DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-7 filed January 12th 2026 are pending in the current 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
The amendments filed January 12th 2026 resolves the prior 112 rejection, and thus the 112 rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7 have been considered but are not persuasive as the Examiner cites a different embodiment from Erivanteev et al. (US2021/0389829) in the office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erivanteev et al. (US2021/0389829) in view of Haney et al. (US8,681,101)
Consider claim 1, where Erivanteev teaches a controller, comprising: a body having a control area for sending a control signal according to a contact between a thumb of a user and the control area of the body; (See Erivanteev Figs. 4, 7, 8 and ¶104, 135 where the ring device has a main body 702 that has a sensor device 401 to generate a touch input from a thumb) and a surrounding part connected to the body and used to surround and be fixed to a phalange of an index finger of the user, and the body is away from a joint between the proximal phalange and a metacarpal bone of the user, (See Erivanteev Figs. 4, 7, 8 and ¶135 the ring device (700) includes a first L-shaped portion (702) and a second L-shaped portion (704). These portions (702, 704) are alternatively referred to as a base portion (702) and clip portion (704). In the illustrated embodiment, the clip portion (704) includes an end portion (706) designed to be inserted into a groove portion formed by two distal portions (708a, 708b) of the base portion (702))). wherein a distance between the body and the joint is greater than half a length of the proximal phalange, (See Erivanteev Fig. 4 where the device 401 is placed at a distance nearly the full length of the proximal phalange. As shown in Fig. 4 the ring is worn in a location that is away from the joint between the proximal phalange and the metacarpal bone of the user (i.e. knuckle))) and the surrounding part has a free end opposite to the connecting end. (See Erivanteev Figs. 4, 7, 8 and ¶135 where the clip portion 704 has a free end that is opposite the hinge 706 connecting to the main body 702)
Erivanteev teaches a touch pad (See Erivanteev ¶134), however Erivanteev does not explicitly teach wherein the control area locates at a side of the body away from an index finger of the user. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Haney teaches wherein the control area locates at a side of the body away from an index finger of the user. (See Haney Figs. 8, 9, col 5 line 40-col 6 line 5, and claim 12 where the buttons are located away from the index finger such that the thumb may press on the buttons 42, 41 or touch pad 44) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the ring in Erivanteev Fig. 4 may be located just below the proximal interphalangeal joint as shown in Haney Fig. 9. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the ring in known ergonomic position in the art for the advantage/ benefit of reducing user strain.
Erivanteev teaches fixed to a phalange (See Erivanteev Fig. 4), however Erivanteev does not explicitly teach a proximal phalange. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Haney teaches a proximal phalange wherein a distance between the body and the joint is greater than half a length of the proximal phalange. (See Haney Figs. 8, 9, col 5 line 40-col 6 line 5, and claim 12 where the band 48 is located just below the proximal interphalangeal joint, thus on the upper half of the proximal phalange at a distance greater than half a length of the proximal phalange away from the metacarpophalangeal joint) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the ring in Erivanteev Fig. 4 may be located just below the proximal interphalangeal joint as shown in Haney Fig. 9. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the ring in known ergonomic position in the art for the advantage/ benefit of reducing user strain.
Consider claim 3, where Erivanteev in view of Haney teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein a material of the surrounding part is an elastic material. (See Erivanteev Figs. 4, 14 where the mechanism (1110) for attaching the ring device (1100) to a user's finger or phalange comprises replaceable rubber parts (1104, 1106, 1108))
Consider claim 5, where Erivanteev in view of Haney teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein the control area has a physical button. (See Erivanteev ¶87 where the hand module may have buttons)
Consider claim 6, where Erivanteev in view of Haney teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein the control area is a touch area. (See Erivanteev Figs. 4, 11-14 and ¶104, 118, 142 where the ring device has a main body 1102 that has a sensor device 401 to generate a touch input from a thumb)
Consider claim 7, where Erivanteev in view of Haney teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein the surrounding part is detachably assembled to the body. (See Erivanteev Figs. 4, 14 where there is a connector mechanism 1110 that is detachably connected to the main body 1102, wherein the connector mechanism 1110 employing a replicable “snail” connector mechanism.)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erivanteev in view of Haney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Connor (US2016/0313798)
Consider claim 4, where Erivanteev in view of Haney teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein the surrounding part is snail-shaped. (See Erivanteev Figs. 4, 14 where there is a connector mechanism 1110 that is connected to the main body 1102, wherein the connector mechanism 1110 employing a replicable “snail” connector mechanism.)
Erivanteev teaches a snail shape, however Erivanteev does not explicitly teach a spring-shape. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Connor teaches a spring-shape. (See Connor Fig. 30 and ¶344-345 where the ring is in the shape of a helix) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the snail shape of Erivanteev and substitute it with a helix as taught by Connor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the substitution for the advantage of/ benefit of using other known structures that perform the function of mounting a sensor on a finger to yield similar results.
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 WILLIAM LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1809. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-270-7230. 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 LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/WILLIAM LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624