DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinan (2021/003672) in further view of Drysdale (2016/0050776).
Regarding Claim 1: Dinan teaches a strap for a wearable device, comprising: a printed circuit board (PCB) (114) on which is mounted electronic components (fig. 1) including a transmitter (108/109) for transmitting radio signals (paragraph [0077]) and a button (170) in electrical communication with said transmitter (paragraph [0083]), a chassis (160) attached to said button (fig. 2), a depressible button interface (171) mounted on said chassis (figs. 1-2), a membrane (116), but lacks a specific teaching of the membrane providing a waterproof seal for said button, wherein when said depressible button interface is pressed, said waterproof seal deforms and actuates said button.
Drysdale teaches a membrane (928) providing a waterproof seal (paragraph [0054]) for said button (926), wherein when said depressible button interface is pressed, said waterproof seal deforms and actuates said button (paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Dinan by having the membrane providing a waterproof seal for said button, wherein when said depressible button interface is pressed, said waterproof seal deforms and actuates said button as disclosed by Drysdale in order to allow for a more efficient way of providing waterproof protection to the switch of the button which in turn decreases the chances of damage to the electrical components of the device which would require replacement or repair of the damaged components.
Regarding Claim 2: Dinan teaches at least one battery (106) located within said strap (fig. 1) and in electronic communication with said PCB (paragraph [0078]).
Regarding Claim 3: Dinan teaches wherein said battery is a coin cell (paragraph [0055]).
Regarding Claim 4: Dinan lacks a specific teachings of wherein said strap comprises polyurethane.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Dinan by having said strap comprises polyurethane in order to allow for a more efficient and comfortable form of a band for the user to wear without degrading the abilities for the radio transmitters to properly function which in turn leads to a more suitable and reliable device wherein this would be accomplished merely by choosing the appropriate materials wherein it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 5: Dinan teaches wherein the strap comprises a watch housing (fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6: Dinan lacks a specific teachings of wherein said waterproof layer is formed of silicone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Dinan by having said waterproof layer being formed of silicone in order to allow for a more efficient and comfortable form of a band for the user to wear without degrading the abilities for the radio transmitters to properly function which in turn leads to a more suitable and reliable device wherein this would be accomplished merely by choosing the appropriate materials wherein it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 7: Dinan lacks a specific teachings of wherein said waterproof seal is compressed between said button and said chassis.
Drysdale teaches wherein said waterproof seal is compressed between said button and said chassis (paragraph [0054] and figs. 9b-9c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Dinan by having wherein said waterproof seal is compressed between said button and said chassis as disclosed by Drysdale in order to allow for a more efficient way of providing waterproof protection to the switch of the button which in turn decreases the chances of damage to the electrical components of the device which would require replacement or repair of the damaged components.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinan (2021/003672) in further view of Drysdale (2016/0050776) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Savoy (8,998,484).
Regarding Claim 8: Dinan lacks a specific teachings of wherein said chassis is attached to said PCB by a plurality of pins.
Savoy teaches said chassis is attached to said PCB by a plurality of pins (Col. 2 lines 49-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Dinan by having said chassis is attached to said PCB by a plurality of pins as disclosed by Savoy in order to allow for a more secure and reliable connection between the internal components of the apparatus decreasing the chances for damage to occur which would require repair or replacement of damaged components of the apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841