Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/752,724

COMPATIBLE ACCESSORY MODULE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 24, 2022
Examiner
LEWIS, DAVID LEE
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
96 granted / 145 resolved
-3.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
155
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
§103
39.0%
-1.0% vs TC avg
§102
39.6%
-0.4% vs TC avg
§112
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 145 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 . Procedural Summary This is responsive to the claims filed 4/16/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. AIA Notice 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 18-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Higgins et al. U.S. Patent Pub 2016/0364910 in view of Monti U.S. Patent Pub 2022/0249947. Regarding Claim 1, 19, and 20, Higgins teaches of a universally compatible accessory module, paragraph 18, figure 3A/B item 300, figure 4 item 300, comprising: a haptics driver, figure 4 item 465; a light emitting diode (LED) driver, figure 4 item 480 ; a battery in electrical communication with the haptics driver and the LED driver, figure 4 item 450; a plurality of LEDs controlled by the LED driver, figure 4 item 485, the plurality of LEDs located along external edges of the accessory module according to a unique geometry, figure 3a item 150; at least one mechanical actuator controlled by the haptics driver, figure 4 item 470; and a form factor associated with a plurality of form factors, paragraph 33, wherein the form factor is electrically coupled to the accessory module and mechanically coupled to the accessory module by housing a portion of to the accessory module wherein each form factor of the plurality of form factors comprises a unique constellation, paragraph 33. Wherein the LEDs may be positioned on the outward-facing surface 145 of the controller 300 in any suitable pattern, order, or array. The LEDs may be fixedly or detachably positioned on, and thus coupled to the cage 140. Wherein Higgins teaches of a number of configurations or form factors that adapt to various controllers in virtual-reality systems that can detect physical positions of the handheld controls, wherein the form factor is any suitable pattern, order, or array. Said system can be adapted for a boxing game, paragraph 17. Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Higgins teaches of LEDs along edges of the module according to a unique geometry, figure 3a item 150, for sports applications, paragraph 17. Regarding Claim 20, Higgins teaches of onboard and offboard configurations, figure 4 items 300, 402, 403. Higgins suggests his devices is suited for a variety of form factors but fails to provide specifics on the variety of gaming related devices corresponding to specific form factors given the device shape and unique led constellation suited for the device. Monti, teaches of Peripheral devices in a similarly situated virtual reality system, serving as a variety of form factors that may be adapted to the controllers of Higgins. Wherein the peripheral devices or controllers of Monti may further be configured to simulate a wide variety of gaming related devices, such as a tennis racket, a baseball bat, a magic wand, a hockey stick, a cricket bat, a badminton racket, a pool cue, boxing glove(s), a sword, a light saber, a bow and arrow, a golf club, a fishing pole, etc. Such peripheral devices may further simulate one or more secondary actions of a system being emulated, for example, a halo plasma gun, a broken bat, bat vibrations after hitting baseball, firearm charging/loading, a force field, a grenade launcher, environmental effects like rumbling of the peripheral device due to a nearby explosion or due to interaction with a virtual object, etc. As is known in the art. Wherein ach device has a unique shape and would obviously have tracking LEDs adapted to fit its shape, forming a unique constellation, as would be suitable for the device. Wherein it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Input Controllers of Higgins et al., to the variety of form factors of Monti because Higgins teaches his controller can be adapted to a number of embodiments or form factors and Monti teaches input devices for virtual reality system using led based tracking can be adapted to a variety of peripherals or form factors, as found in claim 1. Regarding Claim 2, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein the mechanical actuators are at least one of magnetic and piezo, paragraph 54. Wherein haptic feedback actuators are well known to be of magnetic or piezo, Monti, paragraph 85. Regarding Claim 3, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein the unique geometry comprises spacing the LEDs at a uniform distance apart and then perturbing the spacing by about 1 cm, paragraph 33, Regarding Claim 4, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein, wherein the unique geometry is asymmetric, paragraph 33. Regarding Claim 5, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein, wherein there are six LEDs, paragraph 33. Regarding Claim 6, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein, wherein the module comprises a pair, the pair comprising one module for each hand, paragraph 17, boxing game Left and Right hand controller, Monti, paragraph 30, Monti, paragraph 30. Regarding Claim 7, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein, further comprising at least one button, figure 4 item 415, at least one trigger, figure 4 item 405, and/or at least one analogue input, figure 4 item 410. Regarding Claim 8, Regarding Claim 2, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein the module is implemented as an onboard portion and an offboard portion, wherein control electronics are provided on the onboard portion and the LEDs are provided on the offboard portion., paragraph 52-55. Regarding Claim 9, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein the haptics driver and the light emitting diode (LED) driver are provided on the onboard portion, figure 4 item 300. Regarding Claim 10, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein the at least one mechanical actuator is provided on the offboard portion, figure 4 item 300. Regarding Claim 11, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein the onboard portion is linked to the offboard portion by wireless connectors, figure 4 item 445. Regarding Claim 12, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein the control electronics of the onboard portion are implemented at least in part on a printed circuit board (PCB), figure 4 item 300. Regarding Claim 13, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein the onboard portion is interchangeably coupled with a variety of different accessories, figure 1A, Monti, paragraph 30. Regarding Claim 14, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein a type of the different accessories is identified by a constellation, Monti, paragraph 30. Regarding Claim 15, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein left and right side of the same type of separate accessories is identified by the constellation, Monti, paragraph 30. Regarding Claim 16, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein orientation of the different accessories is identified by the constellation, Monti, paragraph 30. Regarding Claim 17, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein the control electronics adapt for each of the different accessories according to the constellation, Monti, paragraph 30. Regarding Claim 18, Higgins in view of Monti teaches of wherein the control electronics adapt for each of the different accessories according to size, shape, haptics, and weight, Monti paragraph 30. Response to Amendment The Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The claims are obvious over of Higgins et al. in view of Monti. Conclusion Claims 1-20 are examined above. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David L Lewis whose telephone number is (571) 272-7673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM-3:00PM. 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. 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. /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 24, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 04, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 10, 2025
Interview Requested
Feb 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 16, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 28, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12576326
Golf Practice Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12544639
MINIATURE GOLF HOLE WITH SPINNING WHEEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12434121
Boxxyball
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 07, 2025
Patent 7843436
PORTABLE INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 30, 2010
Patent 7834844
ELECTRONIC INK DISPLAY DEVICE AND DRIVING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 16, 2010
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
66%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+8.8%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 145 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