DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This office action is a final rejection in response to the filing of the applicant’s response to the election / restriction filed on 10/21/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wipo document (WO 2020/192459 A1) (Zhou et al, US Patent Application Publication (US 2022/0179213 A1) has been used as an English translation for Wipo document (WO 2020/192459 A1)).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou et al discloses an auxiliary device (300) (see Figs 1-9) comprising:
a charge transmitter (510) configured to transmit electric power signals (see Figs 5A-5B; par. [0074]-[0075],[0079]-[0080]);
an input user interface (101) for receiving a user input (see Fig 1; par. [0096]);
a wireless control signal transmitter (540) configured to transmit wireless control signals (see par. [0013] “first signal”, Fig 1, 5A-5B, par. [0074]-[0076]); and
a microcontroller unit (MCU) (520) configured to:
determine a user instruction based on the user input (see par. [0094],[0096] “user input”);
enable, in response to the user instruction (see par. [0094],[0096] “user input”), the wireless control signal transmitter to transmit a wireless control signal (see par. [0096]-[0100]); and
control the charge transmitter (510) to selectively transmit the electric power signals according to a timing sequence selected based on the user instruction (see Figs 1-6; see switching arrangement in par. [0054]-[0055],[0094]-[0096], [0107],
in addition, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). (see MPEP 2114).
Furthermore, it has been held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Exparte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). (See MPEP 2114)).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou et al discloses the auxiliary device of claim 1, wherein the charge transmitter includes a wireless charging transmitter (510) (see Figs 5A-5B; par. [0074]-[0075],[0079]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou et al discloses the auxiliary device of claim 1, wherein the input user interface (101) includes one or more buttons, one or more switches, a touch screen, or a combination thereof (see Fig 1; par. [0054]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou et al discloses the auxiliary device of claim 1, wherein: the input user interface (101) includes a button or switch;
actuating the button or switch for a first time period indicates a first user instruction (see Fig 1 and par. [0054]-[0055], [0093]-[0096],[0100]); and actuating the button or switch for a second time period indicates a second user instruction (see Fig 1 and par. [0054]-[0055], [0093]-[0095],[0100]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou et al discloses the auxiliary device of claim 1, wherein: the input user interface includes two buttons (110 button and the glasses case 310 may further include a reset button – see par. [0093]-[0095]); actuating a first one of the two buttons indicates a first user instruction (see Fig 1 and par. [0054]-[0055], [0093]-[0096],[0100]); and actuating a second one of the two buttons or both of the two buttons indicates a second user instruction (see Fig 1 and par. [0054]-[0055], [0093]-[0096],[0100]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou et al discloses the auxiliary device of claim 1, wherein the wireless control signal transmitter (540) includes:
an electromagnetic coil (510) configured to generate a magnetic field (see Fig 1, 5A-5B; par. [0074]-[0076]);
an infrared light source configured to emit steady infrared light or infrared light pulses (see par. [0087],[0089],[0165]); or
a radio-frequency (RF) transmitter configured to transit an RF signal.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou et al discloses the auxiliary device of claim 1, wherein the user instruction includes a hardware shutdown of an electronic device or a hardware reset of the electronic device (see Figs 1-6,9; abstract; par. [0006],[0008]-[0009],[0021],[0055]-[0058],[0061],[0081],[0094],[0096],[0138],[0157], since the claim provides alternatives limitations “or”, the examiner selects the “hardware reset” limitation).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou et al discloses the auxiliary device of claim 7, wherein the MCU (520) is configured to:
in response to the user instruction being the hardware shutdown of the electronic device:
enable the wireless control signal transmitter;
disable the charge transmitter after a first time delay; and
signal, via an output user interface,
a user to disengage the electronic device and the auxiliary device (since claim 7 provides alternative limitations “hardware shutdown or hardware reset” and the examiner selected “hardware reset”, therefore this limitation is not required); and
in response to the user instruction being the hardware reset of the electronic device:
enable the wireless control signal transmitter (540) (see Figs 1-6,9; abstract; par. [0006],[0008]-[0009],[0021],[0055]-[0058],[0061],[0081],[0094],[0096],[0138],[0157]);
disable the charge transmitter after a third time delay (see Figs 1-6,9; abstract; par. [0006],[0008]-[0009],[0021],[0055]-[0058],[0061],[0081],[0094],[0096],[0138],[0157]); and
enable the charge transmitter (510) to transmit the electric power signals again after a fourth time delay (see Figs 1-6,9; abstract; par. [0006],[0008]-[0009],[0021],[0055]-[0058],[0061],[0081],[0094],[0096],[0138],[0157]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou et al discloses the auxiliary device of claim 1, further comprising an output user interface for indicating a status of the auxiliary device (300) (see Figs 1-9; par. [0163]: “battery health status”, par. [0168]: “indicator (which may indicate a status such as a quantity of electric charge of the glasses 210)”, [0176],[0182]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou et al discloses the auxiliary device of claim 1, further comprising:
an input port for receiving electric power from an external source (par. [0057]); and a switch connecting the input port to the charge transmitter or the wireless control signal transmitter (see par. [0055],[0095],[0107], Figs 1-9), the switch controlled by the MCU (see Figs 1-9; par. [0104]-[0106]).
Regarding claim 18, Zhou et al discloses a method comprising,
at an auxiliary device (300) (see Figs 1-9):
enabling a wireless charging transmitter (510) to transmit wireless power signals to an electronic device (210,640) (see Figs 5A-5B; par. [0074]-[0075],[0079]-[0080]);
receiving a user input (101) (see Fig 1; par. [0096]);
enabling, in response to the user input, a wireless control signal transmitter (540) to transmit a wireless control signal for shutting down the electronic device (210,640) (see Fig 1-9, and disconnect a path from VBAT to VSYS, par. [0013],[0054]-[0055],[0074]-[0076]);
disabling the wireless charging transmitter (510) after a first time delay (see Fig 1-9, and disconnect a path from VBAT to VSYS, par. [0013],[0054]-[0055],[0074]-[0076]); and performing, based on the user input (see Figs 1-9 and par. [0094],[0096] “user input”),
signaling a user to remove the electronic device (see Figs 1-9 and par. [0094],[0096] “user input”); or reenabling the wireless charging transmitter (510) to transmit the wireless power signals to the electronic device to restart the electronic device (210,640) (see Figs 1-9; see switching arrangement in par. [0054]-[0055],[0094]-[0096], [0107]).
Regarding claim 19, Zhou et al discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the wireless control signal includes a magnetic field signal (see Fig 1, 5A-5B; par. [0074]-[0076]), an infrared light signal (see par. [0087],[0089],[0165]), or a radio-frequency signal.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argued in applicant’s remarks (pages 6-7) that:
“In rejecting independent claim 1, the Office asserted that power management module 540 of Zhou corresponds to "a wireless control signal transmitter." The Office then cited paragraphs [0096]-[0100] of Zhou as allegedly disclosing "enable, in response to the user instruction, the wireless control signal transmitter to transmit a wireless control signal." (Office Action, page 6). Applicant respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0096]-[0100] make absolutely no mention of power management module 540, which the Office asserted corresponds to the wireless control signal transmitter of claim 1. Because paragraphs [0096[-[0100] make no mention of the element in Zhou the Office asserted corresponds to the wireless control signal transmitter, these paragraphs cannot disclose or suggest enabling the wireless control signal transmitter. Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that the power management module 540 in Zhou does not transmit wireless control signals. Zhou states "the glasses case 310 may further include a battery 530 and a power management module 540," and "[t]he power management module receives an input from the battery 520 to supply power to the processor 520, the Tx coil 510, and the like." (Zhou, paragraph [0075]). Nowhere does Zhou disclose or suggest enabling the power management module 540 to transmit a wireless control signal. Zhou merely states that the power management module supplies power to the processor and the Tx coil from the battery. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Zhou does not disclose or suggest "enable, in response to the user instruction, the wireless control signal transmitter to transmit a wireless control signal."”;
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees since the Zhou et al prior art in par. [0094] discloses:
“[0094] For example, when a user wants to control the glasses 210 (for example, the processor 630 of the glasses 210) to perform hardware reset, the glasses 210 may be placed in the glasses case 310 or near the glasses case 310, so that the distance between the glasses case 310 and the glasses 210 is less than the preset distance threshold. Then, the user may tap the reset button. The processor 520 may detect a user input acting on the reset button. In response to the input signal received from the reset button, the processor 520 may determine that the glasses 210 need to perform power-on reset.”,
This paragraph clearly states a user instruction by placing the glasses near the case, less than the preset distance threshold. In order to perform the hardware reset, the user needs to perform action of getting near the case and tap (press) reset button to wirelessly instruct the reset function. The reset signal function is not always in operation or requested. By applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim language as currently recited does not describe any particular signal or excludes a control operation for the transmitter. In addition, the wireless control signal transmitter 540 is electrically connected between the coil 510 and processor 520, and the control signal to coil 510 is sent via the wireless control signal transmitter 540.
Therefore, the broad claim language of claim 1 as currently recited is met by the prior art disclosure.
Regarding claim 18, the applicant argued in applicant’s remarks (page 7) that:
“In rejecting independent claim 18, the Office asserted that Zhou discloses "disabling the wireless charging transmitter after a first time delay." (Office Action, page 10). In particular, the Office asserted that Tx coil 510 of Zhou corresponds to "the wireless charging transmitter" in claim 18, and asserted that the wireless charging transmitter "disconnects a path from VBAT to VSYS," as discussed in paragraph [0013] and [0054]-[0055]. (Id.). VBAT and VSYS are part of FIG. 1. Zhou explains "[a] reset button 101 may be disposed on the electronic device," and "the reset button 101 is configured to control closing and opening of an internal switch of the PMU chip 110, to connect or disconnect a path from VBAT to VSYS of the PMU chip 110." (Zhou, paragraph [0054]). The disconnected path between VBAT and VSYS has nothing to do with Tx coil 510. Paragraphs [0075] and [0076] of Zhou, which describe Tx coil 510, make no mention of FIG. 1 of Zhou (which depict the path between VBAT and VSYS), and have nothing to do with disconnecting the path between VBAT and VSYS. Accordingly, nowhere does Zhou disclose or suggest that Tx coil 510 (which the Office asserted corresponds to "the wireless charging transmitter" of claim 18) disconnects the path from VBAT to VSYS (which the Office appears to assert corresponds to "disabling").
Moreover, nowhere does Zhou disclose or suggest disabling Tx coil 510, which the Office asserted corresponds to "the wireless charging transmitter," let alone disabling Tx coil 510 "after a first time delay."
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Zhou simply does not disclose or suggest "disabling the wireless charging transmitter after a first time delay." ”;
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees since the Zhou et al prior art in par. [0027], [0120], [0125] clearly discloses the claimed limitation:
“disabling the wireless charging transmitter after a first time delay.”;
“[0027] With reference to the second aspect, in another possible design manner, the preset duration may be a time condition for triggering the wireless charging circuit of the glasses to disconnect the path from the VBAT to the VSYS. Specifically, if the wireless charging circuit detects that the first voltage level received by the control pin (for example, the INT pin) lasts for the preset duration, the wireless charging circuit may disconnect the path from the VBAT to the VSYS. For example, the preset duration may be eight seconds. Certainly, the preset duration may also be another time length. Different wireless charging circuits have different preset duration. This is not limited in this embodiment of this application.”,
[0120] It can be learned from the diagram of the waveform of Vout in FIG. 8 that from a moment t.sub.1 to a moment t.sub.4, the Tx coil 510 may send the second signal whose duration is 5 s (namely, the second duration) to the Rx coil 610 at an interval of 1 ms (namely, the preset stop duration). In addition, it can be learned from the diagram of the waveform of Vcoil in FIG. 8 that from the moment t.sub.1 to the moment t.sub.4, the Rx coil 610 may send the second signal whose duration is 5 s (namely, the second duration) to the reset circuit 621 and the power management module 660 at an interval of 1 ms (namely, the preset stop duration). For example, as shown in FIG. 8, Vout and Vcoil are second signals whose duration is 5 s from the moment t.sub.1 to a moment t.sub.2; and after an interval of 1 ms, Vout and Vcoil are still second signals whose duration is 5 s from a moment t.sub.3 to the moment t.sub.4.
[0125] In the foregoing timing process, if a timing time of the timer reaches or exceeds the preset duration (for example, 8 s), it indicates that a low level is continuously input into the INT pin of the wireless charging circuit 622 for the preset duration. Therefore, the wireless charging circuit 622 may disconnect the path from the VBAT to the VSYS, so that the power supply pin (for example, the VDD pin) of the processor 630 is powered down.
The broad claim language as currently recited does not specify a particular control scheme operation and Zhou et al clearly discloses multiples instances the wireless charging circuit of the glasses to disconnect the path from the VBAT to the VSYS by virtue of the signal sent by Tx 510 after a delay is present.
Here the Tx coil 510 send a Vout signal and after the preset duration 8 seconds or greater 10 seconds (delay) (as shown in Fig 8) the path from Vbat to Vsys is disconnected.
Therefore, the prior art reads in the current broad claim language, the examiner recommends the applicant to amend the claims by specifying a particular control scheme operation or to focus on the structure of applicant’s Fig 3 in order to differentiate from the prior art of record.
Examiner Note
6. The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the cited prior art in the PTO-892 form attached.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1714. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9am-4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rexford Barnie can be reached on (571) 272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836