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 .
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-9, 13-16 and 18-24 are pending for examination. Claims 10-12 and 17 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims that depend directly or indirectly from claims 6 and 21 are also rejected due to said dependency.
In regard to claims 6-7, the relationships between “a biosensor located on a palmar region of the toroid (claim 1)” and “one or more biosensors coupled with the toroid (claim 6)/ the one or more biosensors are located on a palmar region of the toroid…(claim 7) is/are not clearly defined. It is unclear whether “one or more biosensor” includes or excludes the “biosensor” recited in claim 1. Clarification is requested by amendments. It they are different; it is suggested that “first/ second biosensor” or similar language should be set forth.
In regard to claim 13, the claim recites “a bio sensor”. It is unclear whether the biosensor refers to the same “biosensor” recited in claim 1 or it is an additional biosensor. Clarification is requested by amendments.
In regard to claim 21, the claim recites “…define the first side and the second”. It is unclear “the second” refers to “the second side” or an additional structure. Clarification is requested by amendments.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 14-16, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lusted et al. (USPN 9,711,060 – applicant cited) in view of Speck (USPGPUB 2017/0083115 – applicant cited). In regard to claims 1, 6-7 and 16, Lusted discloses a ring (Figs. 1-4, 6-14 and 19-20 and associated descriptions) comprising: a toroid having an inner portion (ring and associated inner portion(s), Figs. 12A-12B and associated descriptions), an adaptive force region including at least one adjustable structure extending from the inner portion of the toroid (element 256, Figs. 12A-12B and associated descriptions; memory foam, Col 9 lines 9-19); and at least one biosensor positioned in and/or on the toroid/ located on a palmar region of the toroid opposite the adaptive force region in relation to a center of the toroid (element 254, Figs. 12A-12B and associated descriptions; biosensors, Col 4 lines 17-61).
Lusted does not specifically disclose the at least one adjustable structure includes a first side and a second side, wherein the first side is located further, in a circumferential direction, than the second side from a biosensor located on a palmar region of the toroid, wherein the first side extends in relation to a structure direction at a first angle that is smaller than a second angle formed by the second side extending in relation to the structure direction.
Speck teaches a finger ring electronic device (Figs. 3-5 and associated descriptions) comprises at least one adjustable structure (elements 13, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions) includes a first side and a second side, wherein the first side is located further, in a circumferential direction, than the second side from a biosensor located on a palmar region of the toroid, wherein the first side extends in relation to a structure direction at a first angle that is smaller than a second angle formed by the second side extending in relation to the structure direction (refers to the reproduced schematic Fig. 3 of Speck below; it is noted that the upper left element 13 is used to show the interpretations, other possible configurations can also be defined).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector].
Reproduced schematic Fig. 3 of Speck
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configurations of the adjustable structures (Lusted) to incorporate the configurations of the adjustable structures as taught by Speck, since both devices are finger ring electronic device with sensor(s) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the configuration as taught by Speck ensures an accurate fit (see at least [0180] of Speck). The rationale would have been to provide accurate fit of the finger in the ring device.
In regard to claim 4, Lusted as modified by Speck discloses the adaptive force region is located on a dorsal portion of the inner portion of the toroid opposite one or more biosensors in relation to a center of the toroid (Figs. 12A-12B and associated descriptions of Lusted).
In regard to claim 5, Lusted as modified by Speck discloses a Hookean region on the inner portion of the toroid, the Hookean region opposite the adaptive force region (Figs. 11A-C and associated descriptions; it is noted that “The apparatus of any preceding embodiment, wherein said mechanical contact pressure is generated by said biometric sensing ring as selected from the group of mechanical pressure application means consisting of a biasing member, a malleable material in said housing, a detent position engagement structure, an expanding memory foam, a pneumatic expansion structure, and combinations thereof”, Col 17 lines 12-18 of Lusted).
In regard to claim 8, Lusted as modified by Speck discloses a dorsal feature provided on a dorsal side of the toroid (Figs. 4 and 20 and associated descriptions; Col 16 line 54 – Col 17 line 6 of Lusted).
In regard to claim 9, Lusted as modified by Speck discloses the dorsal feature includes one or more of a circuit board, a display, and an indicator (Figs. 4 and 20 and associated descriptions; Col 11 line 57 – Col 12 line 6; Col 16 line 54 – Col 17 line 6 of Lusted).
In regard to claims 13 and 18, Lusted as modified by Speck discloses the at least one adjustable structure includes two adjustable structures (elements 13, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions of Speck; referring to claims 1 and 16 above), wherein the two adjustable structures mirror one another about a central ring axis which extends through the center of the ring and a biosensor/ the at least one biosensor (for example, upper left and upper right of elements 13, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions of Speck; referring to claims 1 and 16 above).
In regard to claims 14 and 19, Lusted as modified by Speck discloses the at least one adjustable structure is operable to resist rotation relative to the finger of the user (Figs. 11A-11C and 12A-12B and associated descriptions; combinations thereof, Col 17 lines 12-18 of Lusted).
In regard to claims 15 and 20, Lusted as modified by Speck discloses the at least one adjustable structure is operable to impart a force against the finger of the user towards a biosensor/ the at least one biosensor (Figs. 11A-11C and 12A-12B and associated descriptions of Lusted).
In regard to claim 22, Lusted as modified by Speck discloses the adjustable structure has a height extending towards a center of the toroid that is less than a width of the adjustable structure (the height/ thickness of element 13 is less than the width of element 13, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions of Speck).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lusted and Speck as applied to claims 1, 4-9, 14-16, 19-20, and 22 above, and further in view of Griffin (USPGPUB 2019/0187835 – applicant cited). In regard to claims 2-3, Lusted as modified by Speck discloses all the claimed limitations except the toroid is made of a rigid material or quasi-rigid material.
Griffin teaches a finger ring electronic device (Figs. 1-15 and associated descriptions; [0084-0085]) comprises a ring housing/ body is made of a rigid material or quasi-rigid material ([0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the material the toroid (Lusted as modified by Speck) with the rigid material or quasi-rigid material as taught by Griffin to yield predictable results, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a rigid material or quasi-rigid material is/are alternative equivalent materials for form a finger ring housing/ body with electronic components (see Griffin). The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 24 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest “a ring comprising: a toroid having an inner portion, and an adjustable structure extending from the inner portion, the adjustable structure operable to exhibit non-Hookean deformation, the adjustable structure having: a first side; a second side connected to the first side via a curvature extending toward a center of the toroid; a height extending towards a center of the toroid; and a width that is greater than the height; wherein the adjustable structure is operable to resist rotation relative to a finger of a user”, in combination with the other claimed elements/ steps.
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest “the structure direction forms a third angle relative to a central ring axis, whereby the structure direction bisects the adjustable structure to define the first side and the second (side)” in combination with the other claimed elements/ steps.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-6pm).
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/CHU CHUAN LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791