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 Amendment
The amendments to claims 1 and 6 and addition of claim 18 are acknowledged.
The amendment to claim 1 narrows the scope of the subject matter and overcomes the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections.
The amendment to claim 6 removes it from 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function claim interpretation.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the limitation “a connection interface” in claim 1
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/1/26, that the limitation “a connection interface” in claim 1 should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function claim interpretation are not persuasive.
A connection interface is, on its own, a non-structural term in the context of the art which it belongs because it does not specify what type of connection or what type of interface between two components.
For this application, classified substantially under electrical timepieces, there is a significant variation in physical and electrical connection interfaces that could are possible and the term as used in the context of the claim does not have a specific enough meaning by a person of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain the sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. It could be an electrical connection interface in the form of a cable or another electrical contact, or it could be a wholly physical and simply be shaped for fitting another component.
The functions required of this non-structural term include that it is disposed on the housing and that it is configured for detachable and interchangeable attachment of a first device and a second device. The function of “attachment” is not specified as requiring an electrical attachment or any particular form of a physical attachment. The claim contains no structure or material for performing the claimed function, and the acts required of the non-structural connection interface are not sufficient to entirely perform the recited function.
Applicant’s arguments that the specification provides sufficient corresponding structure for performing the claimed function for “a connection interface” under interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 is accordingly withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Huang
Applicant's arguments regarding amended claim 1 being patentable over Huang have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Huang discloses merely a display capsule that is interchangeable between wearable wristbands. The capsule remains part of a single wearable device ecosystem and is not transferred among independent host devices performing different technological functions. However, Huang discloses that the display capsule module can be interchangeably attached/detached to at least two separate electronic devices including the watch band with biometric sensing electronic components shown in Figs. 6A and 6B and described in paragraphs [0094-0096] and a home speaker device shown in Fig. 13D and described in paragraph [0179]. Huang provides that when attached to these devices the personal digital module can perform functions associated with that particular electronic device, scanning and displaying biometric data with the watch strap and display exclusive user interfaces of one or more music streaming applications for music selection with the speaker.
Drawings
The replacement drawings are accepted and the previous drawing objection is overcome and accordingly withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
112(f) invoked despite absence of “Means”
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a connection interface disposed on the housing and configured for detachable and interchangeable attachment of a first device and a second device” but does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A connection interface is, on its own, a non-structural term in the context of the art which it belongs because it does not specify what type of connection or what type of interface between two components.
For this application classified substantially under electrical timepieces there is a significant variation in physical and electrical connection interfaces that could are possible and the term as used in the context of the claim does not have a specific enough meaning by a person of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain the sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. It could be an electrical connection interface in the form of a cable or another electrical contact, or it could be a wholly physical and simply be shaped for fitting another component.
The functions required of this non-structural term include that it is disposed on the housing and that it is configured for detachable and interchangeable attachment of a first device and a second device. The function of “attachment” is not specified as requiring an electrical attachment or any particular form of a physical attachment. The claim contains no structure or material for performing the claimed function, and the acts required of the non-structural connection interface are not sufficient to entirely perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification describes structure performing the recited attachment function, including slots configured to receive locking elements (284), ramped engagement surfaces (286), electrical contact pins (136) configured for mating engagement, alignment lug (316), and complementary notch structures (320), and sealing structures including grooves and O-rings (144, 148).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 20230359320 A1, hereinafter ‘Huang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang discloses a personal digital module, comprising:
a housing (954);
a processor (1026) and an associated computer-readable memory (1005) disposed within the housing [0068, 0166], the memory operably coupled to the processor and encoded with executable instructions [0108];
a human-viewable display (115) operably coupled to the processor and disposed within the housing [figs. 6A, 6B];
a connection interface (wired communication method such as UART or a SUB transceiver, which include electrical contact pins) [0095, 0103] disposed on the housing and configured for detachable and interchangeable attachment of a first device (962) and a second device (1362) [0094, 0179], wherein the first device (watch strap with biometric sensors) and the second device (home speaker device) comprise different external electronic systems [0094, 0179];
wherein the processor is configured, upon execution of the executable instructions, to perform a first function (sensing and displaying biometric data) associated with the first device when the personal digital module is attached to the first device [0095-0096]
and to perform a second function associated with the second device when the personal digital module is attached to the second device (display exclusive user interfaces of one or more music streaming applications) [0179].
Regarding Claim 2, Huang discloses the personal digital module of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the processor is configured, upon execution of the executable instructions, to receive a first set of user preferences from the first device when the personal digital module is attached to the first device and to receive a second set of user preferences from the second device when the personal digital module is attached to the second device [0205].
Regarding Claim 3, Huang discloses the personal digital module of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the human- viewable display further comprises a touch screen [0095].
Regarding Claim 4, Huang discloses the personal digital module of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first device is a watch base module wearable on a wrist of a user (960) [figs. 6A, 6B, 10B].
Regarding Claim 5, Huang discloses the personal digital module of claim 4 and further discloses the personal digital module comprising: said watch base module comprising one or more biometric sensors (964) for collecting biometric data from the user [0096]; and said executable instructions comprising an authentication module configured to biometrically authenticate the user [0122, 0095].
Regarding Claim 6, Huang discloses the personal digital module of claim 5 and further discloses the personal digital module comprising a wireless transceiver disposed within the housing and configured to transmit data from the one or more biometric sensors to the personal digital module [0096].
Regarding Claim 7, Huang discloses the personal digital module of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the personal digital module is configured to monitor for presence of the user at periodic intervals during operation of the first or second device [0062] (periodically monitor for the user’s activity which requires the user’s presence).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang discloses the personal digital module of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the personal digital module is configured to biometrically authenticate [0122] the user at periodic intervals during operation of the first or second device [0122, 0095].
Regarding Claim 9, Huang discloses the personal digital module of claim 5 and further discloses wherein the one or more biometric sensors are selected from the group consisting of a camera, an ECG sensor, and an EDA sensor [0096].
Regarding Claim 10, Huang discloses the personal digital module of claim 4 and further discloses wherein the watch base module includes an annular receptacle (960) configured to detachably receive the connection interface [0094], the annular receptacle having one or more pivoting lock bars engaging complementary slots on the connection interface [0101, 0104] (lever).
Regarding Claim 11, Huang discloses the personal digital module of claim 10 and further discloses wherein the one or more lock bars are manually actuatable for detaching the personal digital module from the watch base module [0104].
Regarding Claim 18, Huang discloses the personal digital module of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the wireless transceiver comprises a short-range RF transceiver [0133, RFID sensing].
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, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leegate at el. (US 20180190095 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Leegate discloses a personal digital module, comprising:
a housing (12);
a processor (200) and an associated computer-readable memory (274, 275) disposed within the housing [0083], the memory operably coupled to the processor and encoded with executable instructions [0083];
a human-viewable display (0082) operably coupled to the processor and disposed within the housing;
a connection interface (28, 32) disposed on the housing [0056] and configured for detachable and interchangeable attachment of a first device [0031, vest or other equipment than a helmet] and a second device (helmet with electronic system for integrated vibration pada) [0078],;
wherein the processor is configured, upon execution of the executable instructions, to perform a first function associated with the first device when the personal digital module is attached to the first device [0084, 0088, 0098] (various controllable functions associated with all of the helmets/vest/gear)
and to perform a second function associated with the second device when the personal digital module is attached to the second device [0084] (control vibration emitter).
Leegate does not explicitly disclose that the first device and the second device comprise different external electronic systems, only providing one embodiment of the helmet mounting system comprising an external electronic system [0078] [fig. 7]. However, because Leegate does disclose that the device which the personal digital module may be attached to may include more than just the helmet mounting system and also include a vest or another form of equipment it would have been obvious to implement the embodiment where the vibration pad is integrated into the external device with that other equipment in order to accomplish the same benefit disclosed with the helmet embodiment described in paragraph [0078] and Fig. 7. By integrating the vibratory pad into the external equipment it does not need to be manually placed in position inside the external equipment and this benefit would extend to a vest or other wearable equipment just as it provides the helmet mounting system. Because it would have been obvious to integrate the vibration pad in the first external device for the same benefits as the helmet mounting system, the first external device would also then be an external electronic device.
Regarding Claim 12, Leegate discloses the personal digital module of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the second device is selected from the group consisting of a fire control system, a parachutist navigation system, and a helmet mounting system [fig. 7] [0078].
Regarding Claim 15, Leegate discloses the personal digital module of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the second device is a helmet mounting system [fig. 7].
Regarding Claim 16, Leegate discloses the personal digital module of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the personal digital module is operable to control a function of a helmet-mounted device (104, vibration pad) attached to the helmet mounting system [0078].
Regarding Claim 17, Leegate discloses the personal digital module of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the helmet mounting system includes an IFF beacon (58a, 58b, 58c) [0079], and wherein the personal digital module is operable to control operation of the IFF beacon [0079].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 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:
Regarding Claim 13, prior art does not disclose or suggest, taken alone or in combination, a personal digital module including all of the limitations of claim 1 and wherein the second device is a fire control system, which must be an external electronic device, wherein the personal digital module is configured to display one or more indicia associated with the fire control system and the first device which the personal digital module must be interchangeable with is also an external electronic device.
Regarding Claim 14, prior art does not disclose or suggest, taken alone or in combination, a personal digital module including all of the limitations of claim 1 and wherein the second device is a parachutist navigation system, which must be an external electronic device, and wherein the personal digital module is configured to selectively provide a graphical user interface representative of orientation based on data received from the digital compass, altitude based on data received from the altimeter, and location based on data received from the global satellite positioning receiver and the first device which the personal digital module must be interchangeable with is also an external electronic device.
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 KEVIN A JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 a.m. - 7p.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, 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.
/KEVIN ANDREW JOHNSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights