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 with respect to claims 1-20 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.
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, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilkie [US 20230003938 A1] in view of Hodgkinson [US 20170047709 A1].
As per claim 1, Zilkie teaches a photoplethysmographic (PPG)monitor (Zilkie Fig 1A, ¶0117, ¶0166 discusses PPG monitoring), comprising:
two or more emitters coupled to the PPG monitor (Zilkie Fig 1A, Fig 2B, ¶0138 “The optical sensing module 1 includes a transmitter photonic integrated circuit (PIC) 4 located on a substrate 2. The PIC 4 includes a plurality of lasers, each laser of the plurality of lasers operating at a wavelength that is different from the wavelength of the others”)
wherein at least one of the emitters is a single longitudinal mode diode laser (Zilkie ¶0185-¶0186 “Each laser cavity may be designed to be single mode, … Laser light may be continuously transmitted, or switched so that, for example, at any point of time only light at a single wavelength…” ¶0181 “Laser light may have the necessary power and (narrow) linewidth”. See applicant spec. page 7 lines 10-12. Further, Zilkie ¶0150 discloses “The lasers may be distributed feedback (DFB) lasers” A DFB is inherently an SLM laser. See Optical Networks, 3rd Edition, By Rajiv Ramaswami, Kumar Sivarajan, Galen Sasaki, November 2009, chapter 1, page 34, attached herein as evidence of inherency);
electronic drive circuitry coupled to the PPG monitor adapted to energize the at least one laser (Zilkie Fig 10, ¶0188 “the electronic control module 116, which may regulate the laser drive current”)
a housing coupled to the PPG monitor containing the at least one laser (Zilkie Fig 1A substate 2), the housing thermally coupled to a temperature-controlled element (Zilkie¶0145 “A thermoelectric cooler may be used to control the temperature of the PIC”, ¶0184 “The PIC includes a temperature measurement circuit, … for use in a temperature control system, for regulating the temperature of the PIC”).
Zilkie does not expressly recite energizing to a pre-determined constant current level, the temperature-controlled element configured to hold the housing at a fixed temperature; a pre-determined constant current level of the at least one laser is selected to set the at least one laser, when energized and when held at the fixed temperature, to operate between longitudinal mode hop points of the at least one laser.
Hodgkinson, in a field of controlling emission wavelength of a light emitting device including a distributed feedback laser, distributed Bragg reflector, LEDs and VCSEL (Hodgkinson abstract ¶0027), teaches
energizing to a pre-determined constant current level, the temperature-controlled element configured to hold the housing at a fixed temperature (Hodgkinson ¶0080-¶0084 “The laser diode was driven with a constant injection current of 150 mA±0.5 mA. The voltage drop measured while the thermistor was controlled to 15° C… the laser diode was kept in an environmental chamber at a constant temperature of 30° C.±1° C.”);
a pre-determined constant current level of the at least one laser is selected to set the at least one laser, when energized and when held at the fixed temperature, to operate between longitudinal mode hop points of the at least one laser (Hodgkinson ¶0084-¶0085 “wavelength was measured with the wavemeter …the long term wavelength stability of the laser diode at constant temperature and injection current. The wavelength stability was ±0.32 pm” That is, when energized at 150 mA and 30o C, the laser operates around 1648 nm. Control system of Hodgkinson is capable of operating laser between longitudinal mode hop Wavelength stability implies no wavelength / mode hopping, similar to that discussed by applicant in Fig 2).
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 apparatus in Zilkie by integrating method of controlling emission wavelength of a light emitting device as in Hodgkinson. As per MPEP 2143.I,D, example of a rationale that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In the instant case, the claim is only directed to applying the known wavelength control method of Hodgkinson to a known device as in Zilkie, so as to achieve predictable result of wavelength stabilization, for maintaining the narrow bandwidths of the lasers in monitoring.
As per claim 2, Zilkie in view of Hodgkinson further teaches wherein the temperature-controlled element is configured to maintain the housing to within one degree centigrade of a predetermined temperature (Hodgkinson ¶0084 “constant temperature of 30° C.±1° C.”).
As per claim 3, Zilkie in view of Hodgkinson further teaches wherein the electronic drive circuitry is further adapted to energize at least two of the two or more emitters by time-division-multiplexing (Zilkie ¶0223 “Each optical source is sequentially time-multiplexed at a certain time slot…”).
As per claim 4, Zilkie in view of Hodgkinson further teaches wherein the temperature-controlled element is a thermoelectric cooler (Zilkie ¶0145 “A thermoelectric cooler may be used to control the temperature of the PIC”).
As per claims 6-9, Zilkie in view of Hodgkinson does not expressly teach a
method of assembling However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to assemble /manufacture the components as in Zilkie in view of Hodgkinson, for physically implementing for different real world applications like healthcare industry, biomarkers wearables, at consumer-friendly price point (Zilkie ¶0002).
As per claims 11-14, 16-19 they have limitations similar to claims 1-4, 6-9
and are rejected for same reasons as above.
Claims 5, 10, 15, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilkie in view of Hodgkinson as applied to claims 1, 6, 11, 16 above, and further in view of Flanders [US 20030016709 A1].
As per claim 5, 10, 15, 20, Zilkie in view of Hodgkinson does not expressly teach
wherein the temperature-controlled element is a resistive heater.
Flanders in a related field of single longitudinal mode, semiconductor lasers,
teaches wherein the temperature-controlled element is a resistive heater (Flanders
110076).
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 Zilkie in view of Hodgkinson, by using resistive heater instead of thermoelectric device. The motivation is that resistive heater consumes much less energy than a module TE cooler (Flanders
¶0076).
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
Prosecution Insights