DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1 and subspecies A1a in the reply filed on 6/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that subspecies A1a and A1b are directed to the same inventive concept, that no serious search or examination burden exists, and that subspecies A1a and A1b are not patentably distinct. This is not found persuasive because the features described in Figures 4a-c have mutually exclusive and patentably distinct mechanical features from one another. For clarification, the requirement had a typo for sub-species A1b, which is actually Figure 4c, as Figure 4b subspecies mechanically distinct aspects are not actually claimed (but would be subject to the same restriction requirement should the features be added). The election includes claims 13, 15-16, the contested claim is that claim 14 should be included in subspecies A1a should be examined also. However, claim 14 contains the mutually exclusive features “wherein the expandable component is positioned between the inner shell component and the outer shell component, and wherein the expandable component is configured to expand and contract to move the inner shell component relative to the outer shell component” which is a mutually exclusive feature of Figure 4c (claim 14) from that of Figure 4a “wherein the expandable component is disposed on a first portion of the inner circumferential surface,”(claim 13). These positions of the expandable portion are mutually exclusive features to the more generic aspects of species A1 (i.e. features claimed of the embodiment of Figure 4a which are mutually exclusive to the embodiment of 4c). This additional difference results in further searching aspects not required for the other subspecies features and additional examination consideration which meets serious burden. If the issue is in claims 15-16, those features are elected and thus any further discussion is moot. As such, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant has not stated that “the subspecies are obvious variations of one another”, which would have been persuasive, but such would mean art teaching any of the subspecies teaches all subspecies. Upon an allowable generic claim, the species and subspecies will be considered for rejoinder. Claims 14, 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 102, 205, 230, 400, 430, 460. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 2 “285”, Figure 4a “430-a” “430-b”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “104-c” has been used to designate both watch (Figure 1, [0024]) and ring (Figure 4b, [0115]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “104” has been used to designate both rings and watches. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 elements 205-a, 205-b, 235, 240. 245 improperly use underlining with lead lines already present. As these are not signifying a structure, the underlining should be removed as the lead lines are correct. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0117] refers to Figure 4 there is no Figure 4 labeled, but there are Figures 4a-c. [0122] refers to Figs. 1-4, but there is no Figure 4 labeled in the drawings, there is only Figs. 4a-c. [0129] refers to Figs. 1-5, but there is no Figure 5 labeled in the drawings, there is only Figs. 5a-b. The specification is also objected to for the lack of agreement between the drawings and specification, see drawing objections above
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 limitations “Regarding claim 15, the limitations are met by Asada except the limitations of wherein the expandable component comprises an inflatable bladder component, a temperature-activated substance, and electrically-activated substance, or any combination thereof.” are indefinite. The issue lies in the “and” followed by “or any combination thereof”. It is not clear if all are being required due to the “and” as the “or” then makes it appear that not all are being required. This makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear which renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the “and” be deleted, the claims are interpreted as such for compact prosecution purposes. Claim 16 is rejected for dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asada et al. (Asada, US 2002/0169381).
Regarding claim 1, Asada teaches a wearable ring device configured to transition between a plurality of discrete ring sizes (see at least Figures 1-2, 6A-B), comprising:
a ring-shaped housing comprising an inner circumferential surface and an outer circumferential surface, the ring-shaped housing configured to extend radially around a full circumference of the wearable ring device, wherein the outer circumferential surface of the ring-shaped housing is configured to remain constant as the wearable ring device transitions between the plurality of discrete ring sizes (see at least Figure 1-2, 6A-B);
one or more sensors positioned at least partially within the inner circumferential surface of the ring-shaped housing, the one or more sensors configured to acquire physiological data from a user (see at least Figures 1-2 6A-B elements 2, 4, 26); and
one or more mechanical components configured to adjust at least a portion of the inner circumferential surface of the wearable ring device relative to the outer circumferential surface to transition the wearable ring device between the plurality of discrete ring sizes (see at least Figures 2 and 6B elements 18/60).
Regarding claim 2, Asada teaches wherein the ring-shaped housing comprises an inner shell component defining the inner circumferential surface, and an outer shell component defining the outer circumferential surface, and wherein the inner shell component is coupled to the outer shell component (see at least Figures 1-2, 6A).
Regarding claim 3, Asada teaches wherein the outer shell component comprises a non-deformable material, and wherein the inner shell component comprises a deformable or flexible material (see at least Figure 2, [0031], [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Asada teaches wherein the inner shell component is coupled to the outer shell component such that the inner shell component is movable relative to the outer shell component (see at least Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Asada teaches further comprising: a sealing material coupled to the inner shell component and the outer shell component, the sealing material configured to create a water-tight seal between the inner shell component and the outer shell component (see at least Figures 1-2, 6A where 23 meets the claimed structure and functions as [0032] describes this has wires and shields from light, and would meet the configuration to protect circuitry described in [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Asada teaches wherein the sealing material is configured to expand and contract to maintain the water-tight seal as the inner shell component moves relative to the outer shell component (see at least Figures 1-2, 6A where 23 meets the claimed structure and functions as [0032] describes this has wires and shields from light, and would meet the configuration to protect circuitry described in [0022] when movements occur for sizing).
Regarding claim 12, Asada teaches wherein the one or more mechanical components comprise an expandable component that is configured to expand and contract relative to a center of the wearable ring device to adjust at least the portion of the inner circumferential surface relative to the outer circumferential surface (see at least Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Asada teaches wherein the expandable component is disposed on a first portion of the inner circumferential surface, and wherein the one or more sensors are positioned within a second portion of the inner circumferential surface, wherein the expandable component is configured to expand and contract the first portion of the inner circumferential surface relative to the center of the wearable ring device as the second portion of the inner circumferential surface remains still relative to the outer circumferential surface (see at least Figures 1-2, sensor 26 and structures of the ring meet the limitations claimed).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asada et al. (Asada, US 2002/0169381) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vescovi et al. (Vescovi, US 2015/0277559).
Regarding claim 7, Asada teaches further comprising: one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more sensors (see at least [0021]-[0022], [0032]), selectively adjust one or more measurement parameters of the one or more sensors based at least in part on the discrete ring size (see at least [0034]-[0035] pressure is adjusted based on sized ring and finger), except the limitations of the one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more mechanical components, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: identify that the wearable ring device comprises a discrete ring size of the plurality of discrete ring sizes are not directly taught.
Vescovi teaches a related system with a ring computer device (see title and abstract), and reasonably teaches the one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more mechanical components, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: identify that the wearable ring device comprises a discrete ring size of the plurality of discrete ring sizes (see at least [0034] “In some embodiments, the ring 100 is adjustable to fit different size fingers. Cylinders having a fixed-size outer circumference but having varied inner ring sizes may be inserted and attach to the ring aperture 104 to adjust for user finger size. In other embodiments, part of the ring 100 is mechanically or electronically moved and latched into position by the user or automatically (via, e.g., the use of sensors and actuators to sense the tightness of the ring on the user's finger), thereby increasing or decreasing the inner circumference of the ring to fit the user's finger size.”), where replacement of the manual mechanism in Asada with the automatic mechanism in Vescovi is within ordinary skill in the art for simple substitution. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of using a computer processor to sense size and automatically adjust the ring sizing to fit different finger sizes more perfectly. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).
Regarding claim 8, Asada teaches one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more sensors (see at least [0021]-[0022], [0032]), Asada teaches selectively adjusting ring size (see at least [0034]-[0035] pressure is adjusted based on sized ring and finger), however, the limitations of the one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more mechanical components, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: identify a command to adjust a size of the wearable ring device from a first discrete ring size to a second discrete ring size; and transmit, to the one or more mechanical components, an instruction to selectively modify one or more parameters of the one or more mechanical components based at least in part on receiving the command to adjust the size of the wearable ring device is not directly taught.
Vescovi teaches a related system with a ring computer device (see title and abstract), and reasonably teaches the limitations of the one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more mechanical components, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: identify a command to adjust a size of the wearable ring device from a first discrete ring size to a second discrete ring size; and transmit, to the one or more mechanical components, an instruction to selectively modify one or more parameters of the one or more mechanical components based at least in part on receiving the command to adjust the size of the wearable ring device (see at least [0034] “In some embodiments, the ring 100 is adjustable to fit different size fingers. Cylinders having a fixed-size outer circumference but having varied inner ring sizes may be inserted and attach to the ring aperture 104 to adjust for user finger size. In other embodiments, part of the ring 100 is mechanically or electronically moved and latched into position by the user or automatically (via, e.g., the use of sensors and actuators to sense the tightness of the ring on the user's finger), thereby increasing or decreasing the inner circumference of the ring to fit the user's finger size.”), where replacement of the manual mechanism in Asada with the automatic mechanism in Vescovi is within ordinary skill in the art for simple substitution. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of using a computer processor to sense size and automatically adjust the ring sizing to fit different finger sizes more perfectly. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are met by Asada in vie of Vescovi, where Vescovi teaches wherein the command is received via a user device associated with the wearable ring device, via a user input component on the outer circumferential surface of the wearable ring device, or both (intended use with inferenced structures, structures taught in Vescovi [0034]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asada et al. (Asada, US 2002/0169381) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Connor (US 2016/0317060).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are met by Asada except the limitations of wherein the expandable component comprises an inflatable bladder component, a temperature-activated substance, [[and]] electrically-activated substance, or any combination thereof is not directly taught.
Connor teaches a related device with a ring device (see title and abstract), and teaches that biometric sensing components can be pressed toward the skin using an inflation type system which reasonably teaches wherein the expandable component comprises an inflatable bladder component, a temperature-activated substance, [[and]] electrically-activated substance, or any combination thereof (see entire document, especially [0540]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious substitution of one known pressure causing mechanism for another to allow for inner circumference changes to allow for a ring sensing device to press into a finger wearing the device with controllable pressure.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are met by Asada in view of Connor, where Connor teaches wherein the temperature-activated substance is configured to expand or retract in response to body heat from the user, and wherein the temperature-activated substance, the electrically-activated substance, the inflatable bladder component, or any combination thereof, are configured to expand or retract in response to an electrical current generated by one or more electrical components of the wearable ring device (see at least [0020], [0144], implied or obvious that a pump causes the inflation like that described in [0203] which necessarily has electric current to control such actions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While the art of record as rejected in claim 8 teaches gesture recognition (see Vescovi [0066]),however, there is no suggestion, teaching or reasonably obviousness that the gestures are directed to automatic sizing as present in the claims 10-11 considered as a whole with all the features required in the claims which the claim depends from, including the limitations “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify a gesture engaged in by the user based at least in part on the physiological data acquired from the user via the one or more sensors, wherein identifying the command to adjust the size of the wearable ring device is based at least in part on identifying the gesture” and “the wearable ring device of claim 10, wherein the gesture comprises a tap, a knock, a snap, a rotation of the wearable ring device, or any combination thereof”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights