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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2020/0343745) and Watson (US 2024/0021061) in view of each other.
Re claim 1:
Figures 1 and 2 of Choi are shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
672
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Watson is shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
366
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both Choi and Watson teach the essential system of the instant invention, namely a wearable device, where the device is able to monitor a user (including location and other things) such that a mobile charging device can be attached in order to charge the wearable monitoring device while the user wears the monitoring device, such that the user does not have to take off the device to charge it.
Choi is deficient in that the portable charging is contactless.
Watson cures this deficiency with a portable charging device that charges via contact such as USB. The value of contact-based charging is that it can be faster and more reliable.
Other claimed elements are necessary or implied or explicitly recited, such as:
Second rechargeable battery on the charging device
Detection circuit that detects when charging device is connected and when charging is needed
Re claim 2: Location tracking is conventional in both the smartwatch of Choi and the ankle monitor of Watson.
Re claim 3: Tamper detection is a standard feature of an ankle monitor (Watson).
Re claims 5-9: These means of monitoring are conventional to detect charge levels and the need for charging. Level of voltages needed for signaling are a matter of obvious design choice.
Re claim 10: See discussions above. Circuits that detect the need for charging would have been obvious at the time of the invention.
Re claims 11-16: A way of detecting a load and the need for charging would be expected in any ordinary charging system.
Re claim 17: See discussion re claim 1, above.
Re claims 18-20: A way of detecting a load and the need for charging would be expected in any ordinary charging system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi/Watson as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Shen (US 2018/0201131).
Lacking in Choi/Watson is substance monitoring.
Shen teaches (see para 0056) a bracelet that can be used to monitor for things like alcohol impairment.
In view of Shen’s teaching it would have been obvious to monitor for impairment in order to prevent things like intoxicated driving.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Michael G. Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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.
/DANIEL A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights