DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 01/29/2026. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 17-20 have been amended. Independent claim 21 newly added. Presently, Claims 1-21 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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 Arguments
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 01/29/2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of Echols et al (US 2018/0136787 A1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new grounds of rejection now relies upon, Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1) for Claims 1, 4, 14, 15, and 20.
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.
Claims 1-21 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.
Claim 1: recites:
“wherein the one or more second optical readings reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface”
The above rejection to claim 1 applies to claim 14, & 20 for substantially identical claim limitations recited in the claim.
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description. The instance specification fails to provide proper written description for the one or more second optical readings to reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface. Specifically, the second optical readings do not reflect fluctuations in one or more first optical readings. Instead, both readings independently reflect fluctuations in the optical back-reflections from the skin cause by the mechanical force of the touch. The second optical readings independently fluctuate based on optical back-reflections from the skin when the force is applied to the user interface, ¶0046, ¶0097-0098, not of the one or more first optical readings. Since the instant specification and drawings does not further provide proper written description regarding the wherein the one or more second optical readings reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface, the claim lacks written description under 35 USC § 112(a). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended to achieve said aforementioned claimed feature. Since the instant specification fails to provide written description for the phrase above in claim 1, the aforementioned claims 1, 14, & 20 fail to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 11: “wherein the user interface includes a non-touch sensitive display incapable of sensing a touch event via conduction between the user and the display using electrical conductors.”, is indefinite. It is unclear what the phrase means. Its unclear if electrical conductors are used or not because the display would comprise electrical conductors to operate and display images. The claim appears to describe a display which possess touch-sensing electrical conductors that simply do not work. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the user interface includes a display lacking conductive and/or resistive layers required to sense a touch, see ¶0091 of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12: “the one or more third optical readings”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the gesture is based on one or more third optical readings. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1).
Claim 1: Yuen discloses, A wearable computing device, comprising: (¶Abstract, ‘An aspect of the disclosure pertains to a wrist-worn device that may be characterized by the following features: an external surface that is not in contact with the user when the wrist-worn device is worn; a force sensor; a PPG sensor disposed on the wrist-worn device; and control logic configured to: (i) generate one or more sensor data samples, each sensor data sample including data that links force data generated by the force sensor when a user presses a against the external surface at a given time with heart rate data obtained from the PPG sensor at the given time; and (ii) calculate an estimate of blood pressure from the one or more sensor data samples. As examples, the force sensor may be a force sensitive touch screen or film, a strain gauge integrating into the device, or a calibrated spring element configured to be pressed by the user.’)
a housing including an upper side and a lower side, wherein the lower side of the housing is opposite to the upper side of the housing and is configured to be in contact with a body part of a user when the wearable computing device is worn by the user; (FIG. 3A-3C; the housing includes an upper side and a lower side, wherein the lower side of the housing is opposite to the upper side of the housing and is configured to be in contact with a body part of a user when the wearable),
a user interface (¶0036, ‘a piezo resistive force-sensitive display screen;’) disposed on the upper side of the housing; (FIG. 3B-¶0079, ‘a force sensitive display screen 313, which may be a touch screen’)
photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors, disposed on the lower side of the housing, configured to: (FIG. 3A, ¶0036, ‘a PPG sensor adjacent to or embedded in the force-sensitive screen; and control logic configured to: (i) generate one or more sensor data samples, each sensor data sample including data that links force data generated when a user presses a finger against the force-sensitive screen at a given time with heart rate data obtained from the PPG sensor at the given time; and (ii) calculate an estimate of blood pressure from the one or more sensor data samples.’)
output one or more first optical readings associated with volumetric variations of blood circulation at the body part of the user for monitoring a heart rate of the user when the wearable computing device is worn by the user, and (Claim 50: “A method for estimating a user's blood pressure implemented on a biometric monitoring device, wherein the biometric monitoring device comprises: (a) a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor comprising a light emitter and a light detector configured to generate PPG sensor data representing blood volume pulses of variable amplitude, (b) a force or pressure sensor located and oriented with respect to the PPG sensor to generate variable force or pressure data when a user wearing the biometric monitoring device presses the PPG sensor against a location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data, and (c) one or more processors, the method comprising: (i) obtaining the PPG sensor data from the PPG sensor, (ii) obtaining the variable force or pressure data from the force or pressure sensor, (iii) determining, by the one or more processors and from the PPG sensor data and the variable force or pressure data, a variation of PPG blood volume pulse amplitude with a variation in pressure applied to the location where the PPG presses against the user's body, and (iv) determining, by the one or more processors, an estimate of the user's blood pressure from the variation of PPG blood volume pulse amplitude with variation in applied pressure to the location where the PPG presses against the user's body.”)
Yuan fails to disclose:
output one or more second optical readings when a force is applied to the user interface, wherein the one or more second optical readings reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface; and
one or more processors configured to determine a location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors.
However, He in the context of optical fingerprint sense with force sensing capabilities of touch screens disclose:
photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors, disposed on the lower side of the housing, configured to: (¶0005, ¶0050, ¶0097, ¶0099, ¶0148, The optical sensors are used in wearable devices such as wrist-worn devices and are placed under the top transparent cover/ display panel)
output one or more first optical readings associated with volumetric variations of blood circulation at the body part of the user for monitoring a heart rate of the user when the wearable computing device is worn by the user, and (¶0005, ¶0050, ¶0097, ¶0099, ¶0148, The optical sensors are used in wearable devices such as wrist-worn devices and are placed under the top transparent cover/ display panel. He teaches that the optical sensors can emit light into the monitored tissue and receive the light to monitor blood flow, which varies with the user’s heartbeat. The optical sensor module observes increases and decreases in the blood concentration depending on the phrase of the user’s heartbeat to determine the user’s heart rate.)
output one or more second optical readings when a force is applied to the user interface, wherein the one or more second optical readings reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface; and (¶0133, ¶0170, He teaches that “a change in touching force can be reflected in one or more ways including [...] a blood flow dynamic change” and that these changes can be measured by the optical sensing and can be used to calculate the touch force based on the optical sensor technology. The optical extinction ratio, ¶0170 varies under different press forces because the applied force physically restricts the volumetric flow of blood, thereby creating the second optical readings. The force applied causes fluctuations in those first readings when a light pressed finger, “may not significantly restrict the flow of the blood into the pressed portion of the finger”, ¶0170. When a user pressed the finger hard the blood flow pressed finger portion may be severely reduced, ¶0170. Therefore, the measurement of the applied force taught by He is linked to the fluctuations in blood flow obtained by the optical sensors.)
one or more processors configured to determine a location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors. (¶Abstract, ¶0125, ¶0129-0131, ¶0148, ¶0168, the optical sensors utilize an optical sensor array (i.e., a CMOS or photodiode array) coupled with optical collimators to capture the spatially resolved image of the touch surface. The processor evaluates these optical readings (i.e., the blood flow changes) within a specific region of the user’s finger image or a relatively small observing zone. Because the second optical readings (i.e., the localized fluctuations in blood flow cased by the pressing force are captured as spatial image data across the array of optical sensors, identifying the physical restriction of blood flow means there is a identification of where on the sensor array that restriction occurs. Therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation, because the processors calculate the force by analyzing the blood flow fluctuations within a mapped spatial zone, the processors are actively determining the location of the applied force based on those second optical readings. Additionally, because the optical sensors of He perform each of the identified functions above, these optical sensors constitute as PPG sensors.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PPG sensors of Yuen to incorporate the teachings He to provide an output of one or more second optical readings when a force is applied to the user interface, wherein the one or more second optical readings reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface and one or more processors configured to determine a location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as aiding in achieving more functions to the optical sensor module beyond the fingerprint sensing, as suggested by He, ¶0133.
Claim 4: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Yuen discloses, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute one or more functions of the wearable computing device based on the location at which the force is applied to the user interface as determined by the one or more processors. (¶0009, ‘the one or more processors and/or the piezo resistive pixelated touch sensitive display may be configured to determine pressure by using the force data from the touch sensitive display together with the area occupied by the pixels of the touch sensitive display detecting force caused when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data’; see also ¶0009-0020; ¶0026, ‘the method additionally includes determining a pressure produced when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data. As an example, the method may include (i) determining an area occupied by pixels of the touch sensitive display detecting force caused when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data, and (ii) determining pressure by using the force data from the touch sensitive display together with the area occupied by the pixels of the touch sensitive display detecting force caused when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data.’)
Claim 14: Yuen discloses, A computer-implemented method, comprising: (¶Abstract, ‘An aspect of the disclosure pertains to a wrist-worn device that may be characterized by the following features: an external surface that is not in contact with the user when the wrist-worn device is worn; a force sensor; a PPG sensor disposed on the wrist-worn device; and control logic configured to: (i) generate one or more sensor data samples, each sensor data sample including data that links force data generated by the force sensor when a user presses a against the external surface at a given time with heart rate data obtained from the PPG sensor at the given time; and (ii) calculate an estimate of blood pressure from the one or more sensor data samples. As examples, the force sensor may be a force sensitive touch screen or film, a strain gauge integrating into the device, or a calibrated spring element configured to be pressed by the user.’) see also ¶0067) receiving one or more first optical readings output by photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors (FIG. 3A, ¶0036, ‘a PPG sensor adjacent to or embedded in the force-sensitive screen; and control logic configured to: (i) generate one or more sensor data samples, each sensor data sample including data that links force data generated when a user presses a finger against the force-sensitive screen at a given time with heart rate data obtained from the PPG sensor at the given time; and (ii) calculate an estimate of blood pressure from the one or more sensor data samples.’) disposed on a lower side of a housing of a wearable computing device, (FIG. 3A-3C; the housing includes an upper side and a lower side, wherein the lower side of the housing is opposite to the upper side of the housing and is configured to be in contact with a body part of a user when the wearable), wherein the one or more first optical readings are associated with volumetric variations of blood circulation at a body part of a user for monitoring a heart rate of the user when the wearable computing device is worn by the user, (Claim 50: “A method for estimating a user's blood pressure implemented on a biometric monitoring device, wherein the biometric monitoring device comprises: (a) a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor comprising a light emitter and a light detector configured to generate PPG sensor data representing blood volume pulses of variable amplitude, (b) a force or pressure sensor located and oriented with respect to the PPG sensor to generate variable force or pressure data when a user wearing the biometric monitoring device presses the PPG sensor against a location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data, and (c) one or more processors, the method comprising: (i) obtaining the PPG sensor data from the PPG sensor, (ii) obtaining the variable force or pressure data from the force or pressure sensor, (iii) determining, by the one or more processors and from the PPG sensor data and the variable force or pressure data, a variation of PPG blood volume pulse amplitude with a variation in pressure applied to the location where the PPG presses against the user's body, and (iv) determining, by the one or more processors, an estimate of the user's blood pressure from the variation of PPG blood volume pulse amplitude with variation in applied pressure to the location where the PPG presses against the user's body.”)
wherein the lower side of the housing is opposite to the upper side of the housing and is configured to be in contact with the body part of the user when the wearable computing device is worn by the user; and (FIG. 3A, ¶0036, ‘a PPG sensor adjacent to or embedded in the force-sensitive screen; and control logic configured to: (i) generate one or more sensor data samples, each sensor data sample including data that links force data generated when a user presses a finger against the force-sensitive screen at a given time with heart rate data obtained from the PPG sensor at the given time; and (ii) calculate an estimate of blood pressure from the one or more sensor data samples.’)
Yuan fails to disclose:
receiving one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors when a force is applied to a user interface disposed on an upper side of the housing, wherein the one or more second optical readings reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface, and
determining, by one or more processors of the wearable computing device, a location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors.
However, He in the context of optical fingerprint sense with force sensing capabilities of touch screens disclose:
receiving one or more first optical readings output by photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors disposed on a lower side of a housing of a wearable computing device, (¶0005, ¶0050, ¶0097, ¶0099, ¶0148, The optical sensors are used in wearable devices such as wrist-worn devices and are placed under the top transparent cover/ display panel) wherein the one or more first optical readings are associated with volumetric variations of blood circulation at a body part of a user for monitoring a heart rate of the user when the wearable computing device is worn by the user, (¶0005, ¶0050, ¶0097, ¶0099, ¶0148, The optical sensors are used in wearable devices such as wrist-worn devices and are placed under the top transparent cover/ display panel. He teaches that the optical sensors can emit light into the monitored tissue and receive the light to monitor blood flow, which varies with the user’s heartbeat. The optical sensor module observes increases and decreases in the blood concentration depending on the phrase of the user’s heartbeat to determine the user’s heart rate.)
receiving one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors when a force is applied to a user interface disposed on an upper side of the housing, wherein the one or more second optical readings reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface, and (¶0133, ¶0170, He teaches that “a change in touching force can be reflected in one or more ways including [...] a blood flow dynamic change” and that these changes can be measured by the optical sensing and can be used to calculate the touch force based on the optical sensor technology. The optical extinction ratio, ¶0170 varies under different press forces because the applied force physically restricts the volumetric flow of blood, thereby creating the second optical readings. The force applied causes fluctuations in those first readings when a light pressed finger, “may not significantly restrict the flow of the blood into the pressed portion of the finger”, ¶0170. When a user pressed the finger hard the blood flow pressed finger portion may be severely reduced, ¶0170. Therefore, the measurement of the applied force taught by He is linked to the fluctuations in blood flow obtained by the optical sensors.)
determining, by one or more processors of the wearable computing device, a location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors. (¶Abstract, ¶0125, ¶0129-0131, ¶0148, ¶0168, the optical sensors utilize an optical sensor array (i.e., a CMOS or photodiode array) coupled with optical collimators to capture the spatially resolved image of the touch surface. The processor evaluates these optical readings (i.e., the blood flow changes) within a specific region of the user’s finger image or a relatively small observing zone. Because the second optical readings (i.e., the localized fluctuations in blood flow cased by the pressing force are captured as spatial image data across the array of optical sensors, identifying the physical restriction of blood flow means there is a identification of where on the sensor array that restriction occurs. Therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation, because the processors calculate the force by analyzing the blood flow fluctuations within a mapped spatial zone, the processors are actively determining the location of the applied force based on those second optical readings. Additionally, because the optical sensors of He perform each of the identified functions above, these optical sensors constitute as PPG sensors.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PPG sensors of Yuen to incorporate the teachings He to provide an output of one or more second optical readings when a force is applied to the user interface, wherein the one or more second optical readings reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface and one or more processors configured to determine a location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as aiding in achieving more functions to the optical sensor module beyond the fingerprint sensing, as suggested by He, ¶0133.
Claim 15: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 14, Yuen discloses, further comprising: executing one or more functions of the wearable computing device based on the location at which the force is applied to the user interface as determined by the one or more processors. (¶0009, ‘the one or more processors and/or the piezo resistive pixelated touch sensitive display may be configured to determine pressure by using the force data from the touch sensitive display together with the area occupied by the pixels of the touch sensitive display detecting force caused when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data’; see also ¶0009-0020; ¶0026, ‘the method additionally includes determining a pressure produced when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data. As an example, the method may include (i) determining an area occupied by pixels of the touch sensitive display detecting force caused when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data, and (ii) determining pressure by using the force data from the touch sensitive display together with the area occupied by the pixels of the touch sensitive display detecting force caused when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data.’)
Claim 20: Yuen discloses, A non-transitory computer-readable medium which stores instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a wearable computing device, the instructions comprising: (¶Abstract, ‘An aspect of the disclosure pertains to a wrist-worn device that may be characterized by the following features: an external surface that is not in contact with the user when the wrist-worn device is worn; a force sensor; a PPG sensor disposed on the wrist-worn device; and control logic configured to: (i) generate one or more sensor data samples, each sensor data sample including data that links force data generated by the force sensor when a user presses a against the external surface at a given time with heart rate data obtained from the PPG sensor at the given time; and (ii) calculate an estimate of blood pressure from the one or more sensor data samples. As examples, the force sensor may be a force sensitive touch screen or film, a strain gauge integrating into the device, or a calibrated spring element configured to be pressed by the user.’) see also ¶0067)
instructions to cause the one or more processors to receive: one or more first optical readings output by photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors (FIG. 3A, ¶0036, ‘a PPG sensor adjacent to or embedded in the force-sensitive screen; and control logic configured to: (i) generate one or more sensor data samples, each sensor data sample including data that links force data generated when a user presses a finger against the force-sensitive screen at a given time with heart rate data obtained from the PPG sensor at the given time; and (ii) calculate an estimate of blood pressure from the one or more sensor data samples.’) disposed on a lower side of a housing of the wearable computing device, (FIG. 3A-3C; the housing includes an upper side and a lower side, wherein the lower side of the housing is opposite to the upper side of the housing and is configured to be in contact with a body part of a user when the wearable) wherein the one or more first optical readings are associated with volumetric variations of blood circulation at a body part of a user for monitoring a heart rate of the user when the wearable computing device is worn by the user, (Claim 50: “A method for estimating a user's blood pressure implemented on a biometric monitoring device, wherein the biometric monitoring device comprises: (a) a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor comprising a light emitter and a light detector configured to generate PPG sensor data representing blood volume pulses of variable amplitude, (b) a force or pressure sensor located and oriented with respect to the PPG sensor to generate variable force or pressure data when a user wearing the biometric monitoring device presses the PPG sensor against a location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data, and (c) one or more processors, the method comprising: (i) obtaining the PPG sensor data from the PPG sensor, (ii) obtaining the variable force or pressure data from the force or pressure sensor, (iii) determining, by the one or more processors and from the PPG sensor data and the variable force or pressure data, a variation of PPG blood volume pulse amplitude with a variation in pressure applied to the location where the PPG presses against the user's body, and (iv) determining, by the one or more processors, an estimate of the user's blood pressure from the variation of PPG blood volume pulse amplitude with variation in applied pressure to the location where the PPG presses against the user's body.”)
wherein the lower side of the housing is opposite to the upper side of the housing and configured to be in contact with the body part of the user when the wearable computing device is worn by the user; and (FIG. 3A, ¶0036, ‘a PPG sensor adjacent to or embedded in the force-sensitive screen; and control logic configured to: (i) generate one or more sensor data samples, each sensor data sample including data that links force data generated when a user presses a finger against the force-sensitive screen at a given time with heart rate data obtained from the PPG sensor at the given time; and (ii) calculate an estimate of blood pressure from the one or more sensor data samples.’)
Yuen fails to disclose:
one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors when a force is applied to a user interface disposed on an upper side of the housing, wherein the one or more second optical readings reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface, and
instructions to cause the one or more processors to determine a location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors.
However, He in the context of optical fingerprint sense with force sensing capabilities of touch screens disclose:
one or more first optical readings output by photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors disposed on a lower side of a housing of the wearable computing device, (¶0005, ¶0050, ¶0097, ¶0099, ¶0148, The optical sensors are used in wearable devices such as wrist-worn devices and are placed under the top transparent cover/ display panel) wherein the one or more first optical readings are associated with volumetric variations of blood circulation at a body part of a user for monitoring a heart rate of the user when the wearable computing device is worn by the user, (¶0005, ¶0050, ¶0097, ¶0099, ¶0148, The optical sensors are used in wearable devices such as wrist-worn devices and are placed under the top transparent cover/ display panel. He teaches that the optical sensors can emit light into the monitored tissue and receive the light to monitor blood flow, which varies with the user’s heartbeat. The optical sensor module observes increases and decreases in the blood concentration depending on the phrase of the user’s heartbeat to determine the user’s heart rate.)
one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors when a force is applied to a user interface disposed on an upper side of the housing, wherein the one or more second optical readings reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface, and (¶0133, ¶0170, He teaches that “a change in touching force can be reflected in one or more ways including [...] a blood flow dynamic change” and that these changes can be measured by the optical sensing and can be used to calculate the touch force based on the optical sensor technology. The optical extinction ratio, ¶0170 varies under different press forces because the applied force physically restricts the volumetric flow of blood, thereby creating the second optical readings. The force applied causes fluctuations in those first readings when a light pressed finger, “may not significantly restrict the flow of the blood into the pressed portion of the finger”, ¶0170. When a user pressed the finger hard the blood flow pressed finger portion may be severely reduced, ¶0170. Therefore, the measurement of the applied force taught by He is linked to the fluctuations in blood flow obtained by the optical sensors.)
instructions to cause the one or more processors to determine a location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors. (¶Abstract, ¶0125, ¶0129-0131, ¶0148, ¶0168, the optical sensors utilize an optical sensor array (i.e., a CMOS or photodiode array) coupled with optical collimators to capture the spatially resolved image of the touch surface. The processor evaluates these optical readings (i.e., the blood flow changes) within a specific region of the user’s finger image or a relatively small observing zone. Because the second optical readings (i.e., the localized fluctuations in blood flow cased by the pressing force are captured as spatial image data across the array of optical sensors, identifying the physical restriction of blood flow means there is a identification of where on the sensor array that restriction occurs. Therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation, because the processors calculate the force by analyzing the blood flow fluctuations within a mapped spatial zone, the processors are actively determining the location of the applied force based on those second optical readings. Additionally, because the optical sensors of He perform each of the identified functions above, these optical sensors constitute as PPG sensors.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PPG sensors of Yuen to incorporate the teachings He to provide an output of one or more second optical readings when a force is applied to the user interface, wherein the one or more second optical readings reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface and one or more processors configured to determine a location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as aiding in achieving more functions to the optical sensor module beyond the fingerprint sensing, as suggested by He, ¶0133.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Cho et al (US 2020/0297215 A1).
Claim 2: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Yuen discloses,
the PPG sensor include one or more light-emitting diodes (emitters 309) and a detector. (¶0003, ‘photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor comprising a light emitter and a light detector configured to generate PPG sensor data representing blood volume pulses of variable amplitude’; Claim 1, ‘a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor comprising a light emitter and a light detector configured to generate PPG sensor data representing blood volume pulses of variable amplitude;’; ¶0079, ‘The PPG sensor includes two light emitters 308 (e.g., LEDs) and a light detector 311 (e.g., a photodetector such as a photodiode or a charge coupled device)’)
Yuen fails to disclose that the sensors, include PPG sensors (plural) include one or more light-emitting diodes and a plurality of detectors.
The claim recitation: “the PPG sensors include one or more light-emitting diodes and a plurality of detectors”, is generically broad. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Applicants specification, at ¶0092-0095, the phrase is directed to each PPG sensor equals one LED and one detector, FIG. 4C. The phrase is interpreted as the plurality of detectors together with a single LED form multiple pairs, each of the multiple pairs being a PPG sensor. In other words, (three PPG sensors) collectively “includes” one LED and a plurality of detectors.
However, Cho in the context of PPG sensors in a housing discloses: PPG sensors include one or more light-emitting diodes and a plurality of detectors. (¶0094, ‘in order to increase measurement accuracy, the PPG sensors 601 and 603 of the electronic device may include a plurality of LEDs 611a, 611b, 612a, 612b, 613a, 613b, 614a, and 614b or a plurality of photodiodes 621a, 621b, 622a, 622b, 623a, 623b, 624a, and 624b’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified Yen to include PPG sensors include one or more light-emitting diodes and a plurality of detectors as taught by Cho. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving the measurement accuracy, as suggested by Cho ¶0094.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Xi et al (WO 2019237281 A1).
Claim 3: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Yuen fails to disclose: wherein the PPG sensors include at least three PPG sensors, and at least one PPG sensor of the at least three PPG sensors is spaced apart from another PPG sensor of the at least three PPG sensors in a first direction and a second direction.
However, Xi in the context of PPG sensor smart watches discloses, wherein the PPG sensors include at least three PPG sensors, and at least one PPG sensor of the at least three PPG sensors is spaced apart from another PPG sensor of the at least three PPG sensors in a first direction and a second direction. (see FIG. 2 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
412
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensors of modified Yuen to include at least three photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors, and at least one PPG sensor of the at least three PPG sensors is spaced apart from another PPG sensor of the at least three PPG sensors in a first direction and a second direction as taught by Xi. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as increasing cost for the entire device, as suggested by Xi, ¶0036.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Hoffman et al (US 2015/0177909 A1).
Claim 5: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Yuen fails to disclose:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on whether an area of the user interface to which the force is applied corresponds to a first area or a second area, the first area being different from the second area.
However, Hoffman in the context of detecting forces on a display device, discloses, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on whether an area of the user interface to which the force is applied corresponds to a first area or a second area, the first area being different from the second area.
-Hoffman discloses determining the overall location of the interaction (i.e., the point of contact) regarding the wavelength analysis, ¶0017. The display device includes optical sensors to detect a position of the user interaction (e.g., user touch), ¶0053. The method includes sensing shear force by detecting a first point of contact at the surface of the display, ¶0017, claim 1, having a first wavelength at a front area, and second point of contact, claim 10, having a second wavelength at a back area; wherein the first wavelength is different from the second wavelength, hence the front area is different from the second area, ¶Abstract. The wavelengths (110, 112, 208, 210) correspond to specific areas around the location. The different wavelengths correspond to localized areas of the force applied, FIG. 1B-2C, each different and representative based on the force applied to the user interface further based on optical signals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of modified Yuen to be configured to determine the location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on whether an area of the user interface to which the force is applied corresponds to a first area or a second area, the first area being different from the second area as taught by Hoffman. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving isometric movement on small display devices having limited screen areas, as suggested by Hoffman ¶0059.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1) in view of Hoffman et al (US 2015/0177909 A1), as applied to claim 5, in further view of Lapointe et al (US 2021/0149538 A1).
Claim 6: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 5, Yuen fails to disclose:
wherein:
when the area of the user interface to which the force is applied corresponds to the first area, the one or more processors are configured to determine an amplitude of each of the one or more second optical readings; and
when the area of the user interface to which the force is applied corresponds to the second area, the one or more processors are configured to determine the amplitude of each of the one or more second optical readings
However, Hoffman is relied upon above discloses, when the area of the user interface to which the force is applied corresponds to the first area, the one or more processors are configured to determine an amplitude of each of the one or more second optical readings
when the area of the user interface to which the force is applied corresponds to the second area, the one or more processors are configured to determine the amplitude of each of the one or more second optical readings
-The determination of the force (i.e., specifically, the magnitude and direction of the shear force) applied to the localized front and back areas is linked to the amplitude (i.e., intensity) of the reflected wavelength of the corresponding one or more optical readings.
-The determination method of Hoffman relies on the first wavelength (e.g., 110 or 210) reflected at the front area and the second wavelength (e.g., 112 or 208) reflected at the back area, FIG. 1B-2C, but how the force is measured is dependent on magnitude, ¶0053, ¶0073, ¶0084, and intensity, ¶0056, (i.e., amplitude). The amplitude (i.e., intensity) of the light detected by the optical sensing array measured is used to quantify the magnitude of the force applied and to determine its direction and location of the point of contact, ¶0053, ¶0073, ¶0084, ¶0123.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of modified Yuen to be configured such that when the area of the user interface to which the force is applied corresponds to the first area, the one or more processors are configured to determine an amplitude of each of the one or more second optical readings when the area of the user interface to which the force is applied corresponds to the second area, the one or more processors are configured to determine the amplitude of each of the one or more second optical readings as taught by Hoffman. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving isometric movement on small display devices having limited screen areas, as suggested by Hoffman ¶0059.
Yuen as modified fail to disclose that the first area amplitude reading is based on a first model having a first scale parameter which reflects a first variance of the force applied to the user interface, and that the second area amplitude reading is based on a second model having a second scale parameter which reflects a second variance of the force applied to the user interface, the second variance being different from the first variance.
However, Lapointe in the context of virtual button characterization engines discloses: the first area amplitude reading is based on a first model having a first scale parameter which reflects a first variance of the force applied to the user interface, and the second area amplitude reading is based on a second model having a second scale parameter which reflects a second variance of the force applied to the user interface, the second variance being different from the first variance.
-Upon review of the limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation the claim states that determination of the amplitude is based on [emphasis added] the model having a scale parameter which reflect a variance of the force applied to the user interface The term “based on” is ambiguous and lacks precision. The term “based on” is a broad and ambiguous term that doesn’t clearly define the extent or nature of the relationship that claimed invention is intended to present. As such, the term “based on” implies that the claim invention is derived from or closely related to the model.
-Accordingly, Lapointe discloses multiple magnitudes (i.e., amplitudes) based on behavioral models that incorporate parameters reflect the variance and consistency of the applied force, utilizing a plurality of behavioral types to define these different interaction magnitudes. Lapointe teaches a DSP 432 quantifies a magnitude of the displace to more than one detection threshold, ¶0061. This quantification is performed to detect different types of physical interactions (e.g., short press of a virtual button versus a long press of the virtual button), ¶0061. Other examples include light press versus a quick and hard press of the virtual button, ¶0061. The system of Lapointe uses behavioral models to characterize various user interactions (i.e., models for different force types/magnitudes). A button characterization engine compares the input signal from the force sensor to at least one behavioral model, ¶Abstract, ¶0007, Claim 19. The comparison module generates a plurality of different behavior scores with each behavior score related to the a different user (e.g., different types of touch events), ¶0065. The behavior models use scale parameters defining the overall scale or range of magnitude of the raw force input signal (i.e., defines a validity window defining a range of input signal magnitude against time), Claim 2, Claim 19, the specific parameter reflect the variance or change in the rate of application is the gradient of the slope, Claim 10, Claim 14-15. Lapointe teaches the measured response of the force can differ based on the area or manner of interaction. The behavior models rely on the variance of the applied force to characterize and validate human interaction, ¶0076-0079. Hence, the first and second variance would implicitly be different.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination of the amplitudes of the first and second area of modified Yuen such that it is configured to be based on, based on a first model having a first scale parameter which reflects a first variance of the force applied to the user interface, and based on a second model having a second scale parameter which reflects a second variance of the force applied to the user interface, the second variance being different from the first variance as taught by Lapointe. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving button press detection margin over time, enhancing button detection and improve false reject rates, as suggested by ¶0072 & ¶0081 of Lapointe.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1) in view of Hoffman et al (US 2015/0177909 A1) in view of Lapointe et al (US 2021/0149538 A1), as applied to claim 6, in further view of Kushnirenko et al ((2020). Active Stylus Input Latency Compensation on Touch Screen Mobile Devices. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds) HCI International 2020 - Posters. HCII 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1224).
Claim 7: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 6, Yuen discloses: wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the location at which the force is applied to the user interface (¶0009, ‘the one or more processors and/or the piezo resistive pixelated touch sensitive display may be configured to determine pressure by using the force data from the touch sensitive display together with the area occupied by the pixels of the touch sensitive display detecting force caused when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data’; ¶0026, ‘the method additionally includes determining a pressure produced when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data. As an example, the method may include (i) determining an area occupied by pixels of the touch sensitive display detecting force caused when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data, and (ii) determining pressure by usin3g the force data from the touch sensitive display together with the area occupied by the pixels of the touch sensitive display detecting force caused when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data.’)
Yuen fails to disclose: based on a value of each of the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors
However, He is relied upon above discloses: based on a value of each of the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors (¶0133, ¶0170, He teaches that “a change in touching force can be reflected in one or more ways including [...] a blood flow dynamic change” and that these changes can be measured by the optical sensing and can be used to calculate the touch force based on the optical sensor technology. The optical extinction ratio, ¶0170 varies under different press forces because the applied force physically restricts the volumetric flow of blood, thereby creating the second optical readings. The force applied causes fluctuations in those first readings when a light pressed finger, “may not significantly restrict the flow of the blood into the pressed portion of the finger”, ¶0170. When a user pressed the finger hard the blood flow pressed finger portion may be severely reduced, ¶0170. Therefore, the measurement of the applied force taught by He is linked to the fluctuations in blood flow obtained by the optical sensors. Additionally, because the optical sensors of He perform each of the identified functions above, these optical sensors constitute as PPG sensors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determined location at which the force is applied to the user interface of modified Yuen such that it is based on one or more second optical readings output by PPG sensors, as taught by He. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as aiding in achieving more functions to the optical sensor module beyond the fingerprint sensing, as suggested by He, ¶0133.
Yuen fails to disclose: the location determined by applying a loss function to minimize a difference between the location at which the force is applied and an estimated location at which the force is applied.
However, Kushnirenko in the context of latency compensation on touch screen mobile devices, discloses, the location determined by applying a loss function to minimize a difference between the location at which the force is applied and an estimated location at which the force is applied.
-The goal of Kushnirenko is to improve prediction accuracy by minimize the value of custom loss. This custom loss function estimates both the distance and direction proximity of actual touches to predicted stylus positions, ¶Abstract. The network parameters were optimized using the custom loss function, which was defines as a weighted linear combination of two quantitative metrics, [3.3 Implementation Details, pg 249]-, ‘The network parameters were optimized using custom loss function with Adam stochastic optimizer. The value of the custom loss function was defined as a weighted linear combination of two quantitative metrics. The first one was a sum of Euclidean distances between corresponding real and predicted touches; the second one was a sum of deviation angles from the target direction.’. The prediction error itself is calculated as the Euclidean distance between actual touches (i.e., actual location) and predicted stylus positions (i.e., estimated location), [4. Results and Discussion, pg. 250], FIG. 2A. The loss function targets location (i.e., position) error, while the prediction model utilizes input features that relate to force/pressure, ¶Abstract, 3.1 Dataset and Learning samples construction, pg 248.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determining of the location at which the force is applied by modified Yuen such that it includes applying a loss function to minimize a difference between the location at which the force is applied and an estimated location at which the force is applied as taught by Kushnirenko. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving the prediction of the future position thereby reducing the length of the touch sequences to reduce memory useage and not slow down interface time on the device, as suggested by Kushnirenko [3.3 Implementation Details, pg. 249].
Claim 8, Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 7, Yuen fails to disclose: wherein the one or more processors are configured to apply the loss function by performing a two-dimensional grid search method or a gradient descent search method.
However, Kushnirenko is relied upon above discloses: apply the loss function by performing a two-dimensional grid search method or a gradient descent search method. (“The network parameters were optimized using custom loss function with Adam stochastic optimizer. The value of the custom loss function was defined as a weighted linear combination of two quantitative metrics. The first one was a sum of Euclidean distances between corresponding real and predicted touches; the second one was a sum of deviation angles from the target direction. The initial learning rate was set as 0.001 and it was divided by 5 when validation loss value was not improving at least for 5 epochs. To prevent overfitting, early stopping was used to monitor the validation loss. If the validation loss did not improve for 20 epochs, training was stopped. [...] We used mini-batch gradient descent learning with a batch size of 128 samples shuffled randomly at the beginning of each epoch.”-[3.3 Implementation Details, pg 249].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of modified Yuen such that the loss function performs a gradient descent search method as taught by Kushnirenko. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as minimizing the value of the custom loss function estimating not only distance but direction of actual touches to predicted positions, as suggested by Kushnirenko, ¶Abstract.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Matthews et al (US 20090288044 A1) in view of Chowdhury et al (US 20190064998 A1).
Claim 9: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Yuen discloses, wherein the user interface includes a display configured to display (¶0036, ‘a piezo resistive force-sensitive display screen;’) (FIG. 3B-¶0079, ‘a force sensitive display screen 313, which may be a touch screen’) see also ¶0092.
Yuen fails to disclose:
the display a plurality of elements corresponding to a plurality of selectable functions of the wearable computing device,
in response to determining the location at which the force is applied to the display corresponds to a remaining first element of the plurality of elements displayed on the display, the one or more processors are further configured to execute a first selectable function of the plurality of selectable functions which corresponds to the remaining first element, based on the determined location.
However, Matthews in the context of touchscreen displays discloses: wherein the user interface includes a display configured to display a plurality of elements corresponding to a plurality of selectable functions of the wearable computing device, (¶¶0029-0030, ¶0049, ¶0053, the touchscreen display configured as GUI on a computing device. The GUI presents visual elements, (i.e., top level control buttons) as well as a plurality of selectable options or selectable task that represents that represent different executable functions of the device.)
in response to determining the location at which the force is applied to the display corresponds to a remaining first element of the plurality of elements displayed on the display, the one or more processors are further configured to execute a first selectable function of the plurality of selectable functions which corresponds to the remaining first element, based on the determined location. (¶0007, ¶0019, ¶¶0031-0034, ¶0042, The touchscreen input determines the location of the actuation of the user initiated input. This input requires physical contact and the surface of the touchscreen. The processing evaluates the coordinate location of this physical contact to see which item it corresponds to. If the location of the actuation falls within a command region that corresponds to a specific on-screen element, the processing identifies and executes the appropriate action mapped to that element. Regarding the phrase “remaining first element” out of the plurality of elements, Matthews teaches when a menu of multiple options are presented to the user, the system detects a second user input indicated one of the selectable options and subsequently will invoke a corollary action associated with the selectable option indicated, ¶0052. Therefore, by determining the location of the physical touch and matching it to a distinct option displayed on the screen, the processors execute that specific selectable function assigned to that location.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify user interface and processor of modified Yuen to incorporate the teachings of Mathews. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as overcoming clumsiness and inaccuracy of touch-based inputs on graphical user interfaces, as suggested by Matthews, ¶0004. The modified combination would disclose wherein the user interface includes a display configured to display a plurality of elements corresponding to a plurality of selectable functions of the wearable computing device, in response to determining the location at which the force is applied to the display corresponds to a remaining first element of the plurality of elements displayed on the display, the one or more processors are further configured to execute a first selectable function of the plurality of selectable functions which corresponds to the remaining first element, based on the determined location of modified Yuen.
Yuen fails to disclose:
in response to a noise level of the sensors increasing beyond a threshold, the one or more processors are configured to control the display to stop displaying of one or more of the plurality of elements, and
However, Chowdhury in the context of touchscreen displays discloses: in response to a noise level of the sensors increasing beyond a threshold, the one or more processors are configured to control the display to stop displaying of one or more of the plurality of elements (¶0098, “the electronic device 100 can determine that the electronic device 100 is exposed to a moisture event (e.g., submerged underwater). Accordingly, the user interface 1104 c can present an indication 1106 that the current moisture event corresponds to an underwater mode. In conjunction with presenting the user interface 1104 c in conjunction with the underwater mode, the electronic device 100 can modify at least one of the first or second set of icons that are presented at the user interface 1104 c. For example, the user interface 1104 c can present a simplified camera interface, where only a limited set of icons 1113 a-b are presented.”, see also, ¶Abstract, ¶0030-0031, ¶0033, ¶0068, ¶0076, ¶0084.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of modified Yuen to incorporate the teachings of Chowdhury for the advantage of providing an improved system and method being able to make it easier for the user to accurately select and execute functions in an environment where normal touch detection is comprised, as suggested by Chowdhury, ¶0100.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Kim et al (US 2018/0121078 A2).
Claim 10: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Yuen fails to disclose: wherein the user interface includes a plurality of faux buttons which respectively correspond to a plurality of selectable functions of the wearable computing device, and in response to determining the location at which the force is applied to a first faux button of the plurality of faux buttons of the user interface, the one or more processors are configured to execute a first selectable function of the plurality of selectable functions which corresponds to the first faux button, based on the determined location.
However, Kim in the context of display operating methods of wearable devices, ¶Abstract, ¶0038 discloses, wherein the user interface includes a plurality of faux buttons which respectively correspond to a plurality of selectable functions of the wearable computing device, and
-Kim discloses a plurality of virtual keys (i.e., faux buttons). The electronics device (100) according to various embodiments may be a wearable device, ¶0038. The system of Kim utilizing a plurality of keys, including a first virtual function key, a second virtual function key, and a third function key, ¶0087. These virtual keys correspond to functions that operate the electronic device, ¶0046, ¶0055-0056. These functions may include but are not limited to a home key function, a black key function, or a list of a key function of recently used applications, ¶0102, Claim 3.
in response to determining the location at which the force is applied to a first faux button of the plurality of faux buttons of the user interface, the one or more processors are configured to execute a first selectable function of the plurality of selectable functions which corresponds to the first faux button, based on the determined location.
-Kim discloses, a specific activation and utilization manner where the location (i.e., area/region) of the applied force determines which function associated with a virtual key is executed. The electronic device includes a pressure sensor configured to sense pressure (i.e., a force) of an external object applied on the display, ¶Abstract, ¶0006, Claim 1, Claim 6. The process analyses occurrence coordinates of the touch input, ¶0080-0082, ¶0122-0124. The memory stores instructions that cause the processor to set a first region, a second region, and a third region extending substantially in parallel with each on the display, ¶0100. The processor is configured to determine which function to activate based on the region in which the force is applied. The processor senses pressure applied to any one region of the first region, the second region, or the third region, ¶0100. The processor explicitly activates a function , and that function is different according to the first region, second region, or third region in which the sensed pressure exceeding a specified threshold value is applied, ¶0100. Specifically, the processor may activate a first virtual function key corresponding to the specified first region if the touch input of the specified pressure intensity or more is made in that region, ¶0100-0111, ¶0122-0124, Claim 10, Claim 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of modified Yuen such that it includes a plurality of faux buttons which respectively correspond to a plurality of selectable functions of the wearable computing device, and in response to determining the location at which the force is applied to a first faux button of the plurality of faux buttons of the user interface, the one or more processors are configured to execute a first selectable function of the plurality of selectable functions which corresponds to the first faux button, based on the determined location as taught by Kim for the advantage of providing an improved apparatus and method capable of activating and using function keys associated with operating an electronic device by performing input operations on a touchscreen display without regard to a specific region, as suggested by ¶0005, ¶0007-0008, ¶0121 of Kim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Holmgren et al (US 20130155027 A1)
Claim 11: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Yuen fails to disclose: wherein the user interface includes a display incapable of sensing a touch event via conduction between the user and the display using electrical conductors.
However, Holmgren in the context of optical touch screen system, wherein the user interface includes a display incapable of sensing a touch event via conduction between the user and the display using electrical conductors. (¶0019-0022, ¶0032-0034, ¶0398)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of modified Yuen such that it includes a display lacking conductive and/or resistive layers required to sense a touch as taught by Holmgren for the advangtage of improving the calculation of the location of the touch, as suggested by Holmgren, ¶0398.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Brumback et al (US 2015/0230761 A1).
Claim 12: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Yuen fails to disclose:
the one or more processors are configured to identify a gesture of the user based on the one or more optical readings output by the PPG sensors, and the one or more processors are configured to execute a function of the computer wearable device based on the gesture of the user identified by the one or more processors.
However, Brumback in the context of biometric monitoring devices with heart rate measurement activated by a single user-gesture discloses, the one or more processors are configured to identify a gesture of the user based on the one or more third optical readings output by the PPG sensors, wherein the one or more this optical readings filter out at least portions of the one or more first optical readings, and the one or more processors are configured to execute a function of the computer wearable device based on the gesture of the user identified by the one or more processors. (¶0005-0006, ¶0018-0019, ¶0023-0024, ¶0077, ¶0080, ¶0084, 0085, ¶0095, ¶0121, ¶0123, ¶0132)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one or more processors of modified Yuen to be configured to identify a gesture of the user based on the one or more optical readings output by the PPG sensors, wherein the one or more this optical readings filter out at least portions of the one or more first optical readings, and the one or more processors are configured to execute a function of the computer wearable device based on the gesture of the user identified by the one or more processors as taught by Brumback for the advantage of providing quick heart rate readings without removing the device or interrupting other activities, as suggested by ¶Abstract, ¶0050, ¶0090 of Brumback.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1), as applied to claim 12, in further view of Syed Mousavi et al (US 2022/0391697 A1).
Claim 13: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 12, Yuen discloses: further comprising: at least one of an accelerometer or a gyroscope, (¶0013, ‘the motion sensor is selected from the group consisting of an accelerometer, an altimeter, a global positioning systems (GPS) detector, and a gyroscope. In some designs, the one or more processors are further configured to provide feedback when it is determined that the PPG sensor is located at approximately the elevation of the user's heart.’; ¶0115, ‘the motion sensor may be an accelerometer, an altimeter, and/or a gyroscope.’)
Yuen fails to disclose:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify the gesture of the user based on the one or more third optical readings output by the PPG sensors and one or more outputs of the at least one of the accelerometer or the gyroscope.
However, Seyed Mousavi in the context of gesture recognition with machine learning discloses: wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify the gesture of the user based on the one or more third optical readings output by the PPG sensors and one or more outputs of the at least one of the accelerometer or the gyroscope. (¶0016, ‘The user performs the customized gesture and sensor data resulting from the gesture are captured by motion sensors (e.g., accelerometers, angular rate sensors) and a biosignal sensor of the wearable device, such as a photoplethysmography (PPG).’; ¶0032, ‘FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a ML model 200 for predicting gestures, according to an embodiment. ML model 200 is configured to receive sensor data from PPG 201, accelerometers 202 and gyros 203.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one or more processors of modified Yuen to be configured to identify the gesture of the user based on the one or more optical readings output by the PPG sensors and one or more outputs of the at least one of the accelerometer or the gyroscope as taught by Seyed Mousavi. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as avoiding large scale collection to added customized gestures prior to shipping the wearable device, as suggested by ¶0016 of Seyed Mousavi.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1), as applied to claim 14, in further view of Barsness et al (US 2018/0088738 A1).
Claim 16: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 14, Yuen fails to disclose:
further comprising: displaying on a display of the user interface instructions indicating to a user to calibrate the wearable computing device by indicating an area of the display to which the force is to be applied to the display.
However, Barsness in the context of pressure-sensitive touch screen displays discloses: further comprising: displaying on a display of the user interface instructions indicating to a user to calibrate the wearable computing device by indicating an area of the display to which the force is to be applied to the display. (¶0016, ‘a calibration mechanism that prompts the user to press a plurality of regions on the touch screen display using a plurality of pressures with the device in a plurality of orientations’; ¶0031, ‘a device 100 represents any suitable type of electronic device, including without limitation a smart phone, tablet computer, electronic book reader, notebook computer, laptop computer, gaming console, smart watch, etc.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of the user interface of modified Yuen to be configured to a user to calibrate the wearable computing device by indicating an area of the display to which the force is to be applied to the display as taught by Barsness. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as reduce the issues that arise from user applying different pressures at different areas of the display while intended to apply similar pressure, as suggested by ¶0050 of Barsness.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1) in view of Barsness et al (US 2018/0088738 A1), as applied to claim 16, in further view of in view of Hoffman et al (US 2015/0177909 A1) in view of Lapointe et al (US 2021/0149538 A1).
Claim 17: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 16, Yuen fails to disclose: further comprising:
when the area of the force indicated by the user corresponds to a first area, determining an amplitude of each of the one or more second optical readings based on a first model having a first scale parameter which reflects a first variance of the force to be applied to the display, and
when the area of the force indicated by the user corresponds to a second area, determining the amplitude of each of the one or more second optical readings
However, Hoffman in the context of detecting forces on a display device, discloses,
when the area of the force indicated by the user corresponds to a first area, determining an amplitude of each of the one or more second optical readings based on a first model having a first scale parameter which reflects a first variance of the force to be applied to the display, and
when the area of the force indicated by the user corresponds to a second area, determining the amplitude of each of the one or more second optical readings
-The determination of the force (i.e., specifically, the magnitude and direction of the shear force) applied to the localized front and back areas is linked to the amplitude (i.e., intensity) of the reflected wavelength of the corresponding one or more optical readings.
-The determination method of Hoffman relies on the first wavelength (e.g., 110 or 210) reflected at the front area and the second wavelength (e.g., 112 or 208) reflected at the back area, FIG. 1B-2C, but how the force is measured is dependent on magnitude, ¶0053, ¶0073, ¶0084, and intensity, ¶0056, (i.e., amplitude). The amplitude (i.e., intensity) of the light detected by the optical sensing array measured is used to quantify the magnitude of the force applied and to determine its direction and location of the point of contact, ¶0053, ¶0073, ¶0084, ¶0123.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of modified Yuen to be configured such that when the area of the force indicated by the user corresponds to a first area, determining an amplitude of each of the one or more second optical readings based on a first model having a first scale parameter which reflects a first variance of the force to be applied to the display, and when the area of the force indicated by the user corresponds to a second area, determining the amplitude of each of the one or more second optical readings as taught by Hoffman. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving isometric movement on small display devices having limited screen areas, as suggested by Hoffman ¶0059.
Yuen in view of He in view of Barsness in view of Hoffman fail to disclose that the first area amplitude readings is based on a first model having a first scale parameter which reflects a first variance of the force to be applied to the display, and the second area amplitude readings is based on a second model having a second scale parameter which reflects a second variance of the force to be applied to the display, the first area being greater than the second area, and the first variance being greater than the second variance.
However, Lapointe in the context of virtual button characterization engines discloses: the first area amplitude readings is based on a first model having a first scale parameter which reflects a first variance of the force to be applied to the display, and the second area amplitude readings is based on a second model having a second scale parameter which reflects a second variance of the force to be applied to the display, the first area being greater than the second area, and the first variance being greater than the second variance.
-Upon review of the limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation the claim states that determination of the amplitude is based on [emphasis added] the model having a scale parameter which reflect a variance of the force applied to the user interface. The term “based on” is ambiguous and lacks precision. The term “based on” is a broad and ambiguous term that doesn’t clearly define the extent or nature of the relationship that claimed invention is intended to present. As such, the term “based on” implies that the claim invention is derived from or closely related to the model.
-Accordingly, Lapointe discloses multiple magnitudes (i.e., amplitudes) based on behavioral models that incorporate parameters reflect the variance and consistency of the applied force, utilizing a plurality of behavioral types to define these different interaction magnitudes. Lapointe teaches a DSP 432 quantifies a magnitude of the displace to more than one detection threshold, ¶0061. This quantification is performed to detect different types of physical interactions (e.g., short press of a virtual button versus a long press of the virtual button), ¶0061. Other examples include light press versus a quick and hard press of the virtual button, ¶0061. The system of Lapointe uses behavioral models to characterize various user interactions (i.e., models for different force types/magnitudes). A button characterization engine compares the input signal from the force sensor to at least one behavioral model, ¶Abstract, ¶0007, Claim 19. The comparison module generates a plurality of different behavior scores with each behavior score related to the a different user (e.g., different types of touch events), ¶0065. The behavior models use scale parameters defining the overall scale or range of magnitude of the raw force input signal (i.e., defines a validity window defining a range of input signal magnitude against time), Claim 2, Claim 19, the specific parameter reflect the variance or change in the rate of application is the gradient of the slope, Claim 10, Claim 14-15. Lapointe teaches the measured response of the force can differ based on the area or manner of interaction. The behavior models rely on the variance of the applied force to characterize and validate human interaction, ¶0076-0079. Hence, the first and second variance would implicitly be different.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination of the amplitudes of the first and second area of modified Yuen such that it is configured to be based on, based on a first model having a first scale parameter which reflects a first variance of the force applied to the user interface, and based on a second model having a second scale parameter which reflects a second variance of the force applied to the user interface, the second variance being different from the first variance as taught by Lapointe. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving button press detection margin over time, enhancing button detection and improve false reject rates, as suggested by ¶0072 & ¶0081 of Lapointe.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1), as applied to claim 14, in further view of Kushnirenko et al ((2020). Active Stylus Input Latency Compensation on Touch Screen Mobile Devices. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds) HCI International 2020 - Posters. HCII 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1224).
Claim 18: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 14, Yuen discloses: further comprising determining the location at which the force is applied to the user interface (¶0009, ‘the one or more processors and/or the piezo resistive pixelated touch sensitive display may be configured to determine pressure by using the force data from the touch sensitive display together with the area occupied by the pixels of the touch sensitive display detecting force caused when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data’; ¶0026, ‘the method additionally includes determining a pressure produced when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data. As an example, the method may include (i) determining an area occupied by pixels of the touch sensitive display detecting force caused when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data, and (ii) determining pressure by usin3g the force data from the touch sensitive display together with the area occupied by the pixels of the touch sensitive display detecting force caused when the user presses the PPG sensor against the location of the user's body where the PPG sensor generates the PPG sensor data.’)
Yuen fails to disclose: based on a value of each of the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors
However, He is relied upon above discloses: based on a value of each of the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors (¶0133, ¶0170, He teaches that “a change in touching force can be reflected in one or more ways including [...] a blood flow dynamic change” and that these changes can be measured by the optical sensing and can be used to calculate the touch force based on the optical sensor technology. The optical extinction ratio, ¶0170 varies under different press forces because the applied force physically restricts the volumetric flow of blood, thereby creating the second optical readings. The force applied causes fluctuations in those first readings when a light pressed finger, “may not significantly restrict the flow of the blood into the pressed portion of the finger”, ¶0170. When a user pressed the finger hard the blood flow pressed finger portion may be severely reduced, ¶0170. Therefore, the measurement of the applied force taught by He is linked to the fluctuations in blood flow obtained by the optical sensors. Additionally, because the optical sensors of He perform each of the identified functions above, these optical sensors constitute as PPG sensors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determined location at which the force is applied to the user interface of modified Yuen such that it is based on one or more second optical readings output by PPG sensors, as taught by He. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as aiding in achieving more functions to the optical sensor module beyond the fingerprint sensing, as suggested by He, ¶0133.
Yuen fails to disclose: and by applying a loss function to minimize a difference between the location at which the force is applied and an estimated location at which the force is applied.
However, Kushnirenko in the context of latency compensation on touch screen mobile devices, discloses, the location determined by applying a loss function to minimize a difference between the location at which the force is applied and an estimated location at which the force is applied.
-The goal of Kushnirenko is to improve prediction accuracy by minimize the value of custom loss. This custom loss function estimates both the distance and direction proximity of actual touches to predicted stylus positions, ¶Abstract. The network parameters were optimized using the custom loss function, which was defines as a weighted linear combination of two quantitative metrics, [3.3 Implementation Details, pg 249]-, ‘The network parameters were optimized using custom loss function with Adam stochastic optimizer. The value of the custom loss function was defined as a weighted linear combination of two quantitative metrics. The first one was a sum of Euclidean distances between corresponding real and predicted touches; the second one was a sum of deviation angles from the target direction.’. The prediction error itself is calculated as the Euclidean distance between actual touches (i.e., actual location) and predicted stylus positions (i.e., estimated location), [4. Results and Discussion, pg. 250], FIG. 2A. The loss function targets location (i.e., position) error, while the prediction model utilizes input features that relate to force/pressure, ¶Abstract, 3.1 Dataset and Learning samples construction, pg 248.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determining of the location at which the force is applied by modified Yuen such that it includes applying a loss function to minimize a difference between the location at which the force is applied and an estimated location at which the force is applied as taught by Kushnirenko. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving the prediction of the future position thereby reducing the length of the touch sequences to reduce memory useage and not slow down interface time on the device, as suggested by Kushnirenko [3.3 Implementation Details, pg. 249].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1), as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Matthews et al (US 20090288044 A1) in view of Chowdhury et al (US 20190064998 A1).
Claim 19: Yuen as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 14, Yuen discloses,
further comprising: displaying, on a display of the user interface, (¶0036, ‘a piezo resistive force-sensitive display screen;’) (FIG. 3B-¶0079, ‘a force sensitive display screen 313, which may be a touch screen’) see also ¶0092.
Yuen fails to disclose: further comprising:
displaying, on a display of the user interface, a plurality of elements corresponding to a plurality of selectable functions of the wearable computing device;
in response to determining the location at which the force is applied to the user interface corresponds to a remaining first element of the plurality of elements displayed on the display, executing a first selectable function of the plurality of selectable functions which corresponds to the remaining first element, based on the determined location.
However, Matthews in the context of touchscreen displays discloses: further comprising:
displaying, on a display of the user interface, a plurality of elements corresponding to a plurality of selectable functions of the wearable computing device; (¶¶0029-0030, ¶0049, ¶0053, the touchscreen display configured as GUI on a computing device. The GUI presents visual elements, (i.e., top level control buttons) as well as a plurality of selectable options or selectable task that represents that represent different executable functions of the device.)
in response to determining the location at which the force is applied to the user interface corresponds to a remaining first element of the plurality of elements displayed on the display, executing a first selectable function of the plurality of selectable functions which corresponds to the remaining first element, based on the determined location. (¶0007, ¶0019, ¶¶0031-0034, ¶0042, The touchscreen input determines the location of the actuation of the user initiated input. This input requires physical contact and the surface of the touchscreen. The processing evaluates the coordinate location of this physical contact to see which item it corresponds to. If the location of the actuation falls within a command region that corresponds to a specific on-screen element, the processing identifies and executes the appropriate action mapped to that element. Regarding the phrase “remaining first element” out of the plurality of elements, Matthews teaches when a menu of multiple options are presented to the user, the system detects a second user input indicated one of the selectable options and subsequently will invoke a corollary action associated with the selectable option indicated, ¶0052. Therefore, by determining the location of the physical touch and matching it to a distinct option displayed on the screen, the processors execute that specific selectable function assigned to that location.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify user interface and processor of modified Yuen to incorporate the teachings of Mathews. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as overcoming clumsiness and inaccuracy of touch-based inputs on graphical user interfaces, as suggested by Matthews, ¶0004. The modified combination would disclose displaying, on a display of the user interface, a plurality of elements corresponding to a plurality of selectable functions of the wearable computing device; in response to determining the location at which the force is applied to the user interface corresponds to a remaining first element of the plurality of elements displayed on the display, executing a first selectable function of the plurality of selectable functions which corresponds to the remaining first element, based on the determined location of modified Yuen.
Yuen fails to disclose:
in response to a noise level of the sensors increasing beyond a threshold, controlling the display to stop the display of one or more of the plurality of elements; and
However, Chowdhury in the context of touchscreen displays discloses: in response to a noise level of the sensors increasing beyond a threshold, controlling the display to stop the display of one or more of the plurality of elements; (¶0098, “the electronic device 100 can determine that the electronic device 100 is exposed to a moisture event (e.g., submerged underwater). Accordingly, the user interface 1104 c can present an indication 1106 that the current moisture event corresponds to an underwater mode. In conjunction with presenting the user interface 1104 c in conjunction with the underwater mode, the electronic device 100 can modify at least one of the first or second set of icons that are presented at the user interface 1104 c. For example, the user interface 1104 c can present a simplified camera interface, where only a limited set of icons 1113 a-b are presented.”, see also, ¶Abstract, ¶0030-0031, ¶0033, ¶0068, ¶0076, ¶0084.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of modified Yuen to incorporate the teachings of Chowdhury for the advantage of providing an improved system and method being able to make it easier for the user to accurately select and execute functions in an environment where normal touch detection is comprised, as suggested by Chowdhury, ¶0100.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 2017/0251935 A1) in view of He (EP348534B1) in view of Matthews et al (US 20090288044 A1) in view of Chowdhury et al (US 20190064998 A1).
Claim 21: Yuen discloses, A wearable computing device, comprising: (¶Abstract, ‘An aspect of the disclosure pertains to a wrist-worn device that may be characterized by the following features: an external surface that is not in contact with the user when the wrist-worn device is worn; a force sensor; a PPG sensor disposed on the wrist-worn device; and control logic configured to: (i) generate one or more sensor data samples, each sensor data sample including data that links force data generated by the force sensor when a user presses a against the external surface at a given time with heart rate data obtained from the PPG sensor at the given time; and (ii) calculate an estimate of blood pressure from the one or more sensor data samples. As examples, the force sensor may be a force sensitive touch screen or film, a strain gauge integrating into the device, or a calibrated spring element configured to be pressed by the user.’)
a housing including an upper side and a lower side, wherein the lower side of the housing is opposite to the upper side of the housing and is configured to be in contact with a body part of a user when the wearable computing device is worn by the user; (FIG. 3A-3C; the housing includes an upper side and a lower side, wherein the lower side of the housing is opposite to the upper side of the housing and is configured to be in contact with a body part of a user when the wearable),
a user interface (¶0036, ‘a piezo resistive force-sensitive display screen;’) disposed on the upper side of the housing, (FIG. 3B-¶0079, ‘a force sensitive display screen 313, which may be a touch screen’) the user interface including a display configured to display (¶0092);
sensors, disposed on the lower side of the housing, configured to output one or more optical readings when a force is applied to the user interface; and (FIG. 3A, ¶0036, ‘a PPG sensor adjacent to or embedded in the force-sensitive screen; and control logic configured to: (i) generate one or more sensor data samples, each sensor data sample including data that links force data generated when a user presses a finger against the force-sensitive screen at a given time with heart rate data obtained from the PPG sensor at the given time; and (ii) calculate an estimate of blood pressure from the one or more sensor data samples.’)
one or more processors configured to: (¶Abstract, ¶0067)
Yuen fails to disclose:
determine a location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on the one or more optical readings output by the sensors,
However, He in the context of optical fingerprint sense with force sensing capabilities of touch screens disclose: determine a location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on the one or more optical readings output by the sensors, (¶0005, ¶0050, ¶0097, ¶0099, ¶0148, The optical sensors are used in wearable devices such as wrist-worn devices and are placed under the top transparent cover/ display panel. He teaches that the optical sensors can emit light into the monitored tissue and receive the light to monitor blood flow, which varies with the user’s heartbeat. The optical sensor module observes increases and decreases in the blood concentration depending on the phrase of the user’s heartbeat to determine the user’s heart rate.) (¶0133, ¶0170, He teaches that “a change in touching force can be reflected in one or more ways including [...] a blood flow dynamic change” and that these changes can be measured by the optical sensing and can be used to calculate the touch force based on the optical sensor technology. The optical extinction ratio, ¶0170 varies under different press forces because the applied force physically restricts the volumetric flow of blood, thereby creating the second optical readings. The force applied causes fluctuations in those first readings when a light pressed finger, “may not significantly restrict the flow of the blood into the pressed portion of the finger”, ¶0170. When a user pressed the finger hard the blood flow pressed finger portion may be severely reduced, ¶0170. Therefore, the measurement of the applied force taught by He is linked to the fluctuations in blood flow obtained by the optical sensors.) (¶Abstract, ¶0125, ¶0129-0131, ¶0148, ¶0168, the optical sensors utilize an optical sensor array (i.e., a CMOS or photodiode array) coupled with optical collimators to capture the spatially resolved image of the touch surface. The processor evaluates these optical readings (i.e., the blood flow changes) within a specific region of the user’s finger image or a relatively small observing zone. Because the second optical readings (i.e., the localized fluctuations in blood flow cased by the pressing force are captured as spatial image data across the array of optical sensors, identifying the physical restriction of blood flow means there is a identification of where on the sensor array that restriction occurs. Therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation, because the processors calculate the force by analyzing the blood flow fluctuations within a mapped spatial zone, the processors are actively determining the location of the applied force based on those second optical readings. Additionally, because the optical sensors of He perform each of the identified functions above, these optical sensors constitute as PPG sensors.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensors of Yuen to incorporate the teachings He to provide an output of one or more second optical readings when a force is applied to the user interface, wherein the one or more second optical readings reflect fluctuations in the one or more first optical readings caused by the force applied to the user interface and one or more processors configured to determine a location at which the force is applied to the user interface based on the one or more second optical readings output by the PPG sensors. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as aiding in achieving more functions to the optical sensor module beyond the fingerprint sensing, as suggested by He, ¶0133.
Yuen fails to disclose:
the display configured to display a plurality of elements corresponding to a plurality of selectable functions of the wearable computing device;
in response to determining the location at which the force is applied to the display corresponds to a remaining first element of the plurality of elements displayed on the display, execute a first selectable function of the plurality of selectable functions which corresponds to the remaining first element, based on the determined location.
However, Matthews in the context of touchscreen displays discloses: a user interface disposed on the upper side of the housing, the user interface including a display configured to display a plurality of elements corresponding to a plurality of selectable functions of the wearable computing device; (¶¶0029-0030, ¶0049, ¶0053, the touchscreen display configured as GUI on a computing device. The GUI presents visual elements, (i.e., top level control buttons) as well as a plurality of selectable options or selectable task that represents that represent different executable functions of the device.)
in response to determining the location at which the force is applied to the display corresponds to a remaining first element of the plurality of elements displayed on the display, execute a first selectable function of the plurality of selectable functions which corresponds to the remaining first element, based on the determined location. (¶0007, ¶0019, ¶¶0031-0034, ¶0042, The touchscreen input determines the location of the actuation of the user initiated input. This input requires physical contact and the surface of the touchscreen. The processing evaluates the coordinate location of this physical contact to see which item it corresponds to. If the location of the actuation falls within a command region that corresponds to a specific on-screen element, the processing identifies and executes the appropriate action mapped to that element. Regarding the phrase “remaining first element” out of the plurality of elements, Matthews teaches when a menu of multiple options are presented to the user, the system detects a second user input indicated one of the selectable options and subsequently will invoke a corollary action associated with the selectable option indicated, ¶0052. Therefore, by determining the location of the physical touch and matching it to a distinct option displayed on the screen, the processors execute that specific selectable function assigned to that location.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify user interface and processor of modified Yuen to incorporate the teachings of Mathews. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as overcoming clumsiness and inaccuracy of touch-based inputs on graphical user interfaces, as suggested by Matthews, ¶0004. The modified combination would disclose the display configured to display a plurality of elements corresponding to a plurality of selectable functions of the wearable computing device; in response to determining the location at which the force is applied to the display corresponds to a remaining first element of the plurality of elements displayed on the display, execute a first selectable function of the plurality of selectable functions which corresponds to the remaining first element, based on the determined location of modified Yuen.
Yuen fails to disclose: in response to a noise level of the sensors increasing beyond a threshold, control the display to stop displaying of one or more of the plurality of elements, and
However, Chowdhury in the context of touchscreen displays discloses: in response to a noise level of the sensors increasing beyond a threshold, control the display to stop displaying of one or more of the plurality of elements (¶0098, “the electronic device 100 can determine that the electronic device 100 is exposed to a moisture event (e.g., submerged underwater). Accordingly, the user interface 1104 c can present an indication 1106 that the current moisture event corresponds to an underwater mode. In conjunction with presenting the user interface 1104 c in conjunction with the underwater mode, the electronic device 100 can modify at least one of the first or second set of icons that are presented at the user interface 1104 c. For example, the user interface 1104 c can present a simplified camera interface, where only a limited set of icons 1113 a-b are presented.”, see also, ¶Abstract, ¶0030-0031, ¶0033, ¶0068, ¶0076, ¶0084.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of modified Yuen to incorporate the teachings of Chowdhury for the advantage of providing an improved system and method being able to make it easier for the user to accurately select and execute functions in an environment where normal touch detection is comprised, as suggested by Chowdhury, ¶0100.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Campbell (US 2013/0154989 A1) discloses, a force applied to the screen before a touch is registered at the location defined by the optical tracker, ¶0029.
Jung et al (US 2023/0141246 A1) discloses, a measurement position of the optical sensor, the processor may be further configured to control the display to output a graphic object indicating a contact pressure between the first portion and the optical sensor, ¶0011, in that the sensor is a PPG sensor, ¶0040.
Penders et al (US 2019/0192080 A1) discloses, ¶0072, ‘based on the confidence indicator, aspects of the display may be turned on and/or off. Various visualization characteristics such as line width, line style, line color, background color, and other aspects of the data being presented to the user may be changed in real time to update the user as to the current level of confidence in the physiological data.’
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights