DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, the first “at least portion” phrase in the claim should be amended to read “at least a portion”; the second “at least portion” phrase should be amended to read “at least a portion of”.
Regarding claim 7, both “at least portion” phrases in the claim should be amended to read “at least a portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pressure adjusting structure” in claims 1 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to the specification, the pressure adjusting structure is a watch strap, a ring of a wristband, or an inflatable cuff.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what further limitation the claim provides to the claimed invention as the claim merely recites where pulsatile blood and non-pulsatile blood are located. The claim provides no further structural limitation to the claimed device.
Regarding claims 6, 8, 9, 16, 18, and 19, the phrase “related corresponding to” renders each claim indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by “a third signal component related corresponding to tissues”. For this examination, each phrase is being interpreted as “related to”.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “wherein the circuit processing circuit calibrates a ratio change between the second signal component and the third signal component” (emphasis added). For this examination, the phrase is being interpreted as “wherein the processing circuit calibrates a change in the ratio between the second signal component and the third signal component”.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “the light source” lacks proper antecedent basis as claim 1 recites “at least one light source”. For this examination, the phrase in claim 10 is being interpreted as “the at least one light source”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “the light source” in step (a) lacks proper antecedent basis as the claim previously recites “at least one light source”. For this examination, the phrase in step (a) is being interpreted as “the at least one light source”.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai’382 (US Pub No. 2018/0360382) in view of Matsui’293 (US Pub No. 2017/0119293).
Regarding claim 1, Figures 1 and 2 of Tsai’382 disclose a wearable device with a blood oxygen measurement function (section [0018]), the device comprising: at least one light source configured to emit light (sections [0005], [0021]); an optical sensor, configured to sense an optical signal generated according to reflected light of the light (sections [0005], [0021]); a processing circuit, configured to compute a blood oxygen level according to the sensed optical signal (sections [0018]+[0022]; the determination of oxygen saturation from optical signals requires a processing circuit); and a pressure adjusting structure (stretchable connective belt 14), configured to adjust an internal wearing space of the wearable device, wherein the pressure changes corresponding to the internal wearing space (sections [0004], [0006-0008], [0017]).
Tsai’382 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure provided by a user wearing the wearable device, wherein the processing circuit calibrates the sensed optical signal to generate a calibrated optical signal, and further wherein the blood oxygen level is computed according to the calibrated optical signal. Matsui’293 teaches a reflective-type wearable blood oxygen measurement device (see ABSTRACT, section [0066]), the device comprising a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure provided by a user wearing the wearable device (mounting pressure detecting device 14 of Figures 1 and 10), and a processing circuit configured to calibrate a sensed optical signal according to the pressure, wherein the processing circuit computes a blood oxygen level according to the calibrated optical signal (sections [0028-0031], [0035], [0056], [0062], specifically, sections [0031] and [0035]). Matsui’293 teaches using these components to suppress the influence of contact pressure on oxygen saturation measurements (section [0032]) and to suppress the influence of a vein on oxygen saturation measurements (sections [0035], [0054]), and thus provide highly reliable oxygen saturation information (section [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Tsai’382 such that it includes the pressure sensor and processing circuit of Matsui’293, as it would allow the device to suppress the influence of contact pressure and veins on blood oxygen level, thus providing a more accurate blood oxygen level computation.
Regarding claim 2, section [0021] of Tsai’382 discloses that the optical signal comprises a first signal component (reflected light due to the first wavelength of emitted light) and a second signal component (reflected light due to the second wavelength of emitted light); wherein, as modified by Matsui’293, the processing circuit calibrates at least one of the first signal component and the second signal component according to the pressure to generate the calibrated optical signal (section [0031] of Matsui’293).
Regarding claim 3, the signal components of Tsai’382 correspond to pulsatile blood and non-pulsatile blood (section [0005] states that the two optical detecting signals are respectively projected onto different layers having individual depths inside the object; this would include pulsatile signal components of arteries and non-pulsatile signal components of veins). Furthermore, as taught by sections [0028-0029] of Matsui’293, the optical signal would include a first signal component corresponding to pulsatile blood and a second signal component corresponding to non-pulsatile blood.
Regarding claim 4, pulsatile blood is blood flowing in arteries and non-pulsatile blood is blood flowing in veins.
Regarding claim 10, while Tsai’382 is silent with regard to using two light sources, it does recite using light emitted at two different light wavelengths (sections [0005], [0021]). Matsui’293 teaches that light of two different wavelengths can be emitted by using two different light sources (see ABSTRACT, and light emitters 11 and 12 of Figures 1 and 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have used two light sources that emit light with different light wavelengths in the device of Tsai’382 as Matsui’293 teaches that different wavelengths of light can be emitted using two different light sources. The modification to Tsai’382 would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 11-14, and 20, the sections of Tsai’382 cited above, as modified by Matsui’293, disclose a method comprising the steps set forth in the claims.
Regarding claims 15-18, it is noted that the claims recite conditional “if” limitations. Applicant is reminded that in a method claim, the steps following and dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e., if the pressure is over/below a pressure threshold) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited is not met. An Examiner does not have to provide evidence for the method steps that are not required to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application number 12/184,020 - “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.” Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606–07 (Fed.Cir.2007).
Examiner’s Note
The following is a statement of reasons for the lack of prior art rejections:
Regarding claim 5, none of the prior art discloses or suggests, either alone or in combination, a wearable device with a blood oxygen measurement function, wherein the device comprises a processing circuit configured to scale up at least a portion of a first signal component or at least a portion of a second signal component if a pressure provided by a user wearing the wearable device is over a threshold, in combination with the other claimed elements.
Regarding claim 7, none of the prior art discloses or suggests, either alone or in combination, a wearable device with a blood oxygen measurement function, wherein the device comprises a processing circuit configured to scale down at least a portion of a first signal component or at least a portion of a second signal component if a pressure provided by a user wearing the wearable device is below a threshold, in combination with the other claimed elements.
Regarding claim 9, none of the prior art discloses or suggests, either alone or in combination, a wearable device with a blood oxygen measurement function, wherein the device comprises a processing circuit that calibrates a change in a ratio between a second, non-pulsatile signal component and a third signal component corresponding to tissue besides arteries and veins according to a sensed pressure provided by a user wearing the wearable device, in combination with the other claimed elements.
Regarding claim 19, none of the prior art discloses or suggests, either alone or in combination, a blood oxygen measurement method, applied to a wearable device, wherein the method comprises calibrating a change in a ratio between a second, non-pulsatile signal component and a third signal component corresponding to tissue besides arteries and veins according to a sensed pressure provided by a user wearing the wearable device, in combination with the other claimed steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETSUB D BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)270-5410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights