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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 19, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 13-18, 20-24 and 26-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are 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) and Bayat (US Publication No. 2023/0031837).
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 dynamically select a coil configuration among multiple different coil configurations to charge at least one of: the first battery based at least in part on a first position of the HMD relative to the first recessed area; the second battery based at least in part on a second position of the first handheld controller relative to the second recessed area; or the third battery based at least in part on a third position of the second handheld controller relative to the third recessed area.
However, Bayat teaches a processor (processor 110) configured to dynamically select a coil configuration (see Paragraphs [0154]-[0158]) among multiple different coil configurations (see Figures 4-13) to charge at least one of: the first battery (battery of first electronic device 20) based at least in part on a first position of the HMD (first electronic device 20) relative to the first recessed area (first area within housing 100); the second battery (Figure 13, battery of second 20) based at least in part on a second position of the first handheld controller (second 20) relative to the second recessed area (second area within 100); or the third battery based at least in part on a third position of the second handheld controller relative to the third recessed area (see Paragraphs [0201]-[0202]).
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 coil configuration of Marks as modified by Zhang to include a plurality of coils within each recessed area, as taught in Bayat, and to have combined the processor and power circuitry of Bayat to the case of Marks as modified by Zhang. Doing so would have allowed the electronic devices to be freely placed within the case while also ensuring power was deliberately supplied to certain coils for optimal charging (see Paragraphs [0005]-[0006] in Bayat).
Regarding claim 3, Marks in view of Zhang and Bayat teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches (in Bayat) wherein the processor (110 in Bayat) is further configured to adjust or limit an amount of the power (see Paragraph [0188] in Bayat) that is wirelessly transmitted to the first wireless power receiver (power receiver of 112 in Marks), the second wireless power receiver (first inductive receiving coil 610 in Zhang), and the third wireless power receiver (second inductive receiving coil 620).
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), Bayat (US Publication No. 2023/0031837), and in further view of Aase (US Publication No. 2023/0007412).
Regarding claim 2, Marks in view of Zhang and Bayat teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the one or more wireless power transmitters (116 in Bayat) comprise one or more induction coils connected to one or more circuit boards (see Paragraphs [0142], [0150]) of the case (100 in Marks).
Because Zhang and Bayat also explicitly teach an induction coil being connected to a circuit board, 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 at least one circuit board of Bayat to the coils of Marks as modified by Zhang and Bayat. Doing so would have provided a support substrate for which to mount the coils, while also provided a substrate for which to route the power circuitry to and from the coils (see Paragraphs [0142], [0150] in Bayat).
Marks in view of Zhang and Bayat 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 PCB(s) of Marks as modified my Zhang and Bayat, as taught in Aase. Doing so would have allowed for a more compact charging case (see Paragraph [0051] in Aase).
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), Bayat (US Publication No. 2023/0031837), and in further view of Wagner (US Publication No. 2015/0188325).
Regarding claim 4, Marks in view of Zhang and Bayat 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).
Because Bayat teaches a similar configuration (see Figure 4 and Paragraph [0149] in Bayat), 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 and charging circuitry of Marks as modified by Zhang and Bayat to charge the internal battery when the electronic devices were removed from charge. Doing so would have allowed the system to control charging functions based on different charging situations (see Paragraph [0052] and Figure 7 in Wagner; see also Paragraph [0149] in Bayat).
Claims 6, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554) in view of Bayat (US Publication No. 2023/0031837).
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 dynamically select a coil configuration among multiple different coil configurations to charge the second battery based at least in part on a position of the electronic device relative to the recessed area.
However, Bayat teaches a processor (processor 110) configured to dynamically select a coil configuration (see Paragraphs [0154]-[0158]) among multiple different coil configurations (see Figures 4-13) to charge the second battery (Figure 13, battery of first 20) based at least in part on a position of the electronic device (first 20) relative to the recessed area (area within housing 100).
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 coil configuration of Marks to include a plurality of coils within a recessed area, as taught in Bayat, and to have combined the processor and power circuitry of Bayat to the case of Marks. Doing so would have allowed the electronic devices to be freely placed within the case while also ensuring power was deliberately supplied to the certain coils for optimal charging (see Paragraphs [0005]-[0006] in Bayat).
Regarding claim 8, Marks in view of Bayat teaches the case of claim 6, and further teaches (in Bayat) wherein the processor (110 in Bayat) is further configured to adjust or limit an amount of the power (see Paragraph [0188] in Bayat) that is wirelessly transmitted to the wireless power receiver (power receiver of 112 in Marks, corresponding to 22 in Bayat).
Regarding claim 9, Marks in view of Bayat teaches the case of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the processor (110 in Bayat) is configured to adjust or limit the amount of the power based at least in part on the first battery supplying a limited amount of the power, or on a charge level of the second battery (battery of electronic device 20 in Bayat, corresponding to 120 in Marks; see Paragraph [0188] in Bayat).
Regarding claim 13, Marks in view of Bayat 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).
Alternatively, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554) in view of Baarman (US Publication No. 2009/0230777).
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 dynamically select a coil configuration among multiple different coil configurations to charge the second battery based at least in part on a position of the electronic device relative to the recessed area.
However, Baarman teaches a processor (controller 202) configured to dynamically select a coil configuration (see Paragraphs [0042], [0046]-[0047], [0049]) among multiple different coil configurations (see Figures 6-7) to charge the second battery (Paragraph [0063], battery of remote device) based at least in part on a position of the electronic device (remote device) relative to the recessed area (see Figures 5-7 and 14).
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 coil configuration of Marks to include the layered coil within a recessed area, as taught in Baarman, and to have combined the processor and power circuitry of Baarman to the case of Marks. Doing so would have provided the system with a coil capable of being selectively energized to produce a range of inductive power associated with the different power needs of the device (see Paragraphs [0005]-[0006] in Baarman).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Bayat (US Publication No. 2023/0031837), and in view of Zhang (CN Publication No. 218633413).
Regarding claim 14, Marks in view of Bayat 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 Bayat 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 Bayat. 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).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554) in view of Bayat (US Publication No. 2023/0031837) 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 inside of a case (100; Paragraph [0015], [0018], electrical coupling being located within receptacle 102), wherein a recessed area (102) inside the case (100) 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 second 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 first 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, dynamically selecting, by the processor, a coil configuration among multiple different coil configurations to charge a first battery of the electronic device based at least in part on a position of the electronic device relative to the recessed area; causing, by the processor, and based at least in part on the coil configuration, a wireless power transmitter of the case to wirelessly transmit power received from a second battery disposed within a battery receptacle of the case to a wireless power receiver of the electronic device to charge the first battery.
However, Bayat teaches determining, by a processor (processor 110) of a case (housing 100) for an electronic device (electronic device 20), the electronic device (20) has been placed in the case (100), and in response to the determining, dynamically selecting, by the processor (110), a coil configuration (see Figures 4-13) among multiple different coil configurations (see Figures 4-13) to charge a first battery of the electronic device (battery of 20) based at least in part on a position of the electronic device (20) relative to the recessed area (see Paragraphs [0154]-[0158]); causing, by the processor (110), and based at least in part on the coil configuration (see Paragraphs [0154]-[0158] and Figures 4-13), a wireless power transmitter (coils 116) of the case (100) to wirelessly transmit power received from a second battery (power supply 106; see Paragraphs [0138], [0142]) disposed within a battery receptacle of the case (space within 10 accommodating 106) to a wireless power receiver (receiver coil 22) of the electronic device (20) to charge the first battery (battery of 20).
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 coil configuration of Marks to include a plurality of coils within a recessed area, as taught in Bayat, and to have combined the processor and power circuitry of Bayat to the case of Marks. Doing so would have allowed the electronic devices to be freely placed within the case while also ensuring power was deliberately supplied to certain coils for optimal charging (see Paragraphs [0005]-[0006] in Bayat).
Marks in view of Bayat does not explicitly 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 first 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 first battery has the charge level that satisfies the threshold charge level, causing, by the processor, a charging circuit of the case to charge the second battery 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 the first battery (battery of 503, 601) 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 first 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 the second battery (510) 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 Bayat to provide for the methods of charging the case battery taught in Kim. 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 Paragraphs [0131], [0195]-[0197], [0216], [0264]; Figures 5 and 8-11; Table 1 in Kim).
Regarding claim 16, Marks in view of Bayat and Kim teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising (in Bayat) adjusting, by the processor (110), an amount of the power that is wirelessly transmitted to the wireless power receiver (receiver of 112 in Marks, corresponding to 22 in Bayat) based at least in part on the second battery supplying a limited amount of the power, or on the charge level of the first battery (battery of electronic device 20 in Bayat, corresponding to 120 in Marks; see Paragraph [0188] in Bayat).
Regarding claim 17, Marks in view of Bayat and Kim teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising: determining, by the processor (110 in Bayat), that the electronic device (112 in Marks) has been removed from the recessed area (disconnected from transmitter coils 116 in Bayat, corresponding to 112 in Marks being removed from receptacle 104 and inductively disconnected); and in response to the determining that the electronic device (112 in Marks) has been removed from the recessed area (104 in Marks), causing, by the processor (110), the wireless power transmitter (116 in Bayat) to cease transmitting the power to the wireless power receiver (receiver of 112 in Marks, corresponding to receiver 22 in Bayat; transmitter unable to transmit power to receiver when inductively decoupled; see also Paragraphs [0167]-[0174] in Bayat, where no power is sent to transmitter coils when no magnetic flux is detected).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Bayat (US Publication No. 2023/0031837), Kim (US Publication No. 2020/0119581), and in further view of Wagner (US Publication No. 2015/0188325).
Regarding claim 18, Marks in view of Bayat 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 the second 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 the second 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 Bayat 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), Bayat (US Publication No. 2023/0031837), 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 Bayat 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 Bayat 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 Bayat, 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).
Because Bayat teaches a similar configuration (see Figures 13 in Bayat), 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 Bayat, Kim, and Zhang to be connected to the wireless transceivers of the HMD, first controller, and second controller, as taught in Zhao and Bayat. 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; see Figure 13 in Bayat).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Bayat (US Publication No. 2023/0031837), 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 Bayat, 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) 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 Bayat, Kim, Zhang, and Zhao such that a single transmitter, such as that shown in Figure 8 of Bayat, was capable of charging the wireless receivers within the HMD and controllers of Marks as modified by Bayat, Kim, Zhang, 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] in Schoenbart).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Bayat (US Publication No. 2023/0031837), 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 Bayat and Kim teaches the method of claim 15, and further teaches (in Marks) wherein the wireless power transmitter (coil from Paragraph [0038] in Marks; see also 116 in Bayat) comprise an induction coil connected to a circuit board (circuitry 174; see Paragraphs [0141], [0150]) of the case (100).
Marks in view of Bayat and Kim 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 of Marks as modified by Bayat 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 Bayat, 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 Bayat, 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), Bayat (US Publication No. 2023/0031837), and in further view of Schoenbart (US Publication No. 2018/0262055).
Regarding claim 23, Marks in view of Zhang and Bayat 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 transmitter of Marks as modified by Zhang and Bayat such that a single transmitter, such as that shown in Figure 8 of Bayat, was configured to charge the wireless receivers within the HMD and controllers of Marks as modified by Zhang and Bayat, 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] in Schoenbart).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Bayat (US Publication No. 2023/0031837), Zhang (CN Publication No. 218633413), and in further view of Schoenbart (US Publication No. 2018/0262055).
Regarding claim 24, Marks in view of Bayat 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 transmitter of Marks as modified by Bayat and Zhang such that a single transmitter, such as that shown in Figure 8 of Bayat, was configured to charge the wireless receivers within the HMD and controllers of Marks as modified by Bayat 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] in Schoenbart).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Baarman (US Publication No. 2009/0230777), and in further view of Li (US Publication No. 2015/0295416) and Diemer (US Publication No. 2024/0429753).
Regarding claim 26, Marks in view of Baarman teaches the case of claim 6, and further teaches wherein: the wireless power transmitter (primary coil assembly 222; see Figures 2 and 4-7 in Baarman) comprises a first induction coil integrated into a circuit board (see Paragraph [0046] in Baarman) of the case (100 in Marks), but does not explicitly teach when the electronic device is placed in the recessed area, the first induction coil and a second induction coil of the wireless power receiver are substantially concentric and substantially coplanar.
However, Li teaches when an electronic device (device 6) is placed in a recessed area (space within transmitter 1), a first induction coil and a second induction coil (receiver coil 7) of the wireless power receiver (receiver coil 7) are see Paragraphs [0024]-[0026]).
Diemer further teaches wherein a first induction coil (primary transmitter coil 104) and a second induction coil of the wireless power receiver (primary receiver coil 202) are substantially concentric (see Paragraph [0040]).
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 transmitter and receiver coils of Marks as modified by Baarman to be co-planar and concentric, as taught in Li and Diemer. Doing so would have optimized/maximized the charging configuration between the transmitter and receiver coil (see Paragraph [0040] in Diemer; see Paragraphs [0024]-[0026] in Li).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US Publication No. 2015/0200554), Baarman (US Publication No. 2009/0230777), and in further view of Diemer (US Publication No. 2024/0429753).
Regarding claim 27, Marks in view of Baarman teaches the case of claim 6, but does not teach wherein from primary transmitter coil 104) that is in excess of an amount of power used to charge the second battery (power received by primary receiver coil 202; see Paragraph [0039]) to be redirected to power one or more electronic components of the electronic device (see Figure 7 and Paragraph [0060]) other than the second battery (power received by primary receiver coil 202).
Because Baarman explicitly teaches the processor (controller 202) being configured to control power to the primary transmitter coil(s) (coil assembly 222, corresponding to 104 in Diemer), 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 intermediate coil and peripheral device associated with the electronic device of Diemer to the electronic device of Marks as modified by Baarman. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the electronic device by including an accessory device, and would have allowed that accessory device to be supplied with power without disrupting the main charge of the electronic device (see Paragraphs [0037], [0042], [0060] in Diemer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 11316381 also teaches elements of claim 27.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc
Prosecution Insights