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 .
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 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 2018/0263519) in view of Ahmed et al. (US 2014/0350356; hereinafter Ahmed) and Newberry (US 2020/0004336).
Gu shows a heart rate detecting device ([0023]), comprising: an image sensor, configured to generate a plurality of image frames from a subject ([0023]); and a processor, configured to output a heart rate value based on a light intensity variance of the plurality of image frames associated with the first light combination or the second light combination ([0026]).
Gu fails to show according to a first light combination of multiple light wavelengths, emitted together, or a second light combination of multiple light wavelengths, emitted together.
Gu fails to show wherein the first light combination is emitted within a predetermined first interval and the second light combination is emitted within a predetermined second interval, different from the first interval, to separate the motion signal.
Gu also fails to show wherein the first light combination includes at least one light wavelength different from the second light combination; wherein the first light combination is totally different from the second light combination; wherein the first light combination is the same as the second light combination; wherein the processor is configured to output the heart rate value based on the light intensity variance associated with the first light combination and the second light combination, alternatively; wherein the first light combination and the second light combination are respectively an intensity sum of light passing through or reflected from the subject.
Ahmed discloses determining heart rate with reflected data. Ahmed teaches according to a first light combination of multiple light wavelengths, emitted together, or a second light combination of multiple light wavelengths, emitted together ([0129]). Ahmed also teaches wherein the first light combination includes at least one light wavelength different from the second light combination (any suitable combination of light wavelengths may be selected, [0129]); wherein the first light combination is totally different from the second light combination (any suitable combination of light wavelengths may be selected, [0129); wherein the first light combination is the same as the second light combination (any suitable combination of light wavelengths may be selected, [0129]); wherein the processor is configured to output the heart rate value based on the light intensity variance associated with the first light combination and the second light combination, alternatively (automatically adjust operational characteristics of the light emitters ensuring that all heart beats are reliably and continuously detected, [0121]); wherein the first light combination and the second light combination are respectively an intensity sum of light passing through or reflected from the subject ([0139], [0143]-[0145]).
Newberry discloses systems and methods for motion detection using a PPG sensor. Newberry teaches wherein the first light combination is emitted within a predetermined first interval and the second light combination is emitted within a predetermined second interval, different from the first interval, to separate the motion signal (light is pulsed for a predetermined time sequentially; [0115]-[0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Gu to obtain measurements at multiple light wavelengths as taught by Ahmed, in order to obtain additional diagnostic measurements related to the patient’s blood corresponding to the wavelengths, or to improve measurement accuracy during patient motion (Ahmed, [0129]), and to control the operational characteristics of the light emitters/detectors to minimize power consumption while ensuring that all heart beats of the user are reliably and continuously detected ([0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined invention of Gu and Ahmed to emit light at a first and second interval as taught by Newberry, in order to accurately obtain the motion measurements at different wavelengths while avoiding interference, such that motion corresponding with different body motions may be evaluated as described by Newberry ([0119]-[0120]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 2018/0263519) in view of Ahmed et al. (US 2014/0350356; hereinafter Ahmed) and Newberry (US 2020/0004336) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diab et al. (US 2008/0033266; hereinafter Diab).
Gu fails to show wherein an intensity ratio between the multiple light wavelengths in the first light combination is partially different from that in the second light combination; wherein an intensity ratio between the multiple light wavelengths in the first light combination is totally different from that in the second light combination.
Diab discloses a signal processing apparatus for measuring blood oxygen saturation. Diab teaches wherein an intensity ratio between the multiple light wavelengths in the first light combination is partially different from that in the second light combination (intensity ratio depends upon selected wavelengths; [0156]-[0159], [0272], [0291], [0341], [0344], [0359]-[0360], [0420]); wherein an intensity ratio between the multiple light wavelengths in the first light combination is totally different from that in the second light combination (intensity ratio depends upon selected wavelengths; [0156]-[0159], [0272], [0291], [0341], [0344], [0359]-[0360], [0420]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined invention of Gu, Ahmed, and Newberry to obtain an intensity ratio as taught by Diab, in order to obtain additional diagnostic measurements related to the patient’s blood, including a blood oxygen saturation measurement (Diab, [0013]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
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 JONATHAN CWERN whose telephone number is (571)270-1560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/JONATHAN CWERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights