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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US Pat Pub# 2012/0062222) in view of Lu et al. (US Pat Pub# 2024/0298265).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Watanabe teaches an electronic device comprising a magnetic field sensing device (Abstract, Section 0024, and claim 1, detecting a magnetic field etc.); configured to detect a magnetic field, with the magnetic field sensing device, from a source external to the electronic device (Abstract, Section 0024, and claim 1, detecting a magnetic field etc.); switch, based on the detection of the magnetic field, the electronic device from a first mode to a second mode, the first mode comprising an operating state of the electronic device in which the electronic device expends less electrical power than an operating state of the electronic device in the second mode, the second mode comprising the operating state of the electronic device (Section 0024, going from a first mode to a second mode which uses less power consumption based on the magnetic field detected etc.); and switch the electronic device from the second mode to the first mode (Section 0024, going from either a first mode and/or second mode based on conditions etc.). Watanabe fails to teach a wireless communication component.
Lu teaches an electronic device comprising a wireless communication component 112/114 (Fig. 1C); one or more processors 112a (Fig. 1C); and memory 112b (Fig. 1C) coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs configured to switch, based on the detection, the electronic device from a first mode to a second mode, the first mode comprising an operating state of the electronic device in which the electronic device expends less electrical power than an operating state of the electronic device in the second mode, the second mode comprising the operating state of the electronic device in which the electronic device is configured to receive wireless communication signals (Sections 0035 and 0165-0217, and Claim 38, once connected going from a first power state to a second power state that is lower power while still connected and receiving communication etc. from the network); initiate, based on receiving wireless communication signals, one or more operations (Sections 0035 and 0165-0217, and Claim 38, once connected going from a first power state to a second power state that is lower power while still connected and receiving communication etc. from the network); and switch the electronic device from the second mode to the first mode based on a completion of the one or more operations (Sections 0035 and 0165-0217, and Claim 38, once an update is done or going to another network switching back to the first power state etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a wireless communication component as taught by Lu into Watanabe’s device in order to improve efficiency and reduce power.
Regarding claim 2, the combination including Lu teaches wherein the electronic device is sealed within a package, the package preventing direct, wired communication outside of the package, and wherein the package does not prevent a propagation of the magnetic field or of the wireless communication signals (Fig. 1H, Sections 0035 and 0165, and Claim 38, communication components sealed but still allowing wireless communication signals with no wired communication).
Regarding claim 7, the combination including Lu teaches wherein switching from the second mode to the first mode based on the completion of the one or more operations comprises deactivating a wireless communication component of the electronic device and minimizing energy expenditure by one or more processors of the electronic device (Sections 0035 and 0165-0217, and Claim 38, sleep mode putting the components deactivated etc.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination including Lu teaches wherein the one or more operations comprise a software-based action installing a software update (Sections 0035 and 0165-0217, and Claim 38, software update etc.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination including Lu teaches wherein the electronic device houses one or more wireless hearable devices (Section 0111, hearable devices); the one or more operations further comprise activating the one or more wireless hearable devices (Sections 0035, 0111, and 0165-0217, and Claim 38, first and second power states); and installing the software update on the one or more wireless hearable devices (Sections 0035, 0111, and 0165-0217, and Claim 38, updating software); and/or and the switching from the second mode to the first mode based on the completion of the one or more operations comprises a deactivation of the one or more wireless hearable devices after activating the one or more wireless hearable devices (Sections 0035, 0111, and 0165-0217, and Claim 38, once an update is done or going to another network switching back to the first power state etc.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination including Lu teaches wherein the second mode comprises the operating of the electronic device in which the electronic device is further configured to transmit wireless communication signals (Sections 0035 and 0165-0217, and Claim 38, transmitting to network etc.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination including Lu teaches transmitting, from the electronic device and prior to switching from the second mode to the first mode, wireless communication signals indicative of the completion of the one or more operations (Sections 0035 and 0165-0217, and Claim 38, completion of software update switching power state etc.).
Regarding claim 15, the combination including Lu teaches wherein the electronic device is a portable electronic case, the portable electronic case configured to store one or more wireless hearable devices (Section 0111, hearable devices).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US Pat Pub# 2012/0062222) in view of Lu et al. (US Pat Pub# 2024/0298265) and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US Pat Pub# 2015/0349542).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe in view of Lu teaches the limitations in claim 1. Watanabe and Lu fail to teach magnetic field oscillations with a particular frequency.
Yamamoto teaches determining that the magnetic field is an externally applied coded magnetic field having one or more magnetic field oscillations, the one or more magnetic field oscillations comprising a particular characteristic for a predetermined duration, the particular characteristic including a particular frequency and/or particular magnitude (Section 0061, detecting a magnetic field oscillations at a particular frequency etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate magnetic field oscillations with a particular frequency as taught by Yamamoto into a wireless communication component as taught by Lu into Watanabe’s device in order to improve communication.
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto further teaches wherein the magnetic field having one or more magnetic field oscillations charges a battery of the electronic device (Abstract and Sections 0009-0010 and 0061, charging through a magnetic field etc.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US Pat Pub# 2012/0062222) in view of Lu et al. (US Pat Pub# 2024/0298265) and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US Pat Pub# 2015/0349542) and further in view of Lee (US Pat Pub# 2018/0072268).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe in view of Lu and further in view of Yamamoto teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 4. Watanabe, Yamamoto, and Lu fail to teach booting up and determining authenticity.
Lee teaches wherein initiating the one or more operations includes booting up the electronic device and determining authenticity of the magnetic field (Abstract, Fig. 5, and Claim 1, starting up electronics etc. and then authenticating of the magnetic field etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate booting up and determining authenticity as taught by Lee into magnetic field oscillations with a particular frequency as taught by Yamamoto into a wireless communication component as taught by Lu into Watanabe’s device in order to improve security.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US Pat Pub# 2012/0062222) in view of Lu et al. (US Pat Pub# 2024/0298265) and further in view of Cretella, Jr. et al. (US Pat Pub# 2012/0072167).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe in view of Lu teaches the limitations in claim 1. Watanabe and Lu fail to teach an extrinsic magnetic field.
Cretella teaches wherein the electronic device includes one or more intrinsic magnetic field producing components, the method further comprising determining that the detected magnetic field is an extrinsic magnetic field, the extrinsic magnetic field originating from a source external to the electronic device, and the determination that the detected magnetic field is an extrinsic magnetic field (Sections 0037 and 0085, detecting an extrinsic magnetic field etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an extrinsic magnetic field as taught by Cretella into a wireless communication component as taught by Lu into Watanabe’s device in order to improve communication.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US Pat Pub# 2019/0260240) in view of Okuda et al. (US Pat# 12,690,279).
Regarding claim 16, Kwon teaches a system comprising a wireless communication component 312/316 (Fig. 3); a magnetic-field-producing component 308 (Fig. 3); one or more processors 310/360 (Fig. 3); and memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for producing a magnetic field via the magnetic-field-producing component, the magnetic field having one or more magnetic field oscillations radiating at a particular frequency or a particular magnitude (Sections 0008, 0085, 0099, 0117-0118, electromagnetic resonance at a specific resonance frequency); responsive to, or concurrent with, receiving an indication of a mode of an electronic device, transmitting wireless communication signals to a wireless communication component of the electronic device, the wireless communication signals direction the electronic device to perform one or more operations (Abstract, Figs. 11-12, and Section 0080, receiving a transmission of an indication of which mode to operate etc.); and responsive to determining a successful completion of the one or more operations from the electronic device, providing a notification (Section 0080, after completion of charging providing an alert message etc.). Kwon fails to teach an electromagnetic wave detector.
Okuda teaches an electromagnetic wave detector (Abstract, Fig. 4, and Col. 8 line 61-Col. 9 line 17, electromagnetic wave detector etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electromagnetic wave detector as taught by Okuda into Kwon’s system in order to improve communication sensing.
Regarding claim 19, the combination including Kwon teaches wherein the system receives the indication of the mode of the electronic device via the wireless communication component, the indication of the mode received passively by the wireless communication component such that the wireless communication component intercepts wireless communications between two electronic components associated with the electronic device (Abstract, Figs. 11-12, and Section 0080, receiving a transmission of an indication of which mode to operate etc.).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US Pat Pub# 2019/0260240) in view of Okuda et al. (US Pat# 12,690,279) and further in view of Haseltine (US Pat Pub# 2022/0276074).
Regarding claim 17, Kwon in view of Okuda teaches the limitations in claim 16. Kwon and Okuda fail to teach a solenoid.
Haseltine teaches a solenoid, wherein the solenoid generates the magnetic field, the magnetic field having a particular characteristic (Fig. 1, Abstract, and Sections 0016, 0064, 0104, and 0122, solenoid generating a magnetic field etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a solenoid as taught by Haseltine into an electromagnetic wave detector as taught by Okuda into Kwon’s system in order to improve reliability of the magnetic field.
Regarding claim 18, Kwon further teaches wherein the particular characteristic comprises one or more magnetic field oscillations having a particular frequency; the particular characteristic comprises one or more magnetic field oscillations having a particular magnitude; or the one or more magnetic field oscillations include the particular characteristic for a predetermined duration (Sections 0008, 0085, 0099, 0117-0118, electromagnetic resonance at a specific resonance frequency).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US Pat Pub# 2019/0260240) in view of Okuda et al. (US Pat# 12,690,279) and further in view of Benton et al. (US Pat Pub# 2023/0275617).
Regarding claim 20, Kwon in view of Okuda teaches the limitations in claims 16 and 19. Kwon and Okuda fail to teach an earbud.
Benton teaches wherein the two electronic components comprise earbuds stored within the electronic device, the earbuds configured to transmit wireless communication signals between each other in response to a mode switching of the electronic device (Section 0017, earbuds communicating based on a mode switch etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an earbud as taught by Benton into an electromagnetic wave detector as taught by Okuda into Kwon’s system in order to improve functionality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW WENDELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/ANDREW WENDELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 7/24/2026
Prosecution Insights