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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment, filed on November 19, 2025, has been received and made of record. In response to the most recent Office Action, dated January 26, 2026, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 6, and 11 have been amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed October 24, 2025, hereafter referred to as the Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 19, 2025, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the amendments, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments and upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections have been made, and applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
In response to the applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9 of applicant’s remarks, with respect to the rejection of amended independent claims 1 and 11 under U.S.C. § 103, that the prior art references, von Badinski (US12013725 B2, hereinafter von Badinski) and Olson (US 2018/0123355 A1, hereinafter Olson), as cited by the applicant, fail to teach or disclose, individually or in combination, the amendment, “receiving, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device, an indication of a contact resistance between charging elements of the electronic device and charging elements of a charger electrically coupled with the electronic device, wherein the contact resistance is based at least in part on an input voltage of the electronic device, an output current of the charger, and an output voltage of the charger;”.
In light of the amendments in independent claims 1 and 11, a new ground of rejection is made over von Badinski, in view of Olson, and further in view of von Hofen et al. (US 2022/0413056 A1, hereinafter von Hofen). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s contentions that von Badinski, in view of Olson, now in light of new prior art reference, von Hofen, fail to disclose, teach, or suggest individually or in combination, “receiving, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device, an indication of a contact resistance between charging elements of the electronic device and charging elements of a charger electrically coupled with the electronic device, wherein the contact resistance is based at least in part on an input voltage of the electronic device, an output current of the charger, and an output voltage of the charger;”. von Badinski, in view of Olson, and further in view of von Hofen, further disclose the additional limitations that have been amended and included in independent claims 1 & 11, and meet these requirements. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended independent claims 1 & 11, and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, which depend from and incorporation the limitations of amended independent claims 1 & 11, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference follow.
In response to the applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9 of applicant’s remarks, with respect to the rejection of amended independent claims 1 and 11 under U.S.C. § 103, that the prior art references, von Badinski (US12013725 B2, hereinafter von Badinski) and Olson (US 2018/0123355 A1, hereinafter Olson), as cited by the applicant, fail to teach or disclose, individually or in combination, “receiving…an indication of a contact resistance between charging elements of the electronic device and charging elements of a charger electrically coupled with the electronic device, wherein the contact resistance is based in part at least in part on an input voltage measured at of the electronic device, an output current of the charger, and an output voltage of the charger.”
In light of the amendments in independent claims 1 and 11, a new ground of rejection is made over von Badinski, in view of Olson, and further in view of von Hofen et al. (US 2022/0413056 A1, hereinafter von Hofen). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s contentions that von Badinski, in view of Olson, now in light of new prior art reference, von Hofen, fail to disclose, teach, or suggest individually or in combination, “receiving…an indication of a contact resistance between charging elements of the electronic device and charging elements of a charger electrically coupled with the electronic device, wherein the contact resistance is based in part at least in part on an input voltage measured at of the electronic device, an output current of the charger, and an output voltage of the charger.” von Badinski, in view of Olson, and further in view of von Hofen, further disclose the additional limitations that have been amended and included in independent claims 1 & 11, and meet these requirements. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended independent claims 1 & 11, and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, which depend from and incorporation the limitations of amended independent claims 1 & 11, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference follow.
In response to the applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9 of applicant’s remarks, with respect to the rejection of amended independent claim 1 U.S.C. §103, that the prior Final Office Action “must articulate its reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” and “when evaluating the scope of a claim, every limitation in the claim must be considered”. Further stating that the previous Final OA “does not set forth any analysis showing how the cited features of Olson could possibly be combined with the cited features of Von Badinski, let alone showing why a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have possibly combined the indication of contact resistance of Olson with the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device of von Badinski…”, and “does not establish how the cited indication of contact resistance of Olson notified via the charger would be combined with the cited application running on the user device of von Badinski nor does the Office Action establish any technical effect from such a combination. Stated differently, the Office Action has not demonstrated any teaching or motivation to combine the cited application running on the user device of von Badinski to further techniques for notifying the user of the cited indication of contact resistance of Olson via the charger. Additionally, the Office Action has not established why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have combined these references absent impermissible hindsight based on the claimed features. Accordingly, the Office Action has not established a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 at least because the rejection relies on an improper dissection of the features of independent claim 1 and a conclusory allegation of the cited combination of Olson and von Badinski. ”.
In light of the amendments in independent claims 1 and 11, a new ground of rejection is made over von Badinski, in view of Olson, and further in view of von Hofen. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s contentions that von Badinski, in view of Olson, now in light of new prior art reference, von Hofen, fail to disclose, teach, or suggest individually or in combination, the new amended features mentioned above, or that the previous Final OA did not establish a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to “improper dissection of the features of independent claim 1 and a conclusory allegation of the cited combination of Olson and von Badinski.” The prima facie case of obviousness argument is not persuasive because the rejection of independent claims 1 & 11 make a prima facie case of obviousness using MPEP Rationale B in 2143(I)(G). The second argument, in regard to “a conclusory allegation of the cited combination of Olson and von Badinski”, is not persuasive because the combination of Olson and von Badinski was based on a preponderance of the evidence standard and not based on personal opinion. Further, in light of the new ground of rejection made over von Badinski, in view of Olson, and further in view of von Hofen, further dissects the features of independent claims 1 & 11, and contain updated obviousness rejections based on newly cited prior art reference. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended independent claims 1 & 11, and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, which depend from and incorporation the limitations of amended independent claims 1 & 11, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference follow.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, suggest rephrasing “on an input voltage as of the electronic device,” in ll. 6-7, to read “on an input voltage of the electronic device,”.
In Claim 11, suggest rephrasing “on an input voltage as of the electronic device,” in ll. 9-10, to read “on an input voltage of the electronic device,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Badinski et al. (US 12013725 B2, Fil. Date Aug. 11, 2023, hereinafter von Badinski), in view of Olson et al. (US 2018/0123355 A1, Pub. Date May 3, 2018, hereinafter Olson), and further in view of von Hofen et al. (US 2022/0413056 A1, Pub. Date Dec. 29, 2022, hereinafter von Hofen).
Regarding independent claim 1, von Badinski, teaches:
A method of an application running on a user device associated with an electronic device, comprising (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]: “A finger-worn wearable ring device may include a ring-shaped housing, a printed circuit board, and a sensor module that includes one or more light-emitting components. The wearable ring device may further include a communication module configured to wirelessly communicate with an application executable on a user device.” (e.g., a user’s mobile device), the wearable ring device is the “electronic device”)):
PNG
media_image1.png
844
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
875
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
901
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
752
732
media_image4.png
Greyscale
von Badinski, is silent in regard to:
receiving, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device, an indication of a contact resistance between charging elements of the electronic device and charging elements of a charger electrically coupled with the electronic device,
comparing, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device, the contact resistance to a contact resistance threshold; and
causing, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device, a display of an instruction for cleaning the charging elements of the charger or the charging elements of the electronic device based at least in part on comparing the contact resistance to the contact resistance threshold.
However, Olson, further teaches:
receiving, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device ([0029], [0038] & [0043]: Indicates that a status can be sent to a remote smartphone application), an indication of a contact resistance ([0056], [0068] & [0077]-[0079]: discloses conductors 28, 29 are the charging elements of the charger, which interface with the terminals 20 of the electronic device) between charging elements of the electronic device and charging elements of a charger ([0055]-[0056] & [0077]: discloses dirtiness on the contacts is directly related to increased contact resistance, which is an “indication of a contact resistance”) electrically coupled with the electronic device ([0004], [0011], [0013], [0029], [0038], [0043], [0055]-[0056], [0068], [0070], & [0077]-[0079]: discloses a contact charger electrically coupled to a rechargeable device via conductors (charging elements), where the system monitors the electrical resistance across the charging conductors to detect when they are dirty (cleaning reminder), and transmits this indication status to a remote smartphone application),
comparing, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device ([0029], [0038], [0043]: teaches comparing the resistance levels to detect dirty contracts and providing an indicator status for a cleaning reminder on a smartphone), the contact resistance to a contact resistance threshold (Figs. 1 & 2; [0029], [0038], [0043] & [0077]-[0079]: teaches measuring the contact resistance and evaluating it against known ranges (thresholds) to determine if the conductors are dirty (i.e., exceeding a threshold of 100 ohms up to 1500 ohms)); and
causing, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device (Figs. 1 & 2; [0029], [0038], [0043] & [0077]-[0079]: teaches that the indicator status, which can be located on the associated smartphone, provides a cleaning reminder indicator to the user once the high-resistance threshold for dirty contacts is reached), a display of an instruction for cleaning the charging elements of the charger or the charging elements of the electronic device based at least in part on comparing the contact resistance to the contact resistance threshold (Figs. 1 & 2; [0029], [0038], [0043] & [0077]-[0079]: teaches evaluating/comparing the contact resistance to determine if the contacts are dirty (i.e., exceeding a threshold of 100 ohms up to 1500 ohms) and triggering an indicator remote from the charger (i.e., smartphone) regarding cleaning, further discloses the cleaning reminder may indicate that the charging cavity 16 (Fig. 1) is dirty, which may prompt a user to clean the conductors 28L, 28R, 29L, 29R of the charger 12 or the terminals 20 of the rechargeable device 14 (“instruction for cleaning”), the instruction is provided as an indication via an indicator 90 (Fig. 1), which is a visual indicator on the charger or display).
PNG
media_image5.png
857
759
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
889
666
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to incorporate Olson’s contact-resistance monitoring and smartphone cleaning reminder functionalities, into von Badinski’s wearable ring and mobile application system. Von Badinski discloses the base architecture of a wearable electronic device (e.g., a smart ring) that interconnects with a charging apparatus and wirelessly communicates with a mobile application running on a user’s smartphone. Wearable electronic devices are exposed to the elements, skin oils, sweat, and environmental debris, which can accumulate on the physical charging contacts. This buildup impedes the electrical connection between the device and its charger, leading to inefficient charging or complete charging failures. Olson addresses this problem within the field of small, rechargeable electronic devices. Teaching a charging system that actively monitors the electrical resistance across its physical charging conductors. If the resistance exceeds a certain threshold (e.g., jump from a clean baseline of 100 ohms to a baseline of 1500 ohms), the system detects that the contacts are obstructed and sends a cleaning reminder status to a remote indicator, such as a connected smartphone app. A POSITA would be motivated to improve the charging reliability of the wearable device and to proactively prevent charging failures by guiding the user to maintain clean contacts and to configure the processor-executable code of the application running on the user device (as taught by von Badinski) to perform the mathematical comparison step, locally, creating a centralized diagnostic hub for the user. Doing so, is a simple substitution of one known element for another according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR).
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, are silent in regard to:
wherein the contact resistance is based at least in part on an input voltage as of the electronic device, an output current of the charger, and an output voltage of the charger;
However, von Hofen, further teaches:
wherein the contact resistance is based at least in part on an input voltage as of the electronic device, an output current of the charger, and an output voltage of the charger (Figs. 1, 3, & 4; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], [0008], [0018], [0030], [0038]-[0041], [Claim 1] & [Claim 2]: discloses determining/calculating the power contact resistance across the charging elements of a battery pack and a charging apparatus by evaluating the output current and by measuring the voltage drop (difference between the output voltage potential of the charger and the input voltage potential of the device). Defines the algebraic dependency via Ohm’s law in Fig. 1, showing LR - = ∆U- / LI (Resistance = Voltage Drop/Current); battery pack 1, charging apparatus 4, pack power contact 2+, 2-, apparatus power contact 5+, 5-, power current LI, voltage drop ∆U-+,∆U, contact resistance LR+, LR-);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to utilize the specific voltage and current measurement techniques taught by von Hofen to execute the resistance-monitoring logic taught by Olson within von Badinski’s system. The combination of von Badinski and Olson provides the structural framework and the logic for triggering a cleaning alert based on high resistance. von Hofen teaches a methodology for calculating power contact resistance between a battery pack (electronic device) and a charging apparatus. Further teaching that the contact-resistance is mathematically determined by measuring the power current and the voltage drop across the interface. A POSITA would be motivated to achieve an accurate and dynamic measurement of the contact resistance without requiring additional sensors, utilizing the existing voltage potential and current flow present during the charging process, according to known methods to yield predictable results of alerting a user to clean their device’s charging contacts when resistance gets too high.
Regarding dependent claim 2, von Badinski, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]),
von Badinski, is silent in regard to:
comprises receiving a wireless message from the electronic device.
However, Olson, further teaches:
comprises receiving a wireless message ([0043]: “One or more indicators 90 may provide a user with an indication related to the status of the charger 12, which may, for example, be visual or aural…In some embodiments (not shown), the indicator 90 may be remote from the charger 12 (for example, on a smartphone connected by wire or wirelessly to the charger 12)”) from the electronic device ([0043]: discloses the transmission of contact resistance status (the cleaning reminder) wirelessly to the remote smartphone application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to configure the electronic device to send the wireless indication message to the user device. Olsen teaches sending the contact resistance indication wirelessly to a smartphone app. A POSITA would be motivated to improve the notification/indication messaging system to the user with a status of the charging system between an electronic device and charger, providing notifications/instructions to the user to take action and clean contacts or conductors, as needed, to improve battery charging efficiency of the electronic device, according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR).
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, are silent in regard to:
wherein receiving the indication of the contact resistance
However, von Hofen, further teaches:
wherein receiving the indication of the contact resistance (Fig. 1; [0004], [0020], [0023], [0029], [0039]-[0046], [0058], [0062]-[0065], [0085]: discloses that the contact resistance calculation can be performed internally by the electronic device itself (e.g., the battery pack’s onboard battery management system) rather than exclusively by the charger)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to configure the electronic device to send the wireless indication message to the user device. Olsen teaches sending the contact resistance indication wirelessly to a smartphone app. von Hofen teaches that the electronic device (battery pack) can determine the contact resistance using its onboard management system. A POSITA would be motivated to integrate the diagnostic resistance data generated by von Hofen’s internal battery management system into the existing, primary wireless communication link established between the wearable device and the smartphone app. as taught by von Badinski, according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR), and eliminate the need for a secondary wireless transmitter inside the charger.
Regarding dependent claim 3, von Badinski, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]),
von Badinski, is silent in regard to:
between the charging elements of the electronic device and the charging elements of the charger.
However, Olson, further teaches:
wherein the contact resistance ([Abstract], [0038], [0068] & [0078]: “based on the input voltage detected, an estimated resistance across the conductors 28,29 in the charger 12 may be determined, for example, in response to an estimated voltage difference between a known supply voltage and the detected input voltage. In some embodiments, the controller 102 of the charger 12 or the power manager 130 (for example, the power controller 154) of the device 14 may be capable of calculating the estimated resistance.”, and “the charger 12 can notify the user of a level of cleanliness, or dirtiness, in response to an inferred contact resistance from the monitored voltage information”) is characterized as an electrical resistance ([Abstract], [0038] & [0068]: “The electrical resistance, or conductance, between the conductors 28, 29 may be defined to include both inherent and external variations. In some cases, the resistance across each conductor 28, 29 may range from about 100 ohms, about 200 ohms or about 300 ohms (for example, when clean) to about 1500 ohms, about 1300 ohms, or about 1200 ohms (for example, when dirty)”, characterizes the contact resistance as an electrical resistance between charger contacts (28, 29) and device terminals when they are “clean” and “dirty”, and “based on the input voltage detected, an estimated resistance across the conductors 28, 29 in the charger 12 may be determined, for example, in response to an estimated voltage difference between a known supply voltage and the detected input voltage.”, describes how resistance is derived from voltage/current relationships (V=IR))
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 characterization of contact resistance as an electrical resistance between the charging elements of the electronic device and charger, of Olson to von Badinski, in order to attain the characterization of the contact/electrical resistance and further provide “cleaning” reminders to the user to take action and clean contacts or conductors, as needed, to improve battery charging efficiency of the electronic device, according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR).
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, are silent in regard to:
between the charging elements of the electronic device and the charging elements of the charger.
However, von Hofen, further teaches:
between the charging elements of the electronic device and the charging elements of the charger (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0020], [0023], [0029], [0038]-[0046], [0058], [0062]-[0065] & [0085]: defines the power contact resistance as the resistance existing between the power contacts of the battery pack and the power contacts of the charging apparatus when they are physically touching and loaded with current).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to implement the contact resistance measured and transmitted to the user device application in the combined von Badinski/Olson/von Hofen system, which is characterized as the electrical resistance between the physical charging elements. Olson and von Hofen define their diagnostic metrics to detect physical obstructions (e.g., dirt or wear, etc.) at the direct interface where the charger meets the electronic device Incorporating it into the system would further provide “cleaning” reminders to the user to take action and clean contacts or conductors, as needed, to improve battery charging efficiency of the electronic device and/or charger, according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 4, von Badinski, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]), wherein the electronic device comprises a wearable device (Figs. 1A, 10 & 11; [Title], [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 5, ll. 8-9 & 46-52], [Col. 8, ll. 64-67], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10], [Claim 1] & [Claim 18]: “Although the WCD (wearable computing device) of the present disclosure is depicted as a ring that can be worn on the finger of a user, other shapes, designs, and form factors can be utilized for the WCD. For example, the WCD can be in the form of a wrist band, bracelet, necklace, earring, or any other type of wearable accessory,” the WCD (wearable computing device) is the “electronic device” or “ring”).
Regarding dependent claim 5, von Badinski, teaches:
The method of claim 4 (Figs. 1A, 10 & 11; [Title], [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]: “Although the WCD (wearable computing device) of the present disclosure is depicted as a ring that can be worn on the finger of a user, other shapes, designs, and form factors can be utilized for the WCD. For example, the WCD can be in the form of a wrist band, bracelet, necklace, earring, or any other type of wearable accessory.”, the WCD (wearable computing device) is the “electronic device” or “ring”), wherein the wearable device comprises a finger-worn ring wearable device ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Claim 1], [Claim 2], [Claim 10], [Claim 17] & [Claim 18]: “A finger-worn wearable ring device may include a ring-shaped housing, a printed circuit board, and a sensor module that includes one or more light-emitting components and one or more light-receiving components. The wearable ring device may further include a communication module configured to wirelessly communicate with an application executable on a user device.”, and “providing a wearable computing device (WCD) in the shape of a ring. The wearable computing device can be work for extended periods of time and can take many measurements and perform various functions because of its form factor and position on the finger of a user.”).
Regarding dependent claim 6, von Badinski, teaches:
The method of claim 4 (Figs. 1A, 10 & 11; [Title], [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-45]), wherein the wearable device comprises a wrist-worn wearable device ([Col. 9, ll. 1-10] & [Col. 44, ll.1-2]: “Although the WCD (wearable computing device) of the present disclosure is depicted as a ring that can be worn on the finger of a user, other shapes, designs, and form factors can be utilized for the WCD. For example, the WCD can be in the form of a wrist band, bracelet, necklace, earring, or any other type of wearable accessory.”, the WCD (wearable computing device) is the “electronic device” or “ring”, and “The functions and structure of the device lend themselves to both a ring version and a wrist-worn version”, teaches that the structural and functional design of the wearable electronic device is applicable to a wrist-worn form factor).
Regarding dependent claim 7, von Badinski, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Title], [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]),
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, are silent in regard to:
wherein the input voltage is based on a measurement by the electronic device while being charged by the charger.
However, von Hofen, further teaches:
wherein the input voltage is based on a measurement by the electronic device (Fig. 3; [0050]-[0056]) while being charged by the charger (Fig. 3; [0050]-[0056]: discloses embodiments where the electronic device (battery pack 1) contains an internal battery management system 101 that measures the power voltage variable (input voltage) at the pack power contacts (device’s charging elements) while the device is actively loaded with a power current from the charging apparatus 4).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combination of the complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. A POSITA would find it obvious to configure the electronic device to measure its own input voltage during charging to determine the contact resistance, as taught by von Hofen. The motivation to shift the measurement to the electronic device (rather than solely relying on the charger) would be to leverage the electronic device’s onboard processing capabilities (e.g., battery management system) to accurately calculate the voltage drop at the receiving end of the connection. This would also allow the electronic device to independently verify the integrity of connection and relay the diagnostic data to the associated user device application, as taught by von Badinski, and would not require and/or stress continuous data handshakes with the charger’s diagnostic systems, yielding predictable results (KSR) according to known methods.
Regarding dependent claim 8, von Badinski, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]),
von Badinski, is silent in regard to:
wherein the contact resistance threshold
However, Olson, further teaches:
wherein the contact resistance threshold (Figs.1 & 9; [0038], [0043] & [0079]: teaches that the resistance level across the conductors is monitored to detect conditions that impact charging performance, linking the resistance indications to “charging progress” and “charging errors”, “the controller 102 may be configured to provide a cleaning reminder when an estimated resistance across one or more conductors 28L, 28R, 29L, 29R is higher than a high resistance threshold (or an input voltage/current is below a low voltage/current threshold). The cleaning reminder may indicate that the charging cavity 16 (Fig. 1) is dirty, which may prompt a user to clean the cavity 16 (for example, via the indicator 90 as shown in Fig. 1). In particular, the user may be prompted to clean the conductors 28L, 28R, 29L, 29R of the charger 12 or the terminals 20 of the rechargeable device 14. Cleaning can facilitate the restoration of desirable charging times.”, resistance thresholds impact charging performance, “the resistance across each conductor 28,29 may range from about 100 ohms, about 200 ohms, or about 300 ohms (for example, when clean) to about 1500 ohms, about 1300 ohms, or about 1200 ohms (for example, when dirty)”, as resistance values increase, charging efficiency reduces)
PNG
media_image7.png
794
993
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate contact resistance thresholds, of Olson to von Badinski, in order to attain thresholds for charging performance, optimizing the prevention charging efficiency loss due to high resistance values, and optimize battery charging efficiency of the electronic device (KSR) according to known methods to yield predictable results.
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, are silent in regard to:
is selected based at least in part on a charging performance of the electronic device.
However, von Hofen, further teaches:
is selected based at least in part on a charging performance of the electronic device ([0080]-[0082] & [0085]-[0087]: discloses that the system utilizes a “resistance limit value RG” (contact resistance threshold) that is directly tied to the power delivery performance of the charging system. If the limit value is reached, the system must alter its charging performance by decreasing power or shutting down. Teaches that the threshold is selected precisely at the point where optimal charging performance cannot be maintained any longer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the contact resistance threshold triggering the cleaning instructions, combined from Olson and von Hofen, is selected based on the charging performance of the electronic device. A POSITA would understand that the electrical resistance creates a voltage drop; if the resistance becomes too high, the charger cannot deliver the necessary current to charge the battery efficiently without generating excessive heat. Therefore, the combination or prior art elements, selecting a resistance threshold, like von Hofen’s “resistance limit value RG”, is based on acceptable charging parameters (e.g., maintaining “charging progress” and avoiding a “charging error” as taught by Olson, of the specific electronic device being charged, according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR) and optimize battery charging efficiency of the electronic device.
Regarding dependent claim 10, von Badinski, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]),
von Badinski, is silent in regard to:
wherein causing the display of the instruction for cleaning the charging elements of the charger or the charging elements of the electronic device is displayed on a user interface of the user device
However, Olson, further teaches:
wherein causing the display of the instruction for cleaning the charging elements of the charger or the charging elements of the electronic device is displayed on a user interface of the user device ([0038], [0043] & [0078]-[0079]: discloses that an instruction/reminder is sent to the interface of the user device (e.g., smartphone) to clean the charging elements, “In some embodiments (not shown), the indicator 90 may be remote from the charger 12 (for example, on a smartphone connected by wire or wirelessly to the charger 12)”, confirms that instructions can be displayed on a separate user device (e.g., smartphone) via wireless communication, and “In some embodiments the charger 12 can notify the user of a level of cleanliness, or dirtiness, in response to an inferred contact resistance from the monitored voltage information. The level of cleanliness, or dirtiness, may be presented or stored with varying granularity. In some embodiments the level is presented or stored on a binary scale (for example, clean or dirty, 1 or 0). On the other end of the spectrum, in some embodiments, the level is presented or stored a continuous scale (for example, clear or 0% dirty, 1% dirty,…99% dirty, and 100% dirty))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate cleaning instructions (reminder) on the interface of the user device (e.g., smartphone) when the calculated contact resistance exceeds a predetermined threshold (limit value), displaying the instructions on a remote user device (e.g., smartphone), and estimating resistance via voltage drops across terminals/contacts, of Olson to von Badinski. A POSITA would be motivated to improve, by combining prior art references, according to known methods, restoring desirable charging times, optimizing charging efficiency based on threshold data and provide cleaning instructions to a user interface on a user device remotely, yielding predictable results (KSR).
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, are silent in regard to:
and is based at least in part on the contact resistance exceeding the contact resistance threshold.
However, von Hofen, further teaches:
and is based at least in part on the contact resistance exceeding the contact resistance threshold ([0029], [0085]-[0086] & [Claim 13]: teaches comparing the determined contact resistance to a threshold (“resistance limit value RG”) and triggering system actions when that resistance is exceeded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the application’s user interface (taught by von Badinski) to display Olson’s reminder when the calculated determined contact resistance exceeds the predetermined normal thresholds as taught by von Hofen. The motivation experiment, optimize, and combine prior art elements, according to known methods, is to display the cleaning instructions (reminder) on the interface of the user device (e.g., smartphone) when the threshold is exceeded is to provide the user with an immediate, actionable, and visible alert on their user device screen, preventing failures or potential thermal hazards caused by high-resistance debris on the contacts, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding independent claim 11, von Badinski, teaches:
A system, comprising (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]: discloses the hardware architecture of a user device (e.g., a smartphone), a wearable computing device (WCD) system, where the WCD (electronic device) 110 communicates with a user device (e.g., mobile device) running an application):
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (Fig. 2; [Col. 10, ll. 19-27 & 49-67], [Col. 11, ll. 1-10], [Col. 15, ll. 31-56], & [Col. 42, ll. 63-67]: discloses a processor module 210 and a memory 260 (e.g., EEPROM) in the WCD, a user’s computing device (e.g., a mobile device such as a smart phone) running a software application (processor-executable code)); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the processor-executable code to cause an application running on a user device associated with an electronic device to (Fig. 2; [Col. 3, ll. 39-44], [Col. 10, ll. 19-27 & 49-67], [Col. 11, ll. 1-10], [Col. 12, ll. 66-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-9], & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]: discloses a processor module 210 and a memory 260 (e.g., EEPROM) in the WCD, a user’s computing device (e.g., a mobile device such as a smart phone) running a software application that can communicate with the WCD and perform functions like displaying sensor readings and customizing gesture input and control):
PNG
media_image8.png
838
1009
media_image8.png
Greyscale
von Badinski, is silent in regard to:
receive, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device, an indication of a contact resistance between charging elements of the electronic device and charging elements of a charger electrically coupled with the electronic device,
compare, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device, the contact resistance to a contact resistance threshold; and
cause, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device, a display of an instruction for cleaning the charging elements of the charger or the charging elements of the electronic device based at least in part on comparing the contact resistance to the contact resistance threshold.
However, Olson, further teaches:
receive, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device ([0029], [0038] & [0043]: indicates that a status can be sent to a remote smartphone application), an indication of a contact resistance ([0056], [0068] & [0077]-[0079]: discloses conductors 28, 29 are the charging elements of the charger, which interface with the terminals 20 of the electronic device) between charging elements of the electronic device and charging elements of a charger ([0055]-[0056] & [0077]: discloses dirtiness on the contacts is directly related to increased contact resistance, which is an “indication of a contact resistance”) electrically coupled with the electronic device ([0004], [0011], [0013], [0029], [0038], [0043], [0055]-[0056], [0068], [0070], & [0077]-[0079]: discloses a contact charger electrically coupled to a rechargeable device via conductors (charging elements), where the system monitors the electrical resistance across the charging conductors to detect when they are dirty (cleaning reminder), and transmits this indication status to a remote smartphone application),
compare, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device ([0029], [0038], [0043]: teaches comparing the resistance levels to detect dirty contracts and providing an indicator status for a cleaning reminder on a smartphone), the contact resistance to a contact resistance threshold (Figs. 1 & 2; [0029], [0038], [0043] & [0077]-[0079]: teaches measuring the contact resistance and evaluating it against known ranges (thresholds) to determine if the conductors are dirty (i.e., exceeding a threshold of 100 ohms up to 1500 ohms)); and
cause, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device (Figs. 1 & 2; [0029], [0038], [0043] & [0077]-[0079]: teaches that the indicator status, which can be located on the associated smartphone, provides a cleaning reminder indicator to the user once the high-resistance threshold for dirty contacts is reached), a display of an instruction for cleaning the charging elements of the charger or the charging elements of the electronic device based at least in part on comparing the contact resistance to the contact resistance threshold (Figs. 1 & 2; [0029], [0038], [0043] & [0077]-[0079]: teaches evaluating/comparing the contact resistance to determine if the contacts are dirty (i.e., exceeding a threshold of 100 ohms up to 1500 ohms) and triggering an indicator remote from the charger (i.e., smartphone) regarding cleaning, further discloses the cleaning reminder may indicate that the charging cavity 16 (Fig. 1) is dirty, which may prompt a user to clean the conductors 28L, 28R, 29L, 29R of the charger 12 or the terminals 20 of the rechargeable device 14 (“instruction for cleaning”), the instruction is provided as an indication via an indicator 90 (Fig. 1), which is a visual indicator on the charger or display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to incorporate Olson’s contact-resistance monitoring and smartphone cleaning reminder functionalities, into von Badinski’s wearable ring and mobile application system. Von Badinski discloses the base architecture of a wearable electronic device (e.g., a smart ring) that interconnects with a charging apparatus and wirelessly communicates with a mobile application running on a user’s smartphone. Wearable electronic devices are exposed to the elements, skin oils, sweat, and environmental debris, which can accumulate on the physical charging contacts. This buildup impedes the electrical connection between the device and its charger, leading to inefficient charging or complete charging failures. Olson addresses this problem within the field of small, rechargeable electronic devices. Teaching a charging system that actively monitors the electrical resistance across its physical charging conductors. If the resistance exceeds a certain threshold (e.g., jump from a clean baseline of 100 ohms to a baseline of 1500 ohms), the system detects that the contacts are obstructed and sends a cleaning reminder status to a remote indicator, such as a connected smartphone app. A POSITA would be motivated to improve the charging reliability of the wearable device and to proactively prevent charging failures by guiding the user to maintain clean contacts and to configure the processor-executable code of the application running on the user device (as taught by von Badinski) to perform the mathematical comparison step, locally, creating a centralized diagnostic hub for the user. Doing so, is a simple substitution of one known element for another according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR).
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, are silent in regard to:
wherein the contact resistance is based at least in part on an input voltage as of the electronic device, an output current of the charger, and an output voltage of the charger;
However, von Hofen, further teaches:
wherein the contact resistance is based at least in part on an input voltage as of the electronic device, an output current of the charger, and an output voltage of the charger (Figs. 1, 3, & 4; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], [0008], [0018], [0030], [0038]-[0041], [Claim 1] & [Claim 2]: discloses determining/calculating the power contact resistance across the charging elements of a battery pack and a charging apparatus by evaluating the output current and by measuring the voltage drop (difference between the output voltage potential of the charger and the input voltage potential of the device). Defines the algebraic dependency via Ohm’s law in Fig. 1, showing LR - = ∆U- / LI (Resistance = Voltage Drop/Current); battery pack 1, charging apparatus 4, pack power contact 2+, 2-, apparatus power contact 5+, 5-, power current LI, voltage drop ∆U-+,∆U-, contact resistance LR+, LR-);
Regarding dependent claim 12, von Badinski, teaches:
The system of claim 11 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]: “The wearable ring device may further include a communication module configured to wirelessly communicate with an application executable on a user device”),
von Badinski, is silent in regard to:
comprises receiving a wireless message from the electronic device.
However, Olson, further teaches:
comprises receiving a wireless message ([0043]: “One or more indicators 90 may provide a user with an indication related to the status of the charger 12, which may, for example, be visual or aural…In some embodiments (not shown), the indicator 90 may be remote from the charger 12 (for example, on a smartphone connected by wire or wirelessly to the charger 12)”) from the electronic device ([0043]: discloses the transmission of contact resistance status (the cleaning reminder) wirelessly to the remote smartphone application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to configure the electronic device to send the wireless indication message to the user device. Olsen teaches sending the contact resistance indication wirelessly to a smartphone app. A POSITA would be motivated to improve the notification/indication messaging system to the user with a status of the charging system between an electronic device and charger, providing notifications/instructions to the user to take action and clean contacts or conductors, as needed, to improve battery charging efficiency of the electronic device, according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR).
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, are silent in regard to:
wherein receiving the indication of the contact resistance
However, von Hofen, further teaches:
wherein receiving the indication of the contact resistance (Fig. 1; [0004], [0020], [0023], [0029], [0039]-[0046], [0058], [0062]-[0065], [0085]: discloses that the contact resistance calculation can be performed internally by the electronic device itself (e.g., the battery pack’s onboard battery management system) rather than exclusively by the charger)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to configure the electronic device to send the wireless indication message to the user device. Olsen teaches sending the contact resistance indication wirelessly to a smartphone app. von Hofen teaches that the electronic device (battery pack) can determine the contact resistance using its onboard management system. A POSITA would be motivated to integrate the diagnostic resistance data generated by von Hofen’s internal battery management system into the existing, primary wireless communication link established between the wearable device and the smartphone app. as taught by von Badinski, according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR), and eliminate the need for a secondary wireless transmitter inside the charger.
Regarding dependent claim 13, von Badinski, teaches:
The system of claim 11 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]),
von Badinski, is silent in regard to:
wherein the contact resistance is characterized as an electrical resistance.
However, Olson, further teaches:
wherein the contact resistance ([Abstract], [0038], [0068] & [0078]: “based on the input voltage detected, an estimated resistance across the conductors 28,29 in the charger 12 may be determined, for example, in response to an estimated voltage difference between a known supply voltage and the detected input voltage. In some embodiments, the controller 102 of the charger 12 or the power manager 130 (for example, the power controller 154) of the device 14 may be capable of calculating the estimated resistance.”, and “the charger 12 can notify the user of a level of cleanliness, or dirtiness, in response to an inferred contact resistance from the monitored voltage information”) is characterized as an electrical resistance ([Abstract], [0038] & [0068]: “The electrical resistance, or conductance, between the conductors 28, 29 may be defined to include both inherent and external variations. In some cases, the resistance across each conductor 28, 29 may range from about 100 ohms, about 200 ohms or about 300 ohms (for example, when clean) to about 1500 ohms, about 1300 ohms, or about 1200 ohms (for example, when dirty)”, characterizes the contact resistance as an electrical resistance between charger contacts (28, 29) and device terminals when they are “clean” and “dirty”, and “based on the input voltage detected, an estimated resistance across the conductors 28, 29 in the charger 12 may be determined, for example, in response to an estimated voltage difference between a known supply voltage and the detected input voltage.”, describes how resistance is derived from voltage/current relationships (V=IR))
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 characterization of contact resistance as an electrical resistance between the charging elements of the electronic device and charger, of Olson to von Badinski, in order to attain the characterization of the contact/electrical resistance and further provide “cleaning” reminders to the user to take action and clean contacts or conductors, as needed, to improve battery charging efficiency of the electronic device, according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR).
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, are silent in regard to:
between the charging elements of the electronic device and the charging elements of the charger.
However, von Hofen, further teaches:
between the charging elements of the electronic device and the charging elements of the charger (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0020], [0023], [0029], [0038]-[0046], [0058], [0062]-[0065] & [0085]: defines the power contact resistance as the resistance existing between the power contacts of the battery pack and the power contacts of the charging apparatus when they are physically touching and loaded with current).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to implement the contact resistance measured and transmitted to the user device application in the combined von Badinski/Olson/von Hofen system, which is characterized as the electrical resistance between the physical charging elements. Olson and von Hofen define their diagnostic metrics to detect physical obstructions (e.g., dirt or wear, etc.) at the direct interface where the charger meets the electronic device Incorporating it into the system would further provide “cleaning” reminders to the user to take action and clean contacts or conductors, as needed, to improve battery charging efficiency of the electronic device and/or charger, according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 14, von Badinski, teaches:
The system of claim 11 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]), wherein the electronic device comprises a wearable device (Figs. 1A, 10 & 11; [Title], [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 5, ll. 8-9 & 46-52], [Col. 8, ll. 64-67], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10], [Claim 1] & [Claim 18]: “Although the WCD (wearable computing device) of the present disclosure is depicted as a ring that can be worn on the finger of a user, other shapes, designs, and form factors can be utilized for the WCD. For example, the WCD can be in the form of a wrist band, bracelet, necklace, earring, or any other type of wearable accessory,” the WCD (wearable computing device) is the “electronic device” or “ring”).
Regarding dependent claim 15, von Badinski, teaches:
The system of claim 14 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Title], [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]: “Although the WCD (wearable computing device) of the present disclosure is depicted as a ring that can be worn on the finger of a user, other shapes, designs, and form factors can be utilized for the WCD. For example, the WCD can be in the form of a wrist band, bracelet, necklace, earring, or any other type of wearable accessory.”, the WCD (wearable computing device) is the “electronic device” or “ring”), wherein the wearable device comprises a finger-worn ring wearable device ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Claim 1], [Claim 2], [Claim 10], [Claim 17] & [Claim 18]: “A finger-worn wearable ring device may include a ring-shaped housing, a printed circuit board, and a sensor module that includes one or more light-emitting components and one or more light-receiving components. The wearable ring device may further include a communication module configured to wirelessly communicate with an application executable on a user device.”, and “providing a wearable computing device (WCD) in the shape of a ring. The wearable computing device can be work for extended periods of time and can take many measurements and perform various functions because of its form factor and position on the finger of a user.”).
Regarding dependent claim 16, von Badinski, teaches:
The system of claim 14 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Title], [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]), wherein the wearable device comprises a wrist-worn wearable device ([Col. 9, ll. 1-10] & [Col. 44, ll.1-2]: “Although the WCD (wearable computing device) of the present disclosure is depicted as a ring that can be worn on the finger of a user, other shapes, designs, and form factors can be utilized for the WCD. For example, the WCD can be in the form of a wrist band, bracelet, necklace, earring, or any other type of wearable accessory.”, the WCD (wearable computing device) is the “electronic device” or “ring”, and “The functions and structure of the device lend themselves to both a ring version and a wrist-worn version”, teaches that the structural and functional design of the wearable electronic device is applicable to a wrist-worn form factor).
Regarding dependent claim 17, von Badinski, teaches:
The system of claim11 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Title], [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]),
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, are silent in regard to:
wherein the input voltage is based on a measurement by the electronic device while being charged by the charger.
However, von Hofen, further teaches:
wherein the input voltage is based on a measurement by the electronic device (Fig. 3; [0050]-[0056]) while being charged by the charger (Fig. 3; [0050]-[0056]: discloses embodiments where the electronic device (battery pack 1) contains an internal battery management system 101 that measures the power voltage variable (input voltage) at the pack power contacts (device’s charging elements) while the device is actively loaded with a power current from the charging apparatus 4).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combination of the complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. A POSITA would find it obvious to configure the electronic device to measure its own input voltage during charging to determine the contact resistance, as taught by von Hofen. The motivation to shift the measurement to the electronic device (rather than solely relying on the charger) would be to leverage the electronic device’s onboard processing capabilities (e.g., battery management system) to accurately calculate the voltage drop at the receiving end of the connection. This would also allow the electronic device to independently verify the integrity of connection and relay the diagnostic data to the associated user device application, as taught by von Badinski, and would not require and/or stress continuous data handshakes with the charger’s diagnostic systems, yielding predictable results (KSR) according to known methods.
Regarding dependent claim 18, von Badinski, teaches:
The system of claim11 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]),
von Badinski, is silent in regard to:
wherein the contact resistance threshold
However, Olson, further teaches:
wherein the contact resistance threshold (Figs.1 & 9; [0038], [0043] & [0079]: teaches that the resistance level across the conductors is monitored to detect conditions that impact charging performance, linking the resistance indications to “charging progress” and “charging errors”, “the controller 102 may be configured to provide a cleaning reminder when an estimated resistance across one or more conductors 28L, 28R, 29L, 29R is higher than a high resistance threshold (or an input voltage/current is below a low voltage/current threshold). The cleaning reminder may indicate that the charging cavity 16 (Fig. 1) is dirty, which may prompt a user to clean the cavity 16 (for example, via the indicator 90 as shown in Fig. 1). In particular, the user may be prompted to clean the conductors 28L, 28R, 29L, 29R of the charger 12 or the terminals 20 of the rechargeable device 14. Cleaning can facilitate the restoration of desirable charging times.”, resistance thresholds impact charging performance, “the resistance across each conductor 28,29 may range from about 100 ohms, about 200 ohms, or about 300 ohms (for example, when clean) to about 1500 ohms, about 1300 ohms, or about 1200 ohms (for example, when dirty)”, as resistance values increase, charging efficiency reduces)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate contact resistance thresholds, of Olson to von Badinski, in order to attain thresholds for charging performance, optimizing the prevention charging efficiency loss due to high resistance values, and optimize battery charging efficiency of the electronic device (KSR) according to known methods to yield predictable results.
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, are silent in regard to:
is selected based at least in part on a charging performance of the electronic device.
However, von Hofen, further teaches:
is selected based at least in part on a charging performance of the electronic device ([0080]-[0082] & [0085]-[0087]: discloses that the system utilizes a “resistance limit value RG” (contact resistance threshold) that is directly tied to the power delivery performance of the charging system. If the limit value is reached, the system must alter its charging performance by decreasing power or shutting down. Teaches that the threshold is selected precisely at the point where optimal charging performance cannot be maintained any longer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the contact resistance threshold triggering the cleaning instructions, combined from Olson and von Hofen, is selected based on the charging performance of the electronic device. A POSITA would understand that the electrical resistance creates a voltage drop; if the resistance becomes too high, the charger cannot deliver the necessary current to charge the battery efficiently without generating excessive heat. Therefore, the combination or prior art elements, selecting a resistance threshold, like von Hofen’s “resistance limit value RG”, is based on acceptable charging parameters (e.g., maintaining “charging progress” and avoiding a “charging error” as taught by Olson, of the specific electronic device being charged, according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR) and optimize battery charging efficiency of the electronic device.
Regarding dependent claim 20, von Badinski, teaches:
The system of claim 11 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]),
von Badinski, is silent in regard to:
wherein causing the display of the instruction for cleaning the charging elements of the charger or the charging elements of the electronic device is displayed on a user interface of the user device
However, Olson, further teaches:
wherein causing the display of the instruction for cleaning the charging elements of the charger or the charging elements of the electronic device is displayed on a user interface of the user device ([0038], [0043] & [0078]-[0079]: discloses that an instruction/reminder is sent to the interface of the user device (e.g., smartphone) to clean the charging elements, “In some embodiments (not shown), the indicator 90 may be remote from the charger 12 (for example, on a smartphone connected by wire or wirelessly to the charger 12)”, confirms that instructions can be displayed on a separate user device (e.g., smartphone) via wireless communication, and “In some embodiments the charger 12 can notify the user of a level of cleanliness, or dirtiness, in response to an inferred contact resistance from the monitored voltage information. The level of cleanliness, or dirtiness, may be presented or stored with varying granularity. In some embodiments the level is presented or stored on a binary scale (for example, clean or dirty, 1 or 0). On the other end of the spectrum, in some embodiments, the level is presented or stored a continuous scale (for example, clear or 0% dirty, 1% dirty,…99% dirty, and 100% dirty))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate cleaning instructions (reminder) on the interface of the user device (e.g., smartphone) when the calculated contact resistance exceeds a predetermined threshold (limit value), displaying the instructions on a remote user device (e.g., smartphone), and estimating resistance via voltage drops across terminals/contacts, of Olson to von Badinski. A POSITA would be motivated to improve, by combining prior art references, according to known methods, restoring desirable charging times, optimizing charging efficiency based on threshold data and provide cleaning instructions to a user interface on a user device remotely, yielding predictable results (KSR).
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, are silent in regard to:
and is based at least in part on the contact resistance exceeding the contact resistance threshold.
However, von Hofen, further teaches:
and is based at least in part on the contact resistance exceeding the contact resistance threshold ([0029], [0085]-[0086] & [Claim 13]: teaches comparing the determined contact resistance to a threshold (“resistance limit value RG”) and triggering system actions when that resistance is exceeded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the application’s user interface (taught by von Badinski) to display Olson’s reminder when the calculated determined contact resistance exceeds the predetermined normal thresholds as taught by von Hofen. The motivation experiment, optimize, and combine prior art elements, according to known methods, is to display the cleaning instructions (reminder) on the interface of the user device (e.g., smartphone) when the threshold is exceeded is to provide the user with an immediate, actionable, and visible alert on their user device screen, preventing failures or potential thermal hazards caused by high-resistance debris on the contacts, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Claims 9 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Badinski, in view of Olson, in view of von Hofen, and further in view of Sodhia et al. (US 2025/0055318 A1, Fil. Date Aug. 9, 2023, hereinafter Sodhia).
Regarding dependent claim 9, von Badinski, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Fig. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]),
von Badinski, is silent in regard to:
wherein the contact resistance threshold
However, Olson, further teaches:
wherein the contact resistance threshold (Figs.1 & 9; [0038], [0043] & [0079]: teaches establishing a contact resistance threshold (e.g., 1500 ohms) to trigger a cleaning instruction for the physical charging elements, “the controller 102 may be configured to provide a cleaning reminder when an estimated resistance across one or more conductors 28L, 28R, 29L, 29R is higher than a high resistance threshold (or an input voltage/current is below a low voltage/current threshold). The cleaning reminder may indicate that the charging cavity 16 (Fig. 1) is dirty, which may prompt a user to clean the cavity 16 (for example, via the indicator 90 as shown in Fig. 1). In particular, the user may be prompted to clean the conductors 28L, 28R, 29L, 29R of the charger 12 or the terminals 20 of the rechargeable device 14. Cleaning can facilitate the restoration of desirable charging times.”, resistance thresholds impact charging performance, “the resistance across each conductor 28,29 may range from about 100 ohms, about 200 ohms, or about 300 ohms (for example, when clean) to about 1500 ohms, about 1300 ohms, or about 1200 ohms (for example, when dirty)”, as resistance values increase, charging efficiency reduces)
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, and von Hofen, are silent in regard to:
is selected based at least in part on a physiological measurement performance of the charging elements of the electronic device.
However, Sodhia, further teaches:
is selected based at least in part on a physiological measurement performance of the charging elements of the electronic device ([0038], [0065], [0067], [0102]-[0106], [0111] & [0113]-[0115], teaches that the wearable ring device acquires physiological data from the user and teaches the concept of repurposing physiological sensors to also act as charging elements, and vice versa, to maximize the limited space on a wearable device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sodhia’s hardware optimization technique of dual-purposing physiological sensors as charging elements (e.g., repurposing optical PPG sensors for photovoltaic charging) to conserve space on small wearable ring devices or WCD. A POSITA would find it obvious to apply this dual-purposing design to the physical, contact-based charging system taught by Olson and von Hofen. By configuring the physical charging elements to also function as physical physiological sensors (e.g., skin-contact electrodes for sensing bio-impedance, Galvanic Skin Response (GSR), or ECG), the contacts must maintain a high degree of cleanliness. The physiological signals are highly sensitive to skin-contact impedance and have signal-to-noise ratio requirements, therefore a POSITA would select the ”contact resistance threshold”, taught by Olson, based on the “physiological measurement performance” required of the sensors, according to known methods and techniques to yield predictable results (KSR) to ensure the device can accurately acquire physiological data.
Regarding dependent claim 19, von Badinski, teaches:
The system of claim11 (Figs. 1A, 10, 11 & 24A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 50-55], [Col. 2, ll. 58-63], [Col. 3, ll. 39-53], [Col. 5, ll. 46-53], [Col. 9, ll. 1-10 & 27-30] & [Col. 15, ll. 31-56]),
von Badinski, is silent in regard to:
wherein the contact resistance threshold
However, Olson, further teaches:
wherein the contact resistance threshold (Figs.1 & 9; [0038], [0043] & [0079]: teaches establishing a contact resistance threshold (e.g., 1500 ohms) to trigger a cleaning instruction for the physical charging elements, “the controller 102 may be configured to provide a cleaning reminder when an estimated resistance across one or more conductors 28L, 28R, 29L, 29R is higher than a high resistance threshold (or an input voltage/current is below a low voltage/current threshold). The cleaning reminder may indicate that the charging cavity 16 (Fig. 1) is dirty, which may prompt a user to clean the cavity 16 (for example, via the indicator 90 as shown in Fig. 1). In particular, the user may be prompted to clean the conductors 28L, 28R, 29L, 29R of the charger 12 or the terminals 20 of the rechargeable device 14. Cleaning can facilitate the restoration of desirable charging times.”, resistance thresholds impact charging performance, “the resistance across each conductor 28,29 may range from about 100 ohms, about 200 ohms, or about 300 ohms (for example, when clean) to about 1500 ohms, about 1300 ohms, or about 1200 ohms (for example, when dirty)”, as resistance values increase, charging efficiency reduces)
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, and von Hofen, are silent in regard to:
is selected based at least in part on a physiological measurement performance of the charging elements of the electronic device.
However, Sodhia, further teaches:
is selected based at least in part on a physiological measurement performance of the charging elements of the electronic device ([0038], [0065], [0067], [0102]-[0106], [0111] & [0113]-[0115], teaches that the wearable ring device acquires physiological data from the user and teaches the concept of repurposing physiological sensors to also act as charging elements, and vice versa, to maximize the limited space on a wearable device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sodhia’s hardware optimization technique of dual-purposing physiological sensors as charging elements (e.g., repurposing optical PPG sensors for photovoltaic charging) to conserve space on small wearable ring devices or WCD. A POSITA would find it obvious to apply this dual-purposing design to the physical, contact-based charging system taught by Olson and von Hofen. By configuring the physical charging elements to also function as physical physiological sensors (e.g., skin-contact electrodes for sensing bio-impedance, Galvanic Skin Response (GSR), or ECG), the contacts must maintain a high degree of cleanliness. The physiological signals are highly sensitive to skin-contact impedance and have signal-to-noise ratio requirements, therefore a POSITA would select the ”contact resistance threshold”, taught by Olson, based on the “physiological measurement performance” required of the sensors, according to known methods and techniques to yield predictable results (KSR) to ensure the device can accurately acquire physiological data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kitamura et al. (US2024/0353448) discloses a measurement apparatus and measurement result display method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 03/08/2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 3/18/2026