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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed February 19, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 13-18 and 20-25 remain pending but stand rejected for the reasons detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581) does not teach a processor configured to cause the charging circuit to charge the first battery using the additional power in response to determining that the second battery has a charge level that satisfies a threshold charge level. Arguments, pages 11-14. Specifically, Applicant argues Paragraphs [0131] does not teach the cited limitation because it merely teaches stopping wireless power transmission to the wireless device and then separately teaches charging the internal battery if external power is connected. Id. Examiner disagrees, considering Paragraph [0131] describes a situation where an electronic device may stop transmitting the designated electric power to the wireless power receiving device, and in response, deactivate the wireless power mode, and in response, charge an internal battery (see Paragraph [0131]). Examiner submits Paragraph [0131] must be read as a whole. Paragraph [0264] was simply cited to show processor 120 is capable of controlling a charge circuit to switch between the charge modes to charge battery 510. Table 1 was also previously cited, where the second-to-last row clarifies that when the wireless power module is deactivated, the internal battery is charged using the external power.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, for additional clarification, Examiner notes Paragraphs [0195]-[0197], [0216] and Figures 5, 8-11 (and all paragraphs associated therewith) also teaches processor 120 configured to cause the charging circuit to charge the first battery using the additional power in response to determining that the second battery has a charge level that satisfies a threshold charge level.
For these reasons, and the reasons detailed below, claims 1-4, 6-9, 13-18, and 20-25 stand rejected.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554) in view of Zhang (CN Publication No. 218633413), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), and Zhao (US Publication No. 2021/0167630).
Regarding claim 1, Marks discloses a system comprising: a head-mounted display (HMD) (optical computing device 112) comprising a first battery (main battery 120) and a first wireless power receiver (see Paragraph [0038]); and a case (portable case 100) configured to store and transport the HMD (112), wherein the case (100) comprises: a first recessed area (receptacle 102) inside of the case (100), the first recessed area being shaped to receive the HMD (112); a battery connector (battery connector connected to battery 131) disposed within a battery receptacle of the case and configured to connect to a fourth battery (131) with the fourth battery (131) is disposed within the battery receptacle (second receptacle 108); one or more wireless power transmitters (see Paragraph [0038]) configured to wirelessly transmit power received from the fourth battery (131) to: the first wireless power receiver (see Paragraph [0038]) in response to the HMD (112) being placed in the first recessed area (102) to automatically recharge the first battery (120); a power cable port (port 141) disposed on an external surface (106) of the case (100) and configured to receive a power cable (see Paragraph [0026]); a charging circuit (electrical connection between 141 and 131) configured to charge the fourth battery (131) using additional power received from an additional power source (power source connected to 141) via the power cable (see Paragraph [0026]).
Marks does not disclose the system comprising: a first handheld controller comprising a second battery and a second wireless power receiver; a second handheld controller comprising a third battery and a third wireless power receiver; and a case configured to store and transport the first handheld controller and the second handheld controller; wherein the case comprises: a second recessed area inside of the case, the second recessed area being shaped to receive the first handheld controller; a third recessed area inside of the case, the third recessed area being shaped to receive the second handheld controller; one or more wireless power transmitters configured to wirelessly transmit power received from the power source to: the second wireless power receiver in response to the first handheld controller being placed in the second recessed area to automatically recharge the second battery; and the third wireless power receiver in response to the second handheld controller being placed in the third recessed area to automatically recharge the third battery.
However, Zhang discloses a system comprising: a first handheld controller (first VR game pad 61) comprising a second battery (battery 640) and a second wireless power receiver (first inductive receiving coil 610); a second handheld controller (second VR game pad 62) comprising a third battery (battery 740) and a third wireless power receiver (second inductive receiving coil 620); and a case (wireless charging base 100) configured to store and transport the first handheld controller (61) and the second handheld controller (62); wherein the case comprises: a second recessed area (first groove 31) inside of the case (100), the second recessed area (31) being shaped to receive the first handheld controller (61); a third recessed area (second groove 32) inside of the case (100), the third recessed area (second groove 32) being shaped to receive the second handheld controller (62); one or more wireless power transmitters (coils 221, 222) configured to wirelessly transmit power received from the power source (from control circuit board 12) to: the second wireless power receiver (610) in response to the first handheld controller (61) being placed in the second recessed area (31) to automatically recharge the second battery (640); and the third wireless power receiver (620) in response to the second handheld controller (62) being placed in the third recessed area (32) to automatically recharge the third battery (740).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the controllers, grooves, and wireless charging circuitry of Zhang to the case of Marks. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the system, by allowing the case to transport and charge additional components associated with virtual reality systems (see Figures 1-6 in Zhang).
Marks in view of Zhang does not teach a processor configured to cause the charging circuit to charge the fourth battery using the additional power in response to determining that: the first battery has a first charge level that satisfies a threshold charge level; the second battery has a second charge level that satisfies the threshold charge level; and the third battery has a third charge level that satisfies the threshold charge level.
However, Kim teaches a processor (processor 120) configured to cause the charging circuit to charge a fourth battery (battery 510 of electronic device 501) using the additional power (from wired charging device 502) in response to determining that: the first battery (battery of external device 503) has a first charge level (fully charged) that satisfies a threshold charge level (see Paragraphs [0131], [0195]-[0197], [0216], [0264]; Figures 5 and 8-11; Table 1).
Zhao further teaches a processor (Figures 19-20, management controller) connected to a first battery, a second battery device, and a third battery device (see Figure 19; see also Figures 7-9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the processor and charging circuitry of Kim to the case of Marks as modified by Zhang to charge the batteries of the HMD, first controller, and second controller of Marks as modified by Zhang, as taught in Zhao. Combining the processor and charging circuitry of Kim would have allowed the system to control charging functions based on different charging situations (see Paragraphs [0131], [0195]-[0197], [0216], [0264]; Figures 5 and 8-11; Table 1). Connecting the processor to all three wireless power receivers, as taught in Zhao, would have been obvious considering it is well established that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Doing so would have also allowed the single processor to control and manage the output of power to all three transceivers (see Figure 13 and Paragraphs [0091]-[0105] in Zhao).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Zhang (CN Publication No. 218633413), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), Zhao (US Publication No. 2021/0167630), and in further view of Aase (US Publication No. 2023/0007412).
Regarding claim 2, Marks in view of Zhang, Kim, and Zhao teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more wireless power transmitters (coils 221, 222 in Zhang; coils from Paragraph [0038] in Marks) comprise one or more induction coils connected to one or more circuit boards (circuit board 241, 242 in Zhang) of the case (100 in Zhang, corresponding to 100 in Marks).
Marks suggests, but does not explicitly teach, wherein the induction coil (see Paragraph [0038]) is connected to a circuit board. However, Zhang explicitly teaches an induction coil (221, 222) being connected to a circuit board (241, 242). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the induction circuitry related to the HMD of Marks as previously modified by Zhang, Kim, and Zhao for the induction circuitry of Zhang, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of using corresponding wireless inductive coils to charge VR equipment.
Marks in view of Zhang, Kim, and Zhao does not explicitly teach wherein the coils are integrated into the circuit board. However, Aase teaches coils integrated into a circuit board (see Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have integrated the coils into the PCBs of Marks as modified my Zhang, Kim, and Zhao, as taught in Aase. Doing so would have allowed for a more compact charging case (see Paragraph [0051] in Aase).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Zhang (CN Publication No. 218633413), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), Zhao (US Publication No. 2021/0167630), and in further view of Guccione (US Publication No. 2011/0260681).
Regarding claim 3, Marks in view of Zhang, Kim, and Zhao teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to adjust or limit an amount of the power that is wirelessly transmitted to the first wireless power receiver, the second wireless power receiver, and the third wireless power receiver.
However, Guccione teaches wherein a case comprises a processor (Figure 2, controller 26A) configured to adjust or limit an amount of the power that is wirelessly transmitted to a first wireless power receiver (receiver 34 connected to transmitter 28A) and a second wireless power receiver (receiver connected to transmitter 28B; see Paragraph [0036]).
Zhao further teaches a processor (Figures 19-20, management controller) connected to a first wireless power receiver, a second wireless power receiver, and a third wireless power receiver (see Figure 19; see also Figures 7-9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the processor and charging circuitry of Guccione to the first, second, and third wireless power receivers of Marks as previously modified by Zhang, Kim, and Zhao. Combining the processor and charging circuitry of Guccione would have allowed the system to control charging functions based on different charging situations (see Figure 6 and Paragraphs [0040]-[0042] in Guccione). Connecting the processor to all three wireless power receivers, as taught in Zhao, would have been obvious considering it is well established that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Doing so would have also allowed the single processor to control and manage the output of power to all three transceivers within the case (see Figure 13 and Paragraphs [0091]-[0105] in Zhao)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Zhang (CN Publication No. 218633413), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), Zhao (US Publication No. 2021/0167630), and in further view of Wagner (US Publication No. 2015/0188325).
Regarding claim 4, Marks in view of Zhang, Kim, and Zhao teaches the system of claim 1, does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to cause the charging circuit to charge the fourth battery using the additional power in response to determining that: the HMD has been removed from the first recessed area; the first handheld controller has been removed from the second recessed area; and the second handheld controller has been removed from the third recessed area.
However, Wanger teaches a processor (Figure 3, controller 309) configured to cause the charging circuit (303) to charge a fourth battery (305, corresponding to battery 131 in Marks) using the additional power (Vin from 301) in response to determining that: a first device (323) has been removed from the first recessed area (removed from connection with 313, corresponding to 112 in Marks being removed from 104 and inductively decoupled), and a second device (324) has been removed from a second recessed area (removed from connection with 314, corresponding to 61 in Zhang being removed from 31 and inductively decoupled; see Paragraph [0052] and Figure 7).
Zhao further teaches a processor (Figures 19-20, management controller) connected to a first device, a second device, and a third device (see Figure 19; see also Figures 7-9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the processor and charging circuitry of Wagner to the case of Marks as modified by Zhang, Kim, and Zhao to charge the batteries of the HMD, first controller, and second controller of Marks as previously modified by Zhang, Kim, and Zhao, as taught in Zhao. Combining the processor and charging circuitry of Wagner would have allowed the system to control charging functions based on different charging situations (see Paragraph [0052] and Figure 7 in Wagner). Connecting the processor to all three wireless power receivers, as taught in Zhao, would have been obvious considering it is well established that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Doing so would have also allowed the single processor to control and manage the output of power to all three transceivers (see Figure 13 and Paragraphs [0091]-[0105] in Zhao).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554) in view of Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581).
Regarding claim 6, Marks discloses a case for an electronic device, the case (100) comprising: a recessed area (102) inside of the case (100), the recessed area (102) being shaped to receive the electronic device (112), wherein the electronic device (112) is at least one of a head-mounted display (HMD) (see Paragraph [0018]) or a handheld controller; a battery connector (battery connector of 131) disposed within a battery receptacle (second receptacle 108) of the case (100) and configured to connect a first battery (131) when the first battery (131) is disposed with the battery receptacle (108); a wireless power transmitter (Paragraph [0038], inductive coil) configured to wirelessly transmit power received from the first battery (131) to a wireless power receiver (see Paragraph [0038]) of the electronic device (112) in response to the electronic device (112) being placed in the recessed area (102) to charge a second battery (120) of the electronic device (112); a power cable port (port 141) disposed on an external surface (106) of the case (100) and configured to receive a power cable (see Paragraph [0026]); a charging circuit (electrical connection between 141 and 131) configured to charge the fourth battery (131) using additional power received from an additional power source (power source connected to 141) via the power cable (see Paragraph [0026]).
Marks does not disclose a processor configured to cause the charging circuit to charge the first battery using the additional power in response to determining that the second battery has a charge level that satisfies a threshold charge level.
However, Kim teaches a processor (processor 120) configured to cause the charging circuit to charge a first battery (battery 510 of electronic device 501) using the additional power (from wired charging device 502) in response to determining that a second battery (battery of external device 503) has a charge level (fully charged) that satisfies a threshold charge level (see Paragraphs [0131], [0195]-[0197], [0216], [0264]; Figures 5 and 8-11; Table 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the processor and charging circuitry of Kim to the case of Marks. Doing so would have allowed the system to control charging functions based on different charging situations (see Paragraphs [0131], [0195]-[0197], [0216], [0264]; Figures 5 and 8-11; Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, Marks in view of Kim teaches the case of claim 6, and further teaches (in Marks) wherein the battery receptacle (108) is configured to receive different types of batteries (131 being a different type of battery than main battery 120), and wherein the first battery (131) is one of the different types of batteries (see Figure 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), in view of Aase (US Publication No. 2023/0007412).
Regarding claim 7, Marks in view of Kim teaches the case of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the wireless power transmitter comprises an induction coil (see Paragraph [0038]).
Marks in view of Kim teaches wherein the induction coil is integrated into a circuit board of the case.
However, Aase teaches induction coils integrated in to a circuit board (see Paragraph [0051]) of a case (190).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have integrated the coils of Marks as modified by Kim into a PCB, as taught in Aase. Doing so would have provided a support substrate for which to mount the inductive coils, while also allowing for a compact charging case (see Paragraphs [0040] and [0051] in Aase).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), in view of Guccione (US Publication No. 2011/0260681).
Regarding claim 8, Marks in view of Kim teaches the case of claim 6, but does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to adjust or limit an amount of the power that is wirelessly transmitted to the wireless power receiver.
However, Guccione teaches wherein a case further comprises a processor (Figure 2, controller 26A) configured to adjust or limit an amount of the power that is wirelessly transmitted to a wireless power receiver (receiver 34 connected to transmitter 28A; see Figure 6 and Paragraphs [0040]-[0042]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the processor and charging circuitry of Guccione to the wireless power receiver of Marks as modified by Kim. Doing so would have allowed the system to control charging functions based on different charging situations (see Figure 6 and Paragraphs [0040]-[0042] in Guccione).
Regarding claim 9, Marks in view of Kim and Guccione teaches the case of claim 8, and further teaches (in Guccione) wherein the processor (26A) is configured to adjust or limit the amount of the power based at least in part on the first battery (Figure 6, direct, external power or internal, battery power) supplying a limited amount of the power (see Figure 6 and Paragraphs [0040]-[0042] in Guccione), or on the charge level of the second battery.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), and in view of Zhang (CN Publication No. 218633413).
Regarding claim 14, Marks in view of Kim teaches the case of claim 6, and further teaches (in Marks) wherein the recessed area (102) is a first recessed area (see Figure 1), wherein the electronic device (112) is the HMD (see Paragraph [0018]).
Marks in view of Kim does not teach wherein the handheld controller is a first handheld controller, the case further comprising: a second recessed area inside of the case, the second recessed area being shaped to receive the first handheld controller; and a third recessed area inside of the case, the third recessed area being shaped to receive a second handheld controller, wherein the wireless power transmitter is, or one or more additional wireless power transmitters of the case are, configured to wirelessly transmit the power to: a second wireless power receiver of the first handheld controller in response to the first handheld controller being placed in the second recessed area to charge a third battery of the first handheld controller; and a third wireless power receiver of the second handheld controller in response to the second handheld controller being placed in the third recessed area to charge a fourth battery of the second handheld controller.
However, Zhang teaches a case (wireless charging base 100) comprising: a first handheld controller (first VR game pad 61); a second recessed area (31) inside of the case (100), the second recessed area (31) being shaped to receive the first handheld controller (61); and a third recessed area (32) inside of the case (100), the third recessed area (32) being shaped to receive a second handheld controller (62), wherein the wireless power transmitter is, or one or more additional wireless power transmitters (coils 221, 222) of the case (100) are, configured to wirelessly transmit the power to: a second wireless power receiver (610) of the first handheld controller (61) in response to the first handheld controller (61) being placed in the second recessed area (31) to charge a third battery (640) of the first handheld controller (61); and a third wireless power receiver (620) of the second handheld controller (62) in response to the second handheld controller (62) being placed in the third recessed area (32) to charge a fourth battery (740) of the second handheld controller (62).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the controllers, grooves, and wireless charging circuitry of Zhang to the case of Marks as modified by Kim. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the system, by allowing the case to transport and charge additional components associated with virtual reality systems (see Figures 1-6 in Zhang).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554) in view of Guccione (US Publication No. 2011/0260681) and Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581).
Regarding claim 15, Marks discloses a method comprising: determining (Paragraph [0038], via inductive coupling) that an electronic device (112) has been placed in a recessed area (102) inside of a case (100; Paragraph [0015], [0018], electrical coupling being located within receptacle 102), wherein the recessed area (102) is shaped to receive the electronic device (112), and wherein the electronic device (112) is at least one of a head-mounted display (HMD) (see Paragraph [0018]) or a handheld controller; and in response to the determining, causing a wireless power transmitter of the case (inductive coil of case 100) to wirelessly transmit power received from a first battery (131) disposed within a battery receptacle (second receptacle 108) of the case (100) to a wireless power receiver of the electronic device (inductive coil of 112) to charge a second battery (120) of the electronic device (112).
Marks does not explicitly disclose determining, by a processor of the case for an electronic device, the electronic device has been placed in the case, and in response to the determining, causing, by the processor, a wireless power transmitter of the case to wirelessly transmit power received from a power source to a wireless power receiver of the electronic device to charge a battery of the electronic device.
However, Guccione teaches determining, by a processor (26A) of the case (22, corresponding to 100 in Marks) for an electronic device (24), the electronic device (24) has been placed in the case (Paragraph [0031], processor 26 entering active mode in response to determining sense circuit 78 senses a current draw) , and in response to the determining, causing, by the processor (26A), a wireless power transmitter (28A) of the case (22) to wirelessly transmit power received from a power source (30) to a wireless power receiver (34) of the electronic device (24) to charge a battery (36) of the electronic device (24).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the processor and charging circuitry of Guccione to the wireless power transceiver/receiver of Marks to affect the methods of charging taught in Guccione. Doing so would have allowed the system to control charging functions based on different charging situations/power inputs (see Figure 6 and Paragraphs [0040]-[0042] in Guccione).
Marks in view of Guccione does not teach determining, by the processor, that the case is plugged into an electrical outlet via a power cable connected to a power cable port of the case; determining, by the processor, that the second battery has a charge level that satisfies a threshold charge level; and based at least in part on the determining that the case is plugged into the electrical outlet, and in response to the determining that the battery has the charge level that satisfies the threshold charge level, causing, by the processor, a charging circuit of the case to charge a second battery disposed within a battery receptacle of the case using additional power received via the power cable.
However, Kim teaches determining, by the processor (536), that the case (501) is plugged into an electrical outlet via a power cable (external power via wired interface, corresponding to external power source connected to port 141 via cable in Marks) connected to a power cable port (521) of the case (501); determining, by the processor (536), that a second battery (battery of 503) has a charge level that satisfies a threshold charge level (see Paragraphs [0131], [0195]-[0197], [0216], [0264]; Figures 5 and 8-11; Table 1); and based at least in part on the determining that the case (501) is plugged into the electrical outlet (external power connected to 521), and in response to the determining that the second battery (battery of 503, 601) has the charge level that satisfies the threshold charge level (see Paragraphs [0131], [0195]-[0197], [0216], [0264]; Figures 5 and 8-11; Table 1), causing, by the processor (536), a charging circuit (see Figure 5) of the case (501) to charge a first battery (510) disposed within a battery receptacle (space accommodating 510 in 501, corresponding to 108 in Marks) of the case (501) using additional power received via the power cable (from external power; see Paragraphs [0131], [0195]-[0197], [0216], [0264]; Figures 5 and 8-11; Table 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the processor capabilities of Kim to the processor of Marks as modified by Guccione to provide for the methods of charging the case battery taught in Kim. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the system by allowed the system to control charging functions based on different charging situations to effectively conserve/store energy (see Paragraphs [0131], [0195]-[0197], [0216], [0264]; Figures 5 and 8-11; Table 1 in Kim).
Regarding claim 16, Marks in view of Guccione and Kim teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising (in Guccione) adjusting, by the processor (26A), an amount of the power that is wireless transmitted to the wireless power receiver (74) based at least in part on the first battery (Figure 6, direct, external power or internal, battery power) supplying a limited amount of the power (see Figure 6 and Paragraphs [0040]-[0042] in Guccione), or on the charge level of the second battery.
Regarding claim 17, Marks in view of Guccione and Kim teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising: determining, by the processor (26A in Guccione), that the electronic device (112 in Marks) has been removed from the recessed area (disconnected from transmitter 28A in Guccione, corresponding to 112 in Marks being removed from receptacle 104 and inductively disconnected); and in response to the determining that the electronic device (112) has been removed from the recessed area (104 in Marks), causing, by the processor (26A), the wireless power transmitter (28A) to cease transmitting the power to the wireless power receiver (34; transmitter unable to transmit power to receiver when inductively decoupled; see also Paragraph [0040] and Figure 6 in Guccione).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Guccione (US Publication No. 2011/0260681), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), and in further view of Wagner (US Publication No. 2015/0188325). (NOTE: Claim 17 rejected in the alternative)
Regarding claim 17 (in the alternative), Marks in view of Guccione and Kim teaches method of claim 15, and further suggests (see rejection above) comprising: determining, by the processor, that the electronic device has been removed from the recessed area; and in response to the determining that the electronic device has been removed from the recessed area, causing, by the processor, the wireless power transmitter to cease transmitting the power to the wireless power receiver.
However, Wagner explicitly teaches determining, by the processor (309), that an electronic device (323) has been removed from the recessed area (disconnected from output port 313, corresponding to 112 in Marks being removed from receptacle 104 and inductively disconnected); and in response to the determining that the electronic device (323) has been removed from the recessed area (disconnected from output port 313, corresponding to 112 in Marks being removed from receptacle 104 and inductively disconnected), causing, by the processor (309), the wireless power transmitter (313, corresponding to the transmitter of Marks as modified by Guccione and Kim) to cease transmitting the power to the wireless power receiver (313, corresponding to the transmitter of Marks as modified by Guccione and Kim).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the processor capabilities of Wagner to the processor of Marks as modified by Guccione and Kim to provide for the methods of charging taught in Wagner. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the system by allowing the system to control charging functions based on different charging situations to effectively conserve/store energy (see Paragraph [0052] and Figure 7 in Wagner).
Regarding claim 18, Marks in view of Guccione and Kim teaches the method of claim 17, but does not teach based at least in part on the determining that the case is plugged into the electrical outlet, and in response to the determining that the electronic device has been removed from the recessed area, causing, by the processor, the charging circuit of the case to charge a first battery using additional power.
However, Wagner teaches a method of determining, by the processor (controller 309), that the case (charging device 300) is plugged into an electrical outlet via a power cable (Vin from input port 301, corresponding to external power source connected to port 141 via cable in Marks) connected to a power cable port (301, corresponding to 141 in Marks) of the case (300); and based at least in part on the determining that the case (300) is plugged into the electrical outlet (Vin), in response to the determining that the electronic device (503) has been removed from the recessed area (disconnected from output port 313, corresponding to 112 in Marks being removed from receptacle 104 and inductively disconnected), causing, by the processor (309), the charging circuit (303) of the case (300) to charge a first battery (305, corresponding to 131 in Marks) using additional power (see Paragraph [0052] and Figure 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the processor capabilities of Wagner to the processor of Marks as modified by Guccione and Kim to provide for the methods of charging the case battery taught in Wagner. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the system by allowing the system to control charging functions based on different charging situations to effectively conserve/store energy (see Paragraph [0052] and Figure 7 in Wagner).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Guccione (US Publication No. 2011/0260681), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), and in further view of Zhang (CN Publication No. 218633413) and Zhao (US Publication No. 2021/0167630).
Regarding claim 20, Marks in view of Guccione and Kim teaches the method of claim 15, and further teaches (in Marks) wherein the recessed area (104) is a first recessed area (see Figure 1), wherein the electronic device (112) is the HMD (see Paragraph [0018]), wherein the case (100) is for the HMD (112), but does not teach wherein the handheld controller is a first handheld controller, and wherein the case is for the first handheld controller and a second handheld controller, wherein the first handheld controller is placed in a second recessed area inside of the case, wherein the second recessed area is shaped to receive the first handheld controller; and wherein the second handheld controller is placed in a third recessed area inside of the case, wherein the third recessed area is shaped to receive the second handheld controller.
However, Zhang teaches a case (100), wherein the case (100) is for an HMD (50), a first handheld controller (61), and a second handheld controller (62) wherein the first handheld controller (61) is placed in a second recessed area (31) inside of the case (100), wherein the second recessed area (31) is shaped to receive the first handheld controller (61); wherein the second handheld controller (62) is placed in a third recessed area (32) inside of the case (100), wherein the third recessed area (32) is shaped to receive the second handheld controller (62); a second wireless power transmitter (221, 310) of the case (100), to wirelessly transmit the power to a second wireless power receiver (610) of the first handheld controller (61) to charge a third battery (640) of the first handheld controller (61); and a third wireless power transmitter (222, 410) of the case (100), to wirelessly transmit the power to a third wireless power receiver (710) of the second handheld controller (62) to charge a fourth battery (740) of the second handheld controller (62).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the controllers, grooves, and wireless charging circuitry of Zhang to the case of Marks as modified by Guccione and Kim. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the system, by allowing the case to transport and charge additional components associated with virtual reality systems (see Figures 1-6 in Zhang).
Marks in view of Guccione, Kim, and Zhang does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: determining, by the processor, that the first handheld controller has been placed in a second recessed area inside of the case, wherein the second recessed area is shaped to receive the first handheld controller; in response to the determining that the first handheld controller has been placed in the second recessed area, causing, by the processor, the wireless power transmitter, or a second wireless power transmitter of the case, to wirelessly transmit the power to a second wireless power receiver of the first handheld controller to charge a third battery of the first handheld controller; determining, by the processor, that the second handheld controller has been placed in a third recessed area inside of the case, wherein the third recessed area is shaped to receive the second handheld controller; and in response to the determining that the second handheld controller has been placed in the third recessed area, causing, by the processor, the wireless power transmitter, or a third wireless power transmitter of the case, to wirelessly transmit the power to a third wireless power receiver of the second handheld controller to charge a fourth battery of the second handheld controller.
However, Zhao teaches a method comprising: determining, by a processor (Figure 13, control module), that a second device (earbud device) has been placed in a second recessed area (Figure 7-9, 302), in response to the determining that the second device (earbud device) has been placed in the second recessed area (302), causing, by the processor (control module), a second wireless power transmitter (Figure 13, earbud wireless charging transmitting module) of the case (see Figures 7-9), to wirelessly transmit the power to a second wireless power receiver of the second device (receiver of earbuds) to charge a third battery of the second device (battery of earbuds); and determining, by the processor (Figure 13, control module), that a third device (watch device) has been placed in a third recessed area (Figures 7-9, 303), in response to the determining that the third device (watch device) has been placed in the third recessed area (303), causing, by the processor (control module), a third wireless power transmitter (Figure 13, watch wireless charging transmitting module) of the case (see Figures 7-9), to wirelessly transmit the power to a third wireless power receiver of the third device (receiver of watch) to charge a fourth battery of the third device (battery of watch).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of Marks as modified by Guccione, Kim, and Zhang to be connected to the wireless transceivers of the HMD, first controller, and second controller, as taught in Zhao. Doing so would have allowed the single processor to detect, control, and manage the output of power to all three transceivers (see Figure 13 and Paragraphs [0091]-[0105] in Zhao).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Guccione (US Publication No. 2011/0260681), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), Zhang (CN Publication No. 218633413), Zhao (US Publication No. 2021/0167630), and in further view of Schoenbart (US Publication No. 2018/0262055).
Regarding claim 21, Marks in view of Guccione, Kim, Zhang, and Zhao teaches the method of claim 20, but does not teach wherein: the wireless power transmitter is configured to wirelessly transmit the power to multiple wireless power receivers; and the multiple wireless power receivers comprise the wireless power receiver of the HMD, the second wireless power receiver of the first handheld controller, and the third wireless power receiver of the second handheld controller.
However, Schoenbart teaches wherein: the wireless power transmitter (transmitter 110) is configured to wirelessly transmit the power to multiple wireless power receivers (plurality of 106); and the multiple wireless power receivers (plurality of 106) comprise the wireless power receiver (first 106) of a first device (first electronic device 104) second 106) of a second device (second 104) the third wireless power receiver (third 106) of a third device (third 104)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Marks as modified by Guccione, Kim, Zhang, and Zhao such that a single transmitter was configured to charge the wireless receivers within the HMD and controllers of Marks as modified by Guccione, Kim, Zhang, and Zhao, as taught in Schoenbart, according to know methods to yield the predicable results of charging a plurality of electronic devices via a wireless charging system (see Figure 1 and Paragraphs [0010]-[0037]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Guccione (US Publication No. 2011/0260681), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), and in further view of Aase (US Publication No. 2023/0007412) and Cho (US Publication No. 2020/0366130).
Regarding claim 22, Marks in view of Guccione and Kim teaches the method of claim 15, and further teaches (in Marks) wherein the wireless power transmitter (coil from Paragraph [0038] in Marks) comprise an induction coil connected to a circuit board (circuitry 174) of the case (100).
Marks in view of Guccione and Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the coils are integrated into the circuit board. However, Aase teaches coils integrated in to a circuit board (see Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have integrated the coils of Marks as modified by Guccione and Kim into a PCB, as taught in Aase. Doing so would have provided a support substrate for which to mount the inductive coils, while also allowing for a compact charging case (see Paragraphs [0040] and [0051] in Aase).
Marks in view of Guccione, Kim, and Aase does not teach the induction coil has a wire gauge of no less than about 20 American Wire Gauge (AWG).
However, Cho teaches the induction coil has a wire gauge of no less than about 20 American Wire Gauge (AWG) (see Paragraph [0031]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the induction coils of Marks as modified by Guccione, Kim, and Aase to be no less than 20 AWG, as taught in Cho, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing would have established the flexible coil material capable of carrying electrical current (see Paragraphs [0061]-[0062] in Cho).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Zhang (CN Publication No. 218633413), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), Zhao (US Publication No. 2021/0167630), and in further view of Schoenbart (US Publication No. 2018/0262055).
Regarding claim 23, Marks in view of Zhang, Kim, and Zhao teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein: the one or more wireless power transmitters comprises a single wireless power transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit the power to multiple wireless power receivers; and the multiple wireless power receivers comprise the first wireless power receiver of the HMD, the second wireless power receiver of the first handheld controller, and the third wireless power receiver of the second handheld controller.
However, Schoenbart teaches wherein: the wireless power transmitter (transmitter 110) is configured to wirelessly transmit the power to multiple wireless power receivers (plurality of 106); and the multiple wireless power receivers (plurality of 106) comprise the wireless power receiver (first 106) of a first device (first electronic device 104) second 106) of a second device (second 104) third 106) of a third device (third 104)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Marks as modified by Zhang, Kim, and Zhao such that a single transmitter was configured to charge the wireless receivers within the HMD and controllers of Marks as modified by Zhang, Kim, and Zhao, as taught in Schoenbart, according to know methods to yield the predictable results of charging a plurality of electronic devices via a wireless charging system (see Figure 1 and Paragraphs [0010]-[0037]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), Zhang (CN Publication No. 218633413), and in further view of Schoenbart (US Publication No. 2018/0262055).
Regarding claim 24, Marks in view of Kim and Zhang teaches the system of claim 14, but does not teach wherein: the one or more wireless power transmitters comprises a single wireless power transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit the power to multiple wireless power receivers; and the multiple wireless power receivers comprise the first wireless power receiver of the HMD, the second wireless power receiver of the first handheld controller, and the third wireless power receiver of the second handheld controller.
However, Schoenbart teaches wherein: the wireless power transmitter (transmitter 110) is configured to wirelessly transmit the power to multiple wireless power receivers (plurality of 106); and the multiple wireless power receivers (plurality of 106) comprise the wireless power receiver (first 106) of a first device (first electronic device 104) second 106) of a second device (second 104) third 106) of a third device (third 104)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Marks as modified by Kim and Zhang such that a single transmitter was configured to charge the wireless receivers within the HMD and controllers of Marks as modified by Kim and Zhang, as taught in Schoenbart, according to know methods to yield the predictable results of charging a plurality of electronic devices via a wireless charging system (see Figure 1 and Paragraphs [0010]-[0037]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), Aase (US Publication No. 2023/0007412), and in further view of Cho (US Publication No. 2020/0366130).
Regarding claim 25, Marks in view of Kim and Aase teaches the case of claim 7, but does not teach wherein the induction coil has a wire gauge of no less than about 20 American Wire Gauge (AWG).
However, Cho teaches the induction coil has a wire gauge of no less than about 20 American Wire Gauge (AWG) (see Paragraph [0031]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the induction coils of Marks as modified by Kim and Aase to be no less than 20 AWG, as taught in Cho, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing would have established the flexible coil material capable of carrying electrical current (see Paragraphs [0061]-[0062] in Cho).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
10547200 20190290911 also discloses coils with a wire gauge of no less than 20 AWG.
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 GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/GAGE CRUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc
Prosecution Insights