PTAB

IPR2025-01585

Whoop Inc v. Omni MedSci Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Measuring Physiological Parameters
  • Brief Description: The ’455 patent discloses a system for measuring physiological parameters using a wearable optical device. The system comprises a wearable sensor with a light source (e.g., LEDs) and detectors, which is used in conjunction with a smart phone or tablet that receives and processes the sensor data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-16 are obvious over Lisogurski in view of Carlson and Soller.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676), Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468), and Soller (Patent 6,304,767).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lisogurski, the primary reference, discloses a wearable physiological monitoring system with most of the claimed elements, including a light source, detectors, and communication with a monitor (smartphone/tablet). The system measures parameters like pulse rate and oxygen saturation. Carlson was cited for its teachings on using beam-shaping optical elements (lenses) to direct light and improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in pulse oximeters. Soller was added for its disclosure of using multiple (5 to 20) LEDs arranged in a circular pattern to increase measurement accuracy. For example, claim 2's limitation of six LEDs arranged on an arc was asserted to be obvious over Soller's disclosure of 5-20 LEDs in a circular array.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references as they address analogous problems of improving the performance, power consumption, and accuracy of wearable optical sensors. A POSITA would modify Lisogurski’s system with Carlson’s lenses to improve SNR without increasing power consumption and with Soller’s multi-LED configuration to enhance measurement accuracy, which were known benefits.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying conventional optical components and sensor configurations to a known system, which would have presented a predictable and successful outcome.

Ground 2: Claims 5 and 12 are obvious over Lisogurski in view of Carlson, Soller, and Tran.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676), Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468), Soller (Patent 6,304,767), and Tran (Patent 8,108,036).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination in Ground 1 and adds Tran to address the limitations in claims 5 and 12 related to using artificial intelligence and performing pattern identification. Petitioner asserted that Tran teaches a heart monitoring system that uses statistical analyzers, such as artificial neural networks, to analyze patient data (including pulse oximetry data), track health risks, and flag dangerous conditions through pattern recognition.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having already combined Lisogurski, Carlson, and Soller to create an improved wearable sensor, would be motivated to incorporate Tran's advanced data analysis capabilities. The goal would be to move beyond simple data display to provide predictive health insights and warnings, a known market trend at the time. This would enhance the utility of Lisogurski's health tracking system by adding a layer of intelligent analysis.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing known data analysis techniques like neural networks into a data-gathering system like Lisogurski's was a routine modification with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Claim 17 is obvious over Lisogurski in view of Carlson, Soller, and Valencell-093.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676), Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468), Soller (Patent 6,304,767), and Valencell-093 (Application # 2012/0197093).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds Valencell-093 to the base combination to address claim 17, which recites a reflective surface to redirect optical light. Petitioner argued that Valencell-093 explicitly teaches a wearable optical sensor surrounded by a light-guiding region that includes a reflector (e.g., reflective plastic or metal) to help direct light and reduce interference from ambient noise.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to further improve the SNR of the combined Lisogurski/Carlson/Soller device would look to other techniques for noise reduction. Valencell-093 provides a clear solution by teaching that a physical reflective surface improves optical coupling and increases SNR. A POSITA would be motivated to add this feature to enhance the device's performance, especially in environments with ambient light.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating a reflective surface into a sensor housing was a straightforward mechanical design choice with predictable results in improving light collection and reducing noise.

Ground 4: Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 18-20 are obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Soller, Tran, and Valencell-093.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lisogurski (Patent 9,241,676), Carlson (Application # 2005/0049468), Soller (Patent 6,304,767), Tran (Patent 8,108,036), and Valencell-093 (Application # 2012/0197093).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground combines all five prior art references to address the remaining dependent claims. For instance, claim 6 adds the reflective surface of Valencell-093 to the AI-enabled system of claim 5 (based on Tran). Claim 7 adds increasing the pulse rate to improve SNR, a technique taught by both Lisogurski and Carlson.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings from all references for the same reasons articulated in the preceding grounds. The overall goal was to create an optimized, feature-rich wearable device. This involved integrating superior optical components (Carlson, Soller), physical noise-reduction features (Valencell-093), advanced data processing (Tran), and dynamic signal optimization techniques (Lisogurski, Carlson) into the base system of Lisogurski.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination represented an aggregation of known, complementary techniques to improve a wearable sensor, and a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully integrating these features.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate because the challenged claims are nearly identical to claims in parent patents (’533 and ’484 patents) that the Board has already found unpatentable in prior IPRs based on largely the same prior art. Petitioner contended that the Patent Owner is collaterally estopped from re-litigating the patentability of these limitations and that instituting this IPR would be an efficient use of Board resources, preventing the Patent Owner from enforcing claims that are not patentably distinct from claims already invalidated.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’455 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.