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, see page 1, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been obviated by amendments to the drawings and the specification. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections have been obviated by amendments to the claims. The specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been obviated by amendments to the claims. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered. However, there are still outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections that are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Please see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new ground of rejection was necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Please see prior art rejections hereinbelow.
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 2, 4, 7, 10, and 13 are 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 2 recites the limitation “ports” in line 1, whereas ports were already introduced in a claim that claim 2 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or different ports. Consider changing to “the ports”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “optical sensors” in line 2, whereas optical sensors were already introduced in a claim that claim 2 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or different optical sensors. Consider changing to “the optical sensors”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a rim” in line 1, whereas a rim was already introduced in a claim that claim 4 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different rim. Consider changing to “the rim”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “optical sensors” in line 2, whereas optical sensors were already introduced in a claim that claim 7 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or different optical sensors. Consider changing to “the optical sensors”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a rim” in lines 1-2, whereas a rim was already introduced in a claim that claim 10 depends from (claim 9). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different rim. Consider changing to “the rim”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a rim” in line 2, whereas a rim was already introduced in a claim that claim 13 depends from (claim 9). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different rim. Consider changing to “the rim”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 appears to recite the same limitation already disclosed in independent claim 1, and therefore claim 4 does not appear to be further limiting the subject matter of independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhagat, et al. (US 2021/0177353 – cited on IDS). The article “Electrically Conductive Adhesives” by Henkel is relied upon as evidence for claim 13 (please see previously attached).
Regarding claim 1, Bhagat teaches (Fig. 1, # 1000) a ring system (Par. [0048] – vital signs monitoring ring with integrated display), comprising:
(Figs. 1-4, # 1100 – printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) layer; Fig. 5B, # 5000, 5800, 5850) a printed circuit board including optical sensors (Pars. [0048] and [0053]);
(Fig. 4B, # 1200 – ring shell, 1210 – cylinder; see annotated Figs. 4A-B) an inner ring having a skin-facing inner surface and defining an inner bore for receiving a finger (Abstract – sensing the physiological and action signals from a digit [i.e., finger] of user wearing the vital signs monitoring ring; Par. [0052] – the ring shell 1200 may have a spool or spindle type form including a cylinder 1210 having a pair of rims or ridges 1220 and 1222 at each end of the cylinder 1210), (Figs. 1-4, # 1100, 1200; Fig. 3, # 1240 – windows) the inner ring including ports or windows extending through the inner ring and holding the printed circuit board carried on an outer side of the inner ring, the optical sensors being aligned with the ports or windows (Par. [0048] – In an implementation, the PCBA layer 1100 is configured to be cylindrically positioned on and attached to the ring shell 1200. In an implementation, the PCBA layer 1100 is configured to be cylindrically positioned on and bonded to the ring shell 1200; Par. [0052] – In an implementation, the cylinder 1210 may include windows 1240 for operation of sensors on the PCBA layer 1100 as described herein. For example, the windows 1240 may allow light transmissions from light emitting diodes (LEDs) to impact a user surface and be detected by photodiodes after traveling through a user digit or the like);
(Figs. 1-2 and 4, # 1220, 1222) a rim separate from the inner ring and assembled to the inner ring to confine the printed circuit board (Par. [0052] – In an implementation, the ring shell 1200 may have a spool or spindle type form including a cylinder 1210 having a pair of rims or ridges 1220 and 1222 at each end of the cylinder 1210; Examiner notes that for example, Fig. 1 shows that the PCBA layer 1100 is confined by rims 1220 and 1222); and
(Figs. 6-7, # 6300 – overmold layer, i.e. outer shell) an outer shell mounted over the printed circuit board and the inner ring (Par. [0054] – The overmold layer 6300 covers the ring shell 6100, the PCBA layer 6200, and the battery 6500, and provides access to the switch 6400.).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 4A-B
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al.
Regarding claim 2, Bhagat teaches the ring system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising (Figs. 1 and 3-4, # 1240) ports in the inner ring providing optical paths for optical sensors of the printed circuit board (Par. [0052]).
Therefore, claim 2 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al.
Regarding claim 3, Bhagat teaches the ring system as claimed in claim 1, wherein (Fig. 4B, # 1000, 1200 – ring shell, 1210 – cylinder) the inner ring has a U shape cross-section (Par. [0048]; Par. [0050] – the vital signs monitoring ring with integrated display 1000 is positioned on a user digit; Examiner notes that it would be understood that the inner ring would have a U shape cross section).
Therefore, claim 3 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al.
Regarding claim 4, Bhagat teaches the ring system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising (Figs. 1-2 and 4, # 1220, 1222) a rim assembled onto the inner ring for confining the printed circuit board on the inner ring (Par. [0052] – In an implementation, the ring shell 1200 may have a spool or spindle type form including a cylinder 1210 having a pair of rims or ridges 1220 and 1222 at each end of the cylinder 1210; Examiner notes that for example, Fig. 1 shows that the PCBA layer 1100 is confined by rims 1220 and 1222).
Therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al.
Regarding claim 7, Bhagat teaches the ring system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising (Figs. 1 and 3-4, # 1240) at least two and preferably six or more optical sensors of the printed circuit board distributed around an inner circumference (Par. [0052] – In an implementation, the cylinder 1210 may include windows 1240 for operation of sensors on the PCBA layer 1100 as described herein. For example, the windows 1240 may allow light transmissions from light emitting diodes (LEDs) to impact a user surface and be detected by photodiodes after traveling through a user digit or the like.).
Therefore, claim 7 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al.
Regarding claim 9, Bhagat teaches an assembly process for a ring (Title – Health and Vital Signs Monitoring Ring with Integrated Display and making of same), comprising:
(Fig. 4B, # 1200 – ring shell, 1210 – cylinder; see annotated Figs. 4A-B) providing an inner ring having a skin-facing inner surface defining an inner bore for receiving a finger (Abstract – sensing the physiological and action signals from a digit [i.e., finger] of user wearing the vital signs monitoring ring; Par. [0052] – the ring shell 1200 may have a spool or spindle type form including a cylinder 1210 having a pair of rims or ridges 1220 and 1222 at each end of the cylinder 1210), (Figs. 1-4, # 1200; Fig. 3, # 1240 – windows), (Figs. 1-4, # 1100, 1200; Fig. 3, # 1240 – windows) the inner ring including ports or windows extending through the inner ring (Par. [0052] – In an implementation, the cylinder 1210 may include windows 1240 for operation of sensors on the PCBA layer 1100 as described herein. For example, the windows 1240 may allow light transmissions from light emitting diodes (LEDs) to impact a user surface and be detected by photodiodes after traveling through a user digit or the like);
(Figs. 1-4, # 1100 – printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) layer; Fig. 5B, # 5000, 5800, 5850) laying a printed circuit board (PCB) including optical sensors on an outer side of the inner ring (Pars. [0048] – In an implementation, the PCBA layer 1100 is configured to be cylindrically positioned on and attached to the ring shell 1200. In an implementation, the PCBA layer 1100 is configured to be cylindrically positioned on and bonded to the ring shell 1200; [0053]);
(Figs. 1-4, # 1100, 1200; Fig. 3, # 1240 – windows) aligning the optical sensors of the PCB with the ports or windows of the inner ring (Par. [0048] – In an implementation, the PCBA layer 1100 is configured to be cylindrically positioned on and attached to the ring shell 1200. In an implementation, the PCBA layer 1100 is configured to be cylindrically positioned on and bonded to the ring shell 1200; Par. [0052] – In an implementation, the cylinder 1210 may include windows 1240 for operation of sensors on the PCBA layer 1100 as described herein. For example, the windows 1240 may allow light transmissions from light emitting diodes (LEDs) to impact a user surface and be detected by photodiodes after traveling through a user digit or the like);
(Figs. 1-2 and 4, # 1220, 1222) confining the printed circuit board with a rim (Par. [0052] – In an implementation, the ring shell 1200 may have a spool or spindle type form including a cylinder 1210 having a pair of rims or ridges 1220 and 1222 at each end of the cylinder 1210; Examiner notes that for example, Fig. 1 shows that the PCBA layer 1100 is confined by rims 1220 and 1222); and
(Figs. 6-7, # 6300 – overmold layer, i.e. outer shell) inserting an assembly including the inner ring and the PCB into an outer shell (Par. [0054] – The overmold layer 6300 covers the ring shell 6100, the PCBA layer 6200, and the battery 6500, and provides access to the switch 6400.).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 4A-B
Therefore, claim 9 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al.
Regarding claim 12, Bhagat teaches the process as claimed in claim 9, further comprising (Fig. 2, # 1230 – projections, i.e. clamps) employing clamps to retain the PCB in the inner ring (Par. [0052] – In an implementation, the cylinder 1210 may include tabs or projections 1230 for maintaining the PCBA layer 1100 on the cylinder 1210).
Therefore, claim 12 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al.
Regarding claim 13, Bhagat teaches the process as claimed in claim 9, wherein the process is further comprising (Fig. 2, # 1220, 1222; Figs. 6-7, # 6300) electrically connecting the outer shell and a rim with conductive glue (Par. [0052] – a cylinder 1210 having a pair of rims or ridges 1220 and 1222 at each end of the cylinder 1210; Par. [0054] – The overmold layer 6300 covers the ring shell 6100, the PCBA layer 6200, and the battery 6500, and provides access to the switch 6400.; It is noted that Henkel evidences that conductive glue is a well-known type of adhesive used in consumer devices with metal/electronic components. Henkel further explains that electrically conductive adhesives are ideal for structural bonding applications for improved reliability in electronic systems.)
Therefore, claim 13 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al.
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagat, et al. (US 2021/0177353 – cited on IDS) in view of Mars, et al. (US 11,850,069).
Regarding claim 5, Bhagat teaches the ring system as claimed in claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Bhagat does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 5, that is wherein the outer shell is metal.
Mars, directed to analogous art, teaches a wearable device and methods of manufacturing (Title; Abstract). Mars also teaches the limitation of instant claim 5, that is wherein (Figs. 1A-E, # 102) the outer shell is metal (Col. 6, lines 32-38 – In various embodiments, exterior shell portion 102 may be made of any suitable material, such as: plastic, ceramic, metal, silicone, titanium, wood, or the like.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Mars’ metal outer shell in place of Bhagat’s outer shell, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Bhagat does not explicitly state what material its outer shell (Figs. 6-7, # 6300) and would have recognized that it could be made with a list of preferable materials, including metal, as suggested by Mars (see Col. 6, lines 32-38).
Therefore, claim 5 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al. and Mars, et al.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagat, et al. (US 2021/0177353 – cited on IDS) in view of Qiu, et al. (CN 104305651) (please see previously attached English Translation).
Regarding claim 6, Bhagat teaches the ring system as claimed in claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Bhagat does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 6, that is wherein the outer shell is metal and is electrically connected to the printed circuit board to function as an antenna.
Qiu is directed to analogous art, teaching an intelligent integrated antenna, comprising a finger ring, electrical functional part, and upper cover (Title, Abstract). Qiu teaches the limitation of instant claim 6, that is wherein (Figs. 1-2, # 20 – ring cover, i.e. outer shell, 40 – electrical functional part, i.e. printed circuit board; Fig. 5, # 44 and 46) the outer shell is metal and is electrically connected to the printed circuit board to function as an antenna (Abstract – the finger ring and ring cover is made of a metal material; Par. [0006] – Intelligent ring of an integrated antenna, comprising a finger ring, electrical functional part and upper cover, said ring is fixed on the ring part, the function part is set between the upper cover and the ring part of the ring; the finger ring and ring cover is made of metal material; … it makes the ring cover and ring part integrally as a communication antenna; Par. [0014] – electrical functional part comprises a flexible printed circuit board; Par. [0026]; Par. [0034]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the intelligent integrated antenna of Qiu’s ring into Bhagat’s ring system, as doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Bhagat’s teaching of using an antenna 9800 to communicate with an external device 9900 (see Fig. 9 and Par. [0065] of Bhagat) and would have recognized implementing Qiu’s feature as a way of providing an antenna in the ring without requiring a separate antenna component, therefore allowing for a ring with less components that still provides for a wireless communication function (see Par. [0004] of Qiu).
Therefore, claim 6 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al. and Qiu, et al.
Regarding claim 11, Bhagat teaches the process as claimed in claim 9, as indicated hereinabove. Bhagat does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 11, that is wherein the process is further comprising providing electrical connections between the PCB and the outer shell to function as an antenna.
Qiu is directed to analogous art, teaching an intelligent integrated antenna, comprising a finger ring, electrical functional part, and upper cover (Title, Abstract). Qiu teaches the limitation of instant claim 11, that is wherein the process is further comprising (Figs. 1-2, # 20 – ring cover, i.e. outer shell, 40 – electrical functional part, i.e. printed circuit board; Fig. 5, # 44 and 46) providing electrical connections between the PCB and the outer shell to function as an antenna (Par. [0006] – Intelligent ring of an integrated antenna, comprising a finger ring, electrical functional part and upper cover, said ring is fixed on the ring part, the function part is set between the upper cover and the ring part of the ring; the finger ring and ring cover is made of metal material; … it makes the ring cover and ring part integrally as a communication antenna; Par. [0014] – electrical functional part comprises a flexible printed circuit board; Par. [0026]; Par. [0034]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Qiu’s teaching of providing electrical connections between the PCB and the outer shell to function as an antenna into Bhagat’s process, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar processes in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Bhagat’s teaching of using an antenna 9800 to communicate with an external device 9900 (see Fig. 9 and Par. [0065] of Bhagat) and would have recognized implementing Qiu’s feature as a way of providing an antenna in the ring without requiring a separate antenna component, therefore allowing for a ring with less components that still provides for a wireless communication function (see Par. [0004] of Qiu).
Therefore, claim 11 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al. and Qiu, et al.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagat, et al. (US 2021/0177353 – cited on IDS) in view of Min, et al. (US 2021/0037932).
Regarding claim 8, Bhagat teaches the ring system as claimed in claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Bhagat does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 8, that is wherein the outer shell is provided in two pieces.
Min, directed to analogous art, teaches ring-type wearable devices (Title; Abstract). Min also teaches the limitation of instant claim 8, that is wherein (Fig. 2, # 151 and 153) the outer shell is provided in two pieces (Par. [0061] – The cover member 150 (i.e., outer shell) may include a first part 151 and a second part 153).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Min’s teaching of the outer shell having two pieces into Bhagat’s ring system, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired implementing the first and second parts into Bhagat’s ring in order to have a part that covers and corresponds to a switch (Par. [0062] of Min). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such a second part covering and corresponding to the switch to be useful in Bhagat’s ring system since the overmold layer 6300 provides access to a switch 6400 (see Figs. 6-7 and Par. [0054] of Bhagat).
Therefore, claim 8 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al. and Min, et al.
Regarding claim 14, Bhagat teaches the process as claimed in claim 9, as indicated hereinabove. Bhagat does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 14, that is wherein the outer shell is provided in two pieces.
Min, directed to analogous art, teaches ring-type wearable devices (Title; Abstract). Min also teaches the limitation of instant claim 14, that is wherein (Fig. 2, # 151 and 153) the outer shell is provided in two pieces (Par. [0061] – The cover member 150 (i.e., outer shell) may include a first part 151 and a second part 153).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Min’s teaching of the outer shell having two pieces into Bhagat’s ring system, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired implementing the first and second parts into Bhagat’s ring in order to have a part that covers and corresponds to a switch (Par. [0062] of Min). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such a second part covering and corresponding to the switch to be useful in Bhagat’s ring system since the overmold layer 6300 provides access to a switch 6400 (see Figs. 6-7 and Par. [0054] of Bhagat).
Therefore, claim 14 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al. and Min, et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagat, et al. (US 2021/0177353 – cited on IDS) in view of Jeon, et al. (WO 2023/043193 – see attached English Translation). Examiner notes that references to Jeon are made in reference to the attached English Translation.
Regarding claim 10, Bhagat teaches the process as claimed in claim 9, as indicated hereinabove. Bhagat also teaches (Fig. 2, # 1220, 1222) a rim (Par. [0052]). However, Bhagat does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 10, that is wherein the process is further comprising connecting a rim to the inner ring via a bonding process.
Jeon, directed to analogous art, teaches a smart ring for sensing bio-signals (Title; Abstract). Jeon also teaches the limitation of instant claim 10, that is wherein the process is further comprising (Figs. 1-2, # 150) connecting a rim to the inner ring via a bonding process (Page 8, lines 26-28 – In some other embodiments, the inner ring 150 may include an insulating rim attached to an outer circumference, and the insulating rim may maintain insulation between the outer ring 120 and the inner ring 150).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Jeon’s bonding process for Bhagat’s rims because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired implementing Jeon’s rims because doing so would help maintain insulation between the outer ring and the inner ring (see Page 8, lines 26-28 of Jeon).
Therefore, claim 10 is unpatentable over Bhagat, et al. and Jeon, et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Realubit, et al. (US 2024/0324957)
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 MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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 T. HOLTZCLAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights