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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 2, drawn to an electronic ring for monitoring a blood glucose level of a user of claims 9-14 in the reply filed on 8/11/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the unity analysis did not consider the common technical feature of processing “based on the derived variables and the secondary variables.” This is found persuasive and thus the restriction requirement is withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claim 1, the claim language “filtering, by a Data Signal Processing (DSP) filter, the raw data to obtain derived variables related to variations in blood viscosity” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of filtering the raw data using a Data Signal Processing (DSP) filter to obtain derived variables related to variations in blood viscosity, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. That is, merely filtering a PPG signal is not going to somehow give variables related to variations in blood viscosity. It’s just going to produce a filtered PPG signal. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 1, the claim language “derived variables related to variations in blood viscosity” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See MPEP 2163.03(V). Here, the claim recites that the derived variables are ”related to variations in blood viscosity,” but the specification fails to sufficiently identify how to determine what variables are related to variations in blood viscosity and what variables are not, and also fails to disclose a sufficient number of species of variables related to variations in blood viscosity resulting in a lack of evidence that the genus was contemplated. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 1, the claim language “processing, by a probabilistic model, the raw data to obtain secondary variables related to operating conditions of a circulatory and respiratory system of the user” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of using a probabilistic model to obtain secondary variables related to operating conditions of a circulatory and respiratory system of a user”, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. That is, a “probabilistic model” is used, but the algorithm/architecture of that model is not disclosed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 9, the claim language “wherein the raw data is filtered using a Data Signal Processing (DSP) filter to obtain derived variables related to variations in blood viscosity” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of filtering the raw data using a Data Signal Processing (DSP) filter to obtain derived variables related to variations in blood viscosity, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. That is, merely filtering a PPG signal is not going to somehow give variables related to variations in blood viscosity. It’s just going to produce a filtered PPG signal. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 9, the claim language “derived variables related to variations in blood viscosity” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See MPEP 2163.03(V). Here, the claim recites that the derived variables are ”related to variations in blood viscosity,” but the specification fails to sufficiently identify how to determine what variables are related to variations in blood viscosity and what variables are not, and also fails to disclose a sufficient number of species of variables related to variations in blood viscosity resulting in a lack of evidence that the genus was contemplated. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 9, the claim language “wherein the raw data is processed using a probabilistic model to obtain secondary variables related to operating conditions of a circulatory and respiratory system of a user” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the claim recites the function of using a probabilistic model to obtain secondary variables related to operating conditions of a circulatory and respiratory system of a user, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. That is, a “probabilistic model” is used, but the algorithm/architecture of that model is not disclosed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 and 10-16 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claims 1 and 9, thus claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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(s) 1-16 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim terms “a user” (line 2) and “a user” (line 4) are ambiguous. It is unclear whether the same or different users are being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 1, the claim terms “a blood glucose level” (line 1) and “a blood glucose level” (line 14) are ambiguous. It is unclear whether the same or different blood glucose levels are being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 1, the claim language “derived variables related to variations in blood viscosity” is ambiguous. Specifically, it is unclear what types of variables are included in the scope of “derived variables related to variation in blood viscosity” and what variables are not. Further, this ambiguity is compounded by the fact that Applicant’s specification identifies glucose as one of these variables at page 6, line 31 of Applicant’s specification as originally filed), but the claim later recites that blood glucose is determined from the derived variables. So if the derived variables can be glucose, then glucose is being determined from itself, which doesn’t make sense. The claim is examined as meaning any blood variable.
For claim 6, the claim language “parameters required for secondary and tertiary processing of the readings of the PPG sensor” is ambiguous. It is unclear what parameters are included within the scope of being “required for secondary and tertiary processing of the readings of the PPG sensor” and what parameters are not. Specifically, the claim limitation defines the constraint by a subsequent function of the parameters and the specification does not provide any guidance as to what may be included in such a constraint and what may not. The claim is examined as meaning “parameters capable of secondary and tertiary processing of the readings of the PPG sensor.”
For claim 9, the claim terms “a user” (line 1) and “a user” (line 4) are ambiguous. It is unclear whether the same or different users are being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 9, the claim terms “a blood glucose level” (line 1) and “a blood glucose level” (line 13) are ambiguous. It is unclear whether the same or different blood glucose levels are being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 9, the claim language “derived variables related to variations in blood viscosity” is ambiguous. Specifically, it is unclear what types of variables are included in the scope of “derived variables related to variation in blood viscosity” and what variables are not. Further, this ambiguity is compounded by the fact that Applicant’s specification identifies glucose as one of these variables at page 6, line 31 of Applicant’s specification as originally filed), but the claim later recites that blood glucose is determined from the derived variables. So if the derived variables can be glucose, then glucose is being determined from itself, which doesn’t make sense. The claim is examined as meaning any blood variable.
For claim 12, the claim language “parameters required for secondary and tertiary processing of the readings of the PPG sensor” is ambiguous. It is unclear what parameters are included within the scope of being “required for secondary and tertiary processing of the readings of the PPG sensor” and what parameters are not. Specifically, the claim limitation defines the constraint by a subsequent function of the parameters and the specification does not provide any guidance as to what may be included in such a constraint and what may not. The claim is examined as meaning “parameters capable of secondary and tertiary processing of the readings of the PPG sensor.”
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 and 10-16 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claims 1 and 9, thus claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 9 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 9 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “wherein the raw data is filtered … to obtain derived variables related to variations in blood viscosity,” “wherein the raw data is processed using a probabilistic model to obtain secondary variables related to operating conditions of a circulatory and respiratory system of the user,” “obtaining readings of the PPG sensor, wherein the readings of the PPG sensor indicates intensity values of reflections of light transmitted by the PPG sensor onto a blood vessel of the user,” and “processing the readings of the PPG sensor based on the derived variables and the secondary variables to determine a blood glucose level of the user.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “a Photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor,” “a Data Signal Processing (DSP) filter,” and “a microcontroller.” However, the sensor is not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0004] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0036685 to Goodman. The filter and microcontroller are not significantly more because it has been held that generic computer structures do not otherwise transform non-eligible subject matter into eligible subject matter. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 9 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter for similar, if not the exact same, reasoning as that of independent claim 9. Dependent claim(s) 2-8 and 10-16 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim(s) 1 and 9 by merely reciting additional abstract idea(s) and/or further limitations on abstract idea(s). Thus, claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
For claim 1, the claim language “housed in an electronic ring worn on a finger” is directed to or encompasses a human organism because it requires that the electronic ring be “worn on a finger” and a finger is part of a human organism.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
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, 3-7, 9-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0192086 to Menon et al. (hereinafter “Menon”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0096007 to Robinson et al. (hereinafter “Robinson”).
For claim 1, Menon discloses a method of determining a blood glucose level of a user (Abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining, by a Photoplethysmography sensor (“wearable sensor device … includes at least one photoplethysmography (PPG) signal data,” para [0011]) housed in an electronic ring worn on a finger (para [0034]), raw data (“signal data,” para [0011]) related to pulsations of a user (para [0011]);
filtering, by a Data Signal Processing filter (para [0039]-[0040] and [0048]), the raw data to obtain derived variables related to variations in blood viscosity (i.e., “peak amplitude,” see steps 434 and 435 in Fig. 3B) (also see para [0040]);
processing the raw data to obtain secondary variables related to operating conditions of a circulatory and respiratory system of the user (i.e., systolic duration, diastolic duration, systolic slope, diastolic slope, and/or pulse duration, see steps 434 and 435 in Fig. 3B) (also see para [0048]);
obtaining, by a microcontroller housed in the electronic ring worn on a finger (103) (Fig. 1) (para [0034]), readings of the PPG sensor (para [0035]-[0036]), wherein the readings of the PPG sensor indicates intensity values of reflections of light transmitted by the PPG sensor onto a blood vessel of the user (para [035]); and
processing, by the microcontroller, the readings of the PPG sensor based on the derived variables and the secondary variables to determine a blood glucose level of the user (see 436 in Fig. 3B) (para [0043]).
Although Menon mentions the use of probabilistic models for threshold determination (para [0041]), Menon does not expressly disclose that a probabilistic model is used to obtain the secondary variables.
However, Robinson teaches using a probabilistic model to determine secondary variables that relate to operating conditions of a circulatory and respiratory system of a user (para [0163]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Menon such that a probabilistic model is used to obtain the secondary variables, in view of the teachings of Robinson, for the obvious advantage of expressing the secondary variables as likelihoods or confidence levels instead of rigid, single-point values.
For claim 3, Menon further discloses optimising the blood glucose level based on data obtained from an external glucose monitoring device (para [0043]) (also see para [0041]).
For claim 4, Menon further discloses wherein the blood glucose level is optimized using baseline data (Table 4) (para [0063]-[0064]), and wherein the baseline data indicates a threshold level for physiological parameters of the user (Table 4) (para [0063]-[0064]).
For claim 5, Menon further discloses wherein the secondary variables includes one or more of a blood oxygen saturation level (SPO₂), heart rate variability, and blood flow dependent variables (see Fig. 3B and para [0048]).
For claim 6, Menon further discloses wherein the derived variables include parameters required for secondary and tertiary processing of the readings of the PPG sensor (as can be seen in Fig. 3B).
For claim 7, Menon further discloses wherein the reading of the PPG sensor is processed using one or more factors related to quality of a PPG signal received from the PPG sensor (para [0049]).
For claim 9, Menon discloses an electronic ring (para [0034]) for monitoring a blood glucose level of a user (Abstract), the electronic ring comprising:
a Photoplethysmography sensor (“wearable sensor device … includes at least one photoplethysmography (PPG) signal data,” para [0011]) for obtaining raw data (“signal data,” para [0011]) related to pulsations of a user (para [0011]), wherein the raw data is filtered using a Data Signal Processing filter (para [0039]-[0040] and [0048]) to obtain derived variables related to variations in blood viscosity (i.e., “peak amplitude,” see steps 434 and 435 in Fig. 3B) (also see para [0040]), and wherein the raw data is processed to obtain secondary variables related to operating conditions of a circulatory and respiratory system of the user (i.e., systolic duration, diastolic duration, systolic slope, diastolic slope, and/or pulse duration, see steps 434 and 435 in Fig. 3B) (also see para [0048]); and
a microcontroller (103) (Fig. 1) (para [0034]) for:
obtaining readings of the PPG sensor (para [0035]-[0036]), wherein the readings of the PPG sensor indicates intensity values of reflections of light transmitted by the PPG sensor onto a blood vessel of the user (para [035]); and
processing the readings of the PPG sensor based on the derived variables and the secondary variables to determine a blood glucose level of the user (see 436 in Fig. 3B) (para [0043]).
Although Menon mentions the use of probabilistic models for threshold determination (para [0041]), Menon does not expressly disclose that a probabilistic model is used to obtain the secondary variables.
However, Robinson teaches using a probabilistic model to determine secondary variables that relate to operating conditions of a circulatory and respiratory system of a user (para [0163]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Menon such that a probabilistic model is used to obtain the secondary variables, in view of the teachings of Robinson, for the obvious advantage of expressing the secondary variables as likelihoods or confidence levels instead of rigid, single-point values.
For claim 10, Menon further discloses wherein the blood glucose level is optimized based on data obtained from an external glucose monitoring device (para [0043]) (also see para [0041]).
For claim 11, Menon further discloses wherein the secondary variables includes one or more of a blood oxygen saturation level (SPO2), heart rate variability, and blood flow dependent variables (see Fig. 3B and para [0048]).
For claim 12, Menon further discloses wherein the derived variables include parameters required for secondary and tertiary processing of the readings of the PPG sensor (as can be seen in Fig. 3B).
For claim 13, Menon further discloses wherein the reading of the PPG sensor is processed using one or more factors related to quality of a PPG signal received from the PPG sensor (para [0049]).
For claim 16, Menon further discloses wherein the blood glucose level is optimized using baseline data (Table 4) (para [0063]-[0064]), and wherein the baseline data indicates a threshold level for physiological parameters of the user (Table 4) (para [0063]-[0064]).
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Robinson, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0361899 to Williams et al. (hereinafter “Williams”).
For claim 8, Menon and Robinson do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more factors comprise an IR perfusion index, SPO₂, ac to dc ratio, HRM PS Vpp high, and HRM PS Vpp low.
However, Williams teaches wherein the one or more factors comprise an IR perfusion index, SPO₂, ac to dc ratio, HRM PS Vpp high, and HRM PS Vpp low (para [0366]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Menon wherein the one or more factors comprise an IR perfusion index, SPO₂, ac to dc ratio, HRM PS Vpp high, and HRM PS Vpp low, in view of the teachings of Williams, because such variables are suitable variables for indicating signal quality.
For claim 14, Menon and Robinson do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more factors comprise an IR perfusion index, SPO₂, ac to dc ratio, HRM PS Vpp high, and HRM PS Vpp low.
However, Williams teaches wherein the one or more factors comprise an IR perfusion index, SPO₂, ac to dc ratio, HRM PS Vpp high, and HRM PS Vpp low (para [0366]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Menon wherein the one or more factors comprise an IR perfusion index, SPO₂, ac to dc ratio, HRM PS Vpp high, and HRM PS Vpp low, in view of the teachings of Williams, because such variables are suitable variables for indicating signal quality.
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Robinson, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0090229 to Sanyal et al. (hereinafter “Sanyal”).
For claim 2, Menon and Robinson do not expressly disclose wherein the readings of the PPG sensor is obtained from the PPG sensor based on one or more triggers, and wherein the one or more triggers include motion, time, change in viscosity of blood, and change in body temperature of the user.
However, Sanyal teaches wherein the readings of the PPG sensor is obtained from the PPG sensor based on one or more triggers, and wherein the one or more triggers include motion, time, change in viscosity of blood, and change in body temperature of the user (para [0027]) (also see para [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Menon wherein the readings of the PPG sensor is obtained from the PPG sensor based on one or more triggers, and wherein the one or more triggers include motion, time, change in viscosity of blood, and change in body temperature of the user, in view of the teachings of Sanyal, for the obvious advantage of savings data storage and/or processing power by only collecting readings for a subset of the entire sampling period.
For claim 15, Menon and Robinson do not expressly disclose wherein the readings of the PPG sensor is obtained from the PPG sensor based on one or more triggers, and wherein the one or more triggers include motion, time, change in viscosity of blood, and change in body temperature of the user.
However, Sanyal teaches wherein the readings of the PPG sensor is obtained from the PPG sensor based on one or more triggers, and wherein the one or more triggers include motion, time, change in viscosity of blood, and change in body temperature of the user (para [0027]) (also see para [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Menon wherein the readings of the PPG sensor is obtained from the PPG sensor based on one or more triggers, and wherein the one or more triggers include motion, time, change in viscosity of blood, and change in body temperature of the user, in view of the teachings of Sanyal, for the obvious advantage of savings data storage and/or processing power by only collecting readings for a subset of the entire sampling period.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313)446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights