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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to election restriction of 10/16/2025, applicant elected group I directed to claims 1, 3-5. These claims are considered for examination. Other than a general allegation against the restriction requirement (see remarks page 2), there is no specific arguments made. The general arguments are not considered persuasive. Claims 2, 6-10 are considered withdrawn.
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 “wherein distances between the first light source and the first optical receiving group and the second optical receiving group respectively are both a preset resting and first dynamic heart rate measurement interval, based on the first light source cooperating with at least one of the first optical receiving group or the second optical receiving group, 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”. There is lack of written description for following reasons.
Firstly, claim does not expressly recite what are distances measured from. Optical components or groups, have multiple shapes, sizes, structures arrangements and points in them, from which distances can be computed. The claims also do not recite what components are being specifically used, and what the arrangements for the claimed groups are. (Further, the drawing simply shows some lines from some random points on circles, to each other). Without having all this information, a person of ordinary skill will not be able to actually compute distances, and implement the claimed device. The specification, nor drawings provide any direction as to what the distances are computed from. Examiner determines distances from some point in the component.
Secondly, it is not described as to how the distances are determined if the first light source has to “cooperate” with the receiving groups for a person to be tested, (future use). That is, as claimed, the distances require the heart rate measurements, and, the heart rate measurements require the distances (similar to chicken and egg paradox). Examiner assumes that the distances are predetermined, and the heart rates are measured afterwards.
Claims 3-5 depend on claim 1 and are rejected for same reasons.
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 1, 3-5 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.
Claim 1 recites “distances” in line 3. It is not understood where the distances are measured from. (See 112 rejection above). Examiner determines distances from some point in the component.
Claim 1 recites in lines 4-5 “are both a preset resting and first dynamic heart rate measurement interval”. This is confusing. It is not understood if both distances are meant, or if both distances are same, or if the preset resting and first dynamic heart rate intervals are same. Examiner adapts the last interpretation.
Claim 1 recites in line 5 “first light source cooperating with”. It is not understood if this intends an action that was performed (for distance determination, i.e. past), or an action to be performed for exercise and rest state (future). Examiner assumes that the components are already arranged and the determination is performed.
Claim 1 lines 9-10 recites “ a preset resting heart rate”. This is already claimed in line 4. It is not understood if the applicant refers to the same one or a different one. Examiner interprets as the former.
Claim1 recites in lines 12 and 17 “to be tested”. It is not understood if the testing is actually performed or not, or if the device is capable of this. Examiner interprets that the device be capable of being used for testing.
Claims 3-5 depend on claim 1 and are rejected for same reasons.
Claim 4 recites “first optical receiving group and the second optical receiving group comprise at least two optical receivers” it is not understood if the applicant intends a total of two receivers or two receivers each in each group. Examiner interprets as latter.
Note, all rejections that follow are based on the interpretations applied in the 112 rejections above.
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.
Claims 1, 4 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 2C), comprising:
a first optical receiving group (Block Fig 2C detectors 204A/H),
a second optical receiving group (Block Fig 2C detectors 204F/E/D),
a first light source (Block Fig 2C emitter 208A), and
a second light source (Block Fig 2C item emitter 206A);
wherein distances between the first light source and the first optical receiving group (Block Fig 2C distance between 208A and 204A/H, radius of the radial arrangement where 208A is the center. See ¶0030, ¶0032 discussing radial arrangement) and the second optical receiving group (Block Fig 2C distance between 208A and 204F/E/D, radius of the radial arrangement where 208A is the center. See ¶0030, ¶0032 discussing radial arrangement) respectively are both a preset resting and first dynamic heart rate measurement interval (Distance between the first light source and the first optical receiving group corresponds to preset resting interval and Distance between the first light source and the second optical receiving group corresponds to the claimed first dynamic heart rate measurement interval), based on the first light source cooperating with at least one of the first optical receiving group or the second optical receiving group (In view of the 112 rejection above, 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 distance between the second light source and the first optical receiving group is a preset resting heart rate measurement interval (Block Fig 2C distance between 206A and 204A/H corresponds to the claimed preset resting heart rate measurement interval), and the preset resting heart rate measurement interval is less than or equal to the resting and first dynamic heart rate measurement interval (Implied from Fig 2C because it is less than the radius. ¶0033 “a first light emitter 206 (e.g., first light emitter 206A) and its closest light detector 204 (e.g., light detector 204A) can be less than the distance (i.e., separation distance D.sub.1) between a second light emitter 208 (e.g., second light emitter 208A) and the same light detector 204”); 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 (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);
a distance between the second light source and the second optical receiving group is a preset second dynamic heart rate measurement interval (Block Fig 2C distance between 206A and 204F/E/D corresponds to the claimed preset second dynamic heart rate measurement interval), and the preset second dynamic heart rate measurement interval is larger than the resting and first dynamic heart rate measurement interval (Implied from Fig 2C and ¶0033), 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, wherein 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).
As per claim 4, Block further anticipates wherein both the first optical receiving group and the second optical receiving group comprise at least two optical receivers;
a distance between each of the at least two optical receivers and the first light source is the resting and first dynamic heart rate measurement interval (Block Fig 2C distance between items 204 and 208 is the radius);
distances between the at least two optical receivers in the first optical receiving group and the second light source are both the preset resting heart rate measurement interval (Block Fig 2C distances between 204A/H and 206A); and
distances between the at least two optical receivers in the second optical receiving group and the second light source are both the preset second dynamic heart rate measurement interval (Block Fig 2C distances between 204F/E/D and 206A are approximately same).
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 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 preset resting heart rate measurement interval ranges from 2 mm to 5 mm; a value of the preset resting and first dynamic heart rate measurement interval ranges from 4 mm to 5 mm; and a value of the preset second dynamic heart rate measurement interval 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
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