DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 10/14/25 is acknowledged. Applicant has cancelled claims 15-20.
Specification
Title:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Given the election of Group I, the title should focus on the elected invention.
Abstract:
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: Given the election of Group I, the abstract should focus on the elected invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wireless charging components” in claim 5; “light emitting devices” in Claim 7; “stopping components” in Claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) In Claim 3, page 3, line 5, “coupling first set” should be “coupling the first set”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,402,690 by Rhee in view of US 20210037932 by Min.
Regarding Claim 1, Rhee teaches a wearable ring device (e.g. abstract: wearable ring device), comprising:
an inner ring-shaped housing comprising one aperture (e.g. abstract; 3:17-29; Fig. 1a, Fig. 2: inner ring 12 with aperture for finger 14), wherein the inner ring-shaped housing defines an inner circumferential surface of the wearable ring device (e.g. as seen in Fig. 2, the inner ring 12 has an inner circumferential surface as shown surrounding the ring’s finger aperture);
one sensor on the inner ring-shaped housing, the sensor configured to acquire physiological data from a user through the aperture (e.g. 3:17-29, 38-41; Fig. 1a, Fig. 2: inner ring 12 has a PPG sensor unit 16 on it, the sensor unit including LEDs 22 and photodiodes 24; 3:17-29, 41-49; Fig. 3: the measurements are taken through the aperture and a finger placed therein), wherein the sensor is capable of acquiring the physiological data at one measurement point at one radial position on a circumference of a finger of the user (e.g. Fig. 3: the measurements are taken from a radial position corresponding to arteries 42); and
an outer ring-shaped housing that at least partially surrounds the inner ring-shaped housing (e.g. abstract; 3:17-36: Fig. 1a, Fig. 2: outer ring 18), wherein the outer ring-shaped housing defines an outer surface of the wearable ring device (as shown in Fig. 2), wherein the outer ring-shaped housing is non-statically coupled with the inner ring-shaped housing such that the outer ring-shaped housing is configured to rotate relative to the inner ring-shaped housing, and wherein the inner ring-shaped housing is configured to remain stationary relative to the finger of the user during rotation of the outer ring-shaped housing such that the measurement point remains unchanged during rotation of the outer ring-shaped housing (e.g. abstract; 3:19-37; 4:4-14,39-57: the inner ring 12 does not rotate when the outer ring rotates, thus keeping the sensor in place on the finger).
Rhee does not disclose that the sensor is disposed at least partially within the inner ring.
However, Min teaches an analogous wearable health monitoring ring which includes a PPG sensor, with light emitters and light receivers, that is disposed within the wearable ring (e.g. ¶¶49, 59, Fig. 1, Fig. 2: PPG sensor 172 is disposed in ring 100, which has apertures 112a, 112b, 132a, and 132b in order to accommodate the light emitter 172a and light receiver 172b of the PPG sensor). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a PPG sensor within an inner ring of a ring device according to the teachings of Rhee, as taught by Min, as this: a) would predictably provide PPG (e.g. oxygen saturation) measurements, b) it would enhance the protection of the sensors from mechanical damage, and c) it would provide for a smoother surface that is more akin to typical rings to which users are better accustomed, thus being less obtrusive. Also note that this modification would incorporate more apertures in the inner ring, through which measurements are taken.
Rhee does not disclose that the outer ring’s outer surface is an outer circumferential surface. The term “circumferential” is taken to preclude the polygonal outer ring surface of Rhee.
However, Min teaches an analogous health monitoring ring having an outer circumferential surface (e.g. ¶52; Fig. 5: outer ring 110’ has an outer circumferential surface). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the outer surface of the outer ring to a circumferential surface, as taught by Min, as: a) this would predictably provide an outer ring rotatable around an inner ring, b) a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art [In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B], and c) this would provide for a smoother surface that is more akin to typical rings to which users are more accustomed, would eliminate angled surfaces which can cause accidental injuries, and would use less material.
Regarding Claim 2, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1 teaches the wearable ring device of claim 1, further comprising: a first ring-shaped side wall that is statically coupled to the inner ring-shaped housing on a first lateral side of the wearable ring device; and a second ring-shaped side wall that is statically coupled to the inner ring-shaped housing on a second lateral side of the wearable ring device, wherein the outer ring-shaped housing is non-statically coupled with the first ring-shaped side wall and the second ring-shaped side wall (the sides of the walls of the ring of Rhee/Min are fixedly attached, both in Rhee’s inner ring 12 of Fig. 2, and in Min’s inner ring 110/130 of Fig. 2, the latter offering the teachings for embedding the PPG in the inner ring). These side walls of Rhee/Min’s inner ring are themselves fittings that are fixed. The term “fitting” implies that these are separate parts that at some point were removable. Thus, Rhee/Min does not disclose that the side walls of the inner ring are separate parts, and thus “fittings”. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the side walls of the inner ring separable, as it has been held that: a) the separation of elements, where removability would be desirable, is a design consideration within the skill of the art (In re Dulberg, 283 F.2d 522, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961); Also see MPEP 2144.V.C.3), and b) constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee/Min, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 20230072436 by Sanchez.
Regarding Claim 3, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1 teaches the wearable ring device of claim 1, yet does not disclose further comprising: a first set of mechanical features within the inner ring-shaped housing; and a second set of mechanical features within the outer ring-shaped housing, wherein the second set of mechanical features are configured to non-statically couple to the first set of mechanical features within the inner ring-shaped housing, wherein the outer ring-shaped housing is configured to rotate relative to the inner ring-shaped housing based at least in part on non-statically coupling first set of mechanical features with the second set of mechanical features, wherein the first set of mechanical features comprise a set of grooves, and wherein the second set of mechanical features comprise a set of protrusions, or vice versa. However, Sanchez teaches an analogous smart ring device which utilizes rotation of an outer ring around an inner ring in order to harvest energy, wherein the rotation mechanism between the rings uses protrusions and grooves (e.g. abstract, ¶¶ 2, 93-96; Fig. 9A, Fig. 9B: energy harvesting mechanism has multiple protrusions 950a-950d around the outer ring 904, and “one or more” cantilevers 960 around the inner ring 902, wherein each of the cantilevers deforms over a groove, and in addition, the cantilevers themselves have protrusions, and all protrusions/teeth from valleys/grooves around them). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an energy harvesting rotation mechanism with protrusions and grooves to an inner and outer ring according to the teachings of Rhee/Min, as taught by Sanchez, as: a) this would be an equivalent mechanism that would predictably provide rotation between the outer and inner rings, and b) this would beneficially harvest energy from motion, thus obviating the need to remove the ring for charging, as suggested by Sanchez (¶3).
Regarding Claim 4, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1 teaches the wearable ring device of claim 1, yet does not disclose further comprising: one or more bearing components (interpreted as components of a bearing) positioned between the inner ring-shaped housing and the outer ring-shaped housing, wherein the outer ring-shaped housing is configured to rotate relative to the inner ring-shaped housing based at least in part on the one or more bearing components. However, Sanchez teaches an analogous smart ring device which utilizes rotation of an outer ring around an inner ring in order to harvest energy, wherein the rotation mechanism between the rings uses a radial ball bearing (e.g. abstract, ¶¶ 2, 71-75; Fig. 7A, Fig. 7B: energy harvesting rotation mechanism uses a radial ball bearing 710/712/714 between an inner and an outer ring 702/704). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a rotation mechanism with a radial ball bearing to an inner and outer ring according to the teachings of Rhee/Min, as taught by Sanchez, as: a) this would be an equivalent mechanism that would predictably provide rotation between the outer and inner rings, and b) this would beneficially harvest energy from motion, thus obviating the need to remove the ring for charging, as suggested by Sanchez (¶3).
Regarding Claim 5, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1 teaches the wearable ring device of claim 1, yet does not teach further comprising: one or more wireless charging components positioned at least partially within the inner ring-shaped housing, the outer ring-shaped housing, or both, wherein the wearable ring device is configured to perform an inductive charging procedure to charge a battery positioned within the inner ring-shaped housing (note here that the battery is not positively recited, which would require first introducing the battery as an element that is part of the ring) based at least in part on the rotation of the outer ring- shaped housing relative to the inner ring-shaped housing. However, Sanchez teaches an analogous smart ring device which utilizes rotation of an outer ring around an inner ring in order to harvest energy and charge a power source in the inner ring, wherein the energy harvesting mechanism involves induction charging via magnets in the outer ring and induction coils in the inner ring (e.g. abstract, ¶¶ 2, 71-75; Fig. 7A, Fig. 7B: magnets 750 rotate with the outer ring 704 relative to inner ring 702, and this motion creates an AC voltage across the terminal of coils 735 of the inner ring, thus inductively charging the battery 520 of the inner ring). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a rotation-based inductive energy harvesting mechanism, as taught by Sanchez (as discussed above), to an inner and outer ring according to the teachings of Rhee/Min, as: a) this would be an equivalent mechanism that would predictably provide rotation between the outer and inner rings, and b) this would beneficially harvest energy from motion, thus obviating the need to remove the ring for charging, as suggested by Sanchez (¶3).
Regarding Claim 6, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1 and Sanchez in Claim 5, teaches the wearable ring device of claim 5, wherein the one or more wireless charging components comprise: one or more magnets positioned at least partially within the outer ring-shaped housing; and one or more coils positioned at least partially within the inner ring-shaped housing, wherein rotation of the one or more magnets relative to the one or more coils is configured to induce an electrical current that is used to perform the inductive charging procedure (e.g. Sanchez: abstract, ¶¶ 2, 71-75; Fig. 7A, Fig. 7B: magnets 750 rotate with the outer ring 704 relative to inner ring 702, and this motion creates an AC voltage across the terminal of coils 735 of the inner ring, thus inductively charging the battery 520 of the inner ring).
Regarding Claim 7, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1 and Sanchez in Claim 5 teaches the wearable ring device of claim 5, further comprising: one or more light emitting devices positioned at least partially within the inner ring-shaped housing, the outer ring-shaped housing, or both, wherein the one or more light emitting devices are configured to emit light while the wearable ring device performs the inductive charging procedure (e.g. 3:17-29, 38-41; Fig. 1a, Fig. 2: inner ring 12 has a PPG sensor unit 16 on it, the sensor unit including LEDs 22 and photodiodes 24; Adding rotation-based energy harvesting would keep the battery charged and thus the continuous monitoring operation uninterrupted, see ¶3 Sanchez and Rhee 2:32-35).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee/Min, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 9626031 by Dow.
Regarding Claim 8, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1 teaches the wearable ring device of claim 1, yet does not disclose further comprising: one or more spring components positioned at least partially within the inner ring- shaped housing, the outer ring-shaped housing, or both, wherein the one or more spring components (interpreted as component of a spring) are configured to return the outer ring-shaped housing to an initial position after rotation.
However, Dow teaches an analogous smart ring which uses a spring to return a rotatable outer ring back to its initial position (e.g. 5:52—6:12; 9:65—10:27; Fig. 2A; Fig. 3: outer ring 220/230 is rotatable over inner ring 210, and the rotation mechanism includes a spring, such as springs 336, that return the outer ring back to its original position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a rotation mechanism that includes a spring that returns the outer ring to its original position in a ring according to the teachings of Rhee/Min, as taught by Dow, as this would: a) predictably return the outer ring to its original position, and b) prevent overextension damage to the wiring between the outer and inner rings (e.g. Rhee, Fig. 1: wiring 26).
Regarding Claim 14, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1 teaches the wearable ring device of claim 1, further comprising: one or more stopping components positioned at least partially within the inner ring-shaped housing, the outer ring-shaped housing, or both, wherein the one or more stopping components are configured to limit rotation of the outer ring-shaped housing to a radial range, the radial range based at least in part on a position of the one or more stopping components. However, Dow teaches an analogous smart ring which uses a spring and a stopping component to return a rotatable outer ring back to its initial position (e.g. 5:52—6:12; 9:65—10:27; Fig. 2A; Fig. 3: outer ring 220/230 is rotatable over inner ring 210, and the rotation mechanism includes a spring, such as springs 336, that return the outer ring back to its original position, and stoppers 332 that limit rotation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a rotation mechanism that includes a spring that returns the outer ring to its original position and stoppers that limit the extend of rotation in a ring according to the teachings of Rhee/Min, as taught by Dow, as this would: a) predictably return the outer ring to its original position, b) predictably set rotational limits, and c) prevent overextension damage to the wiring between the outer and inner rings (e.g. Rhee, Fig. 1: wiring 26).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee/Min, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2022/0233142 by Hasan.
Regarding Claim 9, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1, teaches the wearable ring device of claim 1, yet does not disclose further comprising: one second sensor disposed at least partially within the inner ring-shaped housing, the one second sensors configured to detect a sequence of rotations of the outer ring-shaped housing relative to the inner ring-shaped housing, wherein the wearable ring device is configured to generate a ring-inputted command based at least in part on the sequence of rotations.
However, Hasan teaches an analogous health monitoring smart ring (e.g. ¶¶ 23, 135-137, Fig. 15: smart ring 100 with PPG sensor 60 on an inner ring 10) which senses combinations of angle rotations of an outer ring relative to an inner ring and issues a control signal for remote control of devices or local control of the smart ring (e.g. ¶¶ 15, 29-30, 98, 105-108, 110, 126, Fig. 10: combinations of rotations of outer ring 30/31 generates different control signals). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate detection of sequences of rotation of the outer ring and issue control signals in response, in a smart ring according to the teachings of Rhee/Min, as taught by Hasan, in order to predictably enable the use of the smart ring as a controller with multiple potential inputs, which is taught as desirable by Hasan (e.g. ¶3-8: operating a smart ring as a control device is advantageous), and would simplify the operation of multiple devices with one wearable multi-functional device.
Regarding Claim 10, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1 and Hasan in Claim 9, teaches the wearable ring device of claim 9, further comprising: one indexing component positioned at least partially within the outer ring-shaped housing, wherein the sequence of rotations are detected relative to the one indexing component (e.g. Hasan, Fig. 11: gradation for indicating the angles are part of the aforementioned rotation detection mechanism taught by Hasan and incorporated in the modification of Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 11, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1 and Hasan in Claim 9, teaches the wearable ring device of claim 10, wherein the ring-inputted command is based at least in part on an index associated with each rotation of the sequence of rotations, and wherein the index indicates whether the respective rotation is performed counterclockwise relative to the one or more indexing components (e.g. Hasan, Fig. 11: gradation for indicating the angles are part of the aforementioned rotation detection mechanism taught by Hasan and incorporated in the modification of Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 12, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1 and Hasan in Claim 9, teaches the wearable ring device of claim 9, wherein the ring-inputted command is based at least in part on a radial difference between an end position of the outer ring-shaped housing following each rotation of the sequence of rotations relative to an initial position of the outer ring-shaped housing of the wearable ring device prior to rotation around the inner ring-shaped housing (e.g. ¶¶ 15,29-30,98,105-108,110,126, Fig. 10: the inputs from the rotations of outer ring 30/31 include detecting rotations from a start point SP1 to an end point EP1).
Regarding Claim 13, Rhee as modified by Min in Claim 1 and Hasan in Claim 9, teaches the wearable ring device of claim 9, wherein the ring-inputted command is based at least in part on a rotational magnitude of each rotation of the sequence of rotations relative to an initial position of the outer ring-shaped housing of the wearable ring device prior to rotation around the inner ring-shaped housing (e.g. ¶¶ 15,29-30,98,105-108,110,126, Fig. 10: the inputs from the rotations include angle degrees, which are a magnitude of the angle).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANOLIS Y PAHAKIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, 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, CARL LAYNO can be reached at (571)272-4949. 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.
/MANOLIS PAHAKIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3796