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 May 26, 2026 has been received and made of record. Claims 1-15 and 17-21 remain pending in the application. Claims 1 & 11 have been amended, claim 16 has been cancelled, and claim 21 has been added. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 30, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-10, filed on May 26, 2026, with respect to the rejections of amended independent claims 1 & 11 under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over von Badinski (US 12013725 B2), in view of Olson (US 2018/0123355 A1), and further in view of von Hofen (US 2022/0413056 A1) have been entered, fully considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, in light of the amendments, a new ground of rejection is made further in view of Johnson (US 2025/0035687 A1). The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art references made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the currently recited claim limitations. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in their submitted response presents the argument that the prior art reference Olson, does not teach the limitations, “receiving, from the electronic device and 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,” recited in amended independent claims 1 & 11. The Applicant provided their rationale on pp. 6-8 of the submitted responses.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is that Olson’s interpretation in paragraphs [0077]-[0079] does not encompass the full prior art reference. While paragraphs [0077]-[0079] of Olson describe an embodiment where the charger determines the resistance, Olson further teaches that the electronic device itself can perform this calculation, “the power manager 130 (for example, the power controller 154) of the device 14 may be capable of calculating the estimated resistance,” ([0078]), also referenced in the Non-Final Office Action, pp.8-19. Therefore, Olson teaches the electronic device generating the indication of the contact resistance. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to configure the wearable device of von Badinski to calculate its own resistance as taught as an alternative in Olson ([0068]), and transmit that indication directly to the associated user device application using its existing wireless communication module, consistent with the data flow architecture taught by von Badinski. This combination of references teaches receiving the indication of contact resistance “…from the electronic device and at the application running on the user device…”.
The second part the Examiner would like to highlight is that the Applicant’s argument focuses on Olson individually. The rejection relies on the combination of von Badinski, Olson, and von Hofen. The primary reference, von Badinski, teaches the overarching communication architecture wherein the electronic device (WCD 110) wirelessly transmits its gathered data directly to an application running on an associated user device (e.g., smartphone/tablet), (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]), also referenced in the Non-Final Office Action, pp. 8-19. Please see MPEP 2145 (IV), that states “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant in their submitted response presents the argument that the prior art reference Olson, only teaches sending a “cleaning reminder” which is “not an indication of a contact resistance,” further stating that Olson teaches the charger comparing the estimated contact resistance to a threshold and therefore does not teach the limitations, “charging status of the rechargeable device or provide a cleaning reminder to the user…”, and therefore does not teach the limitations, “receiving, from the electronic device and 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,” recited in amended independent claims 1 & 11. The Applicant provided their rationale on pp. 6-8 of the submitted responses.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into three sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is that Olson’s interpretation in paragraphs [0077]-[0079] does not encompass the full prior art reference. Olson teaches that the device measures a voltage drop and that this “monitored voltage may be communicated back to the charger 12” ([0077]-[0079]). Further, since the contact resistance is derived directly from the voltage drop, transmitting the monitored voltage constitutes transmitting an indication of the contact resistance. Olson, further teaches that the system can notify the user of a “level of cleanliness, or dirtiness, in response to an inferred contact resistance” and that this level can be “presented or stored [on] a continuous scale (for example, clean or 0% dirty, 1% dirty,…99% dirty, and 100% dirty)” ([0078]-[0079]), also referenced in the Non-Final Office Action, pp.8-19. A continuous percentage scale communicating the degree of dirtiness, which is directly calculated from the inferred contact resistance, is an “indication of a contact resistance,” therefore, Olson teaches the electronic device generating the indication of the contact resistance.
The second part the Examiner would like to highlight is that the Applicant’s argument focuses on Olson individually for having the charger perform the threshold comparison. However, the rejection relies on the combination of von Badinski, Olson, and von Hofen, which evaluations the combined teachings of the prior art. As established in the Non-Final OA rejection, pp. 8-19, the primary reference, von Badinski, provides the overarching communication architecture wherein a software application running on a user’s mobile device receives, processes, and displays device data, (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]), also referenced in the Non-Final Office Action, pp. 8-19. Please see MPEP 2145 (IV), that states “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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, in view of von Hofen, and further in view of Johnson and meet these requirements. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that von Badinski, in view of Olson, in view of von Hofen, now in light of the new prior art reference, Johnson, fail to disclose, teach, or suggest individually or in combination, “receiving, from the electronic device and 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,”. This combination of references teaches receiving the indication of contact resistance “…from the electronic device and at the application running on the user device…”. The updated rejection relies on Johnson to teach the threshold comparison step occurring at a computing device. Johnson teaches a “threshold monitor 25 analyzing the resistance…to determine when the resistance exceeds a threshold for contact resistance,” ([Abstract], [0004], & [0022]-[0023]). Johnson further details that this threshold monitor can be implement as software executing on a hardware processor subsystem within a computing environment ([0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to integrate the software-based threshold monitor of Johnson into the user device application taught by von Badinski to predictable shift the processing logic, including the step of “comparing…the contact resistance to a contact resistance threshold” from the local charger to the computing environment of the user device application.
Applicant in their submitted response presents the argument that the prior art reference von Hofen, does not teach the limitations, “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,” recited in amended independent claims 1 & 11. The Applicant provided their rationale on pp. 8-9 of the submitted responses.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is that the Applicant argues that von Hofen individually, arguing that von Hofen relies on a single voltage potential and a data line signal, failing to teach that the contact resistance calculation incorporates both “an input voltage of the electronic device” and “an output voltage of the charger.” Relying on von Hofen individually fails to consider the teachings of the prior art combination as a whole. von Hofen is provides the mathematical teaching of deriving contact resistance using the power current (please refer to the Non-Final OA pp. 8-19), and Olson, teaches relying on the input and output voltages ([0068]). Please see MPEP 2145 (IV), that states “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Under 35 USC § 103, the prior art must be evaluated based on the combined teachings of the references.
The second part the Examiner would like to highlight is how Olson teaches calculating the estimated contact resistance based on the difference between the charger’s output voltage and the device’s input voltage, stating: “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,” ([[0068]), also referenced in the Non-Final Office Action, pp.8-19. Further, Olson’s “known supply voltage” inherently corresponds to the output voltage of the charger, and the “detected input voltage” corresponds to the input voltage of the electronic device, therefore teaching the voltage parameters.
von Hofen is relied upon in the combination to supply the final parameter of the calculation: the current. von Hofen teaches “determining the at least one power contact resistance LR+, LR- or the at least one resistance value by means of determining the power current LI,” ([0041]) . The combination of Olson (teaches determining resistance based on the difference between the charger’s output voltage and the device’s input voltage) and von Hofen (teaches determining the resistance utilizing the output power current) fully teach that “the contact resistance is based at least in part on an input voltage of the electronic device, an output current of the charger, and output voltage of the charger.”
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of independent claims 1 & 11, and dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, & 17-21, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claims 1 & 11, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-18, & 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), in view of von Hofen et al. (US 2022/0413056 A1, Pub. Date Dec. 29, 2022, hereinafter von Hofen), and further in view of Johnston et al. (US 2025/0035687 A1, Fil. Date Jul. 28, 2023, hereinafter, Johnston).
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, from the electronic device and 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,
However, Olson, in view of von Badinski, further teach:
receiving, from the electronic device and at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device (von Badinski: [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]; Olson: [0029], [0038], [0043], [0068], & [0077]-[0079]: Indicates that a status can be sent to a remote smartphone application), an indication of a contact resistance (Olson: [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, further teaching that the power manager of the electronic device is capable of calculating the estimated resistance across the charging conductors and communicating this monitored data) between charging elements of the electronic device and charging elements of a charger (Olson: [0055]-[0056], [0068], & [0077]-[0079]: 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 (Olson: [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; von Badinski: [Col. 15, ll. 31-56], [Col. 29, ll. 1-60], [Col. 30, ll. 7-32], [Col. 33, ll. 4-16], [Claim 1], [Claim 5], [Claim 10], & [Claim 16]: teaches transmitting such data from Olson directly to the smartphone app),
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, calculation, and smartphone cleaning reminder functionalities into the user device application of von Badinski’s wearable ring. Von Badinski discloses the base architecture of a wearable electronic device (e.g., a smart ring) that communicates with a user device application, 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 the electronic device estimating contact resistance across charging components, this charging system actively monitors the electrical resistance across its physical charging conductors and provides a cleaning reminder to prompt the user to clean the charging components. 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. Further, the motivation to combine these references is to solve the problem of decreased charging efficiency due to dirty contacts by effectively notifying the user through a mobile application interface to maintain optimal power transfer (Olson: [0038] & [0077]-[0079]; von Badinski: [Col. 15, ll. 31-56], [Col. 29, ll. 1-60], [Col. 30, ll. 7-32], [Col. 33, ll. 4-16], [Claim 1], [Claim 5], [Claim 10], & [Claim 16]). This combination represents a predictable variation of known prior art elements according to known methods, utilizing known techniques to improve similar devices 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 of the electronic device, an output current of the charger, and an output voltage of the charger;
However, Olson, in combination with von Hofen, further teach:
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 (Olson:[0068]: teaches determining the resistance based on the difference between he charger’s known supply (output) voltage and the device’s detected input voltage; von Hofen: 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 apply the current-based contact resistance calculation taught by von Hofen to the voltage-based resistance monitoring system of von Badinski and Olson. The combination of von Badinski and Olson teaches estimating resistance based on the difference between the charger’s output voltage and the device’s input voltage, and provides the structural framework and the logic for triggering a cleaning alert based on high resistance. von Hofen teaches determining a power contact resistance between charging contacts by determining the power current and utilizing it in conjunction with voltage variables, teaches a methodology for calculating power contact resistance between a battery pack (electronic device) and a charging apparatus. 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. Further, the motivation to incorporate von Hofen’s parameters is to improve the mathematical accuracy of the contact resistance estimation, preventing false cleaning alerts and ensuring the device charges reliably (von Hofen: [0004], [0018], [0040]-[0041; Olsen: [0068]). This represents a substitution of one known resistance calculation taught by von Hofen to the voltage-based resistance monitoring system of von Badinski and Olson, yielding expected predictable results (KSR) of alerting a user to clean their device’s charging contacts when resistance gets too high.
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, and von Hofen, are silent in regard to:
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, Johnston, in view of von Badisnki, further teach:
comparing, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device, the contact resistance to a contact resistance threshold (Johnston: [Abstract], [0004], [0006], [0022], [0028]-[0031], [0040], [0043]-[0044], [0048]-[0050], [0056], [0058], [0061]-[0062], & [Claim 16]: provides support for a threshold monitor component (executable on a processor) that analyzes measured resistance to determine when it exceeds a threshold for contact resistance; von Badinski: [Col. 15, ll. 31-56], [Col. 29, ll. 1-60], [Col. 30, ll. 7-32], [Col. 33, ll. 4-16], [Claim 1], [Claim 5], [Claim 10], & [Claim 16]: places the application/process or logic on the user device); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to incorporate the threshold monitor and display configuration of Johnston into the user device application of von Badinski to execute the steps of comparing the contact resistance to a contact resistance threshold and causing a display of an instruction based on that comparison. von Badinski teaches an electronic device paired with an application running on an associated user device to process and display tracking data and alerts. Johnson teaches a software-based threshold monitor that analyzes a measured resistance to determine when it exceeds a threshold for contact resistance, triggering a visual indicator on a display monitor. 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. The motivation to combine these references is to automate the detection of contact degradation and trigger visual maintenance instructions, preventing latent charging failures and maximizing connector lifespan (Johnston: [0020], [0022], & [0027]-[0029]). This combination represents a predictable variation of known prior art elements, applying a known technique to improve similar devices, according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR).
However, Olson, in view of Johnston, and von Badinski, further teach:
causing, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device (Olson: 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, and provides the context for the instruction: prompting the user to clean the charging elements; Johnston: [Abstract], [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0023], [0027]-[0029], [0033], [0041]-[0042], [0049], [Claim 1], [Claim 6], [Claim 8], [Claim 9], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], & [Claim 17]: teaches triggering a warning indicator on a display when the contact resistance threshold is exceeded; von Badinski: [Col. 15, ll. 31-56], [Col. 29, ll. 1-60], [Col. 30, ll. 7-32], [Col. 33, ll. 4-16], [Claim 1], [Claim 5], [Claim 10], & [Claim 16]), 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 (Olson: 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; Johnston: [Abstract], [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0023], [0027]-[0029], [0033], [0041]-[0042], [0049], [Claim 1], [Claim 6], [Claim 8], [Claim 9], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], & [Claim 17]; von Badinski: [Col. 15, ll. 31-56], [Col. 29, ll. 1-60], [Col. 30, ll. 7-32], [Col. 33, ll. 4-16], [Claim 1], [Claim 5], [Claim 10], & [Claim 16]).
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 the threshold monitor and display configuration of Johnston into the user device application of von Badinski and Olson. The prior art combination(von Badinski/Olson/von Hofen) teaches calculating contact resistance to trigger a cleaning reminder. Johnson teaches a software-based threshold monitor that analyzes a measured resistance to determine when it exceeds a threshold for contact resistance, triggering a visual indicator on a display monitor. 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. The motivation to combine these references is to automate the detection of contact degradation and trigger visual maintenance instructions, preventing latent charging failures and maximizing connector lifespan (Johnston: [0020], [0022], & [0027]-[0029]). This combination represents a predictable variation of known prior art elements, applying a known technique to improve similar devices, according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR).
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], & [Col. 43, ll. 19-45]: 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], & [Col. 43, ll. 19-45]: 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], & [Col. 43, ll. 19-45]: 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, from the electronic device and 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,
However, Olson, in view of von Badinski, further teach:
receive, from the electronic device and at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device (von Badinski: [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]; Olson: [0029], [0038], [0043], [0068], & [0077]-[0079]: Indicates that a status can be sent to a remote smartphone application), an indication of a contact resistance (Olson: [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, further teaching that the power manager of the electronic device is capable of calculating the estimated resistance across the charging conductors and communicating this monitored data) between charging elements of the electronic device and charging elements of a charger (Olson: [0055]-[0056], [0068], & [0077]-[0079]: 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 (Olson: [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; von Badinski: [Col. 15, ll. 31-56], [Col. 29, ll. 1-60], [Col. 30, ll. 7-32], [Col. 33, ll. 4-16], [Claim 1], [Claim 5], [Claim 10], & [Claim 16]: teaches transmitting such data from Olson directly to the smartphone app),
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, calculation, and smartphone cleaning reminder functionalities into the user device application of von Badinski’s wearable ring. Von Badinski discloses the base architecture of a wearable electronic device (e.g., a smart ring) paired with a user device application that interconnects with a charging apparatus, and wirelessly communicates with a mobile application running on a user’s smartphone to process and display data. 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 the electronic device capable of calculating an estimated contact resistance across charging components, this charging system actively monitors the electrical resistance across its physical charging conductors and provides a cleaning reminder to prompt the user to clean the charging components. 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. Further, the motivation to combine these references is to solve the problem of decreased charging efficiency due to dirty contacts by actively monitoring contact degradation and effectively notifying the user through a mobile application interface to maintain optimal power transfer (Olson: [0038] & [0077]-[0079]; von Badinski: [Col. 15, ll. 31-56], [Col. 29, ll. 1-60], [Col. 30, ll. 7-32], [Col. 33, ll. 4-16], [Claim 1], [Claim 5], [Claim 10], & [Claim 16]). This combination represents a predictable variation of known prior art elements according to known methods, utilizing known techniques to improve similar devices 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 of the electronic device, an output current of the charger, and an output voltage of the charger;
However, Olson, in combination with von Hofen, further teach:
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 (Olson:[0068]: teaches determining the resistance based on the difference between he charger’s known supply (output) voltage and the device’s detected input voltage; von Hofen: 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 apply the current-based contact resistance calculation taught by von Hofen to the voltage-based resistance monitoring system of von Badinski and Olson. The combination of von Badinski and Olson teaches estimating resistance based on the difference between the charger’s supply output voltage and the device’s detected input voltage, and provides the structural framework and the logic for triggering a cleaning alert based on high resistance. von Hofen teaches determining a power contact resistance between charging contacts by determining the power current and utilizing it in conjunction with voltage variables, teaches a methodology for calculating power contact resistance between a battery pack (electronic device) and a charging apparatus. 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. Further, the motivation to incorporate von Hofen’s parameters is to improve the mathematical accuracy of the contact resistance estimation, preventing false cleaning alerts and ensuring the device charges reliably (von Hofen: [0004], [0018], [0040]-[0041; Olsen: [0068]). This represents a substitution of one known resistance calculation taught by von Hofen to the voltage-based resistance monitoring system of von Badinski and Olson, yielding expected predictable results (KSR) of alerting a user to clean their device’s charging contacts when resistance gets too high.
von Badinski, in combination with Olson, and von Hofen, are silent in regard to:
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, Johnston, in view of von Badisnki, further teach:
compare, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device, the contact resistance to a contact resistance threshold (Johnston: [Abstract], [0004], [0006], [0022], [0028]-[0031], [0040], [0043]-[0044], [0048]-[0050], [0056], [0058], [0061]-[0062], & [Claim 16]: provides support for a threshold monitor component (executable on a processor) that analyzes measured resistance to determine when it exceeds a threshold for contact resistance; von Badinski: [Col. 15, ll. 31-56], [Col. 29, ll. 1-60], [Col. 30, ll. 7-32], [Col. 33, ll. 4-16], [Claim 1], [Claim 5], [Claim 10], & [Claim 16]: places the application/process or logic on the user device); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to incorporate the threshold monitor and display configuration of Johnston into the user device application of von Badinski to execute the steps of comparing the contact resistance to a contact resistance threshold and causing a display of an instruction based on that comparison. von Badinski teaches an electronic device paired with an application running on an associated user device to process and display tracking data and alerts. Johnson teaches a software-based threshold monitor that analyzes a measured resistance to determine when it exceeds a threshold for contact resistance, triggering a visual indicator on a display monitor. 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. The motivation to combine these references is to automate the detection of contact degradation and trigger visual maintenance instructions, preventing latent charging failures and maximizing connector lifespan (Johnston: [0020], [0022], & [0027]-[0029]). This combination represents a predictable variation of known prior art elements, applying a known technique to improve similar devices, according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR).
However, Olson, in view of Johnston, and von Badinski, further teach:
cause, at the application running on the user device associated with the electronic device (Olson: 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, and provides the context for the instruction: prompting the user to clean the charging elements; Johnston: [Abstract], [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0023], [0027]-[0029], [0033], [0041]-[0042], [0049], [Claim 1], [Claim 6], [Claim 8], [Claim 9], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], & [Claim 17]: teaches triggering a warning indicator on a display when the contact resistance threshold is exceeded; von Badinski: [Col. 15, ll. 31-56], [Col. 29, ll. 1-60], [Col. 30, ll. 7-32], [Col. 33, ll. 4-16], [Claim 1], [Claim 5], [Claim 10], & [Claim 16]), 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 (Olson: 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; Johnston: [Abstract], [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0023], [0027]-[0029], [0033], [0041]-[0042], [0049], [Claim 1], [Claim 6], [Claim 8], [Claim 9], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], & [Claim 17]; von Badinski: [Col. 15, ll. 31-56], [Col. 29, ll. 1-60], [Col. 30, ll. 7-32], [Col. 33, ll. 4-16], [Claim 1], [Claim 5], [Claim 10], & [Claim 16]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to incorporate the threshold monitor and display configuration of Johnston into the user device application of von Badinski and Olson. The prior art combination(von Badinski/Olson/von Hofen) teaches calculating contact resistance to trigger a cleaning reminder. Johnson teaches a software-based threshold monitor that analyzes a measured resistance to determine when it exceeds a threshold for contact resistance, triggering a visual indicator on a display monitor. 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. The motivation to combine these references is to automate the detection of contact degradation and trigger visual maintenance instructions, preventing latent charging failures and maximizing connector lifespan (Johnston: [0020], [0022], & [0027]-[0029]). This combination represents a predictable variation of known prior art elements, applying a known technique to improve similar devices, according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR).
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 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, in view of Johnston, 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Badinski, in view of Olson, in view of von Hofen, in view of Johnston, and further in view of Koenck et al. (US 2002/0101218A1, Pub. Date Aug. 1, 2002, hereinafter, Koenck).
Regarding dependent claim 21, 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 receiving the indication of the contact resistance is based at least in part on storage of the output current of the charger and the output voltage of the charger at the electronic device.
However, Koenck, in view of von Badinski, Olson, and von Hofen, further teach:
wherein receiving the indication of the contact resistance is based at least in part on storage of the output current of the charger and the output voltage of the charger at the electronic device (Koenck: [Abstract], [0011], [0026]-[0028], [0099]-[0101], [0103]-[0104], [0122], [0138]-[0139], [0172], [0176]-[0180], [0184], [0186], [0205], [0209], [0211], [0213], [0215], [0236], [0241], [0253], [0257]-[0259], & [0282]-[0283]: teaches a portable electronic device (hand-held device) containing a microprocessor that samples the charging current along with the input charging voltage (the charger’s output voltage) and stores these parameters in the registers (memory) of the microprocessor located on the device itself; von Badinski: [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], & [Col. 43, ll. 19-45]; Olson:[0068]; von Hofen: Figs. 1, 3, & 4; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], [0008], [0018], [0030], [0038]-[0041], [Claim 1], & [Claim 2]: von Badinski, Olson, and von Hofen establish calculating contact resistance on the electronic device using input voltage, output voltage, and output current).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of claimed invention to incorporate the parameter storage configuration of Koenck into the electronic device of von Badinski, Olson, and von Hofen to store the output current and output voltage of the charger at the electronic device. The prior art combination of von Badinski, Olson, and von Hofen teach calculating contact resistance on an electronic device utilizing the charger’s output current and output voltage. Koenck teaches a portable battery-powered device comprising an onboard microprocessor that samples an analog measure of the charging current along with the input charging voltage (V+CHG, corresponding the charger’s output voltage) and an input, and supplies these values to be stored in the registers of the microprocessor located on the portable device. The motivation to combine these references is to provide the electronic device’s local processor with immediate stored access to critical charging parameters, enabling it to compute the contact resistance and optimize charging efficiency without relying on continuous data transmission requests from the external charger. This combination represents a predictable variation of known prior art elements according to known methods, utilizing known techniques to improve similar computing devices, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 July 28, 2026
/A.A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights