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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 23, 2025 has been entered.
1. Claims 48-81 are currently pending consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 48-81 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. The Applicant argues that the Vescovi reference does not quality as prior art as its provisional does not support the subject matter of the newly amended claims. However, much of the subject matter of the Applicant’s claims is not supported by either Applicant’s provisional application or original specification. The Applicant’s specification lacks support in many vital claim elements but instead provides many high-level components without properly enabling the claimed invention. Please refer to the 112 rejections provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 48-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims disclose elements which are not described in proper detail or disclosed at all in the specification. Independent claim 48 discloses: broadcasting to the wireless network an advertisement message that includes an identifier associated with an apparatus. There is no disclosure of either an advertisement message that includes an identifier in the specification. Claim 49 discloses wherein the first operating state is a locked state and the second state is an unlocked state. There is a general statement about locking doors but nothing ab out how these operating states are handled in the specification. Claim 52 discloses a door lock system which is a vehicular door lock system. Again, there is a general disclosure of locking a door but no mention of a vehicle door nor a method to actually control the locking mechanism. Claim 53 discloses that the apparatus monitors biometric parameters including heart rate and temperature. There is no disclosure in the specification about any element which can monitor these biometric parameters. Independent claim 54 discloses: broadcasting to the wireless network an advertisement message that includes an identifier associated with an apparatus. Claim 55 discloses measuring a skin conductance using a biometric sensor. However, there is no mention of measuring skin conductance in the specification. Independent claim 57 discloses monitoring biometric parameters including heart rate and body temperature, but there is no disclosure of this in the specification. Claim 59 discloses estimating user stress levels using biometric measurements. However, there is no mention of measuring user stress levels in the specification. Claim 70 discloses a score based on a biometric data, but there is no disclosure of a score in the specification. Independent claim 72 discloses: broadcasting to the wireless network an advertisement message that includes an identifier associated with an apparatus. Furthermore, there is no mention of the mobile device being configured to continue to send messages to the remote electronic device to enable it to remain in an unlocked state. Claim 74 discloses estimating user stress levels but there is no disclosure of this in the specification. Claim 77 discloses receiving data and metadata from a second external wearable device but there is no disclosure of this in the specification. All of these rejections should be addressed in Applicant’s next correspondence.
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.
(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) 81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanko Design “IRing Controls Your Ipod.”
Regarding claim 81, Yanko discloses:
An apparatus comprising:
a computer processor housed in a wearable ring (see Figure 1), wherein the wearable ring is sized for receipt of a first finger of a user (see Figure 2 illustrating a user wearing the IRing); a touchscreen electrically connected to the computer processor and disposed at least partially at an outer peripheral surface of the ring (see paragraph 1 and Figure 1: touch-sensitive function strip), wherein the touch screen is configured to receive input from a finger of the user (see paragraph 1 and Figure 1: touch-sensitive function strip); a wireless transceiver electrically connected to the computer processor and configured to communicate with at least one external electronic device (see paragraph 1: wireless connectivity with your iPod and Iphone); and a rechargable power source for supply power to the touch screen, wireless transceiver and computer processor (paragraph 1: conveniently recharge your IRing using the included cradle).
Conclusion
Response to Amendment
1. This action is in response to the amendment filed on September 7, 2024.
2. Claims 48-80 are currently pending consideration.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 48-80 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.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 57 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim repeats the limitation of “a rechargeable power source for supplying power to the touchscreen, wireless transmitter and receiver, and computer processor.” One of these instances should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 65-67, 77 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 65 and 77 disclose controlling mouse functions, claims 66 and 78 disclose taking and ending calls, and claim 67 discloses scrolling on another device. All of these functions were not disclosed in the specification and therefore do not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how to these functions are realized using the wearable device.
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.
Claim(s) 48-64, 69-76, 79 and 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (U.S. Patent 7,605,714) in view of Vescovi et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2015/027559).
Regarding claim 48, Thompson discloses:
A smart watch device comprising:
one or more processors (column 3, lines 13-19: electronic device);
a network interface (column 3, lines 13-20: communicating with another device);
a proximity sensor for detecting the presence of an external electronic device within a specified distance from the smart watch device (column 6, lines 39-54: determining whether there is a wireless device within an accepted proximity of the wearable device);
a memory or a non-transitory tangible computer readable storage media for storing computer executable instructions, wherein the computer executable instructions are configured to be executed by the one or more processors for executing the steps of:
communicating over a wireless network (column 6, lines 33-54: wearable device broadcasts a discovery probe to determine whether there are any wireless devices within an acceptable proximity);
receiving an advertisement message from the external electronic device (column 6, lines 33-54: wearable device broadcasts a discovery probe to determine whether there are any wireless devices within an acceptable proximity) that is operative to be in first and second operating states, wherein the first operating state is a locked state and the second operating state is an unlocked state (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch);
in response to receiving of the advertisement message determining whether the smart watch device is allowed to send a connection request message that comprises at least a connection request, to the external electronic device (column 6, lines 33-54: wearable device broadcasts a discovery probe to determine whether there are any wireless devices within an acceptable proximity);
in response to the determination that the smart watch device is allowed to send the connection request message to the external electronic device, sending the connection request message comprising at least a second data to the external electronic device (column 7, lines 9-33: device identifier can be identified as a supported wireless device and communication is initiated between the wearable device and wireless device (column 7, lines 48-53)); and
wherein the smart watch is configured to transition the external electronic device from the locked state to the unlocked state in response to detecting the external electronic device within the specified distance, wherein the smart watch device transitions the external electronic device from the locked state to the unlocked state based on an information received from the external electronic device (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch).
Thompson does not explicitly disclose authenticating the smart watch device to the external electronic device in response to the second data. In an analogous art, Vescovi discloses when a remote electronic device is brought into proximity with a NFC initiator, the ring/user is automatically authenticated in order to access a resource (paragraphs 0153-0155). It would have been obvious to authenticate the smart watch in order to verify that the user/watch is authenticated to access the resource (Vescovi: paragraph 0153).
Claim 49 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 48. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The smart watch device of claim 48, wherein the information received from the external electronic device proves that the external electronic device is associated with the same account as the smart watch device (paragraph 0155: In a financial transaction, the user's ring is paired with a financial account, such that transactions can be completed merely by bringing the ring within an NFC reader field. For example, if the handle or door of a refrigerator were fitted with an NFC reader, opening the refrigerator with the hand wearing the ring would identify the user to the refrigerator. The user could then be charged for any item withdrawn from the refrigerator through the associated financial account).
Claim 50 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 48. Furthermore, Thompson discloses:
The smart watch device of claim 48, wherein the wireless network is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) network and wherein the communicating includes at least a preliminary Bluetooth pairing (column 6, lines 40-50: Bluetooth).
Claim 51 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 48. Furthermore, Thompson discloses:
The smart watch device of claim 48, wherein external electronic device is a smartphone (column 6, lines 55-67: second device is a cell phone).
Claim 52 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 48. Furthermore, Thompson discloses:
The smart watch device of claim 48, wherein external electronic device is housed in a door lock system (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch).
Claim 53 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 52. Furthermore, Thompson discloses:
The smart watch device of claim 52, wherein the door lock system comprises a vehicular door lock system (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch, wherein the door can be a door lock).
Regarding claim 54, Thompson discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instruction for performing the steps of:
receiving an advertisement message from the electronic device that is operative to be in first and second operating states (column 6, lines 33-54: wearable device broadcasts a discovery probe to determine whether there are any wireless devices within an acceptable proximity), wherein in the second operating state of the electronic device allows performing of a first task by the electronic device, and wherein in the first operating state of the electronic device prevents from performing of the first task by the electronic device (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch);
in response to receiving of the advertisement message determining whether the smart ring is allowed to send a connection request message that comprises at least a connection request, to the electronic device (column 7, lines 9-33: device identifier can be identified as a supported wireless device and communication is initiated between the wearable device and wireless device (column 7, lines 48-53));
in response to the determination that the smart ring is allowed to send the connection request message to the electronic device, sending the connection request message comprising at least a second data to the electronic device (column 7, lines 9-33: device identifier can be identified as a supported wireless device and communication is initiated between the wearable device and wireless device (column 7, lines 48-53)); and
wherein the smart ring is configured to transition the electronic device between the first and second operating states in response to a physical phenomenon (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch).
Thompson does not explicitly disclose authenticating the smart ring to the electronic device in response to the second data. In an analogous art, Vescovi discloses when a remote electronic device is brought into proximity with a NFC initiator, the ring/user is automatically authenticated in order to access a resource (paragraphs 0153-0155). It would have been obvious to authenticate the ring in order to verify that the user/watch is authenticated to access the resource (Vescovi: paragraph 0153). Thompson discloses a smart watch but does not explicitly disclose the use of a smart ring, but both are wearables and Vescovi disclose a smart ring which can be used in place of the smart watch of Thompson without any change in functionality (Vescovi: paragraph 0153).
Claim 55 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 54. Furthermore, Thompson discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 54, wherein the first operating state is a locked state and the second operating state is an unlocked state (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch).
Claim 56 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 54. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 54, wherein the first operating state is a logged-out state and the second operating state is a logged into an account state (paragraph 0155: In a financial transaction, the user's ring is paired with a financial account, such that transactions can be completed merely by bringing the ring within an NFC reader field. For example, if the handle or door of a refrigerator were fitted with an NFC reader, opening the refrigerator with the hand wearing the ring would identify the user to the refrigerator. The user could then be charged for any item withdrawn from the refrigerator through the associated financial account).
Regarding claim 57, Thompson discloses:
A wearable ring device comprising:
a memory or a non-transitory tangible computer readable storage media for storing computer executable instructions, wherein the computer executable instructions are configured to be executed by the one or more processors for executing the steps of:
communicating over a wireless network, and receiving an advertisement message from the external electronic device that is operative to be in first and second operating states (column 6, lines 33-54: wearable device broadcasts a discovery probe to determine whether there are any wireless devices within an acceptable proximity), wherein in the second operating state of the external electronic device allows performing of a first task by the external electronic device, and wherein in the first operating state of the external electronic device prevents from performing of the first task by the external electronic device (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch);
in response to receiving of the advertisement message determining whether the wearable ring device is allowed to send a connection request message that comprises at least a connection request, to the external electronic device (column 7, lines 9-33: device identifier can be identified as a supported wireless device and communication is initiated between the wearable device and wireless device (column 7, lines 48-53));
in response to the determination that the wearable ring device is allowed to send the connection request message to the external electronic device, sending the connection request message comprising at least a second data to the external electronic device (column 7, lines 9-33: device identifier can be identified as a supported wireless device and communication is initiated between the wearable device and wireless device (column 7, lines 48-53)); and
wherein the wearable ring device is configured to transition the external electronic device between the first and second operating states in response to the physical phenomenon (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch).
Thompson does not explicitly disclose authenticating the smart ring to the electronic device in response to the second data. In an analogous art, Vescovi discloses when a remote electronic device is brought into proximity with a NFC initiator, the ring/user is automatically authenticated in order to access a resource (paragraphs 0153-0155). It would have been obvious to authenticate the ring in order to verify that the user/watch is authenticated to access the resource (Vescovi: paragraph 0153). Thompson discloses a smart watch but does not explicitly disclose the use of a smart ring, but both are wearables and Vescovi disclose a smart ring which can be used in place of the smart watch of Thompson without any change in functionality (Vescovi: paragraph 0153). Vescovi discloses a computer processor housed in a wearable ring (paragraph 0005: a computer processor housed in a wearable ring device);
wherein the wearable ring is sized for receipt therein of a first finger of a user (paragraph 0006: wherein the ring is sized for receipt for a first finger of a user);
a touchscreen electrically connected to the computer processor and disposed at least partially at an outer surface of the ring, wherein the touchscreen is configured to receive input from a second finger of the user (paragraph 0006-0007: touchscreen receiving input from a second finger of the user);
a wireless transmitter and receiver electrically connected to the computer processor and configured to communicate with at least one external electronic device (paragraph 0007: an external electronic device may receive commands from the finger-mounted touch screen); and
a rechargeable power source for supplying power to the touchscreen, wireless transmitter and receiver, and computer processor (paragraph 0006, 0147: a wireless power receiver circuit for recharging the power source form a wireless power source).
Claim 58 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 57. Furthermore, Thompson discloses:
The wearable ring device of claim 57, wherein the sensor comprises a proximity sensor for detecting the presence of external electronic device within a specified distance from the wearable ring device (column 6, lines 33-54: wearable device broadcasts a discovery probe to determine whether there are any wireless devices within an acceptable proximity).
Claim 59 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 57. Furthermore, Thompson discloses:
The wearable ring device of claim 57, wherein the physical phenomenon comprises the presence of external electronic device within a specified distance from the wearable ring device (column 6, lines 33-54: wearable device broadcasts a discovery probe to determine whether there are any wireless devices within an acceptable proximity).
Claim 60 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 57. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The wearable ring device of claim 57, further comprising a biometric sensor for sensing biometric information of the user (paragraph 0006, 0050: biometric sensor for sensing biometric information).
Claim 61 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 57. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The wearable ring device of claim 57, further comprising a near-field-communication (NFC) tag for transmitting data related to the user to the external electronic device to thereby change a state of the external electronic device (paragraphs 0006, 0149: NFC identification information in the ring transmits ID information to an external electronic device).
Claim 62 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 57. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The wearable ring device of claim 57, further comprising at least one button for receiving input from the user (paragraphs 0035-0037: buttons for receiving input from the user).
Claim 63 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 57. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The wearable ring device of claim 57, further comprising a wireless power receiver circuit for recharging the power source from a wireless power source (paragraph 0006, 0147: a wireless power receiver circuit for recharging the power source form a wireless power source).
Claim 64 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 57. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The wearable ring device of claim 57, further comprising a sensor for sensing a writing motion of the user, wherein the wireless transceiver transmits information to at least one external electronic device related to characters written by the user (paragraphs 0006, 0169: writing motion of the user is detected).
Claim 69 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 57. Furthermore, Thompson discloses:
The wearable ring device of claim 57, wherein the first operating state is a locked state and the second operating state is an unlocked state (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch); .
Claim 70 is rejected applied above in rejecting claim 57. Furthermore, Thompson discloses:
The wearable ring device of claim 57, wherein the external electronic device is housed in a door lock system (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch).
Claim 71 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 70. Furthermore, Thompson discloses:
The wearable ring device of claim 70, wherein the ring device allows for the door lock to open in response to the change in the operating state (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch).
Regarding claim 72, Thompson discloses:
A method for controlling a remote electronic device using a touchscreen on a smart ring on a finger, the method comprising:
receiving an advertisement message from the electronic device (column 6, lines 33-54: wearable device broadcasts a discovery probe to determine whether there are any wireless devices within an acceptable proximity) that is operative to be in first and second operating states, wherein in the second operating state of the electronic device allows performing of a first task by the electronic device, and wherein in the first operating state of the electronic device prevents from performing of the first task by the electronic device (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch),
in response to receiving of the advertisement message determining whether the smart ring is allowed to send a connection request message that comprises at least a connection request, to the electronic device (column 7, lines 9-33: device identifier can be identified as a supported wireless device and communication is initiated between the wearable device and wireless device (column 7, lines 48-53));
in response to the determination that the smart ring is allowed to send the connection request message to the electronic device, sending the connection request message comprising at least a second data to the electronic device (column 7, lines 9-33: device identifier can be identified as a supported wireless device and communication is initiated between the wearable device and wireless device (column 7, lines 48-53)); and
wherein the smart ring is configured to transition the electronic device between the first and second operating states in response to a physical phenomenon (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch).
Thompson does not explicitly disclose authenticating the smart ring to the electronic device in response to the second data. In an analogous art, Vescovi discloses when a remote electronic device is brought into proximity with a NFC initiator, the ring/user is automatically authenticated in order to access a resource (paragraphs 0153-0155). It would have been obvious to authenticate the ring in order to verify that the user/watch is authenticated to access the resource (Vescovi: paragraph 0153). Thompson discloses a smart watch but does not explicitly disclose the use of a smart ring, but both are wearables and Vescovi disclose a smart ring which can be used in place of the smart watch of Thompson without any change in functionality (Vescovi: paragraph 0153).
Claim 73 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 72. Furthermore, Thompson discloses:
The method of claim 72, wherein the physical phenomenon comprises the presence of remote electronic device within a specified distance from the wearable ring device (column 3, lines 50-56: wearable device may be wireless devices associated with the environment such as a door or light switch).
Claim 74 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 72. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The method of claim 72, further composing establishing a wireless link with at least one external electronic device in response to a gesture by the user (paragraphs 0007, 0122, 0158: establish a wireless link using a gesture).
Claim 75 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 72. Furthermore, Vesocvi discloses:
The method of claim 72, further comprising changing a state of the external electronic device by bringing a near-field communication (NFC) device electrically connected to the computer processor into proximity therewith (paragraphs 0006, 0149: NFC identification information in the ring transmits ID information to an external electronic device).
Claim 76 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 72. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The method of claim 72, further comprising transmitting information to the external electronic device by bringing a near-field communication (NFC) device electrically connected to the computer processor into proximity therewith (paragraphs 0006, 0149: NFC identification information in the ring transmits ID information to an external electronic device).
Claim 79 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 72. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The method of claim 72 further comprises:
receiving, on the touchscreen electrically connected to a computer processor and disposed at least partially at an outer peripheral surface of the ring disposed on a first finger of a user, input from a second finger of the user (paragraph 0006-0007: touchscreen receiving input from a second finger of the user);
selecting, using the computer processor, one of a plurality of touch events associated with the input (paragraph 0006-0007: touchscreen receiving input from a second finger of the user);
wirelessly transmitting a command associated with the touch event to the remote electronic device (paragraph 0007: an external electronic device may receive commands from the finger-mounted touch screen).
Claim 80 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 79. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The method of claim 79, wherein selecting the one of the plurality or touch events comprises recognizing a gesture made by the user that is associated with the command (paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0066: detecting different gestures on the touch-sensitive surface).
Claims 65-68, 77 and 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (U.S. Patent 7,605,714) in view of Vescovi et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2015/027559) further in view of Fisher et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2014/0266988).
Claim 65 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 57. Furthermore, the combination of Thompson and Vescovi does not explicitly disclose that the ring comprises an actuator for controlling the zoom on another electronic device, wherein the other electronic device is AR smart glasses. Vescovi discloses that the ring controls external electronic devices (paragraphs 0006-0007: an external electronic device may receive commands from the finger-mounted touch screen) but does not disclose that this electronic device is AR smart glasses. In an analogous art, Fisher discloses using IR sensors and finger gestures to control smart glass functions including zoom (paragraph 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ring of Thompson-Vescovi in the system of Fisher so that the hand wearing the ring can be used to control the smart glasses as opposed to the hand most proximate to the glasses (Fisher: paragraph 0018) in order to provide the user more control (Fisher: paragraphs 0018-0019).
Claim 66 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 57. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The method of claim 57, wherein the smart ring is controlling taking and ending calls on another electronic device (paragraph 0159: user may initiate calls). Vescovi does not explicitly disclose wherein the other electronic devices is an AR (augmented reality) smart glasses headset. In an analogous art, Fisher discloses using IR sensors and finger gestures to control smart glass functions including zoom (paragraph 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ring of Vescovi in the system of Fisher so that the hand wearing the ring can be used to control the smart glasses as opposed to the hand most proximate to the glasses (Fisher: paragraph 0018) in order to provide the user more control (Fisher: paragraphs 0018-0019).
Claim 67 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 57 Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The method of claim 57, wherein the smart ring is controlling, at least in part, scrolling on another electronic device (paragraph 0152: page scrolling). Vescovi does not explicitly disclose wherein the other electronic devices is an AR (augmented reality) smart glasses headset. In an analogous art, Segal discloses using a ring to control augmented reality smart glasses (paragraphs 0003, 0119). In an analogous art, Fisher discloses using IR sensors and finger gestures to control smart glass functions including zoom (paragraph 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ring of Vescovi in the system of Fisher so that the hand wearing the ring can be used to control the smart glasses as opposed to the hand most proximate to the glasses (Fisher: paragraph 0018) in order to provide the user more control (Fisher: paragraphs 0018-0019).
Claim 68 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 57. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The method of claim 57, wherein the smart ring is controlling capturing picture and video on another electronic device (paragraph 0035: capturing pictures). Vescovi does not explicitly disclose wherein the other electronic devices is an AR (augmented reality) smart glasses headset. In an analogous art, Fisher discloses using IR sensors and finger gestures to control smart glass functions including zoom (paragraph 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ring of Vescovi in the system of Fisher so that the hand wearing the ring can be used to control the smart glasses as opposed to the hand most proximate to the glasses (Fisher: paragraph 0018) in order to provide the user more control (Fisher: paragraphs 0018-0019).
Claim 77 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 72. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The method of claim 72, wherein the smart ring is controlling remote mouse functions in an application running on another electronic device (paragraphs 0009-0010: mouse functions). Vescovi does not explicitly disclose wherein the other electronic devices is an AR (augmented reality) smart glasses headset. In an analogous art, Fisher discloses using IR sensors and finger gestures to control smart glass functions including zoom (paragraph 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ring of Vescovi in the system of Fisher so that the hand wearing the ring can be used to control the smart glasses as opposed to the hand most proximate to the glasses (Fisher: paragraph 0018) in order to provide the user more control (Fisher: paragraphs 0018-0019).
Claim 78 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 72. Furthermore, Vescovi discloses:
The method of claim 72, wherein the smart ring is controlling taking and ending calls on another electronic device (paragraph 0159: user may initiate calls). Vescovi does not explicitly disclose wherein the other electronic devices is an AR (augmented reality) smart glasses headset. In an analogous art, Fisher discloses using IR sensors and finger gestures to control smart glass functions including zoom (paragraph 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ring of Vescovi in the system of Fisher so that the hand wearing the ring can be used to control the smart glasses as opposed to the hand most proximate to the glasses (Fisher: paragraph 0018) in order to provide the user more control (Fisher: paragraphs 0018-0019).
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Jung Kim can be reached on 571-272-3804. 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.
/KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR/
01/29/2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Jung Kim can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR/
12/23/2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494