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(s) 1-20 is/are pending. Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are independent. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Regarding Figures 1A-1H, 2, 3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B:
The unlabeled reference numbers shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Suitable descriptive legends are necessary for understanding the drawing(s), 37 CFR 1.84(o).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 15:
Claim 4 recites, “… identifying that the second wearable device is associated with the wearer of the first wearable device is based at least in part on establishing the communication channel.” Claim 15 recites similar language. The limitation(s) is/are not enabled; See MPEP § 2164. Specifically, the claim limitation that an intermediary device may determine whether a user of a first device is the same as the user of a second device, based on whether a communication channel has been established with the second device, is not enabled.
The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation; United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue” include, but are not limited to: (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure; In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
As to (a), the breadth of the claims, the current draft of the claims recite a method of determining whether the user of a second device is the same user as that of a first device based on the establishment of a communication channel. The breadth encompasses any form of communication between the two devices and an intermediary device referred to as a “smart dock” in the claims. The breadth of the claims is not a factor in determining whether the amount of required experimentation is undue.
As to (b), the nature of the invention is primarily directed to synchronizing data between devices. It is partially directed to authentication methods. It is partially directed to communication technology. The limitations in question assumes a method of determining the identity of a user based on a communication channel being established with a device. This method is unknown in the art, and therefore requires undue experimentation.
As to (c) the state of the prior art and (d) the level of skill in the art, there is no indication that even one of high skill in the art, given the current state of the art, would be able to positively determine the identity of a user of a device through solely the establishment of a communication channel, unless additional information was provided.
As to (e), the level of predictability in the art is not a factor in determining whether the amount of required experimentation is undue.
As to (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor, there is no direction provided pertaining to this limitation. The original disclosure is silent regarding any particular method which could be used to achieve the claimed result, and does not lessen the amount of required experimentation.
As to the (g) existence of working examples, none are provided which would lessen the required experimentation.
As to the (h) quantity of experimentation needed, there is no particular evidence in the record to indicate the quantity of experimentation that one of ordinary skill in the art would need to implement the present invention. However, analysis of this factor in light of the other factors present suggest the amount of experimentation required to make and use the invention is undue.
The majority of factors for which there is evidence suggest that undue experimentation is required. After weighing all of the factors and all the evidence of record, the totality of the evidence suggests that it would require undue experimentation to make and use the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 18:
Claim 7 recites, “… a first time interval … at least partially overlaps with a second time interval …”. Claim(s) 18 recite similar language. The claim(s) are indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. There is no indication of what constitutes a “time interval” in either the claims or specification, thus it can be said that any two steps may occur within any time interval in which they both occur. For example, even if the “secure user data” and “biometric data” were received 5 minutes apart, they could be said to overlap in an interval of 6 minutes.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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.
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14:
The claim(s) fails to further limit the depended-on claim because they recite identical subject matter as their parent claims. Specifically, claim 3 recites, “… transmitting the [data] to the second wearable device is based at least in part on determining that the second biometric data matches the biometric data”. Claim(s) 14 recite(s) similar language. This limitation does not further limit parent claim(s) 1 and 2 (and similarly 12 and 13), which recite(s) in claim 1, “… transmitting, to the second wearable device, the [data] based at least in part on identifying that the second wearable device is associated with the wearer …”; and in claim 2, “comparing the second biometric data to the biometric data …, wherein identifying that the second wearable device is associated with the wearer … is based at least in part on the comparison.” Put simply, the parent claims, taken together, cover the limitations of claims 3 and 14:
Comparing biometric data received from Device 1 and Device 2 is recited by claims 2 and 13.
Transmitting biometric data received from Device 1 to Device 2 is recited by claims 1 and 12, and the transmitting being based on Device 2 being associated with a user is inherited from the dependency with claims 2 and 13, which recite the association as based on the biometric comparison.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN et al Doc ID US 20210385893 A1), and further in view of JURGOVAN et al (Doc ID US 20150011160 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
JIN teaches:
storing, in a memory element of the smart dock, the secure user data and the biometric data in response to receiving the secure user data and receiving the biometric data ([0080] "... the user device 201 may transmit audio data to the first device 202-1 via the first link 205." and [0144] "... user device 201 may determine … similarity between the biometric information.");
Examiner notes that the user device 201 must inherently store the information which it receives.
identifying that a second wearable device is associated with a wearer of the first wearable device based at least in part on the second wearable device being coupled with the smart dock ([0144] "The first device 202-1 and the second device 202-2 may obtain biometric information ... about the associated users using a sensor circuit. The ... user device 201 may determine whether the first device 202-1 and the second device 202-2 are associated with the same user based on similarity between the biometric information."); and
transmitting, to the second wearable device, the secure user data, the biometric data, or both, based at least in part on identifying that the second wearable device is associated with the wearer of the first wearable device ([0143] "... In a second mode, ... the second device 202-2 may be configured to receive media data from the user device 201 via the first link 205." and [0144] "… the Bluetooth system 400 may operate in the first mode if a user ... associated with the first device 202-1 is different from a user ... associated with the second device 202-2.").
JURGOVAN teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by JIN:
A method at a smart dock, comprising: receiving, from a first wearable device, secure user data based at least in part on the first wearable device being coupled with the smart dock ([0080] "… the mobile device 104 is able to send wireless power transfer information to the docking-charging station …. In one example, the stored data containing the wireless power transfer information is a profile for a mobile device or user");
receiving, from the first wearable device, biometric data based at least in part on the first wearable device being coupled with the smart dock ([0150] "... A credential is received, at 1502, by the mobile device 104. … the credential is able to be a biometric image … relating to … a person's fingerprint, face or retinal pattern." and [0151] "The mobile device ... transmits, at 1504, the credential to the docking-charging station 102 for authentication.");
Storing data received from connected devices by an intermediate device, determining that connected devices are associated with the same user, and transmitting data to a connected device based on the determination is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by JIN. Further, a docking station which receives various types of data from connected devices is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by JURGOVAN. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data transfer based on a single user of multiple devices of JIN with the docking station of JURGOVAN with the motivation to implement a hub which facilitates communication and authentication between devices into a charging/docking station. This is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods which yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of JIN and JURGOVAN teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the second wearable device, second biometric data in response to the second wearable device being coupled with the smart dock (JIN [0144] "The first device 202-1 and the second device 202-2 may obtain biometric information ... about the associated users using a sensor circuit.");
storing, in the memory element, the second biometric data in response to receiving the second biometric data (JIN [0144] "... user device 201 may determine … similarity between the biometric information."); and
Examiner notes that the user device 201 must inherently store the information which it receives.
comparing the second biometric data to the biometric data stored at the memory element, wherein identifying that the second wearable device is associated with the wearer of the first wearable device is based at least in part on the comparison (JIN [0144] "… user device 201 may determine whether the first device 202-1 and the second device 202-2 are associated with the same user based on similarity between the biometric information.").
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of JIN and JURGOVAN teaches:
The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining whether the second biometric data matches the biometric data based at least in part on comparing the second biometric data to the biometric data (JIN [0144] "... user device 201 may determine … similarity between the biometric information."),
wherein transmitting the secure user data, the biometric data, or both, to the second wearable device is based at least in part on determining that the second biometric data matches the biometric data (JIN [0143] "... In a second mode, ... the second device 202-2 may be configured to receive media data from the user device 201 via the first link 205." and [0144] "… the Bluetooth system 400 may operate in the first mode if a user ... associated with the first device 202-1 is different from a user ... associated with the second device 202-2.").
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of JIN and JURGOVAN teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request to establish a communication channel between the second wearable device and the smart dock in response to the second wearable device being coupled with the smart dock (JIN [0123] "... the user device 201 may establish ... the first link ... with the first device 202-1 ..."); and
establishing the communication channel between the second wearable device and the smart dock, wherein the communication channel comprises a direct electrical connection, a wireless connection, or both (JIN [0123] "... in response to reception of a user input to a connection UI 618 requesting connection with the first device 202-1 or automatically without the user input."),
wherein identifying that the second wearable device is associated with the wearer of the first wearable device is based at least in part on establishing the communication channel (Examiner notes that this limitation is the subject of an enablement rejection. In the interest of compact prosecution, prior art is applied to the remaining limitations of the claim.).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of JIN and JURGOVAN teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the smart dock is associated with the first wearable device, wherein receiving the secure user data, the biometric data, or both based at least in part on determining that the smart dock is associated with the first wearable device (JIN [0078] "Referring to FIG. 3, … the user device 201 may create the first link 205 with the first device 202-1 …").
Examiner notes that no distinguishing information is claimed regarding the nature of the "smart dock." Examiner further notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "associated with" encompasses the association formed by the "link" taught by the reference.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of JIN and JURGOVAN teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein a first time interval for receiving the secure user data at least partially overlaps with a second time interval for receiving the biometric data (JIN [0078] "... the user device 201 may transmit audio data to the first device 202-1 via the first link 205." and [0144] "The first device 202-1 and the second device 202-2 may obtain biometric information ... about the associated users using a sensor circuit. The ... user device 201 may determine whether the first device 202-1 and the second device 202-2 are associated ...").
Regarding the overlapping "time interval", see the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of JIN and JURGOVAN teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the biometric data comprises data sensed by the first wearable device, a biometric model developed using the data sensed by the first wearable device, a hash of the biometric model, a hash of the data sensed by the first wearable device, an encrypted version of the biometric model, an encrypted version of the data sensed by the first wearable device, or a combination thereof (JIN [0144] "The first device 202-1 and the second device 202-2 may obtain biometric information ... about the associated users using a sensor circuit.").
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of JIN and JURGOVAN teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the smart dock comprises a charging device for the first wearable device, the second wearable device, or both, further comprising: recharging, using a charging portion of the smart dock, a power source of the first wearable device, the second wearable device, or both (JURGOVAN [0065] "A wireless power reception component 306 wirelessly receives power from an external source, such as the above described charging-docking station 102 …").
Using a docking station to recharge connected devices is/are well-known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by JURGOVAN. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication enabling smart dock of JIN and JURGOVAN with the device recharging of JURGOVAN with the motivation to incorporate a common and well-known feature of device docking stations. This is a known technique which has been used to improve similar devices.
Regarding claim 12:
JURGOVAN teaches:
An apparatus of a smart dock, comprising: a base configured for receiving one or more wearable devices ([0065] "A wireless power reception component 306 wirelessly receives power from an external source, such as the above described charging-docking station 102 …");
communication circuitry for wirelessly communicating with the one or more wearable devices ([0054] "... a docking charging station 250 is able to include any suitable number or connectivity units ... that communicate via any suitable ratio protocol.");
a memory; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the communication circuitry and the memory, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to ([0048] "The docking-charging station block diagram 200 depicts a processor 202 that … communicates program code 212 and data 214 with memory 210 over the communications bus 230." and [0053] "… the processor 202 can generate a display of ... wired or wireless connectivity ... to other external devices."):
The remainder of this claim’s limitations are rejected with the same prior art mapping and justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 13-15, and 17-19:
The listed claim(s) is/are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its/their counterpart claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, and 10 above.
Claims 5, 11, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN et al Doc ID US 20210385893 A1) and JURGOVAN et al (Doc ID US 20150011160 A1) as applied to claims 1, 10, 12, and 19 above, and further in view of VON BADINSKI et al (Doc ID US 10884455 B2).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of JIN and JURGOVAN teaches:
The method of claim 1,
transmitting, to the first wearable device, a request for the secure user data, the biometric data, or both, wherein the secure user data is received based at least in part on transmitting the request and determining that the wearer is the authorized user of the first wearable device (JIN [0123] "... in response to reception of a user input to a connection UI 618 requesting connection with the first device 202-1 or automatically without the user input.").
VON BADINSKI teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
further comprising: determining that the wearer of the first wearable device is an authorized user of the first wearable device (Col 23 lines 42-44 "… the WCD can uniquely identify the wearer as an authorized user of the WCD and as the unique individual who generated the reference capillary map."); and
Authenticating the user of a connected device using received biometric information is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by VON BADINSKI. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication enabling smart dock of JIN and JURGOVAN with the biometric authentication of VON BADINSKI with the motivation to use a difficult to bypass method of user identification. This is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods which yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of JIN and JURGOVAN teaches:
The method of claim 10,
VON BADINSKI teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
wherein the charging portion of the smart dock is configured to couple with the first wearable device, the second wearable device, or both, directly via an electrical connection, indirectly via magnetic induction, indirectly via radio frequency (RF) fields, indirectly via optical signals, or any combination thereof (Col 19 lines 54-59 "Once the concentrated laser light falls upon the CPV 1730, the CPV 1730 can convert the ... light into a current that can be used to directly power one or more components within the WCD and/or can be used to charge one or more rechargeable batteries onboard the WCD.").
Using optical signals to recharge a connected device is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by VON BADINSKI. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication enabling smart dock of JIN and JURGOVAN with the light-to-power conversion of VON BADINSKI with the motivation to use a power connection method which does not external hardware with a high profile that would affect the comfort of a wearable device. This is a known technique which has been used to improve similar devices.
Regarding claim(s) 16 and 20:
The listed claim(s) is/are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its/their counterpart claim(s) 5 and 11 above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN et al Doc ID US 20210385893 A1) and JURGOVAN et al (Doc ID US 20150011160 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CHEN et al (Doc ID US 20150304851 A1).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of JIN and JURGOVAN teaches:
The method of claim 10,
VON BADINSKI teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
The method of claim 1, wherein the secure user data comprises financial data, data associated with one or more financial accounts, one or more cryptographic keys, one or more blockchain addresses, one or more settings, one or more preferences, or one or more passwords, one or more user credentials, one or more access tokens, one or more private keys, one or more encryptions, or a combination thereof ([0028] "… The portable authorization device 102 may include a secure element that stores the authorization keys for the services that the user subscribes to …").
Using optical signals to recharge a connected device is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by VON BADINSKI. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication enabling smart dock of JIN and JURGOVAN with the light-to-power conversion of VON BADINSKI with the motivation to use a power connection method which does not external hardware with a high profile that would affect the comfort of a wearable device. This is a known technique which has been used to improve similar devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON BINCZAK whose telephone number is (703) 756-4528. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-1600 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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/BRANDON BINCZAK/Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights