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 § 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 1-13 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 claims 1, 2, 8, it is unclear what is meant by a “plan view”. Applicant includes the word “plane” in other aspects of the invention, but it appears the choice of “plan view” is deliberate and undefined.
Accordingly, aspects of the relationship between the elements are unclear with respect to the recited language. Should Applicant intend to amend these claims to define specific directionality, instruction, or relative positioning, those positions should be defined.
Additionally, and with respect to claim 8, it is unclear if the plan view of claim 8 is a new plan view compared to claim 1, or a new plan.
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) 1-3, 5, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lijima et al (US 2015/0190058).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5, Lijima et al (US 2015/0190058) discloses and teaches a detection apparatus including a light emitter, reflector for reflect light towards a body, receiver for receiving light which is reflected from the incident light which hits the living body, a detector configured to detect information based on the reflected light, a substrate between the emitter and receiver, and whereby the emitter is between the receiver and reflector elements (FIG 1a, b, 3a, b, 0038-0040, 0046-0050, 0024). Lijima et al (US 2015/0190058) further teaches the emitter having output opposite the receiver (Fig 1a/b, 0024), the emission towards a first reflector (0024-0025), and wherein a second substrate supports a reflector element intersecting the plane of the emitter and receiver (Fig 1a/b, 3a/b), wherein the emitter is on a first side of the substrate, and the receive is on a second surface of the same substrate (0079, Fig 1a/b).
Regarding claims 10-12, Lijima et al (US 2015/0190058) discloses and teaches the light element emits light as a surface emission (Fig 1a/b, 3a/b, 0046-0052), the inclusion of a first unit which includes the reflector and support for the reflector, as well as a first projector to protect a surface of the reflector (Fig 1a/b, 3a/b, 0023, 0037-0038), and a second unit which includes the substrate emitter pairing (11-1, 14) which is supported by a second substrate (11, Fig 1a/b), as well as a third unit for the receiver, including a substrate to support the receiver and whereby the second substrate supports the substrate/receiver pairing as well (Fig 1a/b, 3a/b).
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.
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) 4, 6-9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lijima et al (US 2015/0190058) in view of Kimura et al (US 2010/0056887).
With respect to claims 4 and 6-7, Lijima et al fail to expressly teach the utilization of multiple wavelength bands from the emitter via multiple elements, though a wavelength range is disclosed (0062) and includes 470-600nm. Attention is hereby directed to the teaching reference to Kimura et al which discloses a two wavelength, three wavelength, and four wavelength system for acquisition of multiple (more) datapoints during acquisition with an emission sensor device in the same area of endeavor as Lijima et al (0076-0077, 0073), as well as the inclusion of receiving devices for corresponding respective wavelengths of light (0009, 0020, 0034).
Finally, and with respect to claims 8-9 and 13, from a plane view in which the emission light leaves the emitter of Kimura et al, the emitter/receiver pairings overlap in that direction (Fig 2), just as they do in the Lijima et al reference (Fig 1a/b, 2a/b). The control of the emission and reception of elements of the system is disclosed by Kimura et al includes the selective selection of wavelength pairings (Fig 6, 0092, element 220), and Kimura additionally discloses a second reflector/support pairing which is utilized for the multi-wavelength interrogations (element 130, supported by substrate portions separately (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the teachings of Kimura et al for a multi-wavelength interrogation with multiple mirror elements for interrogation pathways with the system of Lijima et al in order to provide for additional datasets during a single measurement (0076, Kimura et al).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes references to Yamada (JP 2004/337605), and Blomqvist which both disclose and teach multi-wavelength and multi-substrate physiological measurement sensors including pathways, filtering, support placement, and various controls of data acquisition particularly relevant to the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M. LAMPRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-3250. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
/JOEL LAMPRECHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights