DETAILED ACTION
Note: This Non-Final Office Action supersedes the Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 23, 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 26, 2026 has been entered. By this amendment, claims 1 and 17 are amended, claim 3 is cancelled, an claims 1, 2, and 4-20 are now pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previously-presented restriction requirement is no longer necessary and claims 17-20 will be examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13, which recites “wherein the pattern having the plurality of grooves is configured to structurally weaken the frame of the wearable device” fails to further define the claimed from which it depends, claim 12. Namely, claim 12 recites that the deformable features comprise a pattern having a plurality of grooves, and the deformable features are configured to structurally weaken the frame. Hence, the pattern having the plurality of grooves, configured to structurally weaken the frame is already reasonably encompassed by claim 12. Claim 13 does not further limit claim 12 in this regard. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 2, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wasson (U.S. Patent No. 10,918,289, previously cited). Regarding claim 1, Wasson discloses 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
287
219
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wasson discloses that the one or more deformable features that are configured to structurally weaken the frame of the wearable device comprise a groove in the first annular member (the gap shown above is considered a groove in the first annular member).
Regarding claim 11, Wasson discloses that a circumference of the frame of the wearable device comprises a slit (shown in Figure 4A above).
Regarding claim 12, Wasson discloses that the one or more deformable features that are configured to structurally weaken the frame of the wearable device comprises a pattern having a plurality of grooves (it can be seen from Figure 4A above that hinge 402 includes a plurality of grooves, and furthermore, the plurality of grooves can be the gap shown and the hinge each being considered a groove).
Regarding claim 13, Wasson discloses that the pattern having the plurality of grooves is configured to structurally weaken the frame of the wearable device (it can be seen from Figure 4A above that hinge 402 includes a plurality of grooves, and furthermore, the plurality of grooves can be the gap shown and the hinge each being considered a groove).
Regarding claim 14, Wasson discloses that a segment of the first annular member comprises a design etched into the first annular member (the photodetector 202 and light sources 204a and 204b shown in Figure 3 are disposed within the first annular member and are therefore considered to be “a design etched into the first annular member”).
Regarding claim 15, Wasson discloses that the frame is configured to be worn around a physical part of a user (“FIG. 3 illustrates an example cross section of the ring 104 and finger 302.”, col. 7, ln. 10-11).
Regarding claim 16, Wasson discloses that the physical part of the user comprises a finger (“FIG. 3 illustrates an example cross section of the ring 104 and finger 302.”, col. 7, ln. 10-11).
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 4-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasson (U.S. Patent No. 10,918,289, cited above). Regarding claim 4, Wasson discloses 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). However, Wasson fails to disclose the second annular member 406 in the same embodiment as the one or more deformable features that are configured to structurally weaken the frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Figure 4A of Wasson to include second annular members 406 in order to ensure that only light from the finger is received by the photodetector and ambient light is blocked out (see col. 7, ln. 50-65).
Regarding claim 5, Wasson discloses that the one or more deformable features that are configured to structurally weaken the frame of the wearable device comprises a groove in the first annular member, the second annular member, or both (the gap shown in annotated Figure 4A above is considered a groove in the first annular member).
Regarding claim 6, Wasson discloses that the groove partially extends laterally in the first annular member, the second annular member, or both (see annotated Figure 4A above).
Regarding claim 7, Wasson discloses that the first annular member, the second annular member, or both comprises a nonuniform cross section (the presence of hinge 402 would result in a non-uniform cross section taken in the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 8, Wasson discloses that the second annular member comprises a flexible printed circuit board (when the ring is flexible, as described on col. 8, ln. 12-13, the printed circuit board would likewise be flexible).
Regarding claim 9, Wasson discloses 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).
Regarding claim 10, Wasson discloses that a location of the one or more deformable features of the first annular member, the second annular member, or both is between the flexible printed circuit board and the power source (see Figures 4A-D).
Regarding claim 17, Wasson discloses a wearable device comprising: at least one processor 502; at least one memory 504 coupled with the at least one processor; one or more sensors 202/510 in electronic communication with the at least one processor and the at least one memory (see Figure 5); and an inner housing 104 forming a frame of the wearable device, wherein the inner housing 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 above). However, Wasson fails to disclose the inner housing comprising a non-metal 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 a non-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.
Regarding claim 18, Wasson discloses 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, Wasson discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including an embodiment (Figure 4C) that comprises an inner housing and an outer housing coupled to an exterior surface of the inner housing (see annotated Figure 4C below). However, Wasson fails to discloses the inner and outer housings in the same embodiment as the one or more deformable features that are configured to structurally weaken the frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Figure 4A of Wasson to include the one or more deformable features of the embodiment of Figure 4A in the embodiment of Figure 4C in order to make a ring that is flexible and adjustable in size (see col. 7, ln. 42-44). Further, Wasson fails to disclose that the outer housing comprises a polyurethan material or an electroless metal 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 outer housing to comprise a polyurethan 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
356
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Wasson discloses that the frame is configured to be worn around a physical part of a user (“FIG. 3 illustrates an example cross section of the ring 104 and finger 302.”, col. 7, ln. 10-11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of the claims as being anticipated by Wasson, the Applicant argues that “a ring that is permanently in a closed and continuous state as it is held together by the connection 404…does not disclose ‘the first annular member compris[ing] one or more deformable features that…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,’ as recited in amended independent claim 1.” As discussed in the rejection above, connection 404 and hinge 402 would both inherently break when a force above their fracture strength is applied. The applicant further argues that the hinge merely expands and shrinks a size of the ring while connection 404 holds the ring together to maintain the continuity of the ring, but does not cause a break. However, the claim recites that a break is caused in response to a force being applied that exceeds a threshold force. It is well known that every material includes inherent in its properties a force which can be applied which will cause a break in the material. As such, it is considered that Wasson satisfies the claims as amended.
Conclusion
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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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