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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Henderson describes a curved profile battery forming a flat battery cell and does not disclose the battery 142 includes a plurality of interconnected cells, much less multiple cuboidal cells having the claimed directional dimensional relationship. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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 also argues that Henderson does not disclose any battery component weights, dimensions, center of mass and argues the recessed components 50, 52 may vary in size with respect to one another and therefore does not necessarily place the center of mass of the device against the geometric center. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim as currently written does not require the center of mass to be at the geometric center. The claim requires center of mass of the computer device is located in an imaginary circle centre, in particular an axis of symmetry of the computer device. The examiner notes that one of the batteries 142 is positioned in one of the recesses compartments 50 while the other battery is placed in the remaining recess 50. Paragraph [0058] discloses the recessed compartments may have an increased size to accommodate larger power supplies having increased capacity, but the batteries 142 can be placed in either recess. Therefore, this is not disclosing using different batteries on each side. In addition, an axis of symmetry, with an imaginary circle center, of the computer device could be off center and there would necessarily be an axis of symmetry of the computer device. The examiner notes that in order to advance prosecution that Iddan et al (US Publication 2006/0004255) teaches that it is known to have a ring with the weight evenly distributed along its length (L) and its height (H) so that gravity does not favor a particular orientation of the imaging device (e.g. Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding the 103 rejection Henderson discloses the cuboidal battery (e.g. Figure 6). However, Henderson does not disclose the battery is comprising interconnected battery cells comprising a cuboidal shape. Elghazzawi discloses that a battery can be comprised of a battery bank comprising a plurality of battery cells which improves capacity and/or power which allows for longer life before the batteries need recharged or replaced. The division of the Henderson battery into multiple battery cells as taught by Elghazzawi would include such a shape where the an extent in the circumferential direction is substantially less than a height in the radial direction. In order to advance prosecution, the examiner notes that the use of interconnected cuboidal battery cells is known as taught by Meintschel et al (US Publication 2011/0076541) for reasons of space and efficiency (e.g. Paragraph [0011] and Figure 3).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson et al (US Publication 2013/0226486) in view of Elghazzawi et al (US Publication 2013/0053909), Iddan et al (US Publication 2006/0004255), and Meintschel et al (US Publication 2011/0076541).
Referring to Claim 1, Henderson et al teaches a ring-shaped computer device for wearing on the human body(e.g. Figures 1-6, Element 10), in particular on a finger, which computer device is configured to continuously collect vital parameters and/or biomarkers of a wearer and make them available to a connected device (e.g. Paragraphs [0041], [0043], [0075] and [0076] discloses monitoring an activity (such as sensor unit 146 having a heart rate sensor integrated into the housing of device 10 along with additional sensors) and convey athletic information to a wearer which is connectable to another device via USB or Bluetooth) comprises: a plurality of sensors for recording the vital parameters and/or biomarkers (e.g. Paragraph [0076] discloses the sensor assembly 146 comprises a plurality of different sensors); a printed circuit board for receiving the sensors and a data interface (e.g. Figures 14 and 15 Elements, 140 and Paragraph [0076] discloses a PCB member supporting sensor assembly 146 and Paragraph [0041] discloses data transmission); a processor (e.g. Paragraphs [0074] and [0075] discloses a controller); at least two cuboidal battery modules for supplying power to the printed circuit board and the processor, which are connected together to form an overall battery (e.g. Figure 6,batteries 142 and Paragraph [0077] discloses the power supply 142 utilizes a pair of batteries 142. The first battery 142 is positioned in the first recessed compartment 50 of the spine member 22, and the second battery 142 is positioned in the second recessed compartment 52 of the spine member 22); wherein the at least two battery modules are arranged in an interior of the computer device and are equally distributed over a circumference of the ring-shaped computer device, so that a centre of mass of the computer device is located in an imaginary circle centre, in particular on an axis of symmetry of the computer device (e.g. Figure 6). Henderson et al does not disclose wherein each of the battery modules comprises a plurality of interconnected battery cells, wherein each of the battery cells is cuboidal and an extent in the circumferential direction is substantially less than a height in the radial direction. Elghazzawi et al teaches that it is known to use a medical device having a battery bank comprising a plurality of battery cells as set forth in Paragraph [0013] and [0014] to provide improved capacity and/or power to the battery bank which allows for longer life before the batteries need recharged or replaced. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Henderson et al, with a medical device having a battery bank comprising a plurality of battery cells a plurality of interconnected battery cells, wherein each of the battery cells is cuboidal and an extent in the circumferential direction is substantially less than a height in the radial direction as taught by Elghazzawi et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved capacity and/or power to the battery bank which allows for longer life before the batteries need recharged or replaced. The result of turning the battery of Henderson et al into a plurality of battery cells would have a plurality of interconnected battery cells, wherein each of the battery cells is cuboidal and an extent in the circumferential direction is substantially less than a height in the radial direction
In addition, Meintschel et al teaches that it is known to use a plurality of interconnected battery cells, wherein each of the battery cells is cuboidal and an extent in the circumferential direction is substantially less than a height in the radial direction as set forth in Paragraph [0011] and Figure 3 to provide optimization of space and efficiency (e.g. Paragraph [0011]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Henderson et al, with a plurality of interconnected battery cells, wherein each of the battery cells is cuboidal and an extent in the circumferential direction is substantially less than a height in the radial direction as taught by Meintschel et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of optimization of space and efficiency. In the alternative that the equal distribution imaginary circle center is the center of the device. Iddan et al teaches that it is known to use a ring with the weight evenly distributed along its length (L) and its height (H) so that gravity does not favor a particular orientation of the imaging device as set forth in Paragraph [0018] to provide improved data gathering without gravity changing the orientation of the device. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Henderson et al, with the equal distribution imaginary circle center is the center of the device as taught by Iddan et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of data gathering without gravity changing the orientation of the device.
Referring to Claim 3, Henderson et al in view of Elghazzawi et al, Iddan et al, and Meintschel et al teaches the computer device according to claim 1, wherein a weight distribution of the battery modules and all other installed components leads to an overall centre of gravity of the computer device, which lies in the immediate vicinity of at least one axis of symmetry of the device body, wherein the ring-shaped computer device forms a tube portion, and wherein the axis of symmetry is a longitudinal axis of the tube portion (e.g. Figure 6).
Referring to Claim 5, Henderson et al in view of Elghazzawi et al, Iddan et al, and Meintschel et al teaches the computer device according to claim 1, wherein each of the battery modules has a rectangular cross-section and is cuboidal (e.g. Figure 6, Element 142 and Figure 7A illustrates the battery compartments).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson et al (US Publication 2013/0226486) in view of Elghazzawi et al (US Publication 2013/0053909), Iddan et al (US Publication 2006/0004255), and Meintschel et al (US Publication 2011/0076541), as applied above, and further in view of Zhang (WO 2018023885), cited in IDS dated 7/19/2024.
Referring to Claim 4, Henderson et al in view of Elghazzawi et al, Iddan et al, and Meintschel et al teaches the computer device according to claim 1, except wherein the overall battery comprises three battery modules and a sensor assembly, which are arranged equally distributed over a circumference.
Zhang teaches that it is known to use wherein the overall battery comprises three battery modules and a sensor assembly, which are arranged equally distributed over a circumference as set forth in Figure 2 to provide a more even distribution of weight to improve comfort for the wearer. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Henderson et al, with wherein the overall battery comprises three battery modules and a sensor assembly, which are arranged equally distributed over a circumference as taught by Zhang, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a more even distribution of weight to improve comfort for the wearer.
In the alternative that the equal distribution imaginary circle center is the center of the device. Iddan et al teaches that it is known to use a ring with the weight evenly distributed along its length (L) and its height (H) so that gravity does not favor a particular orientation of the imaging device as set forth in Paragraph [0018] to provide improved data gathering without gravity changing the orientation of the device. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Henderson et al, with the equal distribution imaginary circle center is the center of the device as taught by Iddan et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of data gathering without gravity changing the orientation of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wantanabe (US Publication 2024/0090835) discloses a health ring with center of the ring being the center of gravity.
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 William J Levicky whose telephone number is (571)270-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
