of a green light signal, a green light signal) ) Is present (if / when), the gain between multiple specific signals (gain, the intensity ratio between the signals, such as between the red and infrared frame signals and / or the green frame signal) A step of determining a gain coefficient, a linear gain coefficient, and the like. To find them (the gain), first, the two frames (the original red frame and the infrared frame that are synchronized) are averaged together (averaging together at each time) Averaging). As a result of this, one signal with reduced noise may be obtained.”
Drakos teach that it is well-known in the art that a neural network can be used with an analogous PPG sensor system to perform the desired function (abst).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the of filing to determining, by the detection module, a red light coefficient and a green light coefficient based on the scattered radiation vector; and determining the intensity level of the visible light based on the determined red light coefficient and the determined green light coefficient as taught by JP 2018518323 to effectively reduce noise of the overall signals, wherein it would have been obvious to do this using a coefficient generation neural network as suggested by Drakos as an effective form of machine learning to perform the desired function taught by JP 2018518323.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Huong Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8340. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/H.Q.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights