PTAB

IPR2025-00411

Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. Ouraring Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wearable Computing Device
  • Brief Description: The ’178 patent discloses a finger-worn wearable ring device for physiological monitoring. The device comprises external and internal housing components that form a cavity containing a battery, a printed circuit board (PCB), and one or more sensors for acquiring user data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 13-16 are obvious over Schröder in view of Niwa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schröder (Patent 10,303,867) and Niwa (Application # 2012/0016245).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Schröder taught the fundamental structure of a finger-worn ring with inner and outer housing components forming a cavity containing a battery, PCB (inlay), and biometric sensors. However, Petitioner asserted Schröder did not explicitly place the battery and PCB in different, non-overlapping portions of the cavity. Niwa was introduced to supply this missing element, as it explicitly taught arranging a battery and PCB in either non-overlapping or partially overlapping portions of a cavity within a finger ring. Further, Niwa was used to teach the sensor limitations of claims 13-16, including using multiple light-emitting components (LEDs) that emit different wavelengths (e.g., visible and near-infrared) and are placed at different radial positions around a central photodetector.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because they are analogous art directed to wearable sensor rings with similar structural components. Petitioner contended a POSITA would look to Niwa to improve Schröder’s design by incorporating Niwa’s more defined component layouts for a smaller form factor and its advanced multi-wavelength sensor configurations to capture more accurate or broader biometric data.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination involved applying known and predictable component arrangements and sensor technologies to a similar device structure.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-16 are obvious over Schröder in view of Yuen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schröder (Patent 10,303,867) and Yuen (Patent 8,954,135).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner again relied on Schröder for the base finger-ring device structure. Yuen was cited to add features related to charging and adaptive sensor operation. Specifically, Yuen taught using magnetic components to align a wearable device with a charger (claim 4) and wirelessly transfer energy (claim 5). Yuen also disclosed a processor configured to selectively adjust sensor operational parameters—such as measurement periodicity—based on acquired data. This teaching was mapped to claims 6-10, which require adjusting sensor parameters based on heart rate, user activity, sleep states, or battery power levels.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Schröder and Yuen to enhance the functionality and user convenience of Schröder’s ring. Yuen’s magnetic alignment for wireless charging offered an obvious improvement over basic inductive charging. Furthermore, Yuen’s method for adaptively managing sensor activity to conserve power and improve data accuracy represented a known and desirable advancement for battery-powered wearable devices.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success would be predictable because the electronic components and control logic described in Yuen were well-understood and readily integrable into a device like Schröder’s.

Ground 3: Claims 1-3 and 13-18 are obvious over Niwa alone.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Niwa (Application # 2012/0016245).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Niwa, by itself, taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Niwa was described as disclosing a "finger ring construction" with a housing (claim 1[a]), an inner surface that contacts the user (claim 1[b]), and a cavity formed between the inner and outer housing that contains a battery (claim 1[c]), a PCB (claim 1[d]), and a plethysmogram sensor (claim 1[e]). Petitioner further contended that Niwa’s figures illustrated non-overlapping and partially overlapping arrangements for the battery and PCB (claims 2-3) and disclosed the multi-LED, multi-wavelength, and varied radial positioning sensor configurations recited in claims 13-16.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 1-3, 17-18 over Schröder alone; claims 3 and 12 over Schröder in view of Mestas (for its teaching of a curved battery); and various permutations where Niwa was the primary reference combined with Schröder, Mestas, or Yuen.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should decline to exercise discretionary denial under Fintiv. The basis for this argument was that all patent-related claims in the parallel district court proceeding (the "Ultrahuman Action") had been stayed pending the resolution of a parallel ITC investigation, thus mitigating concerns of inefficiency and duplicative efforts.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 and 12-18 of the ’178 patent as unpatentable.