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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
In communications filed on 12/23/2025, claims 1-4 and 15-18 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 15 are independent.
Amended claim(s): 1.
New claim(s): 15-18.
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 12/23/2026, with respect to claim(s) rejected under prior art have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues the cited art of record teaches a two-device system whereas the claimed invention is a three-device system. Applicant does not, however, point out any specific limitation of the claimed invention that the cited art of record does not teach as a combination. Zhou et al combination teaches the claimed invention. Zhou teaches a wearable device that collects physiological data wherein the wearable device is chargeable using charger provided via an electronic device such as a mobile device (Zhou: Figs. 2, 7-8, ¶5-¶10, ¶81-¶83). Although Zhou teaches a charging mechanism for the wearable device, Zhou does not explicitly teach a separate charger for the device. However, separate charger is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In analogous art, Wong teaches a separate charging device with a fingerprint reader (Wong: Fig. 1, ¶4, ¶18-¶30). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou to include a charging system with a fingerprint sensor to authenticate a user of the mobile device that can be accessed and charged as taught by Wong with the motivation to prevent unauthorized access to the mobile device (Wong: Fig. 1, ¶4, ¶18-¶32). Zhou et al do not teach authenticating the wearable device to a mobile device to collect physiological data. In analogous art, Seza teaches signaling an authorization signal, based on successful authentication of a user, to the wearable device to collect physiological data from the wearable device to the user device (Seza: ¶5-¶12, ¶22-¶23). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou to an authorization indicator to a wearable device to collect data from the device as taught by Seza with the motivation to only collect data after user authentication (Seza: ¶5-¶12, ¶22-¶23). Thus, the combination of cited art teaches the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230148716 A1 (hereinafter ‘Zhou’) in view of US 20130029640 A1 (hereinafter ‘Wong’) in view of US 20170286661 A1 (hereinafter ‘Seza’).
As regards claim 1, Zhou (US 20230148716 A1) discloses: A charging device, comprising: a base configured to receive a wearable device, the wearable device configured to acquire physiological data from a user; (Zhou: Figs. 2, 7-8, ¶5-¶10, ¶81-¶83)
a charging component configured to transfer power through the base to the wearable device to charge a rechargeable battery of the wearable device; (Zhou: Figs. 2, 7-8, ¶5-¶10, ¶81-¶83)
However, Zhou does not but in analogous art, Wong (US 20130029640 A1) a fingerprint reader device; and (Wong: Fig. 1, ¶18, i.e., the charging system with a fingerprint sensor)
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the charging component, the fingerprint reader device, or both, the one or more processors configured to: receive a fingerprint scan from the fingerprint reader device; (Wong: Fig. 1, ¶4, ¶18-¶30, i.e., the charging system with a fingerprint sensor wherein the fingerprint sensor performs authentication)
authenticate the user based at least in part on matching the fingerprint scan to a reference fingerprint scan associated with the user; and (Wong: Fig. 1, ¶4, ¶18-¶30, i.e., the charging system with a fingerprint sensor wherein the fingerprint sensor performs authentication based on registered fingerprint of the user)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou to include a charging system with a fingerprint sensor to authenticate a user of the mobile device that can be accessed and charged as taught by Wong with the motivation to prevent unauthorized access to the mobile device (Wong: Fig. 1, ¶4, ¶18-¶32)
Zhou et al in combination with Seza (US 20170286661 A1) further teaches: transmit one or more signals to the wearable device based at least in part on authenticating the user, the one or more signals comprising an authorization for the wearable device to transfer the physiological data of the user from the wearable device to a user device. (Seza: ¶5-¶12, ¶22-¶23, i.e., signaling an authorization signal, based on successful authentication of a user, to the wearable device to collect physiological data from the wearable device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou to an authorization indicator to a wearable device to collect data from the device as taught by Seza with the motivation to only collect data after user authentication (Seza: 5-¶12, ¶22-¶23)
Claim 15 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 1 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 2, Zhou et al in combination further teaches the charging device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the wearable device is positioned on the base based at least in part on an initiation of a charging procedure to transfer power from the charging component to the wearable device; and (Zhou: Figs. 2, 7-8, ¶5-¶10, ¶81-¶83) activate the fingerprint reader device based at least in part on the wearable device being positioned on the base, wherein receiving the fingerprint scan from the fingerprint reader device is based at least in part on activating the fingerprint reader device. (Zhou: Figs. 2, 7-8, ¶5-¶10, ¶81-¶83. See also Wong: Fig. 1, ¶4, ¶18-¶32)
Claim 16 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 2 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 3, Zhou et al in combination further teaches the charging device of claim 1, further comprising: a user input device, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive one or more user inputs via the user input device; and (Zhou: Figs. 2, 7-8, ¶5-¶10, ¶81-¶83. See also Wong: Fig. 1, ¶4, ¶18-¶32) activate the fingerprint reader device based at least in part on the one or more user inputs, wherein receiving the fingerprint scan from the fingerprint reader device is based at least in part on activating the fingerprint reader device. (Zhou: Figs. 2, 7-8, ¶5-¶10, ¶81-¶83. See also Wong: Fig. 1, ¶4, ¶18-¶32. Seza: ¶5-¶12, ¶22-¶23, ¶42, ¶51)
Claim 17 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 3 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 4, Zhou et al in combination further teaches the charging device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: identify a contact on a surface of the fingerprint reader device; and activate the fingerprint reader device based at least in part on identifying the contact, wherein receiving the fingerprint scan from the fingerprint reader device is based at least in part on activating the fingerprint reader device. (Zhou: Figs. 2, 7-8, ¶5-¶10, ¶81-¶83. See also Wong: Fig. 1, ¶4, ¶18-¶32. Seza: ¶5-¶12, ¶22-¶23, ¶42, ¶51)
Claim 18 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 4 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights