6 ms·

They do not. Massimo's relevant patents have to do with their signal processing on user-worn devices. Cheap oximeters are clip-ons that only do rudimentary proc

They do not. Massimo's relevant patents have to do with their signal processing on user-worn devices. Cheap oximeters are clip-ons that only do rudimentary processing with strong beams of light through the fingers. https://www.masimo.com/technology/co-oximetry/set/ https://www.masimo.com/technology/co-oximetry/set/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en (this is one that was cited by the trade commission.)

hedora 3y ago
The independent claims in that patent seem to exactly describe technologies from the 1970’s, except that the detector is flat and uses 4 LEDs. The Massimo page you cite claims they invented their signal processing technique in 1989, and Wikipedia says they shipped it in 1995. The patent you cite was filed in 2009, and is set to expire in 2028. Patents only are supposed to last 17 years in the US, not 39 years. Anyway, the clip on one’s probably don’t use the algorithms from 1989 or and whatever is in the patent, since the innovation was using a flat detector instead of a clip. Clips were working fine for 20 years before SET.
- Godel_unicode 3y ago
  Clips work by observing transmission of light through the finger being absorbed by oxygen-carrying blood as opposed to the single chip wearable which depends on measuring reflected light. Different techniques, different patents.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Thanks for explaining this! I was wondering why "clip on" vs "wrist worn" would matter, and your comment cleared it up.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  "17 years from issuance" is ancient. It's been "20 years from filing date" for > 25 years now.
imjustforyou 3y ago
Patent laws really are so strange. Two people had an idea in 1989 (over a decade before I was born) and as a result, I am not allowed to build a product using that idea and sell it, even if I independently reached the idea myself. I think in an ideal world, we would have intellectual rights and patents, but for a vastly reduced scope of time. You come up with an amazing breakthrough that will alter the world? Congratulations, it's yours for 10 years to do what you want. After that, it's fair game. Innovate or die.
- Moto7451 3y ago
  > You come up with an amazing breakthrough that will alter the world? Congratulations, it's yours for 10 years to do what you want. After that, it's fair game. Innovate or die. That’s how patents work in the US. You get 10 years with the ability to extend 10 more. There are games to be played with some patents that extend their life (like a new use patent in pharma) but generally these parents for seemingly old things are new ideas about an old thing. If you want a short fun read on Solar Panels [0] you’ll find a Melvin Severy referenced. That’s my ancestor. We don’t see a penny from his work because that patent is long gone and is just referenced as prior art. Feel free to use it all you’d like. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/sponsored/brief-history-solar-panels-180972006/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/sponsored/brief-history-solar...
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    it's 20 years from the filing data. Issuing the patent takes 4-6 years, usually, so you're talking about ~14 years life.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  The international TRIPs agreement, managed by WTO, specifies a 20y term. AFAIK, 20y is standard for patents. Which means an invention (not an idea!) patented in 1989 should be free to use from 2009 onwards. USA used to have 'submarine patents' that could appear later, but apart from that there doesn't seem to be any jurisdiction in which a 33 year old patent would still be valid.
- nullindividual 3y ago
thaumasiotes 3y ago
But the amount of processing necessary to trigger the patent is "any amount more than zero". Here's what claim 19, which Apple was adjudged to have indirectly violated, says about processing: > [the user-worn device comprising, among other things: ] one or more processors configured to receive one or more signals from at least one of the four photodiodes and output measurements responsive to the one or more signals, the measurements indicative of the oxygen saturation of the user. So if your device includes one or more processors, and those processors aren't just decorative, you're in violation. What processing you do is not relevant; what's patented is that you do any processing of any kind. Note that Apple's violation does not seem to have been related to data processing; they were adjudged to have directly violated claim 22, which is the device described in claim 19 plus a series of modifications and/or clarifications, of which the modification/clarification unique to claim 22 has to do with the configuration of the LEDs in the device. If the problem had to do with their data processing, they probably would have been found in violation of claim 19 instead...?
- stefan_ 3y ago
  It's funny how these things work. They don't even specify the wavelength of the LEDs used, instead preferring to patent any wavelength imaginable. But obviously not all of them will work. Why was this allowed in a patent? How is this a valid description of what they built?
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    Why wouldn't it be allowed in a patent? As far as I know, there isn't a law that says patents have to specify the wavelengths used. If you built it with wavelengths that worked, it'd be covered by the patent. If you built it with wavelengths that didn't work, it'd probably be useless.
    - araes 3y ago
      From Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP, Sections 2103 - 2106.07(c).) "It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility." “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea” Flowchart on Pg 19. Section 2016 for the general examination process: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2100.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2100.pdf

hedora 3y ago

The independent claims in that patent seem to exactly describe technologies from the 1970’s, except that the detector is flat and uses 4 LEDs. The Massimo page you cite claims they invented their signal processing technique in 1989, and Wikipedia says they shipped it in 1995. The patent you cite was filed in 2009, and is set to expire in 2028. Patents only are supposed to last 17 years in the US, not 39 years. Anyway, the clip on one’s probably don’t use the algorithms from 1989 or and whatever is in the patent, since the innovation was using a flat detector instead of a clip. Clips were working fine for 20 years before SET.

Godel_unicode 3y ago
Clips work by observing transmission of light through the finger being absorbed by oxygen-carrying blood as opposed to the single chip wearable which depends on measuring reflected light. Different techniques, different patents.
- solardev 3y ago
  Thanks for explaining this! I was wondering why "clip on" vs "wrist worn" would matter, and your comment cleared it up.
AlbertCory 3y ago
"17 years from issuance" is ancient. It's been "20 years from filing date" for > 25 years now.

imjustforyou 3y ago

Patent laws really are so strange. Two people had an idea in 1989 (over a decade before I was born) and as a result, I am not allowed to build a product using that idea and sell it, even if I independently reached the idea myself. I think in an ideal world, we would have intellectual rights and patents, but for a vastly reduced scope of time. You come up with an amazing breakthrough that will alter the world? Congratulations, it's yours for 10 years to do what you want. After that, it's fair game. Innovate or die.

Moto7451 3y ago
> You come up with an amazing breakthrough that will alter the world? Congratulations, it's yours for 10 years to do what you want. After that, it's fair game. Innovate or die. That’s how patents work in the US. You get 10 years with the ability to extend 10 more. There are games to be played with some patents that extend their life (like a new use patent in pharma) but generally these parents for seemingly old things are new ideas about an old thing. If you want a short fun read on Solar Panels [0] you’ll find a Melvin Severy referenced. That’s my ancestor. We don’t see a penny from his work because that patent is long gone and is just referenced as prior art. Feel free to use it all you’d like. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/sponsored/brief-history-solar-panels-180972006/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/sponsored/brief-history-solar...
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  it's 20 years from the filing data. Issuing the patent takes 4-6 years, usually, so you're talking about ~14 years life.
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
The international TRIPs agreement, managed by WTO, specifies a 20y term. AFAIK, 20y is standard for patents. Which means an invention (not an idea!) patented in 1989 should be free to use from 2009 onwards. USA used to have 'submarine patents' that could appear later, but apart from that there doesn't seem to be any jurisdiction in which a 33 year old patent would still be valid.
nullindividual 3y ago

thaumasiotes 3y ago

But the amount of processing necessary to trigger the patent is "any amount more than zero". Here's what claim 19, which Apple was adjudged to have indirectly violated, says about processing: > [the user-worn device comprising, among other things: ] one or more processors configured to receive one or more signals from at least one of the four photodiodes and output measurements responsive to the one or more signals, the measurements indicative of the oxygen saturation of the user. So if your device includes one or more processors, and those processors aren't just decorative, you're in violation. What processing you do is not relevant; what's patented is that you do any processing of any kind. Note that Apple's violation does not seem to have been related to data processing; they were adjudged to have directly violated claim 22, which is the device described in claim 19 plus a series of modifications and/or clarifications, of which the modification/clarification unique to claim 22 has to do with the configuration of the LEDs in the device. If the problem had to do with their data processing, they probably would have been found in violation of claim 19 instead...?

stefan_ 3y ago
It's funny how these things work. They don't even specify the wavelength of the LEDs used, instead preferring to patent any wavelength imaginable. But obviously not all of them will work. Why was this allowed in a patent? How is this a valid description of what they built?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  Why wouldn't it be allowed in a patent? As far as I know, there isn't a law that says patents have to specify the wavelengths used. If you built it with wavelengths that worked, it'd be covered by the patent. If you built it with wavelengths that didn't work, it'd probably be useless.
  - araes 3y ago
    From Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP, Sections 2103 - 2106.07(c).) "It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility." “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea” Flowchart on Pg 19. Section 2016 for the general examination process: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2100.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2100.pdf