DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-4 are amended and claims 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Claims 1-17, 21, and 22 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph rejection of claim 1-20 are withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1.
While claim 1 was amended to eliminate limitations, no arguments were included for the prior art references used to reject claim 1. The rejection is maintained.
The amendments to claim 4 are not properly indicated. New limitations were added without the proper use of underlining. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 4 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2 and 3 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 21 and 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the Office recommends deleting “which is” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: the Office suggests amending claim 2 to state that the optical sensor sets of the wearable biometric device comprises a light emitter initially before the wherein statement. The Office also suggests amending claim 2 to include what structure of the wearable biometric device automatically changes the angle or vector (e.g. a processor configured to control movement of the mirror or lens). Claim 3 should be amended in a similar manner. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the Office suggests amending claim 4 to recite that the optical sensor sets of the wearable biometric device comprises a light emitter, a light receiver and that the biometric device further comprises a track, channel, or slot around a circumference of the arcuate ring before the wherein clause.
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.
Claim 2 is 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. It is unclear if the claim requires the angle or vector of light to change all the time during operation or whether the limitation means that the device is capable of changing the angle or vector at any time during operation. For purposes of examination, the Office used the latter interpretation.
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)(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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2016/0166161, cited previously).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. disclose a wearable biometric device (Abstract reference to an apparatus for measuring vital signs) comprising:
an arcuate ring which is configured to be worn around a person's finger (see Fig. 2), wherein the arcuate ring spans at least two-thirds of the circumference of the person's finger (a finger ring would anticipate this limitation); and
at least three optical sensor sets which are held in proximity to the person's finger ([0009] – “An apparatus utilizing the principles of PPG for the development of a wearable ring for the purpose of health monitoring. This apparatus comprises a light source or a plurality of light sources and a detector or a plurality of detectors configured to measure transmitted and/or reflected light within the digits such as a finger or toe, but can may also be applied to other soft tissue elements.”).
Regarding claim 11, Yang et al. teach wherein an optical sensor set further comprises a light receiver (see claim 1 reference to a light detector).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2016/0166161) in view of Gulati et al. (US 2016/0097716).
Regarding claim 2, Yang et al. do not disclose wherein an angle of vector of light emitted from a light emitter is automatically changed over time by the device by moving a mirror or lens. However, the use of lens to change an angle or vector of light emitted from a light emitter in a PPG device was known in the arts at the time of the filing of the invention. Gulati et al. teach a system for making biometric measurements in the skin using PPG sensing technology (see Abstract and [0988]). Gulati et al. teach that the apparatus can “dynamically vary depth of focus in the sample for spectroscopic tomography, and thereby change the size of the illumination and/or detection spot on the skin. In order to provide sampling at different depths, the incoming light is brought into the lens 10 that is attached to the translator that moves in z direction (z.sub.i) and can focus the incoming light beam 30 into different depth from the sample surface” ([0898]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Yang to use the lens structures taught by Gulati et al. for focusing sensor light to the correct depths because this can allow for targeting different depths of tissue to provide a more accurate analysis signal. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the overlapping subject matter between the two references for using PPG sensing technology.
Claim 3 is similar in scope to claim 2 but includes multiple instances of angles or vectors that can be changed to scan different depths. These limitations are rejected using the same citations and argument for claim 2 above. Gulati et al.’s system can be interpreted such that multiple scans at different depths read on the limitations of claim 3. Alternatively, Gulati et al.’s system also uses multiple light sources (see for example Fig. 123). Adjusting the lens associated with each of the sources also reads on the limitations. The rationale for modifying remains the same.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2016/0166161) in view of Asada et al. (US 2002/0169381). Yang et al. do not disclose wherein a distance between a light emitter and a light receiver is adjusted by moving a light emitter, a light receiver, or both along a track, channel, or slot around a circumference of the device. However, Asada et al. teach a photoplethysmograph ring (see Abstract and Fig. 1). Asada's ring comprises several relevant structures shown in Fig. 6A and 6B. The ring includes a cover 25, sensor band 21 and a base unit band 23 ([0031]-[0034]). Per [0032], the base unit band 23 is structured to permit rotational motion only by elastic sensor band 21. Rotation of band 21, which holds the sensors and detectors, within the ring allows for changing the radial or circumferential location of the light receiver or light emitter along a circumferential track (23) in the ring. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Yang to include the claimed structure for allowing adjustment of the circumferential location of the light receiver or emitter as taught by Asada for making plethysmographic measurements because it permits further optimization of sensor placement near an artery. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given that both references are directed to ring-based structures for making vital sign measurements (i.e., not so divergent subject matters where modification may require a lot of research).
Claims 5-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2016/0166161) in view of Sarantos et al. (US 9392946, cited previously).
Regarding claim 5, Yang et al. do not disclose wherein an optical sensor set further comprises a red light emitter. However, the use of red light emitters for measuring biometric parameters was known in the arts. Sarantos teaches a wearable device capable of measuring biometric parameters (see claim 1 where a device for measuring heart rate using a photosensor is disclosed, Fig. 2 shows the wearable device and PPG sensor setup). Sarantos teaches that the PPG sensors may use different types of light emitters such as red, infrared, and green light (see col. 13, 4th paragraph discussion) for measurement purposes. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Yang et al. to use a red (infrared or green) light emitter for measuring biometric parameters as taught by Sarantos because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the success Sarantos has using the light emitters of these wavelengths.
Regarding claim 6, Yang et al. as do not disclose wherein a red light emitter is located at a protrusion of the ring. However, Yang et al. teach that having the emitter and detector protrude above the surface of the ring is advantageous for several reasons as explained in [0025]-[0027]. While having the emitter protrude above the ring is different from using a protrusion of the ring to place the emitter higher, such a modification would have been an obvious modification. It would have been obvious to try by choosing among a finite number of predictable solutions. In this case, either the emitter itself can sit higher than the ring surface or one could modify the ring surface itself to be higher where the emitter is located. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 7, Yang et al. do not disclose wherein an optical sensor set further comprises an infrared light emitter. This limitation is rejected using the same argument for claim 5.
Claim 8 is rejected using the same argument applied to claim 6 for modifying Yang.
Regarding claim 9, Yang et al. do not disclose wherein an optical sensor set further comprises a green light emitter. This limitation is rejected using the same argument for claim 5.
Claim 10 is rejected using the same argument applied to claim 6 for modifying Yang.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same argument applied to claim 6 for modifying Yang.
Regarding claim 13, Yang et al. do not disclose wherein each optical sensor set further comprises a red light emitter, an infrared light emitter, a green light emitter, or a light receiver. However, this is rejected using the same argument above for claim 5 where Yang is modified in view of Sarantos.
Regarding claim 14, Yang et al. do not disclose wherein each optical sensor set further comprises an infrared light emitter and a green light emitter. However, Sarantos et al. teach a biometric parameter measuring device that uses a PPG sensor which may use a green, red, or infrared light emitter as noted in the claim 5 rejection. Sarantos et al. also teach that, “If multiple light-emitting devices are used … all such light sources may be the same type of light source. In some other implementations, however, different types of light sources may be used for some or all of the light sources.” (col. 13, 4th paragraph). Thus, based on the teachings of Sarantos, it is possible to use multiple light emitters that use different wavelengths (e.g. IR combined with green being a possible combination). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to use an IR and green light emitter for biometric measurements as taught by Sarantos in the Yang device because Yang et al. notes that certain wavelengths may be more appropriate depending on the parameter being read.
Regarding claim 15, Yang et al. do not disclose wherein each optical sensor set further comprises a red light emitter and a green light emitter. This limitation is rejected using the same argument in claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Yang et al. do not disclose wherein each optical sensor set further comprises a red light emitter, an infrared light emitter, and a green light emitter. This limitation is rejected using the same argument in claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, Yang et al. do not disclose wherein each optical sensor set further comprises a red light emitter, an infrared light emitter, a green light emitter, and a light receiver. This limitation is rejected using the same argument in claim 14.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2016/0166161) in view of Gao (CN210644034) (Applicant notes in the response dated 2/8/2026 that written description support lies with parent application US 20240377316 which was filed on 7/17/2024).
Regarding claim 21, Yang et al. do not disclose wherein the arcuate ring further comprises a first partially-annular band which spans a first portion of the circumference of a person's finger and a second partially-annular band which spans a second portion of the circumference of the person's finger, and wherein the second partially-annular band is connected to the first partially-annular band by movable, flexible, compliant, elastic, stretchable, and/or pleated joints. However, this type of ring structure for biometric monitoring devices was known. Gao teaches a medical blood oxygen monitoring device. A finger ring is shown formed with two partially annular bands. One band includes elastic lock catches 102 that connect to the other partially annular ring (lock interpreted as a joint). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Yang’s arcuate ring to comprise the ring structure taught by Gao because it can accommodate fingers of differing sizes.
Regarding claim 22, Yang et al. do not disclose wherein the arcuate ring further comprises a first partially-annular band which spans a first portion of the circumference of a person's finger and a second partially-annular band which spans a second portion of the circumference of the person's finger, and wherein ends of the second partially-annular band are inserted into ends of the first partially-annular band. However, this type of ring structure for biometric monitoring devices was known. Gao teaches a medical blood oxygen monitoring device. A finger ring is shown formed with two partially annular bands. One band includes elastic lock catches 102 that insert into the other partially annular ring. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Yang’s arcuate ring to comprise the ring structure taught by Gao because it can accommodate fingers of differing sizes.
Conclusion
Claims 1-17, 21, and 22 are rejected.
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 Tho Q. Tran whose telephone number is (571)270-1892. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/THO Q TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791