DETAILED ACTION
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 amendment filed January 1, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 6-10 have been amended. Claims 4-5 have been canceled. Claims 1-3 and 6-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 30, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Warren’s outer cover 212 does not include “a connection member” and “a connection body,” as required by amended claim 1, because the shape of outer cover 212 is flat and outer cover 212 is not sandwiched between the first side cover 216 and the second side cover 217. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in annotated Fig. 16 below, outer cover 212 includes a portion below line A that can be considered “a connection body” and a portion above line A that can be considered “a connection member.” Outer cover 212 has a convex shape and is disposed between, or “sandwiched” between, first side cover 216 and second side cover 217.
Applicant also argues that Warren’s outer cover 212 does not contact the first inner surface, the first side surface, the second inner surface, and the second side surface at the same time. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 16 of Warren shows outer cover 212 contacting the first inner surface, the first side surface, the second inner surface, and the second side surface at the same time.
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 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Warren (US 10,817,171 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Warren teaches a smart wearable ring device (wearable electronic device 200) comprising:
a casing (ring body 210) comprising;
a first casing (first side cover 216);
a second casing (second side cover 217) spaced apart from the first casing (216) and being annular (see Figs. 10-11; see also col. 10, lines 42-43); and
a connection casing (outer cover 212) arranged between the first casing (216) and the second casing (217; see Figs. 10-11), wherein at least one of the connection casing (212), the first casing (216), and the second casing (217) is made of non-metallic materials (see col. 10, lines 20-23 stating that outer cover 212 may be formed from glass, plastic, gemstone, synthetic gemstone, or ceramic);
wherein the first casing (216), the second casing (217), and the connection casing (212) surrounds as an annular cavity (annular receiving space 220; see also col. 12, lines 27-33);
wherein the first casing (216) comprises a first inner surface and a first side surface, the first inner surface and the first side surface are perpendicular to each other (see annotated Fig. 16 below): the second casing (217) comprises a second inner surface and a second side surface, the second side surface and the second side surface are perpendicular to each other (see annotated Fig. 16 below): the connection casing (212) comprises a connection member (portion of outer cover 212 above line A in annotated Fig. 16) and a connection body (portion of outer cover 212 below line A in annotated Fig. 16); wherein one end of the connection member is contacted with the first inner surface (see annotated Fig. 16 below), and another end of the connection member is contacted with the second inner surface (see annotated Fig. 16 below), the connection body and the connection member are formed integrally, the connection body is sandwiched between the first side surface and the second side surface (see annotated Fig. 16 below), a cross section of the connection body and the connection member appears as a convex shape (see annotated Fig. 16 below);
a circuit assembly (substrate 240) arranged in the annular cavity (220; see also col. 12, lines 27-33); and
a filling member (sizing insert 218) cooperated with the casing (210);
wherein the casing (210), the circuit assembly (240), and the filling member (218) are arranged in sequence from outside to inside, the circuit assembly (240) is accommodated between the casing (210) and the filling member (see Figs. 10-11 and 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Warren teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Warren further teaches the smart wearable ring device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit board assembly (240) comprises:
a circuit board that is a bendable circuit board (see col. 10, lines 52-54 stating that substrate 240 is a flexible circuit board);
a power module (battery management module 256 and battery 270) electrically coupled to the circuit board (see Fig. 14; see also col. 10, lines 56-60);
a signal module (capacitive plates 246, LED 248, accelerometer 250, and communication module 252) arranged on the circuit board (240) and electrically coupled to the power module (256 and 270; see Fig. 14); and
a processor (processor 242) arranged on the circuit board (240), and electrically coupled to the signal module (see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 8, Warren teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Warren further teaches the smart wearable ring device according to claim 7, wherein the bendable circuit board (240) comprises:
a plurality of rigid circuit boards, wherein a quantity of the plurality of rigid circuit boards is greater than or equal to 3 (see annotated Fig. 15 below showing at least four rigid circuit boards); and
a plurality of flexible connection members arranged between the plurality of rigid circuit boards (see annotated Fig. 15 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
508
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Warren teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Warren further teaches the smart wearable ring device according to claim 7, wherein the signal module comprises:
a plurality of light emitting units (see col. 11, lines 4-5 stating that LED 248 may be an RGB LED); and
a plurality of sensing units (capacitive plates 246) arranged at intervals relative to the plurality of light emitting units (248; see Fig. 13).
Examiner Note: An RGB LED consists of three diodes (a red, a green, and a blue). Examiner considers each diode to be a separate light emitting unit.
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren.
Warren teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Warren states that the first (216) and second (217) casings may be formed from a plastic material (see col. 10, lines 42- 44). Warren contemplates that the connection casing (212) may be formed from a wide variety of materials (see col. 10, lines 20-23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the connection casing from a material that is less dense than the plastic of the first and second casings, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barison et al. (US 2025/0017531 A1), hereinafter Barison.
Warren teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Warren further teaches that the connection casing (212) may be made of non-metallic materials (see col. 10, lines 20- 23). However, Warren teaches that the first (216) and second (217) casings are made of plastic (see col. 10, lines 42-44).
Barison (see Fig. 7A) teaches a smart wearable device (ring system 100) comprising first (outer metal shell 3a) and second (rim 2a) casings made of metal materials (see paragraph 0051 stating that the preferred material for rim 2a is metal).
Warren and Barison are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to make the first and second casings out of metal materials. Doing so would make the casings more durable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lamsa et al. (US 2025/0000218 A1), hereinafter Lamsa.
Warren teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Warren further teaches that:
the annular cavity (220) has a depth (this is inherent in all cavities); and
the circuit assembly (240) comprises a plurality of electronic components (see col. 10, lines 56-60), each of the plurality of electronic components has a height (this is inherent in all components).
Warren lacks a specific teaching that the height of at least one of the plurality of
electronic components is greater than or equal to the depth of the annular cavity.
Lamsa (see Figs. 3A-B) teaches a smart wearable device (wearable ring device 300-a)
comprising an annular cavity having a depth (from inner circumferential surface 310 to PCB 320), a circuit assembly comprising a plurality of electronic components each having a height (sensors 325), and the height of the at least one of the electronic components is greater than or equal to the depth of the annular cavity (see Fig. 3A).
Lamsa is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to configure the height of at least one of the plurality of electronic components to be greater than or equal to the depth of the annular cavity. Doing so would be an obvious matter of design choice since Applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well whether or not the height of the electronic components is greater than or equal to the depth of the annular cavity.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lamsa.
Warren teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Warren fails to teach that a surface of the filling member defines a convex bump, the convex bump corresponds to a position of each of the plurality of sensing units.
Lamsa (see Figs. 3A-B) teaches a smart wearable device (300-a) comprising a filling member (deformable material 315) and a plurality of sensing units (325). A surface of the filling member (315) defines a convex bump (see Figs. 3A-B) corresponding to a position of each of the plurality of sensing units (325a-c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to include convex bumps in the filling member corresponding to a position of each of the sensing units. Doing so would improve contact between a user's finger and the sensing units.
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 ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841