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/Restrictions requirement of 10/20/2025, applicant elected group II and species I directed to claims 1, 6-8, 10-14. Other than an general allegation against the requirements (See remarks page 2), the applicant’s arguments does not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement. These arguments are not persuasive and Election/Restrictions requirement is maintained. Claims 2-5, 9 are considered withdrawn.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: an optical signal receiving module a primary filter module , a calculation module, a re-filter module, an ambient light filtering out module continuous blood pressure measurement module and training module as in claims 11-13.
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.
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 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, 6-8, 10-14 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 in 6-7 “accessing wavelength ranges of a plurality of groups of ambient light acquired in advance” There is lack of written description as to how ambient light and wavelength information is acquired in advance. Applicant specification (e.g. ¶0079-¶0080) merely recites plurality of groups of ambient light include wavelength ranges of ambient light acquired from a dark environment, wavelength ranges of ambient light acquired from outdoor, and wavelength ranges of ambient light acquired from indoor. There is no description as to what the measurement conditions with relation the invention (spectrum analyzer and red wavelengths) is. There are infinite number of ways the ambient light may be computed, because there are infinite environmental conditions. It is not described what (if any) these ambient lights have anything to do with the first and second wavelength ranges discussed in the invention. ¶0070 discloses a dark box, but does not go into details as to how this is implemented, for use with the spectrum of the claimed invention. Outdoor / Indoor conditions (sunlight noise, other lights), needs to be somehow predetermined (as claimed in advance), if any such accessing of groups are to be performed. For e.g. if an analysis uses a red light source, and some random ambient wavelengths measured were in blue, green or yellow range, then it is not described if there is any relation to the two data sets and what conditions are applicable accessing any of these wavelength ranges. The application does not disclose any such conditions /constraints for acquiring ambient light which is in some way related to the wavelength ranges claimed for the spectrum analyzer. Further, it is not described if the ambient conditions are changing during measurements vs advance determination. All this information is necessary for a person skill in the art to make or use this invention. For examination purpose, examiner interprets some ambient information is collected as described in LeBoeuf [US 20120197093 A1].
Claim 1 recites “, respectively accessing a plurality of upper limit values and a plurality of lower limit values of the wavelength ranges of the plurality of groups of ambient light, obtaining a filtering upper limit value based on the plurality of upper limit values, obtaining a filtering lower limit value based on the plurality of lower limit values, and setting a filtering wavelength range based on the filtering upper limit value and the filtering lower limit value” There is lack of written description as to how the wavelengths are selected or accessed, how the upper / lower limits are determined, and a filtering upper / lower limit value selected so that it has any relation with the spectrum analyzer wavelengths. The specification does not provide any direction as to how the steps are implemented in the filtering calculation module. Ambient light conditions refer to environmental conditions. There is no description if the ambient conditions when acquiring the wavelength ranges has / had any relationship with the red light being used for the spectrum analyzer, if so what the relationship is. Examiner interprets some ambient information is stored in database. . For examination purpose, examiner interprets limits are determined similar to that described in LeBoeuf.
Claims 6-8, 10-14 recite or encompass similar limitations and are rejected for same reasons as above.
Note, all prior art rejections that follow are in view of the 112 rejections and interpretations applied above.
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, 6-8, 10-14 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 “primary filtering the first wavelength range based on a pre-set wavelength threshold of red light to obtain a second wavelength range” There is confusion when comparing with the specification. Specification ¶0074-¶0077 discloses filtering out wavelengths greater than lower threshold, that is greater than 625 nm. Claim seems to recite obtaining it. These are different features and determines what wavelengths are being used in following claim language. Examiner interprets red is filtered for use.
Claim 1 recites in lines 13-14 “re-filtering the second wavelength range based on the filtering wavelength range to obtain a target filtering range” it is not understood what is being meant. Filtering wavelengths will result in wavelengths, not a range. Range is a numerical quantity. Examiner interprets as obtaining a target filtering range of wavelengths.
Claim 1 recites 15-16 “filtering the optical signals to be processed with the target filtering range to filter out ambient light from the optical signals to be processed” this is related to the previous step. It is not understood how filtering will provide a range. Examiner interprets as filtering the ambient signals out.
Claims 6-8, 10-14 recite or encompass similar limitations and are rejected for same reasons as above.
Note, all prior art rejections that follow are in view of the 112 rejections and interpretations applied above.
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, 11, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scharf [US 20090326347 A1] in view of LeBoeuf [US 20120197093 A1].
As per claim 1, Scharf teaches an optical signal processing method (Scharf Fig 1), comprising:
receiving optical signals to be processed by a spectrum analyzer (Scharf ¶0025 “e detector 18 sends the signal to the monitor 14, where physiological parameters may be calculated based on the absorption of the RED and IR wavelengths”), and outputting a first wavelength range of the optical signals to be processed by the spectrum analyzer (Scharf ¶0033 “pulse oximeter system 300 having a plurality of sensors forming a sensor array 301 that senses light emitted from a light source 330.” ¶0023, ¶0037 multiple wavelengths received),
primary filtering the first wavelength range based on a pre-set wavelength threshold of red light to obtain a second wavelength range (Scharf ¶0037 “sensor 304 may be configured to measure a Red wavelength”, ¶0038 “a filter may be coupled to each individual sensor or group of sensors in the array 301. Each filter may filter out one or more wavelengths”),
filtering the optical signals to be processed with the target filtering range to filter out ambient light from the optical signals to be processed (¶0046 “a level of ambient light in the area around the monitoring system is determined. This may be accomplished by taking a dark reading to determine the intensity of light of each wavelength in the room.”, Scharf ¶0037 “Each filter may filter out one or more wavelengths, or alternatively ambient light, thereby allowing the sensor to measure a single wavelength”).
In view of 112 rejection above, Scharf does not expressly teach accessing wavelength ranges of a plurality of groups of ambient light acquired in advance, respectively accessing a plurality of upper limit values and a plurality of lower limit values of the wavelength ranges of the plurality of groups of ambient light, obtaining a filtering upper limit value based on the plurality of upper limit values, obtaining a filtering lower limit value based on the plurality of lower limit values, and setting a filtering wavelength range based on the filtering upper limit value and the filtering lower limit value, and re-filtering the second wavelength range based on the filtering wavelength range to obtain a target filtering range.
LeBoeuf, in a related field of personal health monitoring apparatus, teaches accessing wavelength ranges of a plurality of groups of ambient light acquired in advance (LeBoeuf ¶0113, Fig 6), respectively accessing a plurality of upper limit values and a plurality of lower limit values of the wavelength ranges of the plurality of groups of ambient light (LeBoeuf ¶0113 to ¶0114, determining wavelengths and appropriate bandwidths based on Fig 6), obtaining a filtering upper limit value based on the plurality of upper limit values, obtaining a filtering lower limit value based on the plurality of lower limit values, and setting a filtering wavelength range based on the filtering upper limit value and the filtering lower limit value (LeBoeuf ¶0113 to ¶0114 selecting an optical filtering range of 400-500 nm for low interference),
re-filtering the second wavelength range based on the filtering wavelength range to obtain a target filtering range (LeBoeuf ¶0114 “and an optical detector 103 (FIG. 1) having a 400-500 nm optical filter”, ¶0108 “ an interference filter 106 to produce a processed energy response signal that is associated with a physiological condition of the subject, wherein the filter removes time-varying environmental interference caused by an interferant, such as sunlight, ambient light, airflow, temperature, etc.”)
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 Scharf by integrating filtering for ambient light as in LeBoeuf. The motivation would be to remove or attenuate time-varying environmental interference caused by one or more of sunlight, ambient light, airflow, temperature, etc (LeBoeuf ¶0006).
As per claim 11, Scharf in view of LeBoeuf further teaches an optical signal processing system (Scharf Fig 1) comprising: an optical signal receiving module (Scharf Figs 2-3 detectors) configured to access the optical signals to be processed through the spectrum analyzer, wherein the spectrum analyzer outputs the first wavelength range of the optical signals to be processed (Scharf Fig 2 monitor), a primary filter module (Scharf ¶0037 -¶0038 a filter implied), a calculation module (LeBoeuf ¶0007 “he at least one processor controls operations of the energy emitter, detector, and/or filter.”) a re-filter module configured to re-filter (LeBoeuf Fig 1 item 106), and an ambient light filtering out module ( Scharf ¶0046, ¶0037 modules implied).
As per claim 14, Scharf in view of LeBoeuf further teaches a memory and a processor, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory, and the processor is configured to implement the optical signal processing method according to claim 1 when executing the computer program (Scharf ¶0029).
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scharf in view of LeBoeuf as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wang [US 20190175042 A1].
As per claim 12, Scharf in view of LeBoeuf does not expressly teach further comprising: a continuous blood pressure measurement module configured to acquire photo-plethysmography signal data from the optical signals to be processed after filtering out the ambient light, and to input the photo-plethysmography signal data into a continuous blood pressure measurement model to obtain continuous blood pressure values.
Wang, in a related field of health monitoring technologies teaches a continuous blood pressure measurement module configured to acquire photo-plethysmography signal data from the optical signals to be processed after filtering out the ambient light, and to input the photo-plethysmography signal data into a continuous blood pressure measurement model to obtain continuous blood pressure values (Wang Fig 1, ¶0070, ¶0073).
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 Scharf in view of LeBoeuf by using the a method and an apparatus for determining blood pressure as in Wang. The motivation would be determining blood pressure while addressing the issues such as the inconvenience due to the need for calibration (Wang ¶0007).
Status of claims 6-8, 10, 13
Claims 6-8, 10, 13 do not have any prior art rejections against the, However, the patentability cannot be fully determined in view of pending 112 rejections of parent claim. References recited in the PTO are related to the applicants invention of biological monitoring and ambient light interferences, and how they are addressed. None of the references of record teach all limitations as required in the noted claims.
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