DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The action is in response to the application filed on 02/12/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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 6 and 9, and claims dependent thereof, 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.
Regarding claim 6 and 9, the claims recite “a wall”. However the “a wall” limitation is also recited in claim 4 upon which claims depend, thus creating an antecedent basis issue. It is unclear as to whether it is the same or a different wall. As such the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination the wall is interpreted as being the same wall for all of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160007925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Mirov”)
Regarding claim 16, Mirov teaches A method performed by a wearable device for measuring skin fluorescence including a light emission module configured to emit light toward a user's skin and a photodetecting module configured to detect light emitted from the user's skin (abstract; paragraphs [0066]-[0070]), the method comprising:
emitting, by the wearable device, at least one of red light, blue light, or green light toward the user's skin through the light emission module and obtaining a skin color property signal value through the photodetecting module (paragraphs [0066]-[0070]);
emitting, by the wearable device, infrared (IR) light toward the user's skin through the light emission module and obtaining a skin thickness property signal value through the photodetecting module (paragraphs [0066]-[0070]);
setting, by the wearable device, an illuminance of ultraviolet (UV) light emitted through the light emission module based on the obtained skin color property signal value and the obtained skin thickness property signal value (paragraphs [0066]-[0070]); and
emitting, by the wearable device, UV light with the set illuminance toward the user's skin through the light emission module and obtaining a skin fluorescence signal value through the photodetecting module (paragraphs [0064], [0066]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 17, Mirov teaches wherein the light emission module includes a plurality of first light emission modules including UV light emitters (paragraphs [0064], [0066]-[0071]), and
wherein obtaining the skin fluorescence signal value includes emitting UV light through an optimal first light emission module among the plurality of first light emission modules (paragraphs [0064], [0066]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 18, Mirov teaches wherein obtaining the skin fluorescence signal value includes:
emitting UV light toward the user's skin by sequentially operating the plurality of first light emission modules and obtaining a signal value corresponding to each of the first light emission modules through the photodetecting module (paragraphs [0064], [0066]-[0071]); and
determining the optimal first light emission module among the plurality of first light emission modules by comparing the signal value corresponding to each of the first light emission modules with a preset value (paragraphs [0064], [0066]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 19, Mirov teaches wherein obtaining the skin thickness property signal value includes setting an illuminance of the IR light emitted through the light emission module based on the obtained skin color property signal value (paragraphs [0064], [0066]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 20, Mirov teaches further comprising, performed before obtaining the skin color property signal value:
emitting UV light toward the user's skin by sequentially operating the plurality of first light emission modules and obtaining a signal value corresponding to each of the first light emission modules through the photodetecting module (paragraphs [0064], [0066]-[0071]); and
when a difference between the signal value corresponding to each of the first light emission modules and a predetermined reference value is greater than a reference deviation, providing wearable device wearing information through the wearable device (paragraphs [0064], [0066]-[0071]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200205681 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Putila”) in view of US 20050103983 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Yamaguchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Putila teaches a wearable device (abstract) comprising:
a housing including a light transmission area (paragraph [0066]);
a board disposed inside the housing and including a surface directed toward the light transmission area (substrate 300; paragraphs [0042], [0046], [0066]; Figures 3, 6);
a first photodetector disposed on the surface of the board (paragraphs [0014], [0086], [0091]-[0094]; Figures 10-13) and a second photodetector disposed on the surface of the board (paragraphs [0014], [0086], [0091]-[0094]; Figures 10-13);
a first light emitter disposed between the first photodetector and the second photodetector and configured to irradiate light having a third wavelength toward the light transmission area (paragraphs [0012], [0014], [0070]-[0071], [0086], [0090]-[0093]; Figures 8, 10-13); and
a second light emitter disposed between the first light emitter and the second photodetector and configured to emit light having a fourth wavelength shorter than the third wavelength toward the light transmission area (paragraphs [0012], [0014], [0070]-[0071], [0086], [0090]-[0093]; Figures 8, 10-13).
However, Putila does not explicitly teach a first photodetector disposed on the surface of the board and configured to detect light having a wavelength equal to or longer than a first wavelength and a second photodetector disposed on the surface of the board and configured to detect light having a wavelength equal to or longer than a second wavelength longer than the first wavelength.
Yamaguchi teaches a first photodetector disposed on the surface of the board and configured to detect light having a wavelength equal to or longer than a first wavelength (as shown in Figure 3) and a second photodetector disposed on the surface of the board and configured to detect light having a wavelength equal to or longer than a second wavelength longer than the first wavelength (as shown in Figure 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Putila, to include different cutoff wavelength filters for the photodetectors, as taught by Yamaguchi, because doing so would permit the respective detectors to distinguish different spectral components while suppressing undesired wavelengths.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220167864 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Block”).
Regarding claim 2, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, does not explicitly teach further comprising:
a light emission module configured to emit light having a fifth wavelength longer than the third wavelength toward the light transmission area,
wherein the first photodetector, the second photodetector, the first light emitter, and the second light emitter are arranged around the light emission module to at least partially surround the light emission module.
Block teaches a light emission module configured to emit light having a fifth wavelength longer than the third wavelength toward the light transmission area (paragraphs [0029]-[0030], [0034]; Figure 2A), wherein the first photodetector, the second photodetector, the first light emitter, and the second light emitter are arranged around the light emission module to at least partially surround the light emission module (paragraphs [0029]-[0032]; Figure 2A). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, to have a light emission module, as taught by Block, because doing so permits different optical measurements using different source detector spacings and wavelength ranges.
Regarding claim 3, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi and Block, teaches wherein the light emission module includes at least one of an infrared (IR) light emitter configured to emit IR light, a red light emitter configured to emit red light, or a green light emitter configured to emit green light (can be an infrared light; paragraphs [0029]-[0030], [0034]; Figure 2A; as taught by Block).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putila, in view of Yamaguchi and Block, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 20230233094 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Yan”).
Regarding claim 4, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi and Block, does not explicitly teach a wall surrounding the light emission module and protruding from the surface of the board toward the light transmission area.
However, Yan teaches a wall surrounding the light emission module and protruding from the surface of the board toward the light transmission area (112; paragraphs [0025]; as shown in Figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Putil, in view of Yamaguchi and Block, to have a light shield, as taught by, Yan, because doing so reduces direct optical crosstalk.
Regarding claim 5, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, and Yan, teaches wherein the first photodetector, the first light emitter, the second light emitter, and the second photodetector are sequentially arranged along an edge of the light transmission area (as shown in Figure 12; as taught by Putila).
Regarding claim 6, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, and Yan, teaches further comprising:
a wall disposed between the second photodetector and the second light emitter and protruding from the surface of the board toward the light transmission area (112; paragraphs [0025]; as shown in Figure 2; as taught by Yan).
Claim(s) 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, and Yan, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 20080146890 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “LeBoeuf”).
Regarding claim 7, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, and Yan does not explicitly teach wherein the first light emitter is configured to emit blue light, and wherein the second light emitter is configured to emit ultraviolet (UV) light.
However, LeBoeuf teaches wherein the first light emitter is configured to emit blue light, and wherein the second light emitter is configured to emit ultraviolet (UV) light (paragraph [0141]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, and Yan, to have a blue and UV emitter, as taught by LeBoeuf, because doing so provides an emission spectrum that allows to measure for hydration (paragraph [0141]; as taught by LeBoeuf).
Regarding claim 8, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, Yan, and LeBoeuf, teaches a third light emitter configured to emit light having a wavelength equal to or longer than the third wavelength toward the light transmission area (paragraph [0071]; as shown in Figure 12; as taught by Putila).
Regarding claim 9, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, Yan, and LeBoeuf, teaches a wall disposed between the third light emitter and the first photodetector and protruding from the surface of the board toward the light transmission area (112; paragraphs [0025]; as shown in Figure 2; as taught by Yan).
Regarding claim 10, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, Yan, and LeBoeuf, teaches wherein a distance between a light receiving portion of the first photodetector and a light source of the third light emitter is greater than a distance between a light receiving portion of the second photodetector and a light source of the second light emitter (as shown in Figures 12-13; as taught by Putila).
Regarding claim 11, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, Yan, and LeBoeuf, does not explicitly teach wherein when viewed from above the surface of the board, a distance between a light source of the second light emitter and a light receiving portion of the second photodetector ranges from 3 mm to 4 mm.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effectively filed to have wherein when viewed from above the surface of the board, a distance between a light source of the second light emitter and a light receiving portion of the second photodetector ranges from 3 mm to 4 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, Yan, and LeBoeuf, does not explicitly teach wherein when viewed from above the surface of the board, a distance between a light source of the first light emitter and a light receiving portion of the first photodetector ranges from 3 mm to 4 mm.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effectively filed to have wherein when viewed from above the surface of the board, a distance between a light source of the first light emitter and a light receiving portion of the first photodetector ranges from 3 mm to 4 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, Yan, and LeBoeuf, teaches wherein the second light emitter includes a plurality of second light emitters arranged along an edge of the light transmission area (as shown in Figures 12-13; as taught by Putila).
Regarding claim 14, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, Yan, and LeBoeuf, teaches further comprising:
a third photodetector disposed on the surface of the board and configured to detect light having a wavelength equal to or longer than the first wavelength (as shown in Figures 12-13; as taught by Putila); and
a fourth photodetector disposed on the surface of the board and configured to detect light having a wavelength equal to or longer than the second wavelength (as shown in Figures 12-13; as taught by Putila),
wherein the first photodetector, the second photodetector, the first light emitter, and the second light emitter are arranged around the third photodetector and the fourth photodetector to at least partially surround the third photodetector and the fourth photodetector (as shown in Figures 12-13; as taught by Putila).
Regarding claim 15, Putila, in view of Yamaguchi, Block, Yan, and LeBoeuf, teaches wherein when viewed from above the surface of the board, the fourth photodetector is disposed to be closer to the second light emitter than to the first photodetector (as shown in Figures 12-13; as taught by Putila).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights