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
This office action is in response to application 18/433,113 filed 2/5/24. Claims 1-26 are pending with claims 1, 17, and 26 in independent form.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-12, 14, 17-19, 22-24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moritomo et al. US 2020/0004309 A1.
Moritomo teaches:
Re: claim 1, A charging device (fig. 1, docking station 1001), comprising: a plurality of pins (fig. 1,
interface connectors 1010-1017); and a first chip (fig. 1, connection detection unit 1003, current control unit 1004, host system 1005) configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: in response to the plurality of pins physically contacting an object (fig. 5; S501), determining, via an authentication operation ([0025]), whether the object corresponds to a wearable computing device ([0022]), in response to determining the object corresponds to the wearable computing device, communicating to the wearable computing device an available level of current for the charging device to provide to the wearable computing device (fig. 5; S503; [0060]), and providing the current to the wearable computing device (fig. 5; S504; [0061]).
Re: claim 2, The charging device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pins consists of two pins (fig. 2).
Re: claim 3, The charging device of claim 1, wherein the first chip comprises an integrated circuit ([0014]).
Re: claim 4, The charging device of claim 1, wherein the operations include performing the authentication operation by: determining whether a predetermined pulsed current pattern is received from the object, and in response to receiving the predetermined pulsed current pattern from the object, authenticating the object and determining the object corresponds to the wearable computing device ([0025]).
Re: claim 9, The charging device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: while providing the current to the wearable computing device, monitoring a heartbeat signal output by the wearable computing device to determine whether the wearable computing device is removed from the plurality of pins, and changing a power state of the charging device to lower the current when the wearable computing device is determined to be removed from the plurality of pins (fig. 5, S501 and S506).
Re: claim 10, The charging device of claim 1, wherein communicating to the wearable computing device the available level of current comprises: providing a first voltage pattern to indicate a first current limit capability; and providing a second voltage pattern to indicate a second current limit capability ([0053]-[0054], [0060]).
Re: claim 11, The charging device of claim 9, wherein communicating to the wearable computing device the available level of current comprises: providing a third voltage pattern to indicate a third current limit capability ([0053]-[0054], [0060]).
Re: claim 12, The charging device of claim 9, wherein the first current limit capability is less than one amp, and the second current limit capability is more than one amp (fig. 5).
Re: claim 14, The charging device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a current capability of a power source for the charging device based on a pull-up resistor value ([0028], [0041], [0052]).
Re: claim 17, A wearable computing device (fig. 1; wearable camera 1101), comprising: a battery (batteries 1103, 1203, 1603); and a first chip (fig. 1, connection detection unit 1003, current control unit 1004, host system 1005) configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: in response to a plurality of pins (fig. 1, interface connectors 1010-1017) of a charging device (fig. 1, docking station 1001) physically contacting the wearable computing device (fig. 5; S501), performing an authentication operation ([0025]) with respect to the charging device, in response to the authentication operation being successfully performed, receiving a communication from the charging device indicating an available level of current for the charging device to provide to the wearable computing device (fig. 5, S503; [0060]), and configuring a supply of current received via the charging device to be provided to the battery based on the available level of current indicated by the communication (fig. 5, S504; [0061]).
Re: claim 18, The wearable computing device of claim 17, wherein the first chip comprises an integrated circuit ([0014]).
Re: claim 19, The wearable computing device of claim 17, wherein performing the authentication operation comprises: drawing a predetermined current from the charging device via a pulsed current pattern ([0025]).
Re: claim 22, The wearable computing device of claim 17, wherein the operations further comprise: while receiving the current, outputting a heartbeat signal to indicate the wearable computing device is present as a load on the charging device (fig. 5, S501 and S506).
Re: claim 23, The wearable computing device of claim 17, wherein the communication includes a voltage pattern to indicate the available level of current for the charging device, a first voltage pattern indicates a first current limit capability, and a second voltage pattern indicates a second current limit capability ([0053]-[0054], [0060]).
Re: claim 24, The wearable computing device of claim 20, wherein the first current limit capability is less than one amp, and the second current limit capability is more than one amp ([0053]-[0054], [0060]).
Re: claim 26, A computer-implemented method, comprising: in response to a plurality of pins (fig. 1,
interface connectors 1010-1017) of a charging device physically contacting an object (fig. 5; S501), determining, via an authentication operation ([0025]), whether the object corresponds to a wearable computing device (fig. 1; wearable camera 1101); in response to determining the object corresponds to the wearable computing device, communicating to the wearable computing device an available level of current for the charging device to provide to the wearable computing device (fig. 5, S503; [0060]); and providing the current to the wearable computing device (fig. 5, S504; [0061]).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moritomo et al. US 2020/0004309 A1 in view of Langlois et al. US 2020/0059114 A1.
The teachings of Moritomo have been discussed above.
Moritomo fails to specifically teach:
Re: claim 5, The charging device of claim 1, wherein the operations include performing the authentication operation by: exchanging cryptographic keys between the charging device and the object; and in response to a successful verification of the cryptographic keys, determining the object corresponds to the wearable computing device.
Re: claim 20, The wearable computing device of claim 17, wherein performing the authentication operation comprises: exchanging cryptographic keys between the charging device and the wearable computing device; and in response to a successful verification of the cryptographic keys, authenticating the charging device.
However, Langlois teaches:
Re: claim 5, The charging device of claim 1, wherein the operations include performing the authentication operation by: exchanging cryptographic keys between the charging device and the object; and in response to a successful verification of the cryptographic keys, determining the object corresponds to the wearable computing device ([0047]-[0048]).
Re: claim 20, The wearable computing device of claim 17, wherein performing the authentication operation comprises: exchanging cryptographic keys between the charging device and the wearable computing device; and in response to a successful verification of the cryptographic keys, authenticating the charging device.
Therefore, it would have been been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Langlois into the device of Moritomo as an obvious matter of design choice as a means of discouraging theft of devices ([0048]).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moritomo et al. US 2020/0004309 A1 in view of Bacon et al. US 10,236,683 B2.
The teachings of Moritomo have been discussed above.
Moritomo fails to specifically teach:
Re: claim 7, The charging device of claim 1, further comprising: a moisture detection system configured to determine whether a resistance value indicating a moisture amount satisfies a threshold level at the plurality of pins.
Re: claim 8, The charging device of claim 7, wherein when the moisture detection system determines the resistance value does not satisfy the threshold level, the operations comprise maintaining an output current level below a current threshold level, and when the moisture detection system determines the resistance value satisfies the threshold level, the operations comprise enabling the output current level to exceed the current threshold level.
Re: claim 16, The charging device of claim 1, wherein the first chip is a monolithic chip which includes a boost converter configured to negate a voltage drop across a charging cable used to provide the current to the wearable computing device.
However, Bacon teaches:
Re: claim 7, The charging device of claim 1, further comprising: a moisture detection system configured to determine whether a resistance value indicating a moisture amount satisfies a threshold level at the plurality of pins (fig. 3a; col. 9, line 50 – col. 10, line 16).
Re: claim 8, The charging device of claim 7, wherein when the moisture detection system determines the resistance value does not satisfy the threshold level, the operations comprise maintaining an output current level below a current threshold level, and when the moisture detection system determines the resistance value satisfies the threshold level, the operations comprise enabling the output current level to exceed the current threshold level (fig. 3a; col. 9, line 50 – col. 10, line 16).
Re: claim 16, The charging device of claim 1, wherein the first chip is a monolithic chip which includes a boost converter configured to negate a voltage drop across a charging cable used to provide the current to the wearable computing device (col. 4, lines 8-21; col. 11, lines 5-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bacon into the device of Moritomo as an obvious matter of design choice to allow for corrective actions to be taken in real time and mitigate corrosion that would be caused by the presence of liquid (col. 1, lines 31-45 and 48-54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13, 15, 21 and 25 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: The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, in conjunction with all the other limitations of the claims: With respect to claim 6 and all its dependencies, performing the authentication operation by: determining whether a predetermined tone signal is received from the object, and in response to receiving the predetermined tone signal from the object, authenticating the object and determining the object corresponds to the wearable computing device, when included with all the limitations of the claim and claim 1 from which it depends. With respect to claim 13 and all its dependencies, providing a first tone signal to indicate a first current limit capability; and providing a second tone signal to indicate a second current limit capability, when included with all the other limitations of the claim and claim 1 from which it depends. With respect to claim 21 and all its dependencies, transmitting a predetermined tone signal to the charging device for a predetermined duration of time, when included with all the other limitations of the claim and claim 17 from which it depends. With respect to claim 25 and all its dependencies, a predetermined tone signal to indicate the available level of current for the charging device, a first predetermined tone signal indicates a first current limit capability, and a second predetermined tone signal indicates a second current limit capability, when included with all the other limitations of the claim and claim 17 from which it depends. The prior art of record fails to provide sufficient teaching or motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the additionally recited features of these claims in the combinations as claimed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTY A HAUPT whose telephone number is (571)272-8545 and email address is kristy.haupt@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sun 5:30 AM- 10PM; Flex during day.
If all attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/KRISTY A HAUPT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
KAH
Prosecution Insights