DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [00158] – references 17/035,233 as being filed “September 23, 2020” when it was actually filed on September 28, 2020. In addition, the recited title for said application is also incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are 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 the use of an acronym “SWIR”. The first instance of any acronym should be fully spelled out (e.g. SWIR (Short-Wave Infrared)) so that there is no confusion on what it means.
Claim 5 recites the composition of the SWIR phosphor. Using the ranges recited, it appears possible for the octahedral site to be negative, which would be impossible. For example, (a + b + c + d) can be as high as (1 + 0.3 + 3 + 1.8) = 4.9, and thus 2 – 4.9 = -2.9. This is the same for the dodecahedral site, and it is possible for that number to be as low as -1.55. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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(s) 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petcavich (US 2021/0282673) in view of Rapoport et al. (US 2010/0320480).
As to claim 1, Petcavich teaches a glucose measuring device ([0002]) comprising: a light emitting device having emission wavelengths in the range of 1600 - 2200 nm ([0030]), and an infrared light detector arranged to detect the intensity of infrared light emitted by the light emitting device and reflected by a sample ([0031]).
Petcavich fails to teach that the LED comprises an SWIR comprising a structurally disordered garnet material, a sensitizer ion, and at least one rare earth emitter ion, wherein the at least one rare earth emitter ion comprises Tm(III).
Rapoport teaches a phosphor-converted infrared light emitting device ([0017]) having emission wavelengths of about 800nm or greater ([0022]), the phosphor comprising a sensitizer ion ([0023], [0025]) and at least one rare earth emitter ion comprising Tm(III) ([0027]). Rapaport notes that rare earth ions exhibit very narrow spectral absorption lines compared to typical LEDs. The use of a spectrally broad absorber sensitizer can may then capture more of the LED emission and efficiently transfer it to the emitting ion with greater efficiency than the ion can do by itself with the same LED emission. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Petcavich with Rapoport to utilize a phosphor LED with the specified materials to allow for a stronger generated light in a more efficient manner.
As to claims 2 and 20, Rapaport teaches the at least one rare earth emitter ion further comprises Ho(III) ([0027]).
As to claims 3 and 4, Rapaport teaches the sensitizer ion comprises Cr(III) ([0023]).
As to claim 9, Petcavich the light emitting device comprises a light emitting surface, the light emitting surface having an area of 1 cm X 1 cm or less ([0031] – the distance from IR LED to photodiode ranges from 0.1 to 5 mm, which inherently necessitates an overall size under the recited dimensions).
As to claim 10, Petcavich teaches light emitting device comprises an array of pcLEDs ([0030] – One or more LEDs).
As to claim 16, Petcavich teaches light emitting device is adjacent the infrared light detector a light emitting surface of the light emitting device facing the sample, and a light receiving surface of the infrared light detector facing the sample (Fig. 2).
As to claim 17, Petcavich teaches a wearable device comprising the glucose measurement ([0002]) while the combination teaches the device of claim 1.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petcavich (US 2021/0282673) in view of Rapoport et al. (US 2010/0320480), and further in view of Schmidt (US 2023/0064945).
As to claim 5, the above combination fails to teach the SWIR phosphor comprising the recited structure. Schmidt discloses the identical SWIR for a phosphor-converted LED (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the above combination with Schmidt to utilize a SWIR phosphor that is known to be capable of emitting infrared emissions in the cited 1600-2200 nm range.
As to claim 6, Schmidt teaches SWIR phosphor comprises Gd2O3 - 0.0065 Ho2O3 - 0.1 Tm2O3 - 0.33 Sc203 - 0.12 Lu2O3 - 0.8 Ga2O3 - 0.04 Cr203 - 1.6 A1203 ([0120] – Example 5, when converting to binary oxide ratios, arrives at the same recited phosphor).
As to claim 7, Schmidt teaches the SWIR phosphor is formed into a ceramic plate, the ceramic plate including (Al,Ga)203 as a minority phase ([0120]).
Claim(s) 11, 12, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petcavich (US 2021/0282673) in view of Rapoport et al. (US 2010/0320480), and further in view of Heise et al. (“Noninvasive Monitoring of Glucose Using Near-Infrared Reflection Spectroscopy of Skin—Constraints and Effective Novel Strategy in Multivariate Calibration”)
As to claim 11, while the above combination teaches a filter element on the detection path ([0037]), but does not explicitly state that the filter element is configured to selectively pass at least one of the wavelength ranges at a glucose infrared absorption maxima and a glucose infrared absorption minima.
As applicant notes within their own specifications, the Heise reference (which is admitted prior art and incorporated by reference (see [0042] of the printed publication) teaches that the maxima wavelengths of glucose absorption, when measuring through human tissue, occur at approximately 1942-2098 nm, and the minima wavelengths occur at approximately 1890-2004 nm. Moreover, Heise notes that the noninvasive sensing of glucose is experimentally challenging due to the tiny glucose absorbance against a dominating high and variable background absorption of water.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to configure the filter of Petcavich to selectively pass wavelength ranges located at a glucose absorption maximum and minimum as using setting filter passbands to those of known interest is known in the art to isolate useful signals as well as to remove background noise and prevent data crowding.
As to claim 12, as noted above, the recited intervals are the maxima and minima admitted by applicant to be taught by Heise. Accordingly, setting up the passband width within a certain range of these wavelengths is merely optimization within prior art conditions and/or through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 18, the combination teaches the device of claim 1. In addition, as noted above for the rejection of claim 11, the recited intervals are the maxima and minima admitted by applicant to be taught by Heise. Accordingly, setting up the passband width within a certain range of these wavelengths is merely optimization within prior art conditions and/or through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 19, Petcavich teaches the glucose measurement device is a wearable device and the method is performed while the glucose measurement device is being worn by a user ([0010] – worn 24 hours a day, 7 days a week).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petcavich (US 2021/0282673) in view of Rapoport et al. (US 2010/0320480), and further in view of Zhang et al. (“Blue LED-pumped intense short-wave infrared luminescence based on Cr3+-Yb3+-co-doped phosphors”).
As to claim 13, the above combination does not necessarily teach that the light emitting device is configured to emit a SWIR spectral power output of > 15 mW when driven at or near 150 mA. Zhang teaches a SWIR-emitting phosphor LED in which it is able to deliver SWIR radiant power of 18.4 mW at 120 mA. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the above combination with Zhang to obtain a device which is capable of emitting light at sufficient intensity for measurement purposes at power requirements.
As to claims 14 and 15, the above combination does not teach that the light emitting device is configured to emit a spectrum that is thermally stable in the range of human skin temperatures and that it is configured to emit a spectrum that has less than a 0.1 +/- 0.02 % /K linear intensity change (Fig. 4b) over the temperature range 26°C- 56°C. Zhang teaches that the device shows thermal stability over 28.8oC to 54.7oC, which is essentially the same range. While the disclosed wavelengths are not at the max/min for glucose absorption, the various wavelengths disclosed reflect very little linear intensity change over the recited temperature range and it would be expected to behave similarly at the glucose absorption spectrum maxima and minima.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN JANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-3:30 EST).
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 571-272-3672. 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.
CHRISTIAN JANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTIAN JANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791 8/8/26
Prosecution Insights