CTNF 18/744,102 CTNF 81258 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Reissue Applications 14-01 AIA For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA” provisions. For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. 14-11-01 Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,695,287 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04. Maintenance Fee Reminder Applicant is reminded during the prosecution of the instant reissue patent application, maintenance fees must be kept up to date for the Patent No. 11,695,287 (“the ‘287 patent”). A review of the maintenance fee status for the ‘287 patent shows the first day to pay the 7.5 year fee opens July 4, 2026, the surcharge starts January 5, 2027, and the last day to pay is July 6, 2027. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding Claims 31-36, claims are render indefinite, because the preamble of the claims is to a charging case for glasses, which applies that the glasses are intended use and the case can be used for any type of glasses, therefore the structure of the glasses, such as the battery, set of temples, front frame, hinge, at least one recipient charging element, etc. is not required to read on the claim. As such the only limitations of the body of the claim required are the structural limitations of the case, such as the source charging element, alignment guide, charging indicator, etc. Furthermore, how do the structural elements of the glasses affect the structure of the case? If Applicant intends to claim the combination, the claim should be amended to a combination comprising a charging case and glasses, a system comprising a charging case and glasses, or something similar. If Applicant intends to claim only the case, the claims can remain as they are, but the structural elements of the glasses will not be needed to read on and reject the claims. Appropriate correction or explanation is required. Defective Reissue Declaration 14-01-01 AIA The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. MPEP 1414(II)(B) states, in part (emphasis added): For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden in the identification of the error that is relied upon to support the reissue application. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In specifically identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid . The corresponding corrective action which has been taken to correct the original patent need not be identified in the oath/declaration. If the initial reissue oath/declaration "states at least one error" in the original patent, and, in addition, recites the specific corrective action taken in the reissue application, the oath/declaration would be considered acceptable, even though the corrective action statement is not required. While the error statement on the reissue declaration does identify the claim(s) being broadened, it does not identify a single word, phrase or expression in the specification or in an original claim and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. Thus there is on error identified in the reissue declaration which is relied upon to support the reissue application. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251: Defective Reissue Declaration 14-14 AIA Claim s 1-36 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251: Recapture 14-17 Claims 23-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. In re McDonald , 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC , 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman , 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith , 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc. , 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc. , 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc. , 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement , 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States , 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application. MPEP 1412.02 establishes a three-step test for recapture. The three-step process is as follows: (1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule. Claims 23-36 are broader than original patent claims 1-18. Claims 23-26 do not require “at least one alignment guide comprises a cavity dimensioned such that the lid applies pressure on the artificial-reality display when the lid is movably closed onto the artificial-reality display via the hinge, the pressure applied by the lid serving to secure continuity of the energizing coupling between the recipient charging element and the source charging element”. Therefore step 1 of the three-step test is met for claims 23-36. The step of determining whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution includes two sub-steps. The first sub-step is to determine whether the applicant surrendered any subject matter in the prosecution of the original application. MPEP 1412.02 defines surrendered subject matter as a claim limitation that was originally relied upon by applicant in the original prosecution to make the claims allowable over the art. MPEP 1412.02(I)(B)(1)(A) states “[w]ith respect to whether applicant surrendered any subject matter, it is to be noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC , 692 F.3d 1261, 1271, 103 USPQ2d 1951, 1958 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As pointed out by the court, ‘[i]t does not matter whether the examiner or the Board adopted a certain argument for allowance; the sole question is whether the argument was made.’ Id .” During the prosecution of the ‘287 patent, the Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13, and 15-20 as unpatentable over Alhaideri et al. (US-20200073148, “Alhaideri”), rejected claim 14 as unpatentable over Alhaideri in view of Trail (US-20200096774, “Trail”), and objected to claims 8 and 11-12 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims in a non-final office action mailed November 23, 2022. The Applicant responded with arguments and amendments. The Applicant amended each independent claim to add the limitations of claim 8, “a lid that movably closes via a hinge…wherein the alignment guide comprises a cavity dimensioned such that the lid applies a pressure to the artificial-reality display when the lid is movably closed onto the artificial-reality display via the hinge, the pressure applied by the lid serving to secure continuity of the energizing coupling between the recipient charging element and the source charging element” and argued the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest each and every feature in the independent claims, particularly the limitations added from dependent claim 8 in a response filed January 31, 2023. On February 17, 2023, the Examiner issued a notice of allowance indicating claims 1, 3-7, and 9-20 as allowed. Therefore, the Patent Owner amended claims 1, 16, and 20 to add the limitations of claim 8 and argued that the prior art did not include the limitation of “a lid that movably closes via a hinge…wherein the alignment guide comprises a cavity dimensioned such that the lid applies a pressure to the artificial-reality display when the lid is movably closed onto the artificial-reality display via the hinge, the pressure applied by the lid serving to secure continuity of the energizing coupling between the recipient charging element and the source charging element”. Therefore, the newly presented claims must include the limitations of claim 8 and the argued limitation. Claims 23-36 fail to disclose any of the limitations added to the claims to make them allowable. Therefore, the limitations of “a lid that movably closes via a hinge…wherein the alignment guide comprises a cavity dimensioned such that the lid applies a pressure to the artificial-reality display when the lid is movably closed onto the artificial-reality display via the hinge, the pressure applied by the lid serving to secure continuity of the energizing coupling between the recipient charging element and the source charging element” are limitations which are considered surrendered subject matter. The second sub-step is to determine whether any of the broadening of the reissue claims is in the area of the surrendered subject matter. The examiner must analyze all of the broadening aspects of the reissue claims to determine if any of the omitted/broadened limitation(s) are directed to limitations relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable over the art. Claims 23-36 are being broadened to omit the surrendered subject matter. Therefore step 2 of the three-part test is met. MPEP 1412.02(I)(B)(1)(B) states “[w]ith respect to the “second step” in the recapture analysis, it is to be noted that if the reissue claim(s), are broadened with respect to the previously surrendered subject matter, then recapture will be present regardless of other unrelated narrowing limitations. In the decision of In re Mostafazadeh , 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit stated: [T]he recapture rule is violated when a limitation added during prosecution is eliminated entirely, even if other narrowing limitations are added to the claim. If the added limitation is modified but not eliminated, the claims must be materially narrowed relative to the surrendered subject matter such that the surrendered subject matter is not entirely or substantially recaptured. Id . at 1361.” Therefore, the third step of the analysis does not need to be performed for claims 23-36. Therefore, claims 23-36 improperly recapture surrendered subject matter. Claims 23-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. PNG media_image1.png 668 602 media_image1.png Greyscale 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 23-24, 26, 28, and 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Steger et al. (US-20180090958, “Steger”). Regarding Claim 23, Steger discloses a system comprising: glasses 909 dimensioned to be worn by a user, the glasses comprising: a battery (“onboard battery”, see paragraph [0059], lines 9-10); at least one recipient charging element (“connection port complementary to the charging connector”, see paragraph [0058], lines 14-18); a front frame (909a in annotated Figure 9 above), wherein the at least one recipient charging element is situated on a portion of the front frame of the glasses (see Figure 9; paragraph [0058], lines 14-18; and paragraph [0059], lines 22-27) ; and a set of temples (909b, 909c in annotated Figure 9 above), wherein a temple of the set of temples is coupled to the front frame of the glasses via a hinge (inherent in description of folding glasses in paragraph [0058]) such that the at least one recipient charging element is accessible for charging when the temple of the set of temples is folded (see Figure 9 and paragraph [0058], lines 14-18); and a charging case 100 dimensioned to accommodate the glasses, the charging case comprising: at least one source charging element 467 (see paragraph [0058]) configured to interface with the at least one recipient charging element of the glasses to facilitate charging the battery of the glasses (see paragraph [0058]); at least one alignment guide 463 that forces the at least one recipient charging element of the glasses to energizingly couple with the at least one source charging element of the charging case (see paragraph [0058]); and a charging indicator 142 that illuminates in different ways to indicate a charging status of the glasses within the charging case (see paragraph [0048]) (Figures 1-9) . Regarding Claim 24, Steger discloses the at least one alignment guide of the charging case comprises one or more mechanical pins (four extensions from 467 in Figures 4 and 8) positioned to hold the glasses in a specific position within the charging case (see paragraph [0058]), such that the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element remain energizingly coupled (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 26, Steger discloses the energizing coupling comprises an electrical coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element (see paragraph [0058]); and the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element comprise electrical connectors that are configured to mate with each other and facilitate charging the battery of the glasses via the electrical coupling (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 28, Steger discloses the charging case comprises an additional battery 419 that transfers power to the battery of the glasses via the energizing coupling between the at least one source charging element and the at least one recipient charging element (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 31, Steger discloses a charging case 100 for glasses 909, the charging case comprising: at least one source charging element 467 configured to interface with at least one recipient charging element (“connection port complementary to the charging connector”, see paragraph [0058], lines 14-18) of glasses to facilitate charging a battery (“onboard battery”, see paragraph [0059], lines 9-10) of the glasses, wherein the glasses include: the battery (“onboard battery”, see paragraph [0059], lines 9-10); the at least one recipient charging element(“connection port complementary to the charging connector”, see paragraph [0058], lines 14-18), a front frame (909a in annotated Figure 9 above), wherein the at least one recipient charging element is situated on a portion of the front frame of the glasses (see Figure 9; paragraph [0058], lines 14-18; and paragraph [0059], lines 22-27); and a set of temples (909b, 909c in annotated Figure 9 above), wherein a temple of the set of temples is coupled to the front frame of the glasses via a hinge (inherent in description of folding glasses in paragraph [0058]) such that the at least one recipient charging element is accessible for charging when the temple of the set of temples is folded (see Figure 9 and paragraph [0058], lines 14-18); and at least one alignment guide 463 that forces the at least one recipient charging element of the glasses to energizingly couple with the at least one source charging element (see paragraph [0058]); and a charging indicator 142 that illuminates in different ways to indicate a charging status of the glasses within the charging case (see paragraph [0048]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 32, Steger discloses the at least one alignment guide of the charging case comprises one or more mechanical pins (four extensions from 467 in Figures 4 and 8) positioned to hold the glasses in a specific position within the charging case (see paragraph [0058]), such that the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element remain energizingly coupled (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 33, Steger discloses the energizing coupling comprises an electrical coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element (see paragraph [0058]); and the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element comprise electrical connectors that are configured to mate with each other and facilitate charging the battery of the glasses via the electrical coupling (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 34, Steger discloses the charging case comprises an additional battery 419 that transfers power to the battery of the glasses via the energizing coupling between the at least one source charging element and the at least one recipient charging element (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger in view of Yoon et al. (US-20190379216, “Yoon”). Regarding Claim 1 and 7, Steger discloses a system comprising: glasses 909 dimensioned to be worn by a user, the glasses comprising: a battery (“onboard battery”, see paragraph [0059], lines 9-10); and at least one recipient charging element (“connection port complementary to the charging connector”, see paragraph [0058], lines 14-18); and a charging case 100 dimensioned to accommodate the glasses, the charging case comprising: a lid 113 that movably closes via a hinge 206; at least one source charging element 463 configured to interface with the recipient charging element of the glasses to facilitate charging the battery of the glasses (see paragraph [0058]); and at least one alignment guide 463 that forces the at least one recipient charging element of the glasses to energizingly couple with the at least one source charging element of the charging case (see paragraph [0058]), wherein the at least one alignment guide comprises a cavity (indentation into 430 formed by 463); and the charging case charges the battery of the glasses (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9), but does not expressly disclose the cavity dimensioned such that the lid applies pressure on the glasses when the lid is movably closed onto the glasses via the hinge, the pressure applied by the lid serving to secure continuity of the energizing coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element; and the at least one alignment guide of the charging case prevents the at least one recipient charging element from disengaging from the at least one source charging element despite a jolt experienced by the charging case . However, Yoon teaches a system comprising an electronic device 871 with a battery and at least one recipient charging element; and a charging case 800 dimensioned to accommodate the electronic device comprising a lid 830 that movably closes via a hinge 850; at least one source charging element configured to interface with the recipient charging element of the electronic device to facilitate charging the battery of the electronic device (see paragraph [0081]); and at least one alignment guide 950 that forces the at least one recipient charging element of the electronic device to energizingly couple with the at least one source charging element of the charging case, wherein the at least one alignment guide comprises a cavity 951,953 dimensioned such that the lid applies pressure on the electronic device when the lid is movably closed onto the electronic device via the hinge (see paragraph [0081]), the pressure applied by the lid serving to secure continuity of the energizing coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element (see paragraph [0081]); and the at least one alignment guide of the charging case prevents the at least one recipient charging element from disengaging from the at least one source charging element despite a jolt experienced by the charging case (see paragraph [0081]) (Figures 1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the at least one alignment guide such that the lid applies pressure to the glasses to maintain the contact between the recipient charging element of the glasses and the source charging element of the case as taught by Yoon at paragraph [0081], lines 4-14. Regarding Claim 2, Steger discloses the at least one alignment guide of the charging case secures the glasses in a specific position that ensures continuity of the energizing coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element when the glasses are enclosed within the charging case (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 3, Steger discloses the glasses have a set of temples (909b, 909c in annotated Figure 9 above); the charging case comprises one or more temple blocks (back, side, and bottom walls of 430 forming 463 in Figure 5) positioned to support one or more of the temples of the glasses; and the at least one alignment guide of the charging case comprises one or more indentations (463 is an indentation is the walls of 430) formed in the one or more temple blocks, the indentations being positioned to hold the glasses in the specific position within the charging case (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 4, Steger discloses the at least one alignment guide of the charging case comprises one or more mechanical pins (four extensions from 467 in Figures 4 and 8) positioned to hold the glasses in a specific position within the charging case (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 6, Steger discloses wherein the at least one alignment guide of the charging case comprises a cavity (463 is a cavity in 430 as shown in Figure 5) dimensioned to force the glasses into a specific position that ensures continuity of the energizing coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element upon closure of the charging case (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 8, Steger discloses the glasses have a set of temples (909b, 909c in annotated Figure 9 above); and the charging case comprises at least one temple block (back, side, and bottom walls of 430 forming 463 in Figure 5) that is positioned to support at least one of the temples of the glasses; and incorporates the at least one source charging element 467 (see right of Figure 5) to facilitate charging the battery via the at least one recipient charging element when the at least one of the temples of the glasses is supported by the temple block (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 9, Steger discloses the glasses have a front frame (909a, see annotated Figure 9 above); the at least one recipient charging element is situated on an end of the front frame of the glasses (see Figure 9; paragraph [0058], lines 14-18; and paragraph [0059], lines 22-27); and one of the set of temples is coupled to the end of the front frame of the glasses via a hinge (inherent in description of folding glasses in paragraph [0058]) such that the at least one recipient charging element is accessible when the one of the set of temples is folded and inaccessible when the one of the set of temples is unfolded (see Figure 9; paragraph [0058], lines 14-18; and paragraph [0059], lines 22-27) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 10, Steger discloses wherein the recipient charging element is visible when the one of the set of temples is folded and is concealed from view when the one of the set of temples is unfolded (see Figure 9; paragraph [0058], lines 14-18; and paragraph [0059], lines 22-27) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 11, Steger discloses the energizing coupling comprises an electrical coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element (see paragraph [0058]); and the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element comprise electrical connectors that are configured to mate with each other and facilitate charging the battery of the glasses via the electrical coupling (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 13, Steger discloses the charging case comprises an additional battery 419 that transfers power to the battery of the glasses via the energizing coupling between the at least one source charging element and the at least one recipient charging element (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 14, Steger discloses a charging case for glasses 909, the charging case comprising: a base 115; a lid 113 movably coupled to the base via a hinge 206; at least one source charging element 467 configured to interface with at least one recipient charging element (“connection port complementary to the charging connector”, see paragraph [0058], lines 14-18) of the glasses to facilitate charging a battery (“onboard battery”, see paragraph [0059], lines 9-10) of the glasses; and at least one alignment guide 463 that forces the at least one recipient charging element of the glasses to energizingly couple with the at least one source charging element when the glasses are placed in the base and the lid is closed to the base (see paragraph [0058]), wherein the at least one alignment guide comprises a cavity (463 is a cavity in 430) formed by the base and the lid (Figures 1-9), but does not expressly disclose the cavity of the alignment guide is dimensioned such that the lid applies pressure on the glasses when the lid is movably closed onto the glasses via the hinge, the pressure applied by the lid serving to secure continuity of the energizing coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element. However, Yoon teaches a system comprising an electronic device 871 with a battery and at least one recipient charging element; and a charging case 800 dimensioned to accommodate the electronic device comprising a lid 830 that movably closes via a hinge 850; at least one source charging element configured to interface with the recipient charging element of the electronic device to facilitate charging the battery of the electronic device (see paragraph [0081]); and at least one alignment guide 950 that forces the at least one recipient charging element of the electronic device to energizingly couple with the at least one source charging element of the charging case, wherein the at least one alignment guide comprises a cavity 951,953 dimensioned such that the lid applies pressure on the electronic device when the lid is movably closed onto the electronic device via the hinge (see paragraph [0081]), the pressure applied by the lid serving to secure continuity of the energizing coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element (see paragraph [0081]); and the at least one alignment guide of the charging case prevents the at least one recipient charging element from disengaging from the at least one source charging element despite a jolt experienced by the charging case (see paragraph [0081]) (Figures 1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the at least one alignment guide such that the lid applies pressure to the glasses to maintain the contact between the recipient charging element of the glasses and the source charging element of the case as taught by Yoon at paragraph [0081], lines 4-14. Regarding Claim 15, Steger discloses the at least one alignment guide of the charging case is positioned to align the at least one recipient charging element of the glasses with the at least one source charging element when the glass are placed within the charging case (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 16, Steger discloses the at least one alignment guide of the charging case secures the glasses in a specific position that ensures continuity of the energizing coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element when the glasses are enclosed within the charging case (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 17, Steger discloses at least one temple block (back, side, and bottom walls of 430 forming 463 in Figure 5) positioned to support at least one temple (909b, 909c in annotated Figure 9) of the glasses; wherein the at least one alignment guide of the charging case comprises one or more indentations (463 is an indentation is the walls of 430) formed in the temple blocks, the indentations being positioned to hold the glasses in the specific position within the charging case (see paragraph [0058]) (Figures 1-9). Regarding Claim 18, Steger discloses a method comprising: manufacturing a base 115 of a charging case for charging glasses; manufacturing a lid 113 of the charging case that is movably coupled to the base via a hinge206; incorporating, into the charging case, at least one source charging element 467 configured to interface with at least one recipient charging element (“connection port complementary to the charging connector”, see paragraph [0058], lines 14-18) of the glasses to facilitate charging a battery (“onboard battery”, see paragraph [0059], lines 9-10) of the glasses (see paragraph [0058]); and incorporating, into the charging case, at least one alignment guide 463 that forces the at least one recipient charging element of the glasses to energizingly couple with the at least one source charging element of the glasses when the glasses are placed in the base (see paragraph [0058]), wherein the at least one alignment guide comprises a cavity (463 is a cavity in 430) formed by the base and the lid (Figures 1-9), but does not expressly disclose the cavity of the alignment guide is dimensioned such that the lid applies pressure on the glasses when the lid is movably closed onto the glasses via the hinge, the pressure applied by the lid serving to secure continuity of the energizing coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element. However, Yoon teaches a system comprising an electronic device 871 with a battery and at least one recipient charging element; and a charging case 800 dimensioned to accommodate the electronic device comprising a lid 830 that movably closes via a hinge 850; at least one source charging element configured to interface with the recipient charging element of the electronic device to facilitate charging the battery of the electronic device (see paragraph [0081]); and at least one alignment guide 950 that forces the at least one recipient charging element of the electronic device to energizingly couple with the at least one source charging element of the charging case, wherein the at least one alignment guide comprises a cavity 951,953 dimensioned such that the lid applies pressure on the electronic device when the lid is movably closed onto the electronic device via the hinge (see paragraph [0081]), the pressure applied by the lid serving to secure continuity of the energizing coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element (see paragraph [0081]); and the at least one alignment guide of the charging case prevents the at least one recipient charging element from disengaging from the at least one source charging element despite a jolt experienced by the charging case (see paragraph [0081]) (Figures 1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the at least one alignment guide such that the lid applies pressure to the glasses to maintain the contact between the recipient charging element of the glasses and the source charging element of the case as taught by Yoon at paragraph [0081], lines 4-14. Regarding Claim 25. Steger discloses the system of claim 23, as advanced above, but does not expressly disclose the at least one alignment guide of the charging case prevents the at least one recipient charging element from disengaging from the at least one source charging element despite a jolt experienced by the charging case. However, Yoon teaches a system comprising an electronic device 871 with a battery and at least one recipient charging element; and a charging case 800 dimensioned to accommodate the electronic device comprising a lid 830 that movably closes via a hinge 850; at least one source charging element configured to interface with the recipient charging element of the electronic device to facilitate charging the battery of the electronic device (see paragraph [0081]); and at least one alignment guide 950 that forces the at least one recipient charging element of the electronic device to energizingly couple with the at least one source charging element of the charging case, wherein the at least one alignment guide comprises a cavity 951,953 dimensioned such that the lid applies pressure on the electronic device when the lid is movably closed onto the electronic device via the hinge (see paragraph [0081]), the pressure applied by the lid serving to secure continuity of the energizing coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element (see paragraph [0081]); and the at least one alignment guide of the charging case prevents the at least one recipient charging element from disengaging from the at least one source charging element despite a jolt experienced by the charging case (see paragraph [0081]) (Figures 1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the at least one alignment guide such that the lid applies pressure to the glasses to maintain the contact between the recipient charging element of the glasses and the source charging element even in the event of a jolt of the case as taught by Yoon at paragraph [0081], lines 4-14 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger in view of Yoon as applied to claim s 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 25 above, and further in view of Alhaideri et al. (US-20200073148, “Alhaideri”). Regarding Claim 5, Steger in view of Yoon does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one alignment guide of the charging case comprises one or more magnetic fasteners positioned to hold the glasses in the specific position within the charging case . However, Alhaideri teaches a system of glasses and a charging case for charging the glasses comprising at least one alignment guide 44 of the charging case comprises one or more magnetic fasteners 58 positioned to hold the glasses in the specific position within the charging case (see paragraph [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add magnets to the alignment guide of Steger in view of Yoon to maintain the connection for charging the battery in the glasses as taught by Alhaideri at paragraph [0022]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger in view of Yoon or Steger, respectively , as applied to claim s 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 25 or 23-24, 26, 28, and 31-34, respectively above, and further in view of Lewis (US-20070281752, “Lewis”). Regarding Claims 12 and 27, Steger in view of Yoon or Steger do not expressly disclose wherein: the energizing coupling comprises an inductive coupling between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element; and the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element comprise electromagnetic coils that are configured to induce an electromotive force that facilitates charging the battery of the glasses via the inductive coupling . However, Lewis teaches a system of glasses and a charging case wherein: the energizing coupling comprises an inductive coupling (see paragraphs [0017], [0032]; Claims 1 and 16) between the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element; and the at least one recipient charging element and the at least one source charging element comprise electromagnetic coils 50 that are configured to induce an electromotive force that facilitates charging the battery of the glasses via the inductive coupling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to charge the glasses using induction methods with electromagnetic coils to eliminate the need for physical connections as taught by Lewis at paragraphs [0017] and [0032] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 19-22, 29-30, and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger in view of Yoon or Steger as applied to claim s 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 25 or 23-24, 26, 28, and 31-34, respectively above, and further in view of Ashwood et al. (US-20180136491, Ashwood). Steger in view of Yoon or Steger does not expressly disclose the glasses do not include near-eye display; and the glasses are augmented-reality glasses including a near-eye display . However, Ashwood teaches a system comprising a charging case for glasses that are augmented reality, virtual reality, with near-eye displays, without near-eye displays, and other various types of displays (see paragraph [0023]) (Figures 1-6). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the case of Steger in view of Yoon or Steger to fit any type of battery powered glasses that need to be recharged to make the case versatile and let a user charge the glass while they are stored to prevent them from being damaged. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E DONDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-5590. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6 am - 4 pm ET, Alternate Fridays. 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, EILEEN D LILLIS can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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. /WILLIAM E DONDERO/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993 CONFEREES: /WILLIAM C DOERRLER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993 /EILEEN D LILLIS/ SPRS, Art Unit 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 2 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 3 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 4 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 5 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 6 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 7 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 8 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 9 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 10 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 11 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 12 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 13 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 14 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 15 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 16 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 17 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 18 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 19 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 20 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 21 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 22 Art Unit: 3993 Application/Control Number: 18/744,102 Page 23 Art Unit: 3993
Prosecution Insights