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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because which abstract filed 2024-07-17 is the replacement abstract is unclear.
The abstract is further objected to because the first sentence of either version is improper as it repeats information given in the title.
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the thickness” in line 3 lacks antecedent basis and should be -a thickness-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 20170357214) in view of Rho ‘554 (US 20190394554).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a watchband for a smartwatch (Figs. 1A-1B, 2A) including: a first band (12) made of a soft material having flexibility ([0050]: “formed of a flexible material”), formed from a plate-shaped member (the strap is flat like a plate) having a predetermined length (Fig. 1B), and having at least one positioning hole (holes in Fig. 1B; see [0050]) formed therethrough; and a second band (12) including a cover member made of a soft material having flexibility ([0050]), a flexible battery (110, [0049]) formed in a plate shape having a predetermined length and a predetermined area and embedded in the cover member (Fig. 1B), and a position-fixing fastening member (13) fastened to the positioning hole ([0050]: “first coupling part 13a and second coupling part 13b…couple paired straps 12 to each other”), and a fastening hole (holes in Fig. 1B) for fastening the position-fixing member (13), wherein the flexible battery includes an electrode assembly, and an exterior material for packing the electrode assembly together with an electrolyte ([0064]: “a case which surrounds the electrolyte, and the positive electrode, and the negative electrode”), wherein the exterior material includes a first portion ([0084]: “a case 114”) for packing the electrode assembly together with the electrolyte, and a second portion (120) extended from the first portion by a predetermined length and to which the position-fixing fastening member (13) is coupled (Fig. 1A shows 13 and the bottom part of 100 coupled together as parts of the strap 12, see also [0061]), wherein the fastening hole is formed to penetrate the cover member (12), wherein, while the flexible battery (110) is embedded in the cover member (Fig. 1B), the second portion (120) is fastened, together with the cover member (12), to the position-fixing member (13). Figs. 1B, 2A show 100 comprising 110 being physically fastened to the cover member and position-fixing member.
Choi does not show the fastening hole being formed to also penetrate the second portion of the flexible battery so that while the flexible is embedded in the cover member, the second portion is directly fastened, together with the cover member, to the position-fixing member through the fastening hole.
Choi teaches in another embodiment (Figs. 1A, 2) a battery (100) that extends along an entire length of a cover member (12, 200).
Rho ‘554 discloses (Fig. 4A) a fastening hole that penetrates both a cover member (112) and a second portion of a flexible battery (130). See [0054]-[0055].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Choi’s battery to extend along the cover member’s length so as to overlap the fastening hole such that the fastening hole penetrates the second portion, as suggested by Rho ‘554, and the second portion is directly fastened to the position-fixing member through the fastening hole.
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses the watchband for a smartwatch according to claim 1, wherein the cover member is provided to cover both outer surfaces of the first portion and the second portion ([0138]: “upper strap cover 220a is combined with the lower strap cover 220b to surround the battery assembly”).
Choi also discloses (Fig. 2A) a thickness of a portion corresponding to a bottom section of the cover member of the cover member (200, 220) having one thickness among an entire length of the second band ([0138]: “the thickness” implies one thickness).
Choi does not show a thickness of a portion corresponding to the flexible battery among an entire length of the second band being constant.
Absent any criticality, the thickness of the portion corresponding to the flexible battery among the entire length of the second band being constant is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of the portion disclosed by Choi as the courts have held that a change in shape, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art. The constant thickness of the portion corresponding to the flexible battery claimed by Applicant is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.04. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the thickness of the portion corresponding to the flexible battery constant because a same thickness would be easier to manufacture by not needing to change an initially set configuration.
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses the watchband for a smartwatch according to claim 1, wherein the second portion (120 in Fig. 2A) functions as a shape-maintaining member to maintain a shape of the cover member ([0068]) and as a position-fixing member to prevent a position of the flexible battery built in the cover member from being changed inside the cover member. The flexible battery is seated in the second portion (abstract) so that the battery’s position remains constant in the second portion.
Regarding claim 6, Choi discloses (Fig. 2A) the watchband for a smartwatch according to claim 1, wherein the second band further includes a connection terminal (125) provided at one end to electrically connect the flexible battery (100) and the main body (11a-11b) of the smartwatch ([0043]). See [0064]).
Regarding claim 7, Choi discloses (Fig. 2A) the watchband for a smartwatch according to claim 1, wherein the second band further includes a charging terminal (130) for electrical connection with a charging cradle (120) to recharge the flexible battery (110). See [0063].
Regarding claim 10, Choi discloses (Fig. 6A) the watchband for a smartwatch according to claim 1, wherein the flexible battery includes: a first pattern (111-112 have a flat pattern) formed on the electrode assembly and a second pattern (115) formed on the exterior material (114_1), wherein each of the first pattern and the second pattern is formed such that peaks and valleys ([0008]) are repeatedly arranged along a longitudinal direction of the flexible battery (Fig. 6A), and the first pattern and the second pattern is disposed such that peaks and valleys coincide with each other. The claim does not stipulate that the first pattern and the second pattern each have peaks and valleys that coincide.
Regarding claim 11, Choi discloses (Figs. 1A-1B, 2) a smartwatch including: a main body (11) comprising a display unit (15) displaying at least one piece of information (whatever is on the display); and a band part (12) connected to the main body (11) and for maintaining a state in which the main body is worn on a user's wrist ([0050]), wherein the band part is the watchband for a smartwatch according to claim 1 and the main body receives driving power from the flexible battery ([0049]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Rho ‘554 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rho ‘258 (US 2017/0288258).
Regarding claim 4, Choi discloses (Fig. 6A) a watchband for a smartwatch according to claim 1, wherein the exterior material (114) includes a first exterior material (114_1) covering an upper surface of the electrode assembly (111-112) and a second exterior material (114_2) covering a lower surface of the electrode assembly (111-112), wherein the first exterior material and the second exterior material are attached to each other at positions surrounding an edge of the electrode assembly disposed between the first and second exterior materials. (Note, <605> in Fig. 6A shows 114_1 and 114_2 bonded at the edges where the pattern 115 is not formed.)
The combination of Choi and Rho ‘554 does not show the exterior materials being attached to each other through an adhesive layer disposed on one surface of each exterior material facing each other, wherein the adhesive layer is disposed to surround an edge of the electrode assembly disposed between the first exterior material and second exterior material.
Rho ‘258 teaches exterior materials attached to each other through an adhesive layer disposed on one surface of each surface exterior material facing each other, wherein the adhesive layer is disposed to surround an edge of an electrode assembly disposed between the exterior materials ([0102]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Rho ‘258’s adhesive layer with Choi’s exterior materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to bond Choi’s exterior material, electrode, and electrolyte together to create a battery assembly that does not fall apart.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Rho ‘554 as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Wikipedia (Pogo pin.pdf).
Regarding claim 8, Choi discloses (Figs. 2A, 4) the watchband for a smartwatch according to claim 7, wherein the charging cradle (120) includes a body (125) and a protruding terminal (126) protruding outward from one surface of the body (Fig. 4), wherein the protruding terminal is a pin that contacts the charging terminal (130) when the second band and the body are coupled ([0070]).
The combination of Choi and Rho ‘554 does not show the pin being a pogo pin.
Wikipedia teaches a pogo pin for electrical connections (Pogo pin.pdf).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Choi’s pin for Wikipedia’s pogo pin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of establishing an electrical connection.
Regarding claim 9, Choi discloses (Figs. 2A, 11) the watchband for a smartwatch according to claim 8, wherein a protruding member (160) and an accommodating groove (162c-162d and space of 144) corresponding to each other are formed on one surface of the second band (12) and one surface of the body (125) facing each other when the second band and the body are coupled, respectively ([0110] and [0112]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-08-04 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the second portion physically extending directly from the electrode assembly area) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 only recites that the second portion is “extended from the first portion by a predetermined length.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not preclude the interpretation that the second portion may be extended through a distance of space from the first portion.
Applicant argues that Rho ‘554’s teaching is “limited to disclose that the flexible batteries are embedded in the band part…and fails to teach or suggest that the flexible batteries can be embedded in the internal frame.” Whether Rho ‘554 discloses a battery embedded in the cited cover member is moot because the primary reference Choi discloses this limitation.
Applicant further argues that element 112 of Rho ‘554 in the action cannot be the claimed “cover member.” The action cites Rho ‘554 as only teaching a generic cover member and battery penetrated by a fastening hole. Other claimed limitations pertinent to the cover member are disclosed by Choi.
Applicant argues Rho ‘554 does not teach/suggest a position-fixing fastening member. The office action never asserts Rho ‘554 as teaching these limitations. Choi discloses these limitations.
These arguments amount to individual arguments against Rho ‘554. However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant states themselves (page 8 of Remarks, lines 1-2) that “all the elements of an invention” should be “found in a combination of the prior art references” [bold added]. That Rho ‘554 does not disclose the limitations highlighted by Applicant are moot because the prior art references in combination disclose all the invention elements. Requiring that each reference of a combination disclose all claim limitations is antithetical to the inherent nature of a combination rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that Rho ‘554 is nonanalogous art because Choi discloses an engagement unit for paired straps while Rho ‘554 discloses an internal frame of a headphone band, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Rho ‘554 discloses that a fastening hole may penetrate a cover member and a flexible battery disposed on an inner side of the cover member. Choi has a cover member and a flexible battery embedded inside the cover member (therefore, the battery is disposed on an inner side). The two references share an analogous structural feature.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant states that the action’s statement that a change in shape of a thickness is obvious under In re Dailey is “conclusory and does not adequately address” whether the claimed thickness is obvious in light of Choi. Applicant further states that an easier manufacture is an inadequate rationale and “the rejection cannot stand for this additional reason.” These statements aren’t arguments; they are just opinions. Case law is by definition conclusory. Absent any criticality in prima facie, close analysis of the minutiae of an individual reference’s teachings regarding changes in shape is unnecessary because changes in shape, absent any criticality, are obvious. Applicant’s opinions that an easier manufacture is an inadequate rationale and that the rejection cannot stand do not change that the rejection is proper under the law. Applicant admits that the rejection sets forth “a general ‘change in shape’ rationale” in addition to the easier manufacture rationale, and then cites MPEP 2143 that a rejection requires “reasoning with some rational underpinning” [bold added]. A general rationale is some rationale. An easier manufacture is a reason.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues that Rho ‘258 does not “disclose or suggest” some claimed limitations. These claimed limitations are disclosed by the other cited references. See In re Keller cited above.
Regarding claims 8-9, Applicant argues that Wikipedia doesn’t disclose some limitations. These limitations are disclosed by other cited references. See In re Keller cited above.
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 Matthew Hwang whose telephone number is (571)272-1191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 9:30-5:30 PT.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571)272-2009.
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.
/MATTHEW DANIEL HWANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights