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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 23, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 9-10, and 16 have been amended and claim 17 has been canceled. Claims 2-16 and 18-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 23, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 2 and 9 under §102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, claims 2 and 9 are rejected under §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0072912 A1 (hereinafter “Pandya”) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0090766 A1 (hereinafter “Block”) and U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0260972 A1 (hereinafter “Han”).
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under §103 as being unpatentable over Pandya in view of Han has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, claim 16 is rejected under §103 as being unpatentable over Pandya in view of Block and Han.
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.
Claims 2-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandya in view of Block and Han.
Regarding claim 2, Pandya discloses an electronic device (electronic watch 400) comprising:
a circuit board (substrate 456);
a cover (carrier 404); and
a sensor package (optical sensor subsystem 416) attached to the circuit board (see ¶ 0097) and an interior surface (interior surface 406) of the cover (see ¶ 0096 and Fig. 4C), the sensor package comprising:
a plurality of light emitters (see ¶ 0096);
a plurality of photodiodes (see ¶ 0096); and
a magnet (magnet 446).
Pandya does not specifically disclose arranging the plurality of photodiodes and light
emitters in radial arrays around the magnet, nor does Pandya disclose that the magnet is positioned to be coplanar with the plurality of photodiodes and light emitters.
Block discloses an electronic device (device 200) comprising:
a sensor package (optical sensing unit; see ¶ 0002) comprising:
a plurality of light emitters (plurality of first light emitters 206); and
a plurality of photodiodes (plurality of light detectors 204),
wherein the plurality of photodiodes (204) and the plurality of light emitters (206) are positioned in corresponding radial arrays around a central light emitter (second light emitter 208A; see Fig. 2A).
Han discloses an electronic device (electronic device 600) comprising:
a sensor package (biometric sensor module 620) comprising:
a central light emitter (light source 623);
a plurality of photodiodes (light detectors 624); and
a magnet (magnetic substance 640) positioned coplanar with the central light emitter (623) and the plurality of photodiodes (624; see ¶ 0106 and Fig. 7), wherein the plurality of photodiodes (624) are positioned in a radial array around the magnet (see ¶ 0110 and Figs. 7-8).
Pandya, Block, and Han are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same
field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to arrange the plurality of photodiodes and the plurality of light emitters in corresponding radial arrays around a central light emitter. Block teaches that this concentric architecture is useful for controlling emitter-detector separation and improving the resulting optical measurements (see ¶¶ 0004 and 0030). It would have also been obvious to position the magnet to surround the central light emitter and to be coplanar with the plurality of photodiodes and the plurality of light emitters. Han teaches that this arrangement is beneficial because the magnet can function as a barrier between the central light emitter and the detectors, thereby preventing interference of light other than the reflected light from reaching the light detectors (see ¶¶ 0011 and 0105).
Regarding claim 3, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches
a housing member (Pandya: housing 206);
a front cover (Pandya: transparent cover 208) coupled to the housing member (Pandya: see Fig. 2A); and
a display positioned under the front cover (Pandya: see ¶ 0055), wherein:
the cover (Pandya: 404) is a rear cover (Pandya: see Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 4, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim
2 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches an inductive coil (Han: wireless charging module 630; see ¶ 0089) that is positioned around an outer periphery of the sensor package (Han: see ¶ 0089 and Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 5, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim
2 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches that the plurality of light emitters comprises a plurality of light-emitting diodes (Pandya: see ¶ 0096).
Regarding claim 6, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim
2 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches that the magnet (Pandya: 446; Han: 640) defines a hole (Han: cylindrical recess R) extending through a body of the magnet (Pandya: see Fig. 4C; Han: see ¶ 0106 and Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 7, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches an electronic component (Han: 623) positioned at least partially within the hole (Han: R) defined in the magnet (Han: see ¶ 0106 and Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 8, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches that the electronic component (Han: 623) comprises a light emitter of the plurality of light emitters (Han: 623 is a light source/emitter).
Regarding claim 9, Pandya discloses a wearable electronic device (400) comprising:
a housing member (206) at least partially defining an internal volume of the wearable electronic device (400);
a front cover (208) coupled to the housing member (see Figs. 2A and 4B);
a rear cover (404) coupled to the housing member (see Fig. 4B); and
a sensor package (416) within the internal volume of the wearable electronic device (400) and attached to an interior surface (406) of the rear cover (see ¶ 0096 and Fig. 4C), the sensor package comprising:
an array of light emitting diodes (see ¶ 0096);
an array of photodiodes (see ¶ 0096);
a magnet (446); and
an opaque mask (masks 422, first mask 500, and second mask 508) on a surface of the sensor package (416), the opaque mask (422, 500, and 508) positioned over the magnet (446; see Fig. 4C) and defining holes (openings 418 and 420) positioned over the array of light emitting diodes (see ¶ 0102).
Pandya does not specifically disclose arranging the arrays of light emitting diodes and
photodiodes in radial arrays around the magnet, nor does Pandya disclose that the magnet is positioned to be coplanar with the arrays of light emitting diodes and photodiodes.
Block discloses a wearable electronic device (200) comprising:
a sensor package (optical sensing unit; see ¶ 0002) comprising:
an array light emitting diodes (206); and
an array of photodiodes (204),
wherein the array of photodiodes (204) and the array of light emitting diodes (206) are positioned in corresponding radial arrays around a central light emitter (208A; see Fig. 2A).
Han discloses a wearable electronic device (electronic device 600) comprising:
a sensor package (620) comprising:
a central light emitter (623);
an array of photodiodes (624); and
a magnet (640) positioned coplanar with the central light emitter (623) and the array of photodiodes (624; see ¶ 0106 and Fig. 7), wherein the array of photodiodes (624) is positioned in a radial array around the magnet (see ¶ 0110 and Figs. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing
date of the present application, to arrange the array of photodiodes and the array of light emitting diodes in corresponding radial arrays around a central light emitter. Block teaches that this concentric architecture is useful for controlling emitter-detector separation and improving the resulting optical measurements (see ¶¶ 0004 and 0030). It would have also been obvious to position the magnet to surround the central light emitter and to be coplanar with the array of photodiodes and the array of light emitting diodes. Han teaches that this arrangement is beneficial because the magnet can function as a barrier between the central light emitter and the detectors, thereby preventing interference of light other than the reflected light from reaching the light detectors (see ¶¶ 0011 and 0105).
Regarding claim 10, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches that the opaque mask (Pandya: 422, 500, and 508) defines additional holes (Pandya: 420) positioned over the array of photodiodes (Pandya: see ¶ 0103).
Regarding claim 11, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches that the magnet (Pandya: 446; Han: 640) defines a hole (Han: R) extending through a body of the magnet (Pandya: see Fig. 4C; Han: see ¶ 0106 and Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 12, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches an electronic component (Han: 623) positioned at least partially within the hole (Han: R) defined in the magnet (Han: see ¶ 0106 and Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 13, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches an inductive coil (Han: 630; see ¶ 0089) that is positioned around an outer periphery of the sensor package (Han: see ¶ 0089 and Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 14, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches a display positioned under the front cover (Pandya: see ¶ 0055).
Regarding claim 16, Pandya discloses a wearable electronic device (400) comprising:
a housing member (206) at least partially defining an internal volume of the wearable electronic device (400);
a front cover (208) coupled to the housing member (see Figs. 2A and 4B);
a rear cover (404) coupled to the housing member (see Fig. 4B);
a circuit board (456); and
a sensor package (416) within the internal volume of the wearable electronic device (400) between the circuit board and the rear cover (see Fig. 4C), the sensor package comprising:
an array of light emitters (see ¶ 0096);
an array of photodiodes (see ¶ 0096); and
a magnet (446).
Pandya does not specifically disclose arranging the arrays of light emitters and
photodiodes in radial arrays around the magnet, nor does Pandya disclose that the magnet is positioned to be coplanar with the arrays of light emitters and photodiodes.
Block discloses a wearable electronic device (200) comprising:
a sensor package (optical sensing unit; see ¶ 0002) comprising:
an array light emitters (206); and
an array of photodiodes (204),
wherein the array of photodiodes (204) and the array of light emitters (206) are positioned in corresponding radial arrays around a central light emitter (208A; see Fig. 2A).
Han discloses a wearable electronic device (electronic device 600) comprising:
a sensor package (620) comprising:
a central light emitter (623);
an array of photodiodes (624); and
a magnet (640) positioned coplanar with the central light emitter (623) and the array of photodiodes (624; see ¶ 0106 and Fig. 7), wherein the array of photodiodes (624) is positioned in a radial array around the magnet (see ¶ 0110 and Figs. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing
date of the present application, to arrange the array of photodiodes and the array of light emitters in corresponding radial arrays around a central light emitter. Block teaches that this concentric architecture is useful for controlling emitter-detector separation and improving the resulting optical measurements (see ¶¶ 0004 and 0030). It would have also been obvious to position the magnet to surround the central light emitter and to be coplanar with the array of photodiodes and the array of light emitters. Han teaches that this arrangement is beneficial because the magnet can function as a barrier between the central light emitter and the detectors, thereby preventing interference of light other than the reflected light from reaching the light detectors (see ¶¶ 0011 and 0105).
Regarding claim 18, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches an inductive coil (Han 630: see ¶ 0089) that is positioned around an outer periphery of the sensor package (Han: see ¶ 0089 and Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 19, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches a display positioned under the front cover (Pandya: see ¶ 0055).
Regarding claim 20, Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han further teaches that the magnet (Pandya: 446; Han: 640) defines a hole (Han: R) extending through a body of the magnet (Pandya: see Fig. 4C; Han: see ¶ 0106 and Figs. 7-8).
Examiner Note: This claim is identical to claim 11. You probably meant for this claim to depend on claim 16.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandya in view of Block and Han as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of KR 10-2019-0006359 A (hereinafter “Choi”).
Pandya in view of Block and Han teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Pandya in view of Block and Han lacks a specific teaching that the magnet is conductively coupled to a ground plane of the wearable electronic device.
Choi discloses an electronic device comprising a magnet (magnet portion 212) conductively coupled (via base portion 211) to the device’s ground plane (ground layer 182; see Fig. 3b).
Choi is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to conductively couple the magnet to a ground plane of the wearable electronic device. Doing so would help to prevent electrical charge from accumulating in the magnet.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights