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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 03/04/2026 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1 and 20 have been amended. Claims 2, and 4-5 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, and 6-20 are currently pending in the application with claims 1 and 20 being independent claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 14, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clavelle et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0014781) hereinafter “Clavelle” in view of Fei et al. (WO 2016/071754) hereinafter “Fei” and Bandyopadhyay et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0378244) hereinafter “Bandyopadhyay”.
Regarding claim 1, Clavelle discloses an electronic device that can be worn on the body [FIGS. 1A-B and [0033]; wearable electronic device 100] or introduced into the body, comprising:
a casing [casing 103; see FIGs. 1A-B and [0034]] having a top and a bottom [see FIGs. 1A-B; the bottom is the portion next to the skin of the user when the device is worn, and the top is the opposite side] and an inorganic support [back cover 120] comprising an opening [opening which is configured to receive the back cover 190; see FIG. 1B and [0034]] and composed of a plurality of components [the back cover 120 is comprised of section 190 and at least two windows 122a, and 122b each of which are made of several components including opaque parts and transparent parts] wherein the inorganic support is connect to a back part of the casing [back cover 120 is connected to the back area of the watch; see FIG. 1B]
and at least one window made of at least one of glass or glass ceramic provided on the bottom [photosensor windows 122a and 122b; see FIG. 1B and [0035]], wherein the window is secured in the inorganic support [see [0035]; “first and second photosensor windows 112a and 112b..are fit within openings formed in the housing 102(in the bottom surface 120 of the housing”] and seals the opening in the inorganic support. [see [0067] “a glass sealing material can be used to bond first and second transparent windows to the back cover”]
Clavelle does not disclose wherein the inorganic support has at least one of the following: an inner component made from a ceramic or comprising an opaque glass, in which the opening in the inorganic support is located, and which is surrounded by a further component; or a multilayer structure, wherein at least two components of the plurality of components define planar layers of the inorganic support, wherein the planar layers are stacked in a direction of a thickness of the inorganic support and extend over an entire area of the inorganic support.
Fei, directed towards a smart watch structure [see abstract of Fei] further discloses that the inorganic support has at least one of the following: an inner component [raised portion 250; see FIG. 2] in which the opening in the inorganic support is located [the opening 210 which houses the sensors is located in the raised portion 250; see FIG.2 and [0047]], and which has a periphery that is entirely surrounded by a further component; [the raised portion 250 is surrounded by section 220 (another component); see [0048]; The examiner notes that the external boundary of element 250 in a plane shown in FIG. 2 is entirely surrounded by section 220 in all directions. This external boundary in the 2D plane has been taken to be equivalent to the term “a periphery” ; see arguments section below for claim interpretation and more details] or a multilayer structure, wherein at least two components of the plurality of components define planar layers of the inorganic support, wherein the planar layers are stacked in a direction of a thickness of the inorganic support and extend over an entire area of the inorganic support.
Bandyopadhyay, directed towards smart device design [see abstract of Bandyopadhyay] further discloses that the inner component is made from a ceramic or comprising an opaque glass,[see [0068] of Bandyopadhyay]
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the inorganic support of Clavelle further such that the inorganic support has at least one of the following: an inner component made from ceramic or a comprising an opaque glass, in which the opening in the inorganic support is located, and which is surrounded by a further component according to the teachings of Fei in order to provide a raised platform so that the sensor would be in complete contact with the skin of the user [see [0047] of Fei]
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the inorganic support of Clavelle further such that the inner component is made from ceramic or opaque glass according to the teachings of Bandyopadhyay in order to prevent light from entering the structure and causing interference. Further, doing so would have been substituting one material for the back cover of the watch with another which would have been obvious to try by an ordinarily skilled in the art. (KSR rationale B)
Regarding claim 3, Clavelle further discloses that the inorganic support [back cover 190] consists of two components that are the inner component and the further component, wherein the further component surrounds the inner component. [see [0080] and FIG. 14; a shell of transparent region 1405 surrounds the opaque region 1415]
Regarding claim 6, Clavelle further discloses that the at least one window is fused into the inorganic support. [see [0058] and Fig. 4B; the transparent windows 425 and 430 are fused into the back cover 190 (i.e., opaque region 435)]
Regarding claim 7, Clavelle further discloses that the at least one window is implemented as a compression glass seal or is bonded to the inorganic support by a glass solder. [see [0066] discloses the process of producing a compression seal glass with metal to glass sealing (i.e. disclosing a glass seal) and [0067] of Clavelle recites: “a glass material can be fired in around the periphery of sapphire windows to bond the sapphire windows within two aperture” therefore, Clavelle discloses bonding with glass solder]
Regarding claim 8, Clavelle further discloses that the at least one window comprises at least two windows [windows 122a and 112b (i.e. same as windows 425 and 430)] made of at least one of glass or glass ceramics and fused into the inorganic support [see [0058] and Fig. 4B; the transparent windows 425 and 430 are made of glass and fused into the back cover 190 (i.e., opaque region 435)], the at least two windows comprising a first window and a second window [see [0058]; the two windows are 425 and 430 (equivalent to 122a and 122b)], the electronic device further comprising a transmitter diode provided below the first window [see [0041]; the photoemitter 220 is positioned below the first window 122a; see FIG. 2A] and a receiver diode provided below the second window [see [0041] and FIG. 2A: the photodetector 225].
Regarding claim 9, Clavelle further discloses that the inorganic support [bottom surface 120; see FIGs. 1B and [0034]-[0035]] or at least one of the components of the inorganic support is opaque to radiation emitted by the transmitter diode. [see [0036] and FIG. 2A; [region 135a of the back cover 190 is opaque to radiation; further the metallic ring of the bottom surface 120 surrounding the back cover is metallic and opaque to light radiation]
Regarding claim 10, Clavelle further discloses that at least one of the following is satisfied: the first window is spaced apart from the second window by an edge-to-edge spacing s and at least one of the first window or the second window has a diameter d, with a ratio s/d of 2 to 7; the first window is spaced apart from the second window made of glass by an edge-to- edge spacing s and at least one of the first window or the second window has a height h, with a ratio s/h of 1 to 3; or the at least one window is in the form of a filter for at least one of the receiver diode or the transmitter diode. [see [0051]; one or more of the windows can have an optical coating to filter the light emitter or received through the windows]
Regarding claim 11, Clavelle further discloses that at least one of the following is satisfied: the inorganic support [bottom surface 120; see FIGs. 1B and [0034]-[0035]] comprises at least one of a metal [the metallic areas of the bottom layer 120 surround the back cover 190; see FIG. 1B and [0034] disclosing that the casing 130 (which includes the bottom surface 120) can be made from metal], a ceramic, a glass ceramic, or an opaque glass[see [0034]; back cover 190 can be made out of ceramic, glass or plastic material]; or at least two of the components of the inorganic support have different thermal expansion coefficients.
Regarding claim 14, Clavelle further discloses that the inorganic support [bottom surface 120; see FIGs. 1B and [0034]-[0035]] comprises a projection in an area of the at least one window. [see FIG. 3 and [0053]; the windows 122a and 112b can be convex; hence creating a projection]
Regarding claim15. Clavelle further discloses that the at least one window is in the form of a fiber-optic plate. [see [0071] and FIG. 9 disclosing that the window can be made from fiber optics 905]
Regarding claim 18, Clavelle further discloses that at least one of the following is satisfied: the at least one window is a compression glass seal and has a root mean square roughness value Rq of 2 nm; the at least one window has a planar surface on a side facing away from the casing; the planar surface is plane-parallel to the bottom of the casing;
the at least one window is a compression glass seal which has from 3 to less than 16 microdefects within a measuring section of 10 mm in length; the at least one window is a compression glass seal and has a fire-polished surface on the side facing away from the casing; the fire-polished surface has a waviness value of more than 100 nm and less than 5 m; or the at least one window has a concave surface or convex surface on the side facing away from the casing. [see FIG. 3 and [0053]; the windows 122a and 112b can be convex creating a projection]
Regarding claim 19, Clavelle further discloses that the electronic device is a pulse watch comprising a measuring device operating on the principle of photoplethysmography. [see [0042] disclosing detecting heart rate of the user]
Regarding claim 20, Clavelle discloses a method for producing an electronic device that can be worn on the body [see abstract and FIGS. 1A-B and [0033]; wearable electronic device 100] or introduced into the body, the method comprising: fusing [see [0058] and Fig. 4B; the transparent windows 425 and 430 are fused into the back cover 190 (i.e., opaque region 435)] at least one window [photosensor windows 122a and 122b; see FIG. 1B and [0035]], made of at least one of glass or glass ceramics [see [0058] and Fig. 4B; the transparent windows 425 and 430 are made of glass] into an inorganic support [bottom surface 120; see FIGs. 1B and [0034]-[0035]] that comprises a plurality of components[the bottom surface is comprised at least of the back cover 190 and two windows 122a, and 122b (i.e. plurality of components)]; and joining the inorganic support [bottom surface 120; see FIGs. 1B and [0034]-[0035]] to a casing [casing 103; see FIGs. 1A-B and [0034]] of the electronic device. the casing [casing 103; see FIGs. 1A-B and [0034]] having a top and a bottom [see FIGs. 1A-B; the bottom is the portion next to the skin of the user when the device is worn, and the top is the opposite side] and the inorganic support [back cover 190] comprising an opening [opening which is configured to receive the back cover 190; see FIG. 1B and [0034]] wherein the inorganic support is connect to a back part of the casing [back cover 190 is connected to the back area 120; see FIG. 1B],
Clavelle does not disclose wherein the inorganic support has at least one of the following: an inner component made from a ceramic or comprising an opaque glass, in which the opening in the inorganic support is located, and which is surrounded by a further component; or a multilayer structure, wherein at least two components of the plurality of components define planar layers of the inorganic support, wherein the planar layers are stacked in a direction of a thickness of the inorganic support and extend over an entire area of the inorganic support.
Fei, directed towards a smart watch structure [see abstract of Fei] further discloses that the inorganic support has at least one of the following: an inner component [raised portion 250; see FIG. 2] in which the opening in the inorganic support is located [the opening 210 which houses the sensors is located in the raised portion 250; see FIG.2 and [0047 which has a periphery that is entirely surrounded by a further component; [the raised portion 250 is surrounded by section 220 (another component); see [0048]; The examiner notes that the external boundary of element 250 in a plane shown in FIG. 2 is entirely surrounded by section 220 in all directions. This external boundary in the 2D plane has been taken to be equivalent to the term “a periphery”; see arguments section below for claim interpretation and more details] or a multilayer structure, wherein at least two components of the plurality of components define planar layers of the inorganic support, wherein the planar layers are stacked in a direction of a thickness of the inorganic support and extend over an entire area of the inorganic support.
Bandyopadhyay, directed towards smart device design [see abstract of Bandyopadhyay] further discloses that the inner component is made from a ceramic or comprising an opaque glass,[see [0068] of Bandyopadhyay]
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the inorganic support of Clavelle further such that the inorganic support has at least one of the following: an inner component made from ceramic or a comprising an opaque glass, in which the opening in the inorganic support is located, and which is surrounded by a further component according to the teachings of Fei in order to provide a raised platform so that the sensor would be in complete contact with the skin of the user [see [0047] of Fei]
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the inorganic support of Clavelle further such that the inner component is made from ceramic or opaque glass according to the teachings of Bandyopadhyay in order to prevent light from entering the structure and causing interference. Further, doing so would have been substituting one material for the back cover of the watch with another which would have been obvious to try by an ordinarily skilled in the art. (KSR rationale B)
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clavelle et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0014781) hereinafter “Clavelle” in view of Fei et al. (WO 2016/071754) hereinafter “Fei” and Bandyopadhyay et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0378244) hereinafter “Bandyopadhyay” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0347895) hereinafter “Wei”.
Regarding claim 12, Clavelle as modified by Fei and Bandyopadhyay discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Clavelle as modified by Fei and Bandyopadhyay does not disclose that the inorganic support comprises a further window comprising at least one electrical feedthrough.
Wei, directed towards a smart watch capable of detecting vital signs [see abstract of Wei] further discloses that the inorganic support comprises a further window comprising at least one electrical feedthrough. [see FIG. 9B and [0154]; the interface 940 comprises of a plurality of ports which are used for electrical connection to various devices]
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the inorganic support of Clavelle as modified by Fei and Bandyopadhyay further such that it comprises a further window comprising at least one electrical feedthrough according to the teachings of Wei in order to provide a communication port and a charging station for the watch [see [0154] of Wei]
Regarding claim 13, Clavelle as modified by Fei and Bandyopadhyay and Wei discloses all the limitations of claim 12 [see rejection of claim 12 above]
Wei further discloses that the at least one electrical feedthrough serves as a measurement electrode or is connected to a measurement electrode. [see FIG. 9B and [0154]; the interface 940 comprises of a plurality of ports which are used for electrical connection to various devices including an EGG device, PPG measurement or blood pressure measurement, etc.]
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the inorganic support of Clavelle as modified by Fei and Bandyopadhyay further such that the electrical feed through serves as a measurement electrode or is connected to a measurement electrode according to the teachings of Wei in order to in order to provide a communication port and a charging station for the watch [see [0154] of Wei]
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clavelle et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0014781) hereinafter “Clavelle” in view of Fei et al. (WO 2016/071754) hereinafter “Fei” and Bandyopadhyay et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0378244) hereinafter “Bandyopadhyay” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shimatani et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0209648) hereinafter “Shimatani”.
Regarding claim 16, Clavelle as modified by Fei and Bandyopadhyay discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Clavelle further discloses that the at least one window is a compression glass seal. [see [0066] discloses the process of producing a compression seal glass with metal to glass sealing]
Clavelle as modified by Fei and Bandyopadhyay does not disclose that the window is designed such that in the event of damage craters are produced.
Shimatani, directed towards producing shatter resistant glasses [see abstract of Shimatani] further discloses that the window is designed such that in the event of damage craters are produced [see [0003], [0061] discloses that when the glass is broken, fragments are not produced by dents are produced in various shapes which is equivalent to the craters claimed; see also table 1]
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the window of Clavelle as modified by Fei and Bandyopadhyay and make it designed such that in the event of damage craters are produced according to the teachings of Shimatani in order to prevent any danger to the wearer of the device in case the window of the watch is damaged and avoid shattering and shard production by the window glass. .[see [0010] of Shimatani]
Regarding claim 17, Clavelle as modified by Fei and Bandyopadhyay discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Clavelle further discloses that the at least one window is a compression glass seal. [see [0066] discloses the process of producing a compression seal glass with metal to glass sealing]
Clavelle as modified by Fei and Bandyopadhyay does not disclose that the window is designed such that in the event of damage at least one of glass material or glass ceramics material separated from the at least one window is powdery.
Shimatani further discloses that the window is designed such in the event of damage at least one of glass material or glass ceramics material separated from the at least one window is powdery. [see [0063] and table 1, the form of the material produced when there is damage is in the form of powder]
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the window of Clavelle as modified by Fei and Bandyopadhyay further such that such that in the event of damage at least one of glass material or glass ceramics material separated from the at least one window is powdery according to the teachings of Shimatani in order to prevent any danger to the wearer of the device in case the window of the watch is damaged and avoid shattering and shard production by the window glass.[see [0010] of Shimatani]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to added amendment to independent claims 1 and 20, the applicant has argued that Fei does not disclose that the “inner component has a periphery that is entirely surrounded by a further component” since the inorganic support of Fei which has been taken by the office action to be equivalent to the inner component is a raised structure (element 250 in FIG. 3A) and the term “raised” inherently means that some of the periphery of the portion 250 must be exposed and not surrounded by section 220 because the raised structure causes it to be exposed (i.e. not surrounded by section 220)
In response, the examiner notes that the term “periphery” has been defined by the Meriam-Webster dictionary to be: “the outward bounds of an object as distinguished from its internal regions; confines”. As a result, in its broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “periphery” refers to confines of an object in general. This has been the interpretation that is used in the instant office action.
The examiner notes that it appears that the applicant is choosing a narrower interpretation of this term “periphery” to refer to the 3D outer surface area of an object. Firstly, the examiner notes that such an interpretation is NOT supported by the specification since the top and bottom surfaces of the inner component 71 are not surrounded by component 70 as it is evident in FIG. 3 of instant application. Such an interpretation would result in a 112(a) new matter rejection.
If the applicant wishes to further limit the structure of the inner component such that the sides of the inner structure are flushed against the surrounding structures, the applicant is advised to use more specific language that would clearly recite such limitations.
Further, the term “surround” has been defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary to mean: “to extend around the margin or edge of”. This definition simply means that another structure extends beyond the surrounded structure, and it does not require the two structures to touch each other or not be exposed to other structures. This is the broadest reasonable interpretation which has been the interpretation that has been used in the instant office action.
The examiner notes that that it appears that the applicant is choosing a narrower interpretation of this term “surround” to refer to a 3D object being entirely enclosed and touched by another component.
Firstly, the examiner notes that such an interpretation of the term “surround” would result in a 112(a) rejection as the structures 71 (inner component) and 70 (outer structure) in the instant application do not touch each other as it is evident in see FIG. 3 of instant drawings. There are several components exist in between them exposing the element 71 to other structures.
If the applicant wishes to further limit the structure of the inner component such that it is flushed against the surrounding structures, the applicant is advised to use more specific language that would clearly recite such limitations.
Even further, the examiner notes that the claim merely requires that the inner component “has a periphery that is entirely surrounded by a further component” which implies that among a plurality of peripheries in a plurality of directions, “a periphery” should be entirely surrounded by a further component. Here, Fei’s structure 250 has “a periphery” in the 2D flat surface shown in FIG. 2 which is entirely surrounded by the structure 220. Therefore, the inner structure of Fei has at least “a periphery” in a plane which is entirely surrounded by a further component and as a result, Fei reads on the language of the claim as it is currently stated.
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 MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights