Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/045,892

CHARGING APPARATUS FOR WEARABLE DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 05, 2025
Examiner
OMAR, AHMED H
Art Unit
2859
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
ULTRAHUMAN HEALTHCARE PVT LTD
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
798 granted / 1062 resolved
+7.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1112
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
60.2%
+20.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1062 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claims Status Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claim Objections Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite the limitations “a three-pin power chord or a two-pin power chord”. The bolded term should be amended to “cord”. Appropriate correction is required. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pre-appeal brief, filed 10/13/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 has been withdrawn. 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(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANTANA III (US 2023/0378780 A1, hereinafter SANTANA) in view of GOODCHILD et al. (US 2021/0218286 A1, hereinafter GOODCHILD). Regarding claim 1, SANTANA discloses a charging apparatus, comprising: a base unit comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) (See Fig.4, discloses a charging base 10. Par.19 discloses the charging base comprising charging circuitry including an AC/DC converter. It is inherent the components are installed on a PCB as the components cannot just float inside the base), wherein the PCB includes: an input connector for receiving an Alternating Current (AC) power (See Par.19, discloses the base receives power via a wall outlet, Par.22 and Fig.4 disclose a wall outlet-type power supply 19, which includes a port that receives a wall outlet connector 28 that connects to an external wall outlet as a source of electricity for the wall-outlet type power supply 19); a rectifier for converting the AC power to a Direct Current (DC) power (See Par.19, discloses an “invertor” for converting the received AC into DC); and a top unit detachably positioned over the base unit and electrically connected with the rectifier for receiving the DC power (See Fig.4, discloses a plurality of charging adapters 14, Par.23, discloses each adapter comprising electrical contacts 17 for receiving DC power from base 10 via base contacts 13). However, SANTANA does not disclose wherein the top unit includes a wireless charging coil for wireless charging of the wearable device encircling the top unit. GOODCHILD discloses a top unit (See Fig.11, Item#1106), wherein the top unit includes a wireless charging coil (See Fig.14, Item#1412+1414, discloses a wireless transmitter and a wireless transmitting coil. The top unit receives DC power from external power 1430 and power input circuit 1416. Par.69, discloses DC current 1432 is provided to the wireless power transmitter and transmitted to load device 1440) for wireless charging of the wearable device encircling the top unit (See Fig.11, Item#1108 and Par.53, discloses the top unit is used to wirelessly charge a wearable device). SANTANA and GOODCHILD are analogous art since they both deal with electronic device chargers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SANTANA with the teachings of GOODCHILD by adding a top unit comprising a wireless charging coil for wireless charging of the wearable device encircling the top unit for the benefit of allowing the user to charge an electronic device comprising a wearable electronic device. Regarding claim 11, SANTANA discloses a charging apparatus, comprising: a base unit comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) (See Fig.4, discloses a charging base 10. Par.19 discloses the charging base comprising charging circuitry including an AC/DC converter. It is inherent the components are installed on a PCB as the components cannot just float inside the base), wherein the PCB includes: an input connector for receiving an Alternating Current (AC) power (See Par.19, discloses the base receives power via a wall outlet, Par.22 and Fig.4 disclose a wall outlet-type power supply 19, which includes a port that receives a wall outlet connector 28 that connects to an external wall outlet as a source of electricity for the wall-outlet type power supply 19); a rectifier for converting the AC power to a Direct Current (DC) power (See Par.19, discloses an “invertor” for converting the received AC into DC); and a top unit detachably positioned over the base unit and electrically connected with the rectifier for receiving the DC power (See Fig.4, discloses a plurality of charging adapters 14, Par.23, discloses each adapter comprising electrical contacts 17 for receiving DC power from base 10 via base contacts 13), wherein the top unit is of variable size (See Fig.4 and Par.17, discloses a plurality of different size adaptors 14), enabling compatibility with different sizes of the devices (See Par.17, discloses the plurality of devices are of different shape and size). However, SANTANA does not disclose wherein the top unit includes a wireless charging coil for wireless charging of the wearable device encircling the top unit. GOODCHILD discloses a top unit (See Fig.11, Item#1106), wherein the top unit includes a wireless charging coil (See Fig.14, Item#1412+1414, discloses a wireless transmitter and a wireless transmitting coil. The top unit receives DC power from external power 1430 and power input circuit 1416. Par.69, discloses DC current 1432 is provided to the wireless power transmitter and transmitted to load device 1440) for wireless charging of the wearable device encircling the top unit (See Fig.11, Item#1108 and Par.53, discloses the top unit is used to wirelessly charge a wearable device). SANTANA and GOODCHILD are analogous art since they both deal with electronic device chargers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SANTANA with the teachings of GOODCHILD by adding a top unit comprising a wireless charging coil for wireless charging of the wearable device encircling the top unit for the benefit of allowing the user to charge an electronic device comprising a wearable electronic device (SANTANA clearly discloses using different size adaptors for different size electronic devices, SANTATA as modified by GOODCHILD discloses the adaptor being a wireless charger for wirelessly charging a wearable device). Regarding claims 2 and 12 (claim 2 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), SANTANA and GOODCHILD disclose the charging apparatus as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the input connector is connected to an AC power source (See SANTANA, Par.19, discloses the base receives power via a wall outlet, Par.22 and Fig.4 disclose a wall outlet-type power supply 19). However, SANTANA and GOODCHILD do not explicitly disclose a three-pin power chord or a two-pin power chord. The examiner explains that the three-pin power chord and two-pin power chord are well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SANTANA and GOODCHILD by using a three-pin power chord for the benefit of preventing electric shock by providing a path to ground for any leaking electricity. Regarding claims 3-4 and 13-14 (claims 3-4 are considered representative for limitation matching purposes), SANTANA and GOODCHILD disclose the charging apparatus as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the base unit and the top unit are detachably connected via a magnetic locking mechanism (See SANTANA, Par.18, discloses securement mechanism comprising magnets, clips or similar devices to secure the connection between adaptors 14 and adaptor slots 12. Claim 4 is met by the locking mechanism being magnetic). Regarding claims 6 and 16 (claim 6 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), SANTANA and GOODCHILD disclose the charging apparatus as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, further comprises a base plate fixed at bottom of the base unit to cover components of the base unit (See SANTANA, Fig.4, Item#11 and Par.22 discloses a base plate 11 that includes the power supply and other electronic components of the system). Regarding claims 9 and 19 (claim 9 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), SANTANA and GOODCHILD disclose the charging apparatus as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, further comprises male connectors configured to engage with corresponding female connectors for electrical connection and structural stability (See SANTANA, Fig.2, Items#13 and Pars.18-19, disclose electrical contact protrusion 13 that transmits power to the adaptor via contact 17. The electrical contact forms a protrusion, and the bottom of the adaptors form a groove that accept the protrusion such that the terminals contact one another). Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANTANA in view of GOODCHILD and in further view of KELLONIEMI (US 2025/0055294 A1, hereinafter KELLONIEMI). Regarding claims 5 and 15 (claim 5 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), SANTANA and GOODCHILD disclose the charging apparatus as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, However, SANTANA and GOODCHILD do not disclose further comprises a light guide beneath the PCB to display a status of charging of the wearable device. KELLONIEMI discloses a charging device for a wearable device, the charging device comprising comprises a light guide beneath the PCB to display a status of charging of the wearable device (See Par.98, discloses a light 415 to display a ring battery health/charge status). SANTANA, GOODCHILD and KELLONIEMI are analogous art since they all deal with chargers for electronic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SANTANA and GOODCHILD with the teachings of KELLONIEMI by adding the disclosed light guide for the benefit of alerting the user to the battery charging status of the electronic devices. Claim(s) 7-8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANTANA in view of GOODCHILD and in further view of FENG et al. (US 2021/0281088 A1, hereinafter FENG). Regarding claims 7 and 17 (claim 7 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), SANTANA and GOODCHILD disclose the charging apparatus as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, However, SANTANA and GOODCHILD do not disclose further comprises a pad fixed beneath the base unit for restricting the slipping and free movement of the base unit. FENG discloses a wireless charging device comprising a base unit, further comprising a pad fixed beneath the base unit for restricting the slipping and free movement of the base unit (See Fig.4, discloses the bottom of wireless charging base unit 2 comprising a plurality of rubber pads 22 to prevent slipping of the charging base [Par.46]). SANTANA, GOODCHILD and FENG are analogous art since they all deal with charging of portable electronic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SANTANA and GOODCHILD as applied to claim 1 with the further teachings of FENG by adding the rubber pads at the bottom of the charging base unit for the benefit providing slip resistance to the charging base unit. Regarding claims 8 and 18 (claim 8 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), SANTANA, GOODCHILD and FENG disclose the charging apparatus as claimed in claim 7 as discussed above, However, SANTANA, GOODCHILD and FENG do not disclose wherein the pad fixed beneath the base unit is made of metal to add extra weight and enhance stability of the base unit. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SANTANA, GOODCHILD and FENG by replacing the rubber pads with metallic ones that add extra weight for the benefit of providing a resilient pad that does not wear out with time. Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANTANA in view of GOODCHILD and in further view of HYUN-JUN et al. (US 2012/0206090 A1, hereinafter HYUN). Regarding claims 10 and 20 (claim 10 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), SANTANA and GOODCHILD disclose the charging apparatus as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above, However, SANTANA and GOODCHILD do not disclose wherein the base unit further comprises pins configured to engage with corresponding slots in the top unit to ensure correct orientation and secure positioning. HYUN discloses a charger (See Fig.1, Item#200) comprising magnetic pins (See Figs.1and 2, Items#280) to engage with corresponding magnetic slots in the top unit (See Fig.2, Items#180). SANTANA, GOODCHILD and HYUN are analogous art since they all deal with chargers for portable electronic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SANTANA and GOODCHILD with the teachings of HYUN by using the magnetic charging pins and corresponding slots in the base unit and top unit for the benefit of enhancing the security of the electrical connection between the base unit and the top unit. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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. /AHMED H OMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 05, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 23, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 08, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 08, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 13, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Oct 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603522
CARAVANNING AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE TRAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603515
ACCESSORY CASE FOR MULTIPLE CHARGER TYPES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592585
WIRELESS CHARGER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576734
Automotive Battery Power System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580407
METHODS FOR CONTROLLING POWER DISTRIBUTION TO VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+14.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1062 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month