DETAILED ACTION
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/6/2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-18 are pending.
This action is non-Final.
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 1-7, 9-14, 16-18 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In further review of the independent claims 1 and 17 (claim 17 in view of the amendments in the action on 12/3/2025 to mirror claim 1 features), the limitations related to the electronic features (Figure 2, processor(s), battery) “at least partially within the ring-shaped housing” is rejected for being new matter for the scope claimed. The issue is that the components as originally disclosed are stored by the housing which would reasonably support “within”, but “partially within” is outside the scope of original disclosure and must be considered new matter. The term “partial” or “partially” is missing from the disclosure as filed. The disclosure includes:
“The ring 104 may include a housing 205 that may include an inner housing 205-a and an outer housing 205-b. In some aspects, the housing 205 of the ring 104 may store or otherwise include various components of the ring including, but not limited to, device electronics, a power source (e.g., battery 210, and/or capacitor), one or more substrates (e.g., printable circuit boards) that interconnect the device electronics and/or power source, and the like. The device electronics may include device modules (e.g., hardware/software), such as: a processing module 230-a, a memory 215, a communication module 220-a, a power module 225, and the like. The device electronics may also include one or more sensors
For these reasons, one of skill in the art would not have recognized applicant was in possession of the claimed invention a the time the application was filed. Please make any amendments to the claims taking into account the form of the claims in view of the Examiner’s amendments from the action issued 12/3/2025.
Conclusion
No prior art rejections are applied, but the claims are not in condition for allowance due to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights