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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pg. 6, section B) and associated amendments, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the title of the invention have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the title of the invention has been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pg. 6-7, section C) and associated replacement drawing sheet, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for more information.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pg. 7, section D) and associated claim amendments, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to claim objections for informalities and clarification of claim terminology have been fully considered. The objections to the claims for informalities and clarification of claim terminology has been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pg. 7, section E) and associated modifications to the claim language with respect to the examiners claim interpretation are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pg. 8, section F) and associated claim amendments, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 USC § 112(a) have been fully considered. However, new grounds of rejection is made in view of the amendments to the claims now presented.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pg. 8, section G) and associated claim amendments, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pg. 8-10, section H) and associated claim amendments, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a circular vs. an annular sweat absorbing pad) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, there is no shape for the sweat absorbing cotton pad described in the specification, nor is a shape for the pad claimed.
Drawings
The drawings received on 13 January 2026 are unacceptable. Page 3 of the original drawings submitted with the instant application contain two figures, fig. 3 and fig. 4. The replacement drawing contains only figure 4. Replacement drawing sheets must include all figures appearing on the prior version. Thus, the replacement drawing sheet fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(d). Alternatively, fig. 3 may have been cancelled by the applicant. If this is the case, the specification must be amended to remove references to fig. 3, and the cancellation of the claim must be indicated.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 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 enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding the claims, the relative directional terms “top”, “bottom”, “ends”, “side”, “inner”, and “outer” are used inconsistently throughout the claims and specification. It is unclear how the parts claimed can be assembled in a logical and usable manner. Specifically, in the description of the “sweat-absorbent quick drying pad” in claim 1, the directional terms indicate that each component of the pad (magnetic sticker, rubber pad, etc.) is arranged between the magnetic sticker and the case of the device, which would render the device non-functional as claimed.
Additionally, with regard to the telescopic rods, there is no description provided in the claims or specification with regard to the manner or reason for the rods to ‘telescope’. No means or mechanism is disclosed which would allow the rods to telescope, whether by operation of the device or the action of the user.
As claimed and described within the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to make or use the invention as claimed, thus, claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for lack of enablement.
Claims 1-3 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.
Regarding claim 1, which recites the limitations:
"the embedded adjusting knob" in ln. 10
"the embedded sweat absorbing lining" in ln. 14
“the telescopic rod” in ln. 25
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, the relative directional terms “top”, “bottom”, “ends”, “side”, “inner”, and “outer” are used inconsistently throughout the claim. This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how the parts claimed can be assembled in a logical and usable manner. Specifically, in the description of the “sweat-absorbent quick drying pad” the directional terms indicate that each component of the pad (magnetic sticker, rubber pad, etc.) is arranged between the magnetic sticker and the case of the device. As noted above, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Fig. 4 illustrates the layers of the “quick drying pad” in an order similar to the description, however, the language of the claim is the deciding factor in determining indefiniteness. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[T]he name of the game is the claim.").
Additionally, as illustrated by fig. 4, the “telescopic rods (element 14)” are not arranged on the “heating sheet (element 13)”, but rather are shown as being attached to the “rubber pad (element 12)”, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 2 and 3 inherit this indefiniteness and are likewise rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Regarding claim 2, “the woven watch band” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, “the detecting device” lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 3, the phrase “an embedded charging port is installed on a bottom face of the detection device, the magnetic sticker is of a cylindrical structure and installed on the top of the charging port” is indefinite as it is unclear from the language of the claim how such an arrangement could be achieved. In the case of the charging port, it is unclear, based upon the inconsistent use of relative directional terminology in the claims, how the charging port is arranged with regards to the ‘detection device’ and the case structure. Additionally, the recitation of “the magnetic sticker is of a cylindrical structure and installed on the top of the charging port” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear, based on the claim language, the size and extent of coverage of the magnetic sticker with relation to the case structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments necessitated the new grounds 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 MICHAEL J WALKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7599. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET Monday through Friday.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571)272-2009.
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 JAMES WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights