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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/411,033; 18/118,152; 17/835,930; 63/357,009; and FP provided by documents CN202110656442.1; CN202210481440.8; and CN202211680498.1 each fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claims 2, 9, 13, and 16 recite a plethysmography sensor acting as a pressure sensor, and a reflectance and transmissive pair of plethysmography sensors alternately activated by a processor. None of these claimed features are disclosed in any of the preceding applications. Therefore, as the instant application is a CIP of the parent application, the determined priority date for these claimed features is 1/10/2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/411,033 in view of Coakley et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,850,071) hereinafter referred to as Coakley.
Instant claims 1 and 12 are anticipated by copending claims 1 and 10 of Application No. 18/411,033 except for the processor adapted to compare the pressure value with a preset condition and determine a behavior of the target object according to a comparison result of the pressure value and the preset condition for generating a related operation command.
Attention is drawn to the Coakley reference, which teaches a wearable device comprising a pressure sensor (Fig. 1B “Fit Sensor(s)”) and PPG sensor (Fig. 1B, elements 166-168 PPG Sensors) for physiological feature detection and a processor (Fig. 1B, “Processor”), the processor adapted to compare the pressure value with a preset condition and determine a behavior of a target object according to a comparison result of the pressure value and the preset condition for generating a related operation command (Fig. 5, flowchart indicating the measured fit data is compared to an accepted range, considered the preset condition; applicant’s disclosure of behavior of the target object in ¶[0025] includes fit “for example, whether the smart ring 10 is worn correctly or has other pressure change” therefore, determining poor fit and notifying user of poor fit for calibration or adjustment is considered to determine the behavior of the target object for generating a related operational command, see Fig. 7A-D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the smart wearable claimed in Application No. 18/411,033, because Coakley teaches that the fit of biometric wearable devices is critical for accurate biometric data, and “(a)ll cases in which sensors provide inaccurate data are found unacceptable to users,” (Coakley, col. 1, lines 12-32).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
This analysis in view of 35 U.S.C. § 101 is based on MPEP § 2106, please see this section of the MPEP for additional information.
First, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as a whole is established:
Claims 1 and 12 are directed to a smart ring and method for physiological feature detection applied to a finger (claimed as a target object) comprising a pressure sensor sensing pressure, an operation processor comparing sensed pressure to a preset condition and determine the fitting or pressure status of the finger against the ring (claimed as behavior of the target object) for the purposes of generating a related operation command.
Step 1 of the analysis is the question: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?” and the answer is determined to be yes, as the claims as a whole are directed to a system.
For Step 2, the preliminary question is whether the eligibility of the claim is self- evident. The answer is determined to be no, as the claim is not immediately self-evident as statutory.
Step 2A Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
A claim is directed to a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.”
Claim 1 (and similarly in Claim 12) recites the following limitations:
compare the pressure value with a preset condition and determine a behavior of the target object according to a comparison result of the pressure value and the preset condition for generating a related operation command
This claim language is identified as an abstract idea, because in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III B. this language is similar to concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or are analogous to human mental work. For example, Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Synopsys, the patentee claimed methods of logic circuit design, comprising converting a functional description of a level sensitive latch into a hardware component description of the latch. 839 F.3d at 1140; 120 SPQ2d at 1475. Although the patentee argued that the claims were intended to be used in conjunction with computer-based design tools, the claims did not include any limitations requiring computer implementation of the methods and thus do not involve the use of a computer in any way. 839 F.3d at 1145; 120 USPQ2d at 1478-79. The court therefore concluded that the claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper,” and were directed to a mental process of “translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit.” 839 F.3d at 1149-50; 120 USPQ2d at 1482-83.
In the instant case, the identified abstract idea(s) is similar to Synopsys because the language reads on an individual performing the claimed sensor attachment evaluation mentally. They do not require any computer implementation beyond the recitation of a general purpose computer, or using the computer as a tool to perform the function and therefore are directed to a mental process and/or individual judgment of determining fit of a wearable on a user using a contact pressure and a threshold.
Yes. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
First, the additional elements are identified:
Claim 1/12: pressure sensor, smart ring, operation processor
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 13-14: photoplethysmography sensor
Claim 9, 16: photoplethysmography sensor comprising transmissive light source and reflective light source
Claim 10: acceleration detector
Claim 11, 17: two pressure sensors
In the case of the processor, this appears to describe a general purpose computer, added post-hoc to an abstract idea rather than an improvement to computer functionality and does not qualify as a particular machine.
In the case of the claimed “for generating a related operation command”, this is identified appears to describe intended output “related operation command” is only described at the highest level of generality and does not require any particular operation changes or interventions, simply generation of a command.
In the case of the sensor, photoplethysmograph and/or separate pressure sensor, and accelerometer, the obtaining of signal is considered insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Because they are recited so broadly and not integrated with the claimed abstract idea in an ongoing fashion, they appear to only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or device (i.e. smart ring device).
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements are identified above in Step 2A, Prong 2.
In the case of the processor, this appears to describe a general purpose computer, added post-hoc to an abstract idea rather than an improvement to computer functionality and does not qualify as a particular machine.
In the case of the claimed “for generating a related operation command”, this is identified appears to describe intended output “related operation command” is only described at the highest level of generality and does not require any particular operation changes or interventions, simply generation of a command.
In the case of the sensor, photoplethysmograph and/or separate pressure sensor, and accelerometer, the obtaining of signal is considered insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Because they are recited so broadly and not integrated with the claimed abstract idea in an ongoing fashion, they appear to only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or device (i.e. smart ring device).
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Further, in the case of the specific combination of a “smart ring” comprising a processor and pressure sensor these elements are found to provide nothing more than that which is considered well understood, routine, or conventional in the art.
U.S. Patent No. 2019/0057266 to Dow et al, which teaches: “In one embodiment, ring device may be a conventional ring shaped device, where the conventional ring shaped device may be circular, oval, square, or any other geometric shape capable of fitting over at least one of a user's digits (i.e., fingers and thumbs),” in ¶[0015]. Further, the Dow reference comprises a processor (¶[0004]) motion tracking (¶[0016]), LEDs (¶[0016]), the sensors responsive to force and fit of the ring (¶[0022]). Therefore, the Examiner considers that the claimed combination of additional elements does not contribute more than that which is already well understood, routine, or conventional.
U.S. Patent No. TWM612939, which teaches physiological sensing rings are conventional: “familiar ring-type physiological detection devices” on p. 56. Therefore the Examiner considers that the claimed combination of additional elements does not contribute more than that which is already well understood, routine, or conventional.
Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and the claimed subject matter appears to be ineligible under 101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0054221) hereinafter referred to as Ward; in view of Coakley et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,850,071) hereinafter referred to as Coakley.
Regarding claim 1, Ward teaches a smart ring with a physiological feature detection function (Abstract) and applied to a target object (¶[0124], ¶[0155] finger ring), the smart ring comprising:
a pressure sensor adapted to detect a pressure value of the target object applied for the smart ring (¶[0012) pressure sensor, target object is a finger, ¶[0068] and Fig. 2B, piezoelectric sensor 200 contacting subject’s finger, ¶[0070] force form a subject’s finger in the form of pressure); and
an operation processor electrically connected with the pressure sensor (¶[0013] apparatus comprises signal processor).
Ward teaches the pressure sensor working in concert with a PPG sensor (¶[0022]) for physiological feature detection, but does not further teach the processor adapted to compare the pressure value with a preset condition and determine a behavior of the target object according to a comparison result of the pressure value and the preset condition for generating a related operation command.
Attention is drawn to the Coakley reference, which teaches a wearable device comprising a pressure sensor (Fig. 1B “Fit Sensor(s)”) and PPG sensor (Fig. 1B, elements 166-168 PPG Sensors) for physiological feature detection and a processor (Fig. 1B, “Processor”), the processor adapted to compare the pressure value with a preset condition and determine a behavior of a target object according to a comparison result of the pressure value and the preset condition for generating a related operation command (Fig. 5, flowchart indicating the measured fit data is compared to an accepted range, considered the preset condition; applicant’s disclosure of behavior of the target object in ¶[0025] includes fit “for example, whether the smart ring 10 is worn correctly or has other pressure change” therefore, determining poor fit and notifying user of poor fit for calibration or adjustment is considered to determine the behavior of the target object for generating a related operational command, see Fig. 7A-D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the physiological feature detection of Ward to include a fit detection, provided by the pressure sensors already included in Ward, because Coakley teaches that the fit of biometric wearable devices is critical for accurate biometric data, and “(a)ll cases in which sensors provide inaccurate data are found unacceptable to users,” (Coakley, col. 1, lines 12-32).
Regarding claim 3, Ward as modified teaches the smart ring of claim 1.
Ward further teaches wherein the smart ring further comprises a photoplethysmography sensor separated from the pressure sensor and electrically connected with the operation processor, and adapted to acquire a physiological detection value of the target object (Fig. 5, Piezoelectric sensor and pulse ox sensor are separate sensors on the ring, ¶[0060] pulse oximetry sensor is a PPG sensor).
Regarding claim 4, Ward as modified teaches the smart ring of claim 3.
Ward further teaches wherein the operation processor utilizes a sensing element of the pressure sensor to directly acquire and analyze the pressure value (¶[0064] raw signal pressure data).
Ward does not teach calibrating the physiological detection value in accordance with an analysis result of the pressure value.
Attention is drawn to the Coakley reference, which teaches calibrating the physiological detection value in accordance with an analysis result of the pressure value (Fig.5 , Calibrate biometric data resultant from fit signature outside accepted range, as established above, fit signature is determined from pressure sensor data, col. 10 lines 51-60, col. 11, lines 7-20 calibration of biometric data when calibration is possible).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the physiological feature detection of Ward to include a fit detection and PPG calibration, provided by the pressure sensors already included in Ward, because Coakley teaches that the fit of biometric wearable devices is critical for accurate biometric data, and “(a)ll cases in which sensors provide inaccurate data are found unacceptable to users,” (Coakley, col. 1, lines 12-32).
Regarding claim 5, Ward as modified teaches the smart ring of claim 3.
Coakley further teaches wherein the operation processor decides the behavior of the target object to generate the related operation command when the physiological detection value conforms to another preset condition and the pressure value exceeds a threshold of the preset condition (col. 11, lines 45-54, one poor fit condition corresponds with a contact pressure at the skin sensor being too high to accurately record biometric data).
Regarding claim 6, Ward as modified teaches the smart ring of claim 3.
Ward further teaches wherein the smart ring further comprises a ring body, the pressure sensor and the photoplethysmography sensor are disposed on adjacent positions inside the ring body (Fig. 14A, plethysmography sensor portions 1404 and 1408 are adjacent to piezoelectric pressure sensor components 1402 inside ring body 1400 comprising support structure 1412).
Regarding claim 7, Ward as modified teaches the smart ring of claim 1.
Ward further teaches wherein the smart ring further comprises a ring body and a detection light source, the detection light source and the pressure sensor are disposed inside the ring body (Fig. 14A, plethysmography sensor portions 1404 and 1408 are adjacent to piezoelectric pressure sensor components 1402 inside ring body 1400 comprising support structure 1412, light source element 1404).
Regarding claim 8, Ward as modified teaches the smart ring of claim 7.
Ward further teaches wherein the detection light source is at least one of a transmissive light source and a reflective light source (¶[0085] radiative reflectance or radiative transmission signal).
Regarding claim 10, Ward as modified teaches the smart ring of claim 1.
Ward further teaches wherein the smart ring further comprises an acceleration detector electrically connected with the operation processor and adapted to detect an acceleration value of the smart ring in each axis (¶[0066] applicant has not claimed any particular number of axes).
Regarding claim 11, Ward as modified teaches the smart ring of claim 1.
Ward further teaches wherein the smart ring further comprises a ring body and two pressure sensors, the pressure sensors are respectively disposed on two opposite positions inside the ring body (Fig. 14A, piezoelectric pressure sensor components 1402 inside ring body 1400 comprising support structure 1412, located on symmetrical locations at top and bottom surface of a ring, therefore opposite positions).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is directed to a method comprising substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under substantially the same sections of Ward and Coakley.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is directed to a method comprising substantially the same subject matter as claims 3 and 4 and is rejected under substantially the same sections of Ward and Coakley.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is directed to a method comprising substantially the same subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected under substantially the same sections of Ward and Coakley.
Regarding claim 17, Ward as modified teaches the physiological feature detecting method of claim 12.
Ward further teaches wherein the smart ring further comprises a ring body and two pressure sensors, the pressure sensors are respectively disposed on two opposite positions inside the ring body (Fig. 14A, piezoelectric pressure sensor components 1402 inside ring body 1400 comprising support structure 1412, located on symmetrical locations at top and bottom surface of a ring, therefore opposite positions).
Ward does not teach the operation processor utilizing pressure values detected by the two pressure sensors to determine whether the smart ring is correctly worn on the target object.
Attention is brought to the Coakley reference, which teaches utilizing pressure values detected by the two pressure sensors (col. 10, lines 51-55) to determine whether the smart ring is correctly worn on the target object (Fig. 5, flowchart indicating the measured fit data is compared to an accepted range, considered the preset condition; applicant’s disclosure of behavior of the target object in ¶[0025] includes fit “for example, whether the smart ring 10 is worn correctly or has other pressure change” therefore, determining poor fit and notifying user of poor fit for calibration or adjustment is considered to determine the behavior of the target object for generating a related operational command, see Fig. 7A-D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the physiological feature detection of Ward to include a fit detection, provided by the pressure sensors already included in Ward, because Coakley teaches that the fit of biometric wearable devices is critical for accurate biometric data, and “(a)ll cases in which sensors provide inaccurate data are found unacceptable to users,” (Coakley, col. 1, lines 12-32).
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward and Coakley as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Joe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0146630) hereinafter referred to as Joe.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Ward as modified teaches the smart ring and physiological feature detecting method of claim 1/12.
Ward does not teach wherein the pressure sensor is set as a photoplethysmography sensor adapted to acquire a physiological detection value of the target object, the operation processor is adapted to analyze variation of the physiological detection value to convert into the pressure value.
Attention is brought to the Joe reference, which teaches wearable device for physiological value detection comprising a PPG sensor functioning as a pressure sensor (¶[0113], ¶[0168] degree of contact considered a pressure value), adapted to acquire a physiological detection value of the target object (¶[0169] PPG sensor signal), the operation processor is adapted to analyze variation of the physiological detection value to convert into the pressure value (¶¶[0168-0169], degree of contact determined from ratio of AC and DC components in the PPG signal data).
Notably, Joe further teaches that its PPG sensors and method are beneficially applicable to other portable and wearable devices (¶[0012], ¶[0308]), therefore PHOSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the teachings of Joe into the smart ring of Ward as modified.
It would have been obvious to modify the smart ring PPG and piezoelectric pressure sensors of Ward as modified to use a single, multi-colored PPG sensor, as taught by Joe, because Joe teaches improvement in the quality of the PPG biometric signal determination, minimizing distortion of a biometric signal and deterioration of performance, and improving reliability of portable healthcare by obtaining high-quality biometric signals (Joe ¶[0012]). The examiner further considers that reducing the number and types of sensors on a small wearable, such as a ring, obtains additional benefits such as savings in cost, complexity, and bulk.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward and Coakley as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Bhagat et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0177353) hereinafter referred to as Bhagat.
Regarding claim 9/16, Ward as modified teaches the smart ring and physiological feature detecting method of claim 8/12.
Ward further teaches that the PPG sensors in the smart ring of Ward can be either of transmittance or reflectance based PPG sensors, as above.
Croaker further teaches alternately activating the transmissive light source or the reflective light source in operation process of the pressure sensor, as above (Fig. 5, the flowchart activates the fit sensor and PPG sensor separately).
Ward as modified does not teach including both of a transmissive light source and a reflective light source, the operation processor alternately activates the transmissive light source and the reflective light source in operation process of the pressure sensor.
Attention is drawn to the Bhagat reference, which discloses a ring wearable sensor device comprising a PPG sensor that may be for transmittance, reflectance, or a combination of transmittance and reflectance (¶[0045]) and further, that any of reflective, transmissive, or the combination of reflective and transmissive pulse oximetry are implemented by known placement of the light sources and optical sensors (¶[0045]). Bhagat treats each of these known options as equivalent, and that using any one or a combination is a matter of routine skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success in configuration of the wearable device. Further, any type of PPG sensor for the same purpose as disclosed by Bhagat, obtaining the same physiological data from any one or the combination of disclosed sensors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the smart ring of Ward as modified to include both reflective and transmissive light sources for PPG sensing, as taught by Bhagat, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and the combination of reflective and transmissive light sources is further known in the prior art. 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 yields nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0177440 to Jelfs et al. teaches a plurality of PPG sensors, any of which may be transmissive or reflective.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0288252 to Kirszenblat et al. teaches PPG pressure sensing on a wearable device with a benefit of reducing undesired bulky components.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0096735 to Landry et al. teaches a PPG based contact pressure determination on a finger ring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L STEINBERG whose telephone number is (303)297-4783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights