DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/15/2026, with respect to claims 1, 3-5 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection. Note, the new rejections are based on the same reference, but necessitated by the amendment . The pertinent arguments against the reference is addressed below.
Applicant argues on page 12
“Block discloses a concentric arrangement where distances from a first light emitter (e.g., 208A) to different light detectors are not equal. Paragraph [0033] of Block explicitly states, "the distance (i.e., separation distance D3) between the same closest first light emitter 206A and another light detector (e.g., light detector 204E) can be greater than both the separation distance D1 and the separation distance D2" (emphasis added).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In view of the modified rejections necessitated by the amendments, examiner identifies the central emitter 208 A as the first light source. The other detectors 204 are arranged radially and at distance D1, from this emitter. Hence distance from the central emitter to all the detectors 204 are the same.
Applicant argues on page 12
“Block does not disclose or suggest the specific relationship that the distance from the second light source to the second optical receiving group (third preset distance) is larger than the first preset distance (the equal distance from the first light source”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in rejection below, D3 is larger than D1.
Applicant argues on page 12
“While Block may have some distances that are larger than others, Block does not associate these distances with distinct exercise states (resting, first dynamic, second dynamic) without using an accelerometer”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. accelerometer) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The amendments have introduced new matter rejection (112 (a)) which has been further addressed below.
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, 3-5 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 “light-emitting center” and “light-sensing center”, in lines 6-8, 18-19, 26-28. There is no description of these terms in the original disclosure. The remarks of 04/15/2026 noted that the support can be found in spec. ¶0029-¶0031 and Fig 1 showing spatial layout. It is noted that there is no mention of these terms in any of the recited section, or for that matter anywhere else in the specification. Further, the applicant does not expressly disclose if the drawings are to scale or not and what the dimensions are. The spatial layout of Fig 1 does not show, if the distances were measured from the center, as the amended claim recites. Further, the shape and size of the components have to be precisely shown if the claimed subject matter needs to be supported. Further the distances are of importance in the instant claim since, the accurate distances are being used to claim the structure, as well as argue against other references. Examiner assumes as distances from a approximate center of the components.
Claims 3-5 are rejected in view of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Block [US 20190090766 A1].
As per claim 1, Block teaches a multi-light source heart rate measurement apparatus (Block Fig 2A), comprising:
a first optical receiving group (Block Fig 2A detector group 204 H/A/B),
a second optical receiving group (Block Fig 2A detector group 204 FE/E/D),
a first light source (Block Fig 2A emitter 208A), and
a second light source (Block Fig 2A item emitter 206A);
wherein, first distance measured from a light-emitting center of the first light source to a light-sensing center of the first optical receiving group (Block Fig 2A, ¶0033 separation distance D1 between a second light emitter 208A and 204A) is equal to a second distance measured from the light-emitting center of the first light source to a light- sensing center of the second optical receiving group (Block Fig 2A, ¶0029 “second light emitter 208A) can be located in the center of the center region 209”, ¶0032 “The plurality of light detectors 204 can be radially arranged in the peripheral region 205. In some examples, a radial arrangement can include the plurality of light detectors 204…” Radial arrangement implies along radius. Hence if D1 is considered radius, all the detectors 204 would be at a distance D1,),
both the first distance and the second distance are a first preset distance (The preset distance is D1 as discussed above)
for both resting heart rate measurement and first dynamic heart rate measurement (This is directed to manner of operating the device for measurement and does not differentiate from the prior art. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114.II), and,
based on the first light source cooperating with at least one of the first optical receiving group or the second optical receiving group (In Block, the emitters are capable of cooperating with the detectors. See ¶0023),
a resting heart rate of a person to be tested in a non-exercise state or a first dynamic heart rate of the person to be tested in a first exercise state is measured (This is directed to manner of operating the device and does not differentiate from the prior art. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114.II.);
a third distance measured from a light-emitting center of the second light source to the light-sensing center of the first optical receiving group is a second preset distance for the resting heart rate measurement, the second preset distance is less than or equal to the first preset distance (Block ¶0033, separation distance D2 between 206A and its closest light detector 204A can be less than the distance separation distance D1), and
the resting heart rate of the person to be tested is measured based on the second light source cooperating with the first optical receiving group (In Block, the emitters are capable of cooperating with the detectors. See ¶0023);
a fourth distance measured from the light-emitting center of the second light source to the light-sensing center of the second optical receiving group is a third preset distance for second dynamic heart rate measurement, the third preset distance is larger than the first preset distance(Block ¶0033, separation distance D3 between 206A and detector 204E of second group can be greater than D1);
a second dynamic heart rate of the person to be tested in a second exercise state is measured based on the second light source cooperating with the second optical receiving group (In Block, the emitters are capable of cooperating with the detectors. See ¶0023),
and an intensity of exercise of the second exercise state is greater than that of the first exercise state (This is directed to manner of operating the device and does not differentiate from the prior art. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114.II. Further the claim only requires “to be tested” meaning it need not be performed).
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.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block.
As per claim 4, Block further teaches wherein both the first optical receiving group and the second optical receiving group comprise at least two optical receivers and a distance between each of the at least two optical receivers and the first light source is the first preset distance (Block Fig 2A distance between items 204 and 208 is the radius);
Block does not expressly teach distances between the at least two optical receivers in the first optical receiving group and the second light source are both the second preset distance; and distances between the at least two optical receivers in the second optical receiving group and the second light source are both the third preset distance.
However, this is an obvious modification since the general conditions of the inventions are provided. Block ¶0031 discloses the light emitters can be placed at different separation distances. ¶0084 recites “center of each light detector is located a first separation distance away from at least one of the one or more second light emitters”. Hence, different modifications and changes especially regarding separation distances are suggested. As per MPEP2144.05, Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Further, the specification does not set forth evidence that such distances and values are critical, and of both statistical and practical significance, other than to get multiple readings.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lin [CN 115363539 B, Translation used].
As per claim 3, Block does not expressly teach wherein the first light source and the second light source are both light-emitting diodes for emitting red light, infrared light, and green light; the first light source emits the green light when used to measure the first dynamic heart rate of the person to be tested in the first exercise state and the second light source emits the green light when used to measure the second dynamic heart rate of the person to be tested in the second exercise state.
Lin, in a related field of PPG sensing teaches light emitting component 121 is configured to emit at least one of green light, red light, and infrared light as an optical signal (Lin Translation page 8 “the light emitting component 121 is configured to emit at least one of green light, red light, and infrared light as an optical signal;”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Block by using light emitting elements as in Lin, so as to provide a component being useful for heart rate and blood oxygen information (Lin page 8).
Block in view of Lin does not expressly teach the first light source emits the green light when used to measure the first dynamic heart rate of the person to be tested in the first exercise state and the second light source emits the green light when used to measure the second dynamic heart rate of the person to be tested in the second exercise state. However, is only directed to using different channels, as discussed in Block and Li for different purposes (e.g. See Block ¶0023). Each combination of LED / detector give channel information, and this is used for multiple measurements for different operating conditions. Hence, the claimed subject matter does not provide any structural differentiation for the claimed device from prior art. The channels can be used for any purposes including that of measuring during different activity levels.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Duval [US 20180353075 A1].
As per claim 5, Block does not expressly teach wherein a value of the second preset distance ranges from 2 mm to 5 mm; a value of the first preset distance ranges from 4 mm to 5 mm; and a value of the third preset distance ranges from 5 mm to 9 mm.
Duval in a related field of PPG for physiological measurements teaches ranges from 2 mm to 5 mm; ranges from 4 mm to 5 mm; ranges from 5 mm to 9 mm (Duval ¶0047-¶0048).
Hence, these claimed ranges between emitters and detectors were known at the time of the filing of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Duval. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Block by using known dimensions and separation distances for PPG. As per MPEP 2143.I.D, applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, is a rationale to support obviousness. In this case the predictable result is to physically implement the PPG, with known separation distances, for physiological monitoring.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/Oommen Jacob/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights