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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I corresponding to claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “a search directed towards amended claim 1 would not require an additional search to cover independent claim 12” since the features of independent claim 1 are similarly recited in independent claim 12. This is not found persuasive because the amended claim 1 is still directed to a different invention than independent claim 12. Independent claim 1 remains directed towards a charging station with charging contacts and independent claim 12 remains directed towards a wearable ring with charging contacts, where both inventions are intended to be used together.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/21/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the conductive band of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the second charging element is configured to apply an attractive magnetic force to a fourth charging element of the wearable ring device so that the wearable ring device aligns in the charging position”. However, the second charging element has already been introduced in claim 1 as part of the wearable ring, and so it is unclear how the second charging element of the wearable ring applies a magnetic force to a fourth charging element of the wearable ring to align the wearable ring in the charging position, since these two charging elements are located on the wearable ring device and do not magnetically interact with each other to align the wearable ring in a charging position. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets this to read as “wherein the third charging element is configured to apply an attractive magnetic force to a fourth charging element of the wearable ring device so that the wearable ring device aligns in the charging position”
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (USPGPN 2017/0222458), in view of Buelow et al. (USPGPN 2015/0077064).
Regarding Claim 1, Chang (Fig.2A) teaches a charging station, comprising:
a receptacle portion (indented area of 110 corresponding to 112a) configured to accommodate a plurality of differently sized wearable ring devices (¶0028: device 200 may be a smart ring, and rings are known to come in different sizes); and
a first charging element (140) disposed within the receptacle portion that forms a charging contact (¶0039: contact charging through 140), wherein the charging station uses a magnetic force (120 & 130) so that the wearable ring device aligns, when placed in the receptacle portion, in a charging position that facilitates current flow between the first charging element of the charging station and the second charging element of the wearable ring device (¶0034 & 0039: when the electronic device is placed on the charging device, the magnetic members align the electronic device so the electronic contacts are in contact with the metal connectors for power flow).
Chang fails to explicitly teach the first charging element comprising a magnetic interior portion that forms a charging contact, wherein the first charging element is configured to apply an attractive magnetic force to a second charging element of a wearable ring device.
However, Buelow teaches the use of a first charging element comprising a magnetic interior portion that forms a charging contact (Fig.2; ¶0017: magnets 252 may be magnetically charged conductors; ¶0018: magnets are coated with copper, silver, gold, or nickel, or similar), wherein the first charging element is configured to apply an attractive magnetic force to a second charging element (¶0017: magnets 252 are paired with magnets 232 for applying a magnetic force).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Chang with Buelow to use coated magnets as a first charging element comprising a magnetic interior that forms a charging contact, that applies an attractive magnetic force to second charging element. Doing so allows for a single element to provide both a retention force and a conduit for electricity which saves space in the charging station.
Regarding Claim 2, Chang, as modified, further teaches wherein the charging contact of the first charging element is in contact with the second charging element of the wearable ring device when the wearable ring device is aligned in the charging position (¶0039: the electronic contacts are in contact with the metal connectors for power flow when disposed on the charging device).
Regarding Claim 3, Chang, as modified, further teaches a third charging element disposed within the receptacle portion and comprising a second magnetic interior portion that forms a second charging contact, wherein the third charging element is configured to apply an attractive magnetic force to a fourth charging element of the wearable ring device so that the wearable ring device aligns in the charging position, and wherein the charging position facilitates current flow between the third charging element of the charging station and the fourth charging element of the wearable ring device (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Chang teaches two metal connectors 140, Fig.2A, which facilitate current flow to corresponding connectors on an electronic device; Buelow’s modification teaches the third charging element comprising a second magnetic interior portion which applies a magnetic force to a fourth charging element).
Regarding Claim 4, Chang, as modified, further teaches wherein the first charging element of the charging station and the third charging element of the charging station are configured to align the plurality of differently sized wearable ring devices in the charging position (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, Chang-the electronic device 200 has two electronic contacts and so the corresponding metal connectors on the charging device align differently sized wearable rings into a charging position).
Regarding Claim 8, Chang, as modified, further teaches wherein the receptacle portion is configured to interface with a rim surface of the wearable ring device, and wherein the first charging element is configured to couple with the second charging element that is on the rim surface of the wearable ring device (Figs.1 & 4: profile view of a seated electronic device in the charging device showing a rim surface interface).
Regarding Claim 9, Chang, as modified, further teaches a magnetic sub-portion on the receptacle portion that is configured to magnetically couple with a rim surface of the wearable ring device when the wearable ring device is aligned in the charging position (Figs.2A & 3A: 120 aligns with 211a).
Regarding Claims 10 & 11, Chang, as modified, further teaches wherein the magnetic interior portion is at least partially coated by a conductive material that comprises a material with higher conductivity relative to the magnetic interior portion; and
wherein the conductive material comprises gold, nickel, copper, palladium, or any combination thereof (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1; Buelow-¶0018: magnets are coated with copper, silver, gold, or nickel, or similar).
Claim(s) 5 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, in view of Buelow, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Von Badinski et al. (USPGPN 2020/0089272).
Regarding Claim 5, Chang, as modified, further teaches a third charging element disposed within the receptacle portion and comprising a second magnetic interior portion that forms a second charging contact, wherein the third charging element is configured to apply an attractive magnetic force to a conductive band, and wherein the charging position facilitates current flow between the third charging element of the charging station and the conductive band of the wearable ring device (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Chang teaches two metal connectors 140, Fig.2A, which facilitate current flow to corresponding connectors on an electronic device; Buelow’s modification teaches the third charging element comprising a second magnetic interior portion which applies a magnetic force to a fourth charging element).
Chang, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the third charging element is configured to apply an attractive magnetic force to a conductive band on an inner circumferential surface of the wearable ring device so that the wearable ring device aligns in the charging position.
However, Von Badinski teaches an equivalent charging station which comprises a docking pillar that is configured to fit within respective inner circumferences of the plurality of differently sized wearable ring devices (Fig.19E: 1954e sits within wearable ring 1900e), and wherein the docking pillar comprises a first charging element configured to couple with a second charging element that is on an inner circumferential surface of the wearable ring device (Fig.19E: 1970e is located on the docking pillar to charge wearable ring 1900e through charging element 1930e located on the wearable ring).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Chang, in view of Buelow, with Von Badinski, to include a docking pillar and locate the first and third charging elements on the docking pillar to couple with a second charging element and conductive band that are on an inner circumferential surface of the wearable ring. Doing so may provide additional protection to the first charging element by locating it on a surface less likely to be damaged by an item being dropped onto the charging station.
Regarding Claim 6, Chang, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the receptacle portion comprises a docking pillar that is configured to fit within respective inner circumferences of the plurality of differently sized wearable ring devices, and wherein the docking pillar comprises the first charging element and the first charging element is configured to couple with the second charging element that is on an inner circumferential surface of the wearable ring device.
However, Von Badinski teaches an equivalent charging station which comprises a docking pillar that is configured to fit within respective inner circumferences of the plurality of differently sized wearable ring devices (Fig.19E: 1954e sits within wearable ring 1900e), and wherein the docking pillar comprises a first charging element configured to couple with a second charging element that is on an inner circumferential surface of the wearable ring device (Fig.19E: 1970e is located on the docking pillar to charge wearable ring 1900e through charging element 1930e located on the wearable ring).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Chang, in view of Buelow, with Von Badinski, to include a docking pillar and locate the first charging element on the docking pillar to couple with a second charging element that is on an inner circumferential surface of the wearable ring. Doing so may provide additional protection to the first charging element by locating it on a surface less likely to be damaged by an item being dropped onto the charging station.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, in view of Buelow, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nam et al. (USPGPN 2023/0361587 – effectively filed 2021).
Regarding Claim 7, Chang, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the receptacle portion comprises a docking surface configured to circumferentially surround respective outer circumferences of the plurality of differently sized wearable ring devices, and wherein the docking surface comprises the first charging element and the first charging element is configured to couple with the second charging element that is on an outer circumferential surface of the wearable ring device.
However, Nam teaches an equivalent charging station which comprises a receptacle portion comprising a docking surface which is configured to circumferentially surround respective outer circumferences of wearable ring devices (Fig.3, outer surface 212 surrounds the circumference of device 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Chang, in view of Buelow, with Nam to modify the docking surface to circumferentially surround the outer circumference of a wearable ring device. Doing so helps protect the outer surface of the ring from damage while placed in the charging station.
Chang, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the first charging element is not located on the docking surface where it circumferentially surrounds the outer circumferential surface, to couple with a second charging element that is on the outer circumferential surface of the wearable ring device. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to move the first charging element to the docking surface where it circumferentially surrounds the outer circumferential surface, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Doing so may provide additional protection to the first charging element by locating it on a surface less likely to be damaged by an item being dropped onto the charging station.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Narayanasamy et al. (USPGPN 2017/0317444) teaches a magnetic electrical connection with coated magnets as electrical contacts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights