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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 08/08/2025 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are pending. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 5-6 are amended. Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are examined herein.
Specification
The amendment to the specification was received on 08/08/2025. The amendment is acceptable and has been entered.
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 1-3 and 5-17 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 1 recites the limitation "the first controller" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “A first controller” is not recited until line 15. It is suggested applicant reorder the claim to allow for antecedent basis for the first controller. Claims 2-3 and 5-17 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,061,352 B1 (“Trail”) in view of US 2002/0167696 A1 (“Edwards”).
Regarding claim 1, Trail discloses a neckband 135, 300 (“neck-mounted power bank”) (Abstract; Figs. 1-6). The neckband is capable of providing power to an eyewear device 102 (“electronic device”) (col. 6, lines 22-48) and wirelessly controlling the eyewear device (col. 8, lines 15-49).
The neckband comprises a computation compartment 130 (“neck-mounted portion”) that is formed in a “U” shape that conforms to the user's neck (Fig. 3; col. 6, lines 6-11); a first arm 140 (“first body”), connected to an end of the computation compartment 130; and a second arm 145 (“second body”) connected to another end of the computation compartment 130 (Fig. 3; col. 5, line 47 – col. 6, line 5). The computation compartment 130, the first arm 140, and the second arm 145 define a wearing space (col. 6, lines 6-11).
The first arm 140 comprises a first controller, including a physical input button 310, (Fig. 3; col. 10, lines 26-28, col. 10, line 56 – col. 11, line 12) and a power source, e.g. batteries, (“first controller battery”) housed within battery compartment 125 (Fig. 3; col. 6, lines 22-48).
When the first controller is installed and electrically coupled to the computation compartment 130, the batteries are capable of supplying power to the eyewear device 102 (col. 6, lines 22-26).
The eyewear device 102 is wirelessly coupled with the neckband 135 (col. 8, lines 16-34). Connector 120 transmits power between the neckband 135 and the eyewear device 102, and therefore between the power source within battery compartment 125 of the second arm 145 (col. 8, lines 35-41). Moreover, a separate battery or power source can be located in the eyewear device 102 (col. 8, lines 45-47). Therefore, the eyewear device 102 is capable of operation when the first controller is removed. For these reasons, it is deemed that the first controller, when detached, is capable of controlling the eyewear device 102 wirelessly.
Trail does not expressly disclose the first body comprises a first tray, connected to the neck-mounted portion, wherein the first controller is detachably and electrically connected to the first tray.
Edwards discloses a detachable remote controller for an electronic entertainment device (Abstract). The detachable remote controller 5 can be mounted in a remote controller cavity 49 (“first tray”) of electronic device 1 (Fig. 4; [0025]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mounting means of Edwards, including the tray, for the mounting means of trail because this amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In the modification, the first arm 140 is mounted to the neckband 135 via the first tray. Because Trail teaches that the power source in the battery compartment 125 of the first arm 140 provides power to the eyewear device 102 (col. 6, lines 22-26), it would have further been obvious in the above modification to supply power from the power source to the eyewear device 102 through the first tray to enable the transmission of power from the power source to the eyewear device 102.
As shown, for example, in Fig. 2 of Edwards, the first tray has a first tray upper end and a first tray lower end. In the combination, the first tray upper end is connected to the computation compartment 130. In the combination, the first controller has a first controller upper end and a first controller lower end, and when the first controller is installed on the first tray, the first controller upper end is fitted with the first tray upper end, and the first controller lower end is fitted with the first tray lower end.
Regarding claim 2, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claim 1. Trail further discloses each of the first arm 140 and the second arm 145 comprise a battery compartment 125 with a power source therein (col. 6, lines 22-27). Each battery is electrically coupled to the computation compartment 130 and connector 120 (col. 8, lines 3-8 and 35-39). Therefore, the first arm 140 and the second arm 145 are electrically connected to each other through the computation compartment 130.
Regarding claim 3, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claim 1. Trail further discloses a connector 120 (“power transmission cable”) provides power from the neckband 135 to the eyewear device 102 (Fig. 1; col. 9, lines 4-8). While Trail does not expressly disclose one end of the power transmission cable is connected to the first body or the second body, it has been held that if a claimed invention reads on the prior art except with regard to the position of a component of a device, the invention is unpatentable if switching the position of the component would have not modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, rearranging the connector such that one end is connected to the first body or the second body, for example at the first tray, would not affect operation of the device. Moreover, one would be motivated to rearrange the component as claimed in pursuit of, for example, a user’s comfort. See col. 12, lines 56-60 where Trail contemplates that the weight and size of the neckband affect a user’s comfort.
Regarding claim 5, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claim 1. As shown in, for example, Fig. 3 of Edwards, the first tray has a first concave portion located between the first tray upper end and the first tray lower end, the first controller has a first protruding portion located between the first controller upper end and the first controller lower end, and the first concave portion is matched with the first protruding portion.
Regarding claim 6, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claim 1. Trail discloses neckband junctions 335a and 335b may be magnetically coupled, such that the first arm 140 and second arm 145 are removable from the computation compartment 130 (col. 12, lines 65-67). Edwards discloses magnets 37 are provided in the tray and attract metallic plate 41 within the controller to attach the remote controller 5 to the cavity 49 in the device housing (Fig. 3; [0025]-[0026]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed plurality of first magnetic parts, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, it has been held that if a claimed invention reads on the prior art except with regard to the position of a component of a device, the invention is unpatentable if switching the position of the component would have not modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, providing the plurality of first magnetic parts in the claimed positions would not modify operation of the device and one would be motivated to rearrange the magnetic parts in pursuit of keeping the connection secure while allowing for ease of removal.
Regarding claim 8, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claim 1. Trail further discloses the first controller comprises a physical input button 310 and an activation button 315 (“plurality of first buttons”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claim 1. Trail discloses the second arm 145 is detachably mounted to the computation compartment 130 (col. 12, lines 35-64). The second arm 145 comprises a second controller including multifunction compartment 330b (Fig. 3; col. 9, line 66 – col. 10, line 25).
Trail does not expressly disclose the second body further comprises: a second tray, connected to another end of the neck-mounted portion; and the second controller is detachably and electrically connected to the second tray.
Edwards discloses a detachable remote controller for an electronic entertainment device (Abstract). The detachable remote controller 5 can be mounted in a remote controller cavity 49 (“first tray”) of electronic device 1 (Fig. 4; [0025]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mounting means of Edwards, including the tray, for the mounting means of trail because this amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In the modification, the second arm 145 is mounted to the neckband 135 via the second tray. Because Trail teaches that the power source in the battery compartment 125 of the second arm 145 provides power to the eyewear device 102 (col. 6, lines 22-26), it would have further been obvious in the above modification to supply power from the power source to the eyewear device 102 through the second tray to enable the transmission of power from the power source to the eyewear device 102.
Regarding claim 10, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claim 9. As shown, for example, in Fig. 2 of Edwards, the second tray has a second tray upper end and a second tray lower end. In the combination, the second tray upper end is connected to the computation compartment 130. In the combination, the second controller has a second controller upper end and a second controller lower end, and when the second controller is installed on the second tray, the second controller upper end is fitted with the second tray upper end, and the second controller lower end is fitted with the second tray lower end.
Regarding claim 11, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claim 10. As shown in, for example, Fig. 3 of Edwards, the second tray has a second concave portion located between the second tray upper end and the second tray lower end, the second controller has a second protruding portion located between the second controller upper end and the second controller lower end, and the second concave portion is matched with the second protruding portion.
Regarding claim 12, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claim 10. Trail discloses neckband junctions 335a and 335b may be magnetically coupled, such that the first arm 140 and second arm 145 are removable from the computation compartment 130 (col. 12, lines 65-67). Edwards discloses magnets 37 are provided in the tray and attract metallic plate 41 within the controller to attach the remote controller 5 to the cavity 49 in the device housing (Fig. 3; [0025]-[0026]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed plurality of second magnetic parts, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, it has been held that if a claimed invention reads on the prior art except with regard to the position of a component of a device, the invention is unpatentable if switching the position of the component would have not modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, providing the plurality of first magnetic parts in the claimed positions would not modify operation of the device and one would be motivated to rearrange the magnetic parts in pursuit of keeping the connection secure while allowing for ease of removal.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claims 9 and 1. Trail discloses the power source in the battery compartment 125 may be in one or more sub-assemblies (with two as shown) where the unit embedded in the first arm 140 and/or the battery compartment 125 in the second arm 145 powers the eyewear device 102. The computation compartment 130 may have its own power source (not shown) and/or may be powered by a power source in the battery compartments 125 (col. 6, lines 22-48). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide batteries in the first and second trays as claimed because Trail contemplates placing batteries in various sub-assemblies, including the computation compartment. Furthermore, it has been held that if a claimed invention reads on the prior art except with regard to the position of a component of a device, the invention is unpatentable if switching the position of the component would have not modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, providing the batteries in the first and second trays as claimed would not modify operation of the device and one would be motivated to rearrange the magnetic parts in pursuit of user comfort in view of the weight and heat generated by the batteries (Trail at col. 6, lines 37-43).
Regarding claim 15, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claim 9. Trail further discloses the second controller comprises a physical input button 310 (col. 11, lines 7-12). While Trail does not expressly disclose the second controller has a plurality of buttons, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of buttons, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, Trail describes the functions that can be controlled with the physical input button and one would be motivated to provide a plurality of buttons to enable easy control of multiple funtions.
Regarding claim 17, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claim 1. Trail further discloses the second arm 145 comprises a power source (“body battery”) within battery compartment 125 which is capable of supplying power to the eyewear device 102 (Fig. 3; col. 6, lines 22-26).
Claims 7 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,061,352 B1 (“Trail”) in view of US 2002/0167696 A1 (“Edwards”) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US 2016/0149426 A1 (“Hodges”).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, modified Trail discloses the neck-mounted power bank of claims 1 and 9. Modified Trail is silent regarding the first tray has a plurality of first pogo pins, and the plurality of first pogo pins are located on the first tray, the first controller further has a plurality of first electrodes, and when the first controller is installed on the first tray, the plurality of first pogo pins are elastically contacted with the plurality of first electrodes respectively to electrically connect the first controller and the first tray to each other [claim 7] and the second tray has a plurality of second pogo pins, and the plurality of second pogo pins are located on the second tray, the second controller further has a plurality of second electrodes, and when the second controller is installed on the second tray, the plurality of second pogo pins are elastically contacted with the plurality of second electrodes respectively to electrically connect the second controller and the second tray to each other [claim 13].
Hodges discloses a charging device for an input module (Abstract). Hodges discloses removable input modules 104 are coupled to charging device 200 through metallic contacts 206 (Fig. 2; [0027]). The metallic contacts 206 may be spring-loaded pins (also referred to as pogo pins) ([0027]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed plurality of pogo pins because Hodges shows it is a known means of electrically coupling devices for power transfer and would amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 08/08/2025, with respect to the objection to claims 1-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claims 1-17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 8, filed 08/08/2025, with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “According to Trail, referring to FIG. 1, only one end of the first arm 140 is connected to the computation compartment 130. Moreover, according to Edwards (see FIG. 1 and FIG. 4 below), one end of the controller cavity 49 has an opening. That is, when the remote controller 5 is installed on the controller cavity 49, only one end of the remote controller 5 is connected to the controller cavity.”
In response, please consider the following. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a specific structural relationship between the first controller and the first tray such that particular surfaces of the first controller and the first tray contact each other) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In instant claim 1, the limitations “first controller upper end,” “first controller lower end,” “first tray upper end,” and “first tray lower end” are recited. “End” is interpreted using its broadest reasonable meaning in light of the specification. In this case, “end” is interpreted as a part of something that includes the extremity of its length. Furthermore, claim 1 does not preclude an opening in the tray. The tray of Edwards includes upper and lower ends that are fitted with respective upper and lower ends of the controller. See the annotated portion of Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
248
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, when applied to Trail, the combined teachings render the amended claim 1 obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-5:45PM Eastern.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727