DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
1. 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.
The following claim limitations are generic placeholders that are not preceded with sufficient structure:
“a switching part”
Since these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
The claim limitation “a switching part” in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. To be sure, paragraph 0065 of the specification states a switching part is provided to switch between charging by the charger 120 and charging by the power generation device. However, the specification does not explicitly show the structure for the switching part. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
4. Claims 1-4, 6, 23 and 26 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 in view of Greene et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0102296 (hereinafter Greene).
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a rectifier circuit configured to receive electric field energy of a radio wave or a quasi-electrostatic field in space and to rectify an alternating current (AC) signal into a direct current (DC);
an antenna part comprising a first antenna element comprising a conductor configured to be in contact with a human body where the human body is not grounded to earth; and a second antenna element comprising a conductor different from the first antenna element and configured to not to be in contact with the human body;
an input line connected in series to the rectifier circuit, wherein the input line carrying an AC signal output from the antenna part to the rectifier circuit the AC signal being output from the first antenna element; and
an energy storage device configured to store an output of the rectifier circuit.
Still on the issue of claim 1 of the instant application, claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 does not teach a switching part configured to switch between charging of the energy storage device by an external power supply and charging of the energy storage device by the rectifier circuit. All the same, Greene discloses a switching part configured to switch between charging of energy storage device by an external power supply and charging of the energy storage device by the rectifier circuit (from paragraph 0086, see FIG. 65 is a block diagram of the RF Power Harvesting block in communication with the Power Regulation, Storage and/or Storage Charging block). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 with a switching part configured to switch between charging of the energy storage device by an external power supply and charging of the energy storage device by the rectifier circuit as taught by Greene. This modification would have provided increased functionality by providing increased battery life as suggested by Greene.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene discloses a communication module (from paragraph 0001, see cell phones).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene discloses a power supply terminal, wherein the charging of the energy storage device by the external power supply is performed from the power supply terminal (from paragraph 0225 of Greene, see It may be advantageous to leave the device design as is including the existing power supply).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene discloses the electronic device is configured as earphones or a hearing aid (from paragraph 0180 of Greene, see Bluetooth headsets, hands-free headsets, headsets, headphones, Wireless headsets).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene discloses the electronic device is configured as a headphone (from paragraph 0180 of Greene, see Bluetooth headsets, hands-free headsets, headsets, headphones, Wireless headsets).
Regarding claim 23, although the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene discloses the rectifier circuit includes a diode (from paragraph 0139 of Greene, see the rectifying circuitry may include a diode(s)), the combination does not explicitly teach that a ratio of a forward current of 1 mA at a forward voltage of the diode to a reverse current of the diode is 10,000 or more, or a reverse resistance value of the diode at a time of application of 10 V in a reverse direction of the diode is 10 M or more. However, when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05 II A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene wherein a ratio of a forward current of 1 mA at a forward voltage of the diode to a reverse current of the diode is 10,000 or more, or a reverse resistance value of the diode at a time of application of 10 V in a reverse direction of the diode is 10 M Ω or more. This modification would have improved efficiency by providing an optimum diode.
Regarding claim 26, claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 discloses that the first antenna element and the human body are electrically in contact with each other by capacitive coupling.
5. Claims 5 and 9-11 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 combined with Greene in further view of Chou, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0223747 (hereinafter Chou).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene does not teach the earphones or the hearing aid includes an earpiece in which the electrode is disposed. All the same, Chou discloses the earphones or the hearing aid includes an earpiece in which the electrode is disposed (from paragraph 0069, see For example, as shown in FIGS. 7a-7b, an electrode, such as thin metal or conductive fiber, can be attached onto a surface of the elastic member. Under such condition, it is necessary to consider how to electrically connect the electrode 100 on the elastic member surface to the circuit 104 inside the in-ear housing. In a preferred embodiment, the surface of the supporting body 12 can be configured to include a conductive portion 121 so as to achieve the connection between the electrode 100 and the circuit 104 through the conductive portion. For example, as shown in FIG. 7a, connecting wires can be used to connect the electrode 100 to the conductive portion 121 and connect the conductive portion 121 to the circuit 104. Alternatively, a different connection method also can be used between the conductive portion 121 and the electrode 100. For example, as shown in FIG. 7b, a conductive object 142 can be arranged between the two and in contact with the two at the same time such that the effect of electrical connection can still be achieved. Such method is more advantageous to maintain the contact between the electrode and the ear canal. It shall be noted that although only one single electrode is illustrated in the drawings, it can also be configured to include more than one electrode, without limitation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene wherein the earphones or the hearing aid includes an earpiece in which the electrode is disposed as taught by Chou. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for the acquisition of physiological signals as suggested by Chou.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene does not teach the electronic device is configured as smart glasses. All the same, Chou discloses the electronic device is configured as smart glasses (from paragraph 0113 of Chou, see VR glasses). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene wherein the electronic device is configured as smart glasses as taught by Chou. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for the acquisition of physiological signals as suggested by Chou.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene as modified by Chou discloses the smart glasses include a temple provided with the electrode (from Figure 22f of Chou, see 200).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene does not explicitly teach that the electrode comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a conductive resin and a conductive rubber. All the same, Chou discloses the electrode comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a conductive resin and a conductive rubber (from paragraph 0121, see it is preferable to use dry electrodes, such as conductive metal, conductive rubber, conductive silicon, conductive foam and conductive fiber, thereby maximizing the convenience). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene wherein the electrode comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a conductive resin and a conductive rubber as taught by Chou. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by allowing the device to be worn any time as suggested by Chou.
6. Claim 7 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 combined with Greene in further view of Alcaide et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0187912 (hereinafter Alcaide).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of references does not clearly teach the headphones include an ear pad on which the electrode is disposed. All the same, Alcaide discloses the headphones include an ear pad on which the electrode is disposed (from paragraph 0048, see . It is understood that the electrodes can be integrated into the ear cup, ear cushion, Ear-Pads, earpads, ear-canal-probe, ear-bud, or other part of the headphones that make contact with a user's skin in or around the user's ear). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references wherein the headphones include an ear pad on which the electrode is disposed as taught by Alcaide. This modification would have improved comfort by providing a cushion as suggested by Alcaide.
7. Claim 8 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 combined with Greene in further view of Li, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0106963 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of references does not teach the electronic device is configured as a neck-hanging-type temperature adjustment device. All the same, Li discloses the electronic device is configured as a neck-hanging-type temperature adjustment device (from abstract, see A neck fan includes an arc-shaped housing configured to hang around user's neck). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references wherein the electronic device is configured as a neck-hanging-type temperature adjustment device as taught by Li. This modification would have improved convenience by allowing the user to realize cooling anytime and anywhere as suggested by Li (see paragraph 0003).
8. Claim 27 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 combined with Greene in further view of Nakamura et al, U.S. Patent No. 2002/0190689 (hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene does not clearly teach the first antenna element is capacitively coupled to the human body via a space or an insulator. All the same, Nakamura discloses the first antenna element is capacitively coupled to the human body via a space or an insulator (from paragraph 0152, see Also, the antenna terminal 11e contacts the human body A through a back lid 11f of the electronic equipment 500). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene wherein the first antenna element is capacitively coupled to the human body via a space or an insulator as taught by Nakamura. This modification would have improved reliability by providing further protection for the electronic device as suggested by Nakamura.
9. Claims 13, 21 and 22 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 combined with Greene and Dion et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,972,894 (hereinafter Dion).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene does not clearly show a housing enclosing at least the rectifier circuit, wherein a portion of an outer surface of the housing includes the electrode and a remainder of the outer surface is formed of an insulative material. Nonetheless, Dion discloses a housing enclosing at least the rectifier circuit, wherein a portion of an outer surface of the housing includes the electrode and a remainder of the outer surface is formed of an insulative material (from column 6, see The actual antenna metallization is manufactured using conductive yarns while the non-conductive yarns will constitute the remaining part of the garment serving as support for the conductive antenna layout). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene with a housing enclosing at least the rectifier circuit, wherein a portion of an outer surface of the housing includes the electrode and a remainder of the outer surface is formed of an insulative material as taught by Dion. This modification would have reduced discomfort by conforming to the contour of human anatomy as suggested by Dion.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene discloses the energy storage device (from Figure 5, see Battery) is enclosed by the housing.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene discloses a wireless communication circuit enclosed by the housing (from title, see CELL PHONES).
10. Claim 12 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 combined with Greene and Lapetina.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene does not show a varistor coupled to the contact surface and ground. All the same, Lapetina discloses a varistor coupled to the contact surface and ground (from paragraph 0113, see Additionally or alternatively, fast response or other circuitry of the signal conditioner 730 could prevent electronic saturation of one or more elements of the signal conditioner 730 by having a nonlinear property; for example, a metal-oxide varistor or other electronic elements or combinations thereof having a nonlinear current-voltage characteristic (e.g., having a lower resistance and/or impedance at higher voltages than at lower voltages) could be included in the signal conditioner 730 (e.g., could be connected across a filtering or other capacitor, could be connected between a signal line and a ground plane). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,676,400 and Greene with a varistor coupled to the contact surface and ground as taught by Lapetina. This modification would have improved reliability by preventing electronic saturation as suggested by Lapetina.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-4, 6, 23, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Greene.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses an electronic device (from paragraph 0151, see Note that this electronic equipment 500 is an electronic wrist watch), comprising:
a rectifier circuit (from paragraph 0156, see it becomes possible to collect a radio wave propagating in the air through a human body and an antenna, convert collected electromagnetic energy into electric power, generate electric power having a DC waveform by rectifying electric power having an AC waveform) configured to receive electric field energy of a radio wave or a quasi-electrostatic field in space and to rectify an alternating current (AC) signal into a direct current (DC);
an antenna part comprising: a first antenna element (from paragraph 0152, see When the electronic equipment 500 is placed on a human body (arm) A, an antenna terminal lie of the electronic equipment 500 contacts the human body (arm) A. Under this condition, the human body A functions as a virtual antenna 11c. Also, aside from the virtual antenna 11c, an antenna 11a inputs a radio wave propagating in a free space. Note that the antenna 11a is connected to an antenna terminal lid) comprising a conductor configured to be in contact with a human body when the human body is not grounded to earth; and a second antenna element (see ground from Figure 18) comprising a conductor different from the first antenna element and configured to not to be in contact with the human body;
an input line (from paragraph 0155, see Note that this electronic equipment 500 includes the antenna terminal 11b that establishes contact with the human body A, a matching unit 52b for establishing impedance matching between the human body A side and the control unit 14 side, an antenna 11a through which a radio wave is directly inputted from a free space, and a matching unit 52a for establishing impedance matching between the antenna 11a side and the control unit 14 side) electrically connected to the rectifier circuit, wherein the input line is configured to carry an AC signal output from the antenna part to the rectifier circuit, the AC signal being output from the first antenna element; and
an energy storage device configured to store an output of the rectifier circuit (from paragraph 0156, see charge the rectified electric power having the DC waveform into a secondary battery, and supply an electric load with the rectified electric power having the DC waveform or with electric power having a DC waveform discharged from the secondary battery), and
wherein a contact surface (from paragraph 0152, see Also, the antenna terminal 11e contacts the human body A through a back lid 11f of the electronic equipment 500) of the conductor of the first antenna element with the human body includes an electrode.
Still on the issue of claim 1, Nakamura does not teach a switching part configured to switch between charging of the energy storage device by an external power supply and charging of the energy storage device by the rectifier circuit. All the same, Greene discloses a switching part configured to switch between charging of energy storage device by an external power supply and charging of the energy storage device by the rectifier circuit (from paragraph 0086, see FIG. 65 is a block diagram of the RF Power Harvesting block in communication with the Power Regulation, Storage and/or Storage Charging block). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakamura with a switching part configured to switch between charging of the energy storage device by an external power supply and charging of the energy storage device by the rectifier circuit as taught by Greene. This modification would have provided increased functionality by providing increased battery life as suggested by Greene.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura discloses a communication module (from paragraph 0002, see The present invention relates to a power supply apparatus and an electronic equipment, and more specifically relates to a power supply apparatus that is useful for supplying electric power to a portable electronic equipment, such as a wrist watch or a mobile telephone, and to an electronic equipment that uses the power supply apparatus).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nakamura and Greene discloses a power supply terminal, wherein the charging of the energy storage device by the external power supply is performed from the power supply terminal (from paragraph 0225 of Greene, see It may be advantageous to leave the device design as is including the existing power supply).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nakamura and Greene discloses the electronic device is configured as earphones or a hearing aid (from paragraph 0180 of Greene, see Bluetooth headsets, hands-free headsets, headsets, headphones, Wireless headsets).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nakamura and Greene discloses the electronic device is configured as a headphone (from paragraph 0180 of Greene, see Bluetooth headsets, hands-free headsets, headsets, headphones, Wireless headsets).
Regarding claim 26, Nakamura discloses the first antenna element and the human body are electrically in contact with each other by capacitive coupling (from paragraph 0152, see When the electronic equipment 500 is placed on a human body (arm) A, an antenna terminal lie of the electronic equipment 500 contacts the human body (arm) A. Under this condition, the human body A functions as a virtual antenna 11c. Also, aside from the virtual antenna 11c, an antenna 11a inputs a radio wave propagating in a free space. Note that the antenna 11a is connected to an antenna terminal lid).
Regarding claim 23, although Nakamura discloses the rectifier circuit includes a diode (from paragraph 0032, see Also, a structure may be adopted such that the rectifier unit includes a half wave voltage doubler rectifier circuit constructed from a first diode and a second diode that are connected in a forward direction), Nakamura does not explicitly teach that a ratio of a forward current of 1 mA at a forward voltage of the diode to a reverse current of the diode is 10,000 or more, or a reverse resistance value of the diode at a time of application of 10 V in a reverse direction of the diode is 10 M or more. However, when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05 II A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakamura wherein a ratio of a forward current of 1 mA at a forward voltage of the diode to a reverse current of the diode is 10,000 or more, or a reverse resistance value of the diode at a time of application of 10 V in a reverse direction of the diode is 10 M Ω or more. This modification would have improved efficiency by providing an optimum diode.
Regarding claim 27, Nakamura discloses the first antenna element is capacitively coupled to the human body via a space or an insulator (from paragraph 0152, see When the electronic equipment 500 is placed on a human body (arm) A, an antenna terminal lie of the electronic equipment 500 contacts the human body (arm) A. Under this condition, the human body A functions as a virtual antenna 11c. Also, aside from the virtual antenna 11c, an antenna 11a inputs a radio wave propagating in a free space. Note that the antenna 11a is connected to an antenna terminal lid. Also, the antenna terminal 11e contacts the human body A through a back lid 11f of the electronic equipment 500).
13. Claims 5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura combined with Greene in further view of Chou.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nakamura and Greene does not teach the earphones or the hearing aid includes an earpiece in which the electrode is disposed. All the same, Chou discloses the earphones or the hearing aid includes an earpiece in which the electrode is disposed (from paragraph 0069, see For example, as shown in FIGS. 7a-7b, an electrode, such as thin metal or conductive fiber, can be attached onto a surface of the elastic member. Under such condition, it is necessary to consider how to electrically connect the electrode 100 on the elastic member surface to the circuit 104 inside the in-ear housing. In a preferred embodiment, the surface of the supporting body 12 can be configured to include a conductive portion 121 so as to achieve the connection between the electrode 100 and the circuit 104 through the conductive portion. For example, as shown in FIG. 7a, connecting wires can be used to connect the electrode 100 to the conductive portion 121 and connect the conductive portion 121 to the circuit 104. Alternatively, a different connection method also can be used between the conductive portion 121 and the electrode 100. For example, as shown in FIG. 7b, a conductive object 142 can be arranged between the two and in contact with the two at the same time such that the effect of electrical connection can still be achieved. Such method is more advantageous to maintain the contact between the electrode and the ear canal. It shall be noted that although only one single electrode is illustrated in the drawings, it can also be configured to include more than one electrode, without limitation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Nakamura and Greene wherein the earphones or the hearing aid includes an earpiece in which the electrode is disposed as taught by Chou. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for the acquisition of physiological signals as suggested by Chou.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nakamura and Greene does not teach the electronic device is configured as smart glasses. All the same, Chou discloses the electronic device is configured as smart glasses (from paragraph 0113 of Chou, see VR glasses). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Nakamura and Greene wherein the electronic device is configured as smart glasses as taught by Chou. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for the acquisition of physiological signals as suggested by Chou.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nakamura and Greene as modified by Chou discloses the smart glasses include a temple provided with the electrode (from Figure 22f of Chou, see 200).
Regarding claim 11, although Nakamura discloses a shield casing that is made of a metal (see paragraph 0099), the combination of Nakamura and Greene does not explicitly teach that the electrode comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a conductive resin and a conductive rubber. All the same, Chou discloses the electrode comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a conductive resin and a conductive rubber (from paragraph 0121, see it is preferable to use dry electrodes, such as conductive metal, conductive rubber, conductive silicon, conductive foam and conductive fiber, thereby maximizing the convenience). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Nakamura and Greene wherein the electrode comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a conductive resin and a conductive rubber as taught by Chou. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by allowing the device to be worn any time as suggested by Chou.
14. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura combined with Greene in further view of Alcaide.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of references does not clearly teach the headphones include an ear pad on which the electrode is disposed. All the same, Alcaide discloses the headphones include an ear pad on which the electrode is disposed (from paragraph 0048, see . It is understood that the electrodes can be integrated into the ear cup, ear cushion, Ear-Pads, earpads, ear-canal-probe, ear-bud, or other part of the headphones that make contact with a user's skin in or around the user's ear). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references wherein the headphones include an ear pad on which the electrode is disposed as taught by Alcaide. This modification would have improved comfort by providing a cushion as suggested by Alcaide.
15. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura combined with Greene in further view of Li.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of references does not teach the electronic device is configured as a neck-hanging-type temperature adjustment device. All the same, Li discloses the electronic device is configured as a neck-hanging-type temperature adjustment device (from abstract, see A neck fan includes an arc-shaped housing configured to hang around user's neck). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references wherein the electronic device is configured as a neck-hanging-type temperature adjustment device as taught by Li. This modification would have improved convenience by allowing the user to realize cooling anytime and anywhere as suggested by Li (see paragraph 0003).
16. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura combined with Greene in further view of Lapetina.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nakamura and Greene does not teach a varistor coupled to the contact surface and ground. All the same, Lapetina discloses a varistor coupled to the contact surface and ground (from paragraph 0113, see Additionally or alternatively, fast response or other circuitry of the signal conditioner 730 could prevent electronic saturation of one or more elements of the signal conditioner 730 by having a nonlinear property; for example, a metal-oxide varistor or other electronic elements or combinations thereof having a nonlinear current-voltage characteristic (e.g., having a lower resistance and/or impedance at higher voltages than at lower voltages) could be included in the signal conditioner 730 (e.g., could be connected across a filtering or other capacitor, could be connected between a signal line and a ground plane). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Nakamura and Greene with a varistor coupled to the contact surface and ground as taught by Lapetina. This modification would have improved the reliability of the device by preventing electronic saturation as suggested by Lapetina.
17. Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura combined with Greene in further view of Dion.
Regarding claim 13, although Nakamura discloses a housing enclosing at least the rectifier circuit, wherein a portion of an outer surface of the housing includes the electrode (from paragraph 0153, see FIG. 17 is a perspective view illustrating an example of the electronic equipment (electronic wrist watch) according to the fifth embodiment mode of the present invention. This electronic equipment (electronic wrist watch) 500 has a construction where a ring-shaped antenna 11a is attached on a dial plate side, and the back lid 11f functions as the antenna terminal lie that contacts the human body A), Nakamura does not clearly teach that a remainder of the outer surface is formed of an insulative material. All the same, Dion discloses that a remainder of the outer surface is formed of an insulative material (from column 6, see non-conductive yarns will constitute the remaining part of the garment serving as support for the conductive antenna layout). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Nakamura and Greene wherein a remainder of the outer surface is formed of an insulative material as taught by Dion. This modification would have reduced discomfort by conforming to the contour of human anatomy as suggested by Dion.
Regarding claim 21, Nakamura discloses the energy storage device (from Figure 18, see 15) is enclosed by the housing (from Figure 18, see 500).
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claims 24 and 25 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.
Response to Arguments
19. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLISA ANWAH whose telephone number is 571-272-7533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.30 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
/OLISA ANWAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights