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 .
The amendment filed on June 26, 2026 has been received and considered. By this amendment, claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 14, and 17 are amended, claims 2, 6, 11, and 13 are cancelled, and claims 1, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, and 14-20 are now pending in the application.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lachyani Abiri et al. (U.S. 2021/0219674), herein Abiri. Regarding claim 1, Abiri discloses a wearable device 100/200a-d/300/400/500a-d/600/700/800a-5 comprising: a first annular member 102/202a-d/702/802a-k forming a frame of the wearable device, wherein the first annular member forms a continuous loop (see Figures 1-8K), wherein the first annular member comprises one or more deformable features 103/310/410/610/710/810a-k (see Figures 1-8K) that are configured to structurally weaken the frame of the wearable device and are further configured to cause a break in the frame of the wearable device in response to a force being exerted on the one or more deformable features that exceeds a threshold force (“one or more weak spots 103”, paragraph [0059], “Cut 310 may function as a “weak spot” such as a breaking point.”, paragraph [0068], “Cut 410 may functions as a weak spot. Thus, when an external pull force is applied to ring 400, the ring is configured to bend or break”, paragraph [0069], with similar descriptions provided for each of the cuts shown in the figures), wherein the one or more deformable features are disposed along at least a portion of the frame of the wearable device (see Figures 1-8K), and wherein the one or more deformable features comprise at least one groove in the first annular member that spans only a portion of a width of at least the first annular member in a lateral direction (“at least one cut 310 may be a partial cut that extends from one edge of the outer surface of the ring to the other edge of the outer surface of the ring but only through part of the width of the ring, or vice versa, so that the inner surface of ring 300 remains intact or the outer surface of ring 300 remains intact. In another non limiting example, at least one cut 310 may be a partial cut that extends from one edge of the outer surface of the ring towards the other edge of the outer surface of the ring but only through part of the breadth of the ring, so that one of the edges of ring 300 remains intact, at least in the proximity of cut 310.”, paragraph [0068], with similar descriptions provided for each of the cuts shown in the figures).
Regarding claim 12, Abiri discloses that the at least one groove comprises a plurality of grooves forming a pattern (see Figures 8J and 8K which show a plurality of grooves forming a zig zag pattern)
Regarding claim 14, Abiri discloses that a segment of the first annular member comprises a design etched into the first annular member, the design comprising the at least one groove (it is respectfully submitted that the at least one groove of Abiri can be considered a “design etched” under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 15, Abiri discloses that the frame is configured to be worn around a physical part of a user (“the ring is configured to fully encompass a circumference of a finger”, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 16, Abiri discloses that the physical part of the user comprises a finger (“the ring is configured to fully encompass a circumference of a finger”, paragraph [0008]).
Claims 1, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Junkins (U.S. 2020/0077752). Regarding claim 1, Junkins discloses a wearable device 100/140/180/220/ 300/340/380/420/480 comprising: a first annular member 104/108/144/148/184/224/240/304/308/ 384/396 forming a frame of the wearable device, wherein the first annular member forms a continuous loop (see Figures 1-7), wherein the first annular member comprises one or more deformable features 110/160/156/192/236/336 (see Figures 1-7) that are configured to structurally weaken the frame of the wearable device and are further configured to cause a break in the frame of the wearable device in response to a force being exerted on the one or more deformable features that exceeds a threshold force (“any one or more of the unions 110 may comprise a break-away bridge disposed in the rigid core 104 and configured to separate upon application of an external force”, paragraph [0077], “breakaway segments 236 configured to allow separation of the curved segments 232 upon application of an external force”, paragraph [0086], “the notches 336 enable the ring 300 to break away from the finger of the practitioner upon being caught on a nearby rigid object”, paragraph [0093], with similar descriptions provided for each of the cuts shown in the figures), wherein the one or more deformable features are disposed along at least a portion of the frame of the wearable device (see Figures 1-7), and wherein the one or more deformable features comprise at least one groove in the first annular member that spans only a portion of a width of at least the first annular member in a lateral direction (see annotated Figures below showing the grooves).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
226
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Junkins discloses that the at least one groove comprises a plurality of grooves forming a pattern (see Figures 4B, 4C, 5, and 7 which show a plurality of grooves forming pattern that is spaced equidistantly around the wearable device)
Regarding claim 14, Junkins discloses that a segment of the first annular member comprises a design etched into the first annular member, the design comprising the at least one groove (it is respectfully submitted that the at least one groove of Junkins can be considered a “design etched” under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 15, Junkins discloses that the frame is configured to be worn around a physical part of a user (“An apparatus and a method are provided for a breakaway silicone ring configured to reduce finger and hand injuries.”, Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Junkins discloses that the physical part of the user comprises a finger (“An apparatus and a method are provided for a breakaway silicone ring configured to reduce finger and hand injuries.”, Abstract).
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.
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 4, 5, 7-10, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junkins (U.S. 2020/0077752, cited above) in view of Wasson (U.S. Patent No. 10,918,289, previously cited). Regarding claim 4, Junkins discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including a near field communications chip 312 and wire 316 (“An NFC chip 312 and a wire 316, that are best shown in FIG. 5C, are coupled with the core 304. It is contemplated that the NFC chip 312 and wire 316 are suitable for wirelessly interfacing the ring 300 with other nearby devices.”, paragraph [0090]) and a second annular member coupled to an interior surface of the first annular member to further form the frame of the wearable device (it can be seen in Figures 1-7 that there are inner annular members 104/144/224/304/384 and outer annular members 108/144/240/308/396), but fails to disclose a processor, memory coupled to the processor, or one or more sensors in electronic communication with the processor and the memory. Wasson teaches a wearable device comprising: a first annular member 104 forming a frame of the wearable device, wherein the first annular member comprises one or more deformable features (hinge 402 or gap shown below) that are configured to structurally weaken the frame of the wearable device and are further configured to cause a break in the frame of the wearable device in response to a force being exerted on the one or more deformable features that exceeds a threshold force (connection 404 and hinge 402 would both inherently break when a force above their fracture strength is applied), and wherein the one or more deformable features are disposed along at least a portion of the frame of the wearable device (see annotated Figure 4A below), a processor 502; memory 504 coupled with the processor; one or more sensors 202/510 in electronic communication with the processor and the memory (see Figure 5); and a second annular member 406 coupled with an interior surface of the first annular member to further form the frame of the wearable device (see Figures 4B-4D). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Junkins to include a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, and one or more sensors in electronic communication with the processor and the memory, as taught by Wasson, in order to provide a wearable monitoring ring to sense physiological signals from a patient.
Regarding claim 5, Junkins discloses that the one or more deformable features that are configured to structurally weaken the frame of the wearable device comprise a second groove in the second annular member (“notches 336 enable the ring 300 to break away from the finger of the practitioner upon being caught on a nearby rigid object”, paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 7, Junkins discloses that the first annular member, the second annular member, or both comprises a nonuniform cross section (see Figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 8, Junkins discloses that the second annular member comprises a flexible printed circuit board (NFC chip 312).
Regarding claim 9, Junkins discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that the second annular member comprises a power source in electronic communication with the flexible printed circuit board. Wasson teaches that the second annular member comprises a power source in electronic communication with the flexible printed circuit board (“The ring 104 can include a battery or some other energy storage mechanism. In some embodiments, the ring 104 can store kinematic energy using a spring. In some embodiments, the battery is a capacitor that holds enough charge to operate the ring 104 for an extended period of time. The ring 104 can have an internal power source. For example, the ring 104 can have a battery and/or capacitor to hold energy.”, col. 8, ln. 42-48). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Junkins to include a power source in electronic communication with the flexible printed circuit board, as taught by Wasson, in order to provide energy to the device components.
Regarding claim 10, Junkins in view of Wasson discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that a location of the one or more deformable features is between the flexible printed circuit board and the power source. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Junkins in view of Wasson to disclose the one or more deformable features between the flexible printed circuit board and the power source, as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 17, Junkins discloses a wearable device 100/140/180/220/300/340/380/ 420/480 comprising: a near field communications chip 312 and wire 316 (“An NFC chip 312 and a wire 316, that are best shown in FIG. 5C, are coupled with the core 304. It is contemplated that the NFC chip 312 and wire 316 are suitable for wirelessly interfacing the ring 300 with other nearby devices.”, paragraph [0090]) and an inner housing 104/144/224/304/384 forming a frame of the wearable device, the inner housing comprising a non-metal material (“The rigid core 104 comprises any of various hard plastics”, paragraph [0077], with similar descriptions for other embodiments), wherein the inner housing forms a continuous loop (see Figures 1-7), and wherein the inner housing is configured to stretch in response to a force being exerted on the inner housing that exceeds a threshold force based at least in part on the inner housing comprising the non-metal material (“any one or more of the unions 110 may comprise a break-away bridge disposed in the rigid core 104 and configured to separate upon application of an external force”, paragraph [0077], “breakaway segments 236 configured to allow separation of the curved segments 232 upon application of an external force”, paragraph [0086], “the notches 336 enable the ring 300 to break away from the finger of the practitioner upon being caught on a nearby rigid object”, paragraph [0093], with similar descriptions provided for each of the cuts shown in the figures). However, Junkins fails to disclose at least one processor, at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor, or one or more sensors in electronic communication with the at least one processor and the at least one memory. Wasson teaches a wearable device comprising: a first annular member 104 forming a frame of the wearable device, wherein the first annular member comprises one or more deformable features (hinge 402 or gap shown below) that are configured to structurally weaken the frame of the wearable device and are further configured to cause a break in the frame of the wearable device in response to a force being exerted on the one or more deformable features that exceeds a threshold force (connection 404 and hinge 402 would both inherently break when a force above their fracture strength is applied), and wherein the one or more deformable features are disposed along at least a portion of the frame of the wearable device (see annotated Figure 4A below), a processor 502; memory 504 coupled with the processor; one or more sensors 202/510 in electronic communication with the processor and the memory (see Figure 5); and a second annular member 406 coupled with an interior surface of the first annular member to further form the frame of the wearable device (see Figures 4B-4D). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Junkins to include a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, and one or more sensors in electronic communication with the processor and the memory, as taught by Wasson, in order to provide a wearable monitoring ring to sense physiological signals from a patient.
Regarding claim 18, Junkins in view of Wasson provides the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that the inner housing comprises an epoxy material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner housing to comprise epoxy material, as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 19, Junkins an outer housing 108/144/240/308/396 coupled to an exterior surface of the inner housing, but fails to discloses that the outer housing comprises a polyurethane material or an electroless metal material, rather disclosing it is a silicone material (“silicone molded portion 108”, paragraph [0077]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer housing to comprise a polyurethane material or an electroless metal material, as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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 TAMMIE K MARLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8 am until 4 pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/TAMMIE K MARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights