US 10342704

I'll verify current status via search, then summarize from the authoritative patent text.

US 10,342,704 B2 — Verification Summary

Scope note: I searched for US 10,342,704 specifically and did not find any CAFC 2026 docket or district-court case naming this patent. Do not confuse it with the other 100% Speedlab matters floating around. Because you instructed literal interpretation, I am reporting the numbers exactly as they appear in the record.

Bibliographic Data (from the granted patent text and the Google Patents record)

Important caveat on status: the "expired" designation comes from the Google Patents legal-events table, which itself is flagged as an assumption rather than a legal conclusion. A lapse can be petitioned for reinstatement within the statutory window; I have not independently confirmed the current fee status in USPTO Patent Center, so treat "expired and unenforceable" as a strong but not verified conclusion.

Abstract (as granted)

A goggle frame and an adaptor configured to attach to the goggle frame are disclosed in accordance with various embodiments. The adaptor may allow the goggle frame to adapt to different lenses or accessories. In particular, the adaptor may allow the goggle frame to adapt to lenses of different sizes, thicknesses, shapes, shades, colors, prescriptions, curvatures, and the like. Further, the adaptor may allow the goggle frame to adapt to various accessories, such as roll-off film systems of different sizes, various imaging devices, e.g., cameras, video cameras, display devices, e.g., LCD or LED displays, heads up displays, lighting devices, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and the like.

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — the apparatus (a goggle + adaptor system). A goggle has (i) a frame whose front side carries a first lens-receiving portion made up of a ridge that runs continuously around the frame plus a first groove near that ridge, and (ii) an adaptor that detachably attaches to that first lens-receiving portion. The adaptor has a second lens-receiving portion that holds a second lens, and an attachment portion extending from it that ends in a rib located distal to (outward of) the second lens-receiving portion. The claim then recites two operating states: first configuration — the first lens sits inside the first groove; second configuration — the first lens is taken out, and at least a portion of the adaptor's distal rib is inserted into the same first groove, which is what anchors the adaptor to the frame. The inventive point is that the adaptor literally re-uses the frame's existing lens groove as its own mounting socket.

Claim 12 — the method (assembling the claim-1 goggle). A single step: while in the second configuration, attach the adaptor to the first lens-receiving portion so that the portion of the adaptor's rib is inserted into the first groove. Note this method claim incorporates claim 1 by reference, so all of claim 1's structural limitations carry over into the method.

(For completeness: claim 2 through claim 11 are dependent apparatus claims — e.g., claim 2 requires the second groove to be wider than the first; claim 4 adds the sloping wall forming a recess that receives the ridge; claim 5 ties rib thickness to first-lens thickness; claim 10 adds a roll-off film system; claim 11 adds a tear-off film system. Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and adds removing the first lens from the groove and attaching an accessory to the second lens or adaptor. Neither claim 2–11 nor claim 13 is independent.)

Descriptive-Text Support Worth Noting for Infringement/Validity Work

The written description supplies the mechanical story the claims compress: the frame's ridge 302 carries groove 304 continuously around the loop (FIG. 3); the adaptor's sloping wall 604 and rib 606 form a V-shaped recess 608 that hooks over the ridge while rib 606 seats in groove 304 (FIG. 6, FIG. 9). The spec states the rib thickness "may correspond to" the thickness of the lens receivable by the frame — which is exactly the concept claim 5 elevates to a requirement. The adaptor is described as softer/less rigid than the frame and as deformable for insertion, with cutouts 610 on the rib increasing deformability. The commercial driver in the Background is the 30 mm → 45 mm roll-off film compatibility gap.

What I Could Not Verify

• No litigation, PTAB, or CAFC docket entry naming US 10,342,704 was found. Searches surfaced only unrelated 100% Speedlab enforcement activity.
• A date anomaly you should be aware of: several search results describe a 100% Speedlab / Saule, LLC TRO action, case 1:26-cv-05566 (S.D.N.Y.), with a filing date of June 30, 2026 — which is after the current date you gave me (April 26, 2026). That case asserts trademarks and four design patents (US D727,398 S; US D727,400 S; US D756,445 S; US D860,302 S) — it does not name US 10,342,704 at all. I am flagging the inconsistency rather than silently reconciling it; the source dates may reflect later-updated pages or indexing artifacts.
• I did not retrieve the USPTO Patent Center fee/reinstatement record directly, so the maintenance-fee lapse is reported on the authority of the Google Patents legal-events table only.

I'll search litigation-specific sources for this exact patent number.

Initial searches returned noise (unrelated PTAB petitions, a Brazilian registry entry). Let me run more targeted queries against litigation-specific sources.

Let me query litigation-specific databases directly and check the assignee's enforcement history.

Answer: No litigation naming US 10,342,704 was found

I ran targeted searches for the exact patent number 10342704 across litigation-oriented sources (Unified Patents litigation index, Justia Dockets, PacerMonitor, UniCourt, Docket Alarm, and general docket mirrors), plus assignee-based searches for 100% Speedlab, LLC. Result: I found no district-court case, ITC action, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal in which US 10,342,704 is identified as an asserted or challenged patent.

What the searches actually returned

• Searching the bare numeric string 10342704 produced only false positives — e.g., a Brazilian commercial registry PDF (jucisrs.rs.gov.br) listing a business under that number, and PTAB petitions for other patents (the '305, '427, '991, RE'543 patents, etc.). None relate to US 10,342,704.
• No Justia/PacerMonitor/UniCourt docket sheet for a case asserting 10,342,704 surfaced.
• Per the operating rule on literal interpretation, I am not treating any of these near-matches as covering the patent.

Important distinction — related 100% Speedlab enforcement DOES exist, but on different patents

The same assignee (100% Speedlab, LLC) has an active enforcement program, but the patents it asserts are other members of the family, not US 10,342,704:

Sources: Justia docket for Vampire Optical (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/ohio/ohsdce/2:2025cv00415/[301963](/patent/301963)); PacerMonitor for Reckless Vision (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66552406/); UniCourt for H&H (https://unicourt.com/case/rc-db1-100-speedlab-llc-v-hh-sports-protection-usa-inc-[258657](/patent/258657)); Trohub/case-mirror filings for 1:26-cv-05566 (https://www.trohub.com/en/cases/...1-2026-cv-05566...).

Critically, none of the complaint exhibits or patent lists in these cases name US 10,342,704. The '704 patent's own "Cited By" table likewise shows only patent-office citations (e.g., US 11,399,982 to 100% Speedlab, US 11,547,168 to BISS Product Development), not litigation assertions against it.

Two things you should be aware of (flagged, not reconciled)

1. Date anomaly. You gave the current date as April 26, 2026, yet multiple sources show actions dated June 30, 2026 (filing of 1:26-cv-05566) and July 2026. I am reporting these dates exactly as the sources state them, per your literal-interpretation instruction, but the chronology is internally inconsistent and may reflect later-updated or mis-indexed pages. This does not change the core conclusion (no '704 litigation), but it means recency of these dockets cannot be fully trusted.
2. Status caveat carried over from the prior section. US 10,342,704 is recorded as Expired – Fee Related (maintenance-fee lapse, Aug. 14, 2023; nominal adjusted expiration June 9, 2035). A lapsed patent is generally unenforceable and would not be a likely candidate for new infringement assertion, which is consistent with the absence of any litigation naming it.

Bottom line

No known litigation involves US 10,342,704. If you need confirmation beyond what public docket aggregators expose, the authoritative step would be a direct USPTO Patent Center and PACER docket search on the patent number and on "100% Speedlab, LLC" as plaintiff — I could not retrieve those primary records directly, and the aggregator coverage I did reach contained no '704 hit. I'd note explicitly: I cannot rule out sealed or very recently filed Schedule A / John Doe actions that don't disclose asserted patent numbers in the public docket, but nothing in the record I retrieved ties any such case to this patent.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before reporting.

The structured block says no proceedings; let me probe a couple more angles before concluding.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 10,342,704 B2

Verification note: I ran targeted searches against the PTAB E2E petitions corpus, Google Patents' legal-events/proceedings tables, and general web. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns an empty set for this patent, and nothing in my searches contradicts that. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming US 10,342,704 — not even a denied petition or a terminated proceeding.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,342,704: ZERO. No petitions were ever filed, so there is nothing to categorize as active, instituted, settled, or denied — and consequently no claim of this patent has ever been canceled, narrowed, or sustained by the PTAB, and no FWD or Federal Circuit appeal exists. Defensively this is a double-edged posture: there is no IPR record to weaponize, but the patent is also formally expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (lapse recorded 2023-08-14), which for a defendant typically matters far more than any validity fight — the practical exposure is limited to past damages within the § 286 six-year lookback, and only if the lapse is not petitioned for reinstatement.

Because there are no proceedings, the per-proceeding template below is inapplicable. I substitute the substantive record and the reason for the absence.

No proceedings — and why that is itself the signal

• Type: N/A (no IPR / PGR / CBM filed)
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial activity on file (USPTO ODP ingest; corroborated by web search on 2026-09-28)
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no claim of US 10,342,704 has ever been addressed on the merits by the Board
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: No PTAB-to-CAFC appeal exists for this patent. (Note: 100% Speedlab's other patents have generated litigation; none of that paper names the '704.)
• Defensive value: You cannot cite an FWD to knock out claims 1–13, and you cannot invoke § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone, because no trial ever started. Chin-up side: there is no adverse PTAB precedent, no claim-construction ruling, and no surviving-narrowed claim set you must design around. Your invalidity case is unwritten, which is entirely in your hands.

The candid explanation for the emptiness: IPRs are typically triggered by live assertion of a patent against a deep-pocketed defendant. US 10,342,704 is an apparatus claim to an adaptor that seats in the goggle frame's existing lens groove — a component that, as a practical matter, ships as part of a goggle assembly. 100% Speedlab's documented enforcement has run through design patents and trademarks against online/counterfeit sellers (e.g., the design patents US D727,398 S; US D727,400 S; US D756,445 S; US D860,302 S in the 2026 TRO campaign styled 100% Speedlab, LLC v. et al., S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-05566), and through utility patents such as US 9,839,558 and US 10,751,218 in 100% Speedlab, LLC v. Reckless Vision Company LLC, No. 1:26-cv-07429 (S.D.N.Y., complaint attaching Exhibits A–B for those two utility patents). Counterfeit sellers do not file IPRs — they default or settle. That is almost certainly why the '704 has never attracted a petition.

(Docket-note re: the earlier generated section's date anomaly. The prior section flagged 1:26-cv-05566 as post-dating the analysis date of 2026-04-26. With today's date of 2026-09-28, that inconsistency resolves — the June 30 / July 1, 2026 filings are simply in the past. No contradiction remains.)

Strategic summary

Claims: CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED

• Canceled: none.
• Sustained (by any tribunal): none.
• Untested: claims 1–13 in their entirety, including independent claim 1 (the goggle + adaptor system) and independent claim 12 (the assembling method). Every limitation is virgin territory — no Board construction of "rib distal to the second lens receiving portion," no ruling on whether seating the adaptor's rib in the frame's lens groove reads on any particular product, no § 103 combination has ever been briefed.

Estoppel landscape

• § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue. Estoppel attaches only after an FWD; with no institution there is no estoppel bar, no printed-publication lockout, and no "reasonably could have raised" trapdoor. A defendant today may raise any § 102/§ 103/§ 112 ground in district court or file its own IPR at any time, subject only to the ordinary § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of a complaint on that defendant — and note that filing a fresh IPR requires unexpired claims to attack.
• No defensive aggregator is in the chain. I found no Unified Patents, RPX, or other aggregator petition against this patent. There is no institutional challenger holding a ready-made record you can license or copy.

Pattern signals

• Same petitioner, multiple IPRs? No petitioner at all.
• Aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner? None exist because no trial exists.
• But watch the enforcement footprint. 100% Speedlab is an active, serial enforcer using design patents + trademarks against e-commerce sellers, with utility patents (the '558 and '218) surfacing against a named defendant. If '704 ever gets asserted against a defendant with the resources to fight — e.g., a domestic competitor selling an adaptor or an interchangeable-lens goggle — expect a first-ever IPR to be filed within the § 315(b) year. The patent's thin claim 1 (essentially "put the adaptor's rib into the frame's lens groove") and its 2014 priority date make it a plausible IPR target.

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with the expiration, not the validity fight. The Google Patents legal-events table records a maintenance-fee lapse on 2023-08-14 ("patent expired due to nonpayment of maintenance fees under 37 CFR 1.362"), effective 2023-07-09. For a defendant, an expired patent cannot support prospective injunctive relief and limits damages to the six years preceding the complaint (35 U.S.C. § 286). Action: confirm fee/reinstatement status directly in USPTO Patent Center for application 14/701,379 before relying on expiration — Google's status field is expressly flagged as an assumption, and reinstatement petitions are possible. Do not concede enforceability without pulling the fee record.

2. If the patent is expired and un-reinstated, you likely never need an IPR. Filing at the PTAB to invalidate claims that are already unenforceable is usually wasted spend; reserve invalidity arguments for the (narrow) past-damages window.

3. If the patent is reinstated or asserted against you, you have a clean slate. There is no FWD, no estoppel, no prior Board claim construction, and no adverse CAFC precedent. Start invalidity from scratch on the § 102/§ 103 art already on the '704 face — the 36 references cited, notably US 4,689,838 (Optyl, "Goggles with interchangeable lenses"), US 5,410,763 (Bolle, "Eyeshield with detachable components"), US 6,282,727 (Lindahl, "Sports eye wear with detachable goggle members"), US 8,458,823 (Matera, "Goggle lens interchange system"), US 8,408,695 (Oakley, "Floating lens mounting system"), and US 2014/0033408 (Dye Precision, "Sport goggle with quick release lens") — plus the '558 and '218 family members for double-patenting/obviousness angles.

4. Do not represent to a court that this patent "survived IPRs" or that claims "were canceled." Both statements would be false. The accurate framing is: "No AIA trial has ever been filed on US 10,342,704. Its claims are entirely untested at the PTAB, and the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees on 2023-07-09." That sentence is fully supported by the record above.

Could not verify / caveats:

• I did not obtain a direct Patent Center fee-and-reinstatement record; the expiration is reported on the authority of the Google Patents legal-events table only.
• I found no USPTO PTAB E2E or CourtListener link to cite, because there is no opinion, FWD, or institution decision for this patent. Any such link would be fabricated; none is provided.
• Searches returned substantial 100% Speedlab enforcement activity on other patents (design patents, US 9,839,558, US 10,751,218) — none of it names US 10,342,704, and none of it is a PTAB proceeding on this patent.

I'll verify the assignment record and correspondent details before writing this up.

I could not complete a live query against USPTO Assignment Center within my search budget (two targeted queries returned no assignment-page hits, and the tool budget was exhausted). Everything below is grounded in the Google Patents legal-events table, which mirrors the USPTO recordation data (reel/frame, execution date, recording date, reel text), plus third-party filings and litigation records I was able to retrieve. Where a field is unknown I say so rather than fill it in.

Inventors

Pattern notes (evidence-based, not inferred from names):

• No departure/fire-sale pattern. Boinnard, Blanchard and Sigismondo all keep appearing on 100% Speedlab applications through 2026, so there is no "all inventors left within 12 months" signal that typically precedes a portfolio sale.
• Jonathan Knight is the anomaly. A sole-application inventor with a non-San-Diego, non-US residence on a filing whose three co-inventors are all San Diego-based career personnel is consistent with an outside design contribution (design consultancy) rather than employment. Caveat: the residence data comes from a third-party aggregator, not from the assignment document I can see, so treat the "outside consultant" characterization as a hypothesis, not a finding.
• Assignment execution dates: signatures were obtained 2015-04-16 through 2015-04-27 — i.e., all four signed before the 2015-04-30 filing date, which is normal corporate practice and confirms the inventors were under an obligation to assign at filing. No inventor is recorded as retaining any interest.

Original assignee

100% SPEEDLAB, LLC (California; principal place of business San Diego, CA) — named as assignee on the face of the issued patent and as the assignee of record at Reel 035544/0419.

• Line of business: Design, manufacture and sale of motocross/MTB/cycling goggles, sunglasses, gloves and racing apparel under the "100%" brand (100percent.com). Related entity Saule, LLC holds the trademark estate; 100% Speedlab holds the patent estate.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, on the record. In 100% Speedlab, LLC v. H&H Sports Protection USA, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-02620-GPC-NLS (S.D. Cal., filed 2015-11-20), the company pleaded that it "manufactures, markets, and sells a line of extremely high-quality motocross goggle products" and has sold its Racecraft, Accuri and Strata goggle models in the U.S. since January 2012. The '704 adaptor (which converts a 30 mm roll-off goggle to a 45 mm system) is a component of exactly that goggle family.
• Current status: Operating, and actively enforcing. Retrievable suits: H&H Sports Protection (S.D. Cal. 2015); 100% Speedlab v. Vampire Optical Coatings Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00415 (S.D. Ohio, filed 2025-04-17, dismissed with prejudice 2025-08-21); 100% Speedlab, LLC v. Reckless Vision Company LLC, No. 1:26-cv-07429 (S.D.N.Y.); and the multi-defendant trademark/design-patent TRO campaign No. 1:26-cv-05566 (S.D.N.Y.), brought jointly with Saule, LLC via Boies Schiller Flexner. No bankruptcy, receivership or dissolution record surfaced.
• Portfolio scale: ~210 applications / ~101 grants per the applicant profile.

Important caveat on the "expired" status: US 10,342,704 lapsed for non-payment of the 3.5-year maintenance fee, with the lapse recorded 2023-08-14 and an effective date of 2023-07-09 (37 CFR 1.362), per the Google Patents legal-events table. That is a fee lapse by a solvent, actively-litigating owner — a portfolio cost-trimming event, not an insolvency. Reinstatement may be available within the statutory window; I did not verify current fee status in Patent Center. Note the enforceability mismatch: 100% Speedlab is currently suing on sibling patents (US 9,839,558; US 10,751,218; D1,043,799; D755,278; D1,028,050; D727,398; D727,400; D756,445; D860,302) — not on '704.

Assignment timeline

One (1) recorded assignment exists in the chain. There are no post-issuance assignments, no security agreements, no mergers, no change-of-name records and no releases.

• Executed 2015-04-16 to 2015-04-27 (per reel text "SIGNING DATES FROM 20150416 TO 20150427") / recorded 2015-05-01 — Reel 035544/0419
  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)"
  • Assignor: Marc Guy Blanchard; Ludovic Francis Boinnard; Kevin Michael Sigismondo; and Jonathan Knight (recorded on the reel as "AND OTHERS")
  • Assignee: 100% SPEEDLAB, LLC, California
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable. The Google Patents legal-events entry reproduces the reel text but does not expose the correspondent of record, and my Assignment Center queries returned nothing. I am not going to guess a name. This is a gap in my evidence, not a negative finding — the correspondent-recurs signal below is therefore "unclear," not "not present."
  • Context: Initial inventor → operating-company assignment, executed pre-filing and recorded one day after the 2015-04-30 filing date. Because title was recorded during pendency, no confirmatory post-issuance assignment was needed, which is why the chain has exactly one link.

Interpretation: the absence of any downstream assignment is itself meaningful — it means the patent was never securitized, never sold, and never moved into a licensing vehicle. The same LLC that took the inventors' rights in May 2015 held the patent when it lapsed in July 2023.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10342704
    2014 : Provisional 61/989801 filed
    2015 : Nonprovisional 14/701379 filed
         : Inventors assign to 100% Speedlab
    2019 : Patent US 10342704 issues
    2023 : Maintenance fee lapses

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only recorded conveyance is Reel 035544/0419, and it moves rights into the operating entity, not out of it. No "IP / Holdings / Ventures" assignee appears anywhere in the chain. 100% Speedlab, LLC has a physical San Diego operation and named commercial products (Racecraft, Accuri, Strata) pleaded in 3:15-cv-02620.
2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. 100% Speedlab, LLC appears on none of the listed NPE rosters (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, etc.). It is a frequent patent plaintiff, but in the product-company posture — suing competitors in its own market (H&H Sports Protection in 2015; Vampire Optical Coatings in 2025; Reckless Vision in 2026). Frequency of suit alone is not an NPE signal when the plaintiff sells the accused products category.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR. With a single recorded link and an unretrieved correspondent field, recurrence cannot be tested. Not scored as present. (For context, the litigation correspondents are unrelated to recordation: Jonathan Hangartner / X-Patents, APC on the 2015 complaint; James McCarthy on the 2025 Ohio case; Cameron Sean Reuber / Leason Ellis on the 2026 Reckless Vision case; Boies Schiller Flexner on 26-cv-05566.)
4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. No chained LLCs, no transfers at all after 2015-05-01.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. There is no recorded transfer at any time near a suit; '704 has never been asserted in any retrieved complaint. The asserted patents in the 2025–2026 cases are different numbers entirely.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 record, no sale proceedings, no docket evidence of insolvency. The only adverse financial event is the 2023-07-09 maintenance-fee lapse, recorded 2023-08-14, on a patent whose owner was simultaneously prosecuting ~30 live applications and later (2025–2026) funding multi-defendant federal litigation. That is inconsistent with a distress sale narrative.
7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer, no SEC 10-K/8-K disclosure of a patent transfer to a third-party asserter, and no third-party asserter acting on 100% Speedlab's behalf. 100% Speedlab asserts in its own name.
8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN. Note the inverse-but-distinct fact: '704 is practically neutralized because it lapsed in 2023, but that neutralization came from a fee lapse, not from acquisition by a defensive aggregator. Those are different findings and I am not conflating them.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The sole recorded link — inventors Blanchard, Boinnard, Sigismondo and Knight to 100% SPEEDLAB, LLC, executed 2015-04-16/27 and recorded 2015-05-01 at Reel 035544/0419 — places title in a San Diego product company that has pleaded on the record that it manufactures and sells the very goggle family (Racecraft, Accuri, Strata) this adaptor serves, and that has sued actual market competitors in 2015, 2025 and 2026. There is not a single NPE signal in the chain: no transfer out of the operating entity, no licensing vehicle, no security interest, no cascading LLCs and no defensive-aggregator terminus.

Two honesty flags you should carry forward: (1) This patent specifically has never been asserted and lapsed for non-payment on 2023-07-09, so "assertion" describes the owner's conduct on sibling patents, not on '704 — if your rubric reads "only the original assignment = insufficient data" strictly, this is a borderline classification between Operating-company assertion and Insufficient data, and I am flagging the tension rather than hiding it. (2) The correspondent of record for Reel 035544/0419 is unknown to me, which means signal #3 was never actually testable — that is my biggest evidentiary gap, and it is the field I'd pull first if you can run the Assignment Center query directly.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 10342704 or by reel/frame 035544/0419); mirror index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Underlying legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10342704B2](/patent/US10342704B2)/en#legal-events.

I'll verify the record for US 10,342,704 and work through its cited references. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me pull details on the goggle/lens-interchange and roll-off film references that are most likely to map to the claims.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,342,704 B2

Verification first. I searched for the number 10342704 specifically (not similar numbers). The record I retrieved is consistently US 10,342,704 B2, application US 14/701,379, filed 2015‑04‑30, priority 2014‑05‑07, assignee 100% Speedlab, LLC. This matches the summary already generated in this analysis; no contradiction with that section, so I build on it rather than repeat it.

Caveat on method. The full text I was given is the authoritative source and it includes the complete examiner citation list (36 references). For the reference content, I verified the most relevant items (Bolle, Optyl, Matera, Dye Precision) against live search, but for the long tail I am working from the citation titles/dates in the patent record plus general knowledge. I flag below where a description is title‑based only and therefore lower‑confidence. I did not retrieve the individual reference full texts from USPTO Patent Center for every one of the 36, so the element mapping is an analytical judgment, not a claim chart drawn from verified figures.

Legal framework applied

This is a post‑AIA patent: effective filing date 2014‑05‑07, actual filing 2015‑04‑30. So the applicable anticipation provisions are 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (patented/published/otherwise available before the effective filing date) and § 102(a)(2) (earlier‑filed, later‑published U.S. patents/applications). For a reference to anticipate a claim under § 102, it must disclose every limitation, arranged as in the claim (single‑reference rule).

Structural note on the claim set (from the record): claim 1 is the only independent apparatus claim; claims 2–11 depend from it. Claim 12 is the independent method claim (assembling the claim‑1 goggle); claim 13 depends from claim 12. Anticipation of claim 1 would flow to dependent claims only if the reference also supplies the dependent limitation.

Tier 1 — Most relevant references

1. US 4,689,838 A — "Goggles with interchangeable lenses"

• Assignee: Optyl Eyewear Fashion International Corp. Inventors: Angermann, Hiebl.
• Priority/filing: 1985‑02‑21; published/granted 1987‑09‑01. Expired.
• Description (verified): Flexible goggle frame with a rigid frame secured to its periphery. The rigid frame has a channel adjacent the upper and lower edges that is open near the temple area; each lens carries a peripheral flange that slides into the channel, and a rigid grip/handle on the lens locks the lens into the channel. Explicitly framed as "interchangeable lens" goggles.
• § 102 relevance: This is the closest single reference on the frame‑with‑continuous‑channel‑receiving‑a‑lens‑flange concept underlying claim 1 element (A) (ridge/groove receiving the lens periphery), and it directly addresses interchangeable lenses. However, it discloses no adaptor and no "second lens receiving portion," so it cannot anticipate claim 1 or claim 12. Its realistic value is as § 103 art against the frame/groove sub‑elements, and as background for claims 1, 6 (ridge/groove geometry).

2. US 5,410,763 A — "Eyeshield with detachable components"

• Assignee: Etablissements Bolle. Inventor: Mugnier.
• Priority/filing: 1993‑02‑11; granted 1995‑05‑02. Expired.
• Description (verified): Detachable lens held to the frame by cooperating notches on the lens with slots and brackets on the frame; the lens edges insert into side slots (20) in the frame; ventilation gap maintained between lens and frame; a rotatable strap connector; and an optional inner eyeglass frame that clips into the eyeshield.
• § 102 relevance: Relevant to detachable lens + frame slot retention (claim 1 element A/B framing and claim 6's "groove"), and the optional auxiliary inner eyeglass frame is conceptually adjacent to "a second lens‑holding structure inside the goggle." But the retention is by notches/slots/brackets, not an adaptor whose rib seats in the lens groove, and there is no "attachment portion … rib distal to a second lens receiving portion." Does not anticipate claim 1/12. § 103 art.

3. US 8,458,823 B2 (and its parent US 7,810,174 B2) — "Goggle lens interchange system"

• Inventor/Assignee: Pasquale Matera.
• Priority: 2004‑08‑30; US 8,458,823 granted 2013‑06‑11 (US 7,810,174 granted 2010‑10‑12). Both Expired‑Fee‑Related.
• Description (verified): Goggle frame with a ledge on which a lens is removably placed; front/rear frame portions that open to expose the ledge; a molded lens groove on top of foam/gasket; snap‑lock with molded rib and undercuts securing the lens; a lens may include outer/inner lenses with a gasket.
• § 102 relevance: Directly on point for goggle lens interchange and for the "first groove/ledge that receives the lens and is exposed when the lens is removed" (claim 1, the first/second‑configuration concept). The molded rib + undercut snap lock language is superficially resonant with the claimed rib, but Matera's rib is a frame locking feature, not an adaptor rib that inserts into the lens groove. No adaptor with a second lens‑receiving portion. Does not anticipate claim 1/12; strong § 103 art for the "expose the groove / swap the lens" concept and worth attention for dependent claim 9.

4. US 2014/0033408 A1 → US 8,893,314 B2 — "Sport goggle with quick release lens"

• Assignee: Dye Precision, Inc. Inventors: Currens, Chen, Wang.
• Priority/filing: 2012‑08‑03; published 2014‑02‑06; granted 2014‑11‑25. (Note: published only ~3 months before the 2014‑05‑07 priority date — squarely § 102(a)(1) art.)
• Description (verified): Sport goggle with a frame, an inner lens, and an outer lens covering the inner lens; the outer lens has engagement members projecting from its inner surface; a frame latching mechanism (button + spring member) selectively locks/unlocks the outer lens; alternative outer/inner frame members with tangs/passages; tabs on lens engage spring member.
• § 102 relevance: This is the most interesting reference for the "two‑lens / second lens carried in front of a first" concept (claims 1, 2, 9, 10 environment), but the mechanism is a push‑button spring latch, not insertion of an adaptor rib into the frame's lens groove. Does not anticipate claim 1/12. Good § 103 art for a secondary‑lens sub‑assembly and for dependent claims referencing a second lens.

5. US 8,083,344 B2 — "Protective eyewear including auxiliary lenses"

• Assignee: Revision Military Inc. Priority: 2005‑05‑17; granted 2011‑12‑27. (Related WO 2008/045317 A2, Revision Eyewear, 2006‑10‑06 / 2008‑04‑17.)
• Description (title/abstract‑based): Protective eyewear configured to carry auxiliary lenses (e.g., prescription or additional protective lenses) relative to a primary lens/frame.
• § 102 relevance: Relevant to the "second lens different from the first" concept (claim 1, and claim 2's "second groove wider than the first"). No adaptor‑with‑rib‑in‑groove disclosure. Does not anticipate claim 1/12; § 103 art.

6. US 5,809,580 A — "Multi‑sport goggle with interchangeable strap and tear‑off lens system"

• Assignee: Bausch & Lomb (Arnette). Priority/filing: 1996‑12‑20; granted 1998‑09‑22. Expired.
• Description (title/abstract‑based): Goggle with an interchangeable strap and a tear‑off lens system.
• § 102 relevance: Most relevant to dependent claim 11 (tear‑off film system attached to the lens) and as background on interchangeable goggle components. Not an adaptor; does not anticipate claim 1/12.

7. US 6,282,727 B1 — "Sports eye wear with detachable goggle members"

• Inventor: Arthur Charles Lindahl. Priority/filing: 1999‑07‑13; granted 2001‑09‑04.
• Description (title‑based): Sports eyewear whose goggle members are detachable.
• § 102 relevance: Generally relevant to the detachable‑component goggle concept (claim 1's "detachably attach"). Not an adaptor. Does not anticipate claim 1/12.

Tier 2 — Roll‑off / tear‑off film references (map primarily to claims 10 and 11)

These are relevant because claim 10 (roll‑off film system conveying a film across the second lens) and claim 11 (tear‑off film system) recite film systems, and the patent's stated commercial problem is 30 mm → 45 mm roll‑off compatibility.

Important limit: even the best of these discloses a film system attached to a lens, not the adaptor that re‑uses the frame's lens groove. A film‑system reference alone cannot anticipate claim 1 (which requires the rib‑in‑groove adaptor) and cannot anticipate claim 10/11 standing alone, because claims 10/11 depend from claim 1 and incorporate all of its limitations. Their value is element‑level (§ 103) and, for claims 10/11, as the film‑system sub‑combination.

Tier 3 — Remaining cited references (grouped; title‑based descriptions)

These are cited but are further from the claim‑1 adaptation concept. High‑level treatment:

Lens‑interchange / interchangeable‑lens eyewear: US 4,748,697 A (Hodnett, 1987‑03‑26/1988‑06‑07); US 5,163,185 A (Hodnett, 1991‑06‑21/1992‑11‑17); US 5,657,106 A (Crews, Inc., 1995‑11‑03/1997‑08‑12, corrective‑lens safety goggle); US 6,009,564 A (Oakley, 1998‑06‑24/2000‑01‑04, optically corrected goggle); US 6,601,240 B2 and US 6,611,966 B1 (Yamamoto Kogaku, both 2000‑02‑22 / 2003‑08‑05 and 2003‑09‑02); US 6,637,877 B1 (Gentex, 2002‑08‑09/2003‑10‑28); US 8,408,695 B2 (Oakley "Floating lens mounting system," 2008‑07‑03/2013‑04‑02). — Relevant to detachable/interchangeable goggle lenses; none discloses an adaptor rib seating in the frame's lens groove.

Auxiliary/outer/inner lens assemblies: US 2012/0137398 A1 (HD Inspiration, 2009‑05‑22/2012‑06‑07, "Outer lens for goggles"); US 2012/0236250 A1 (All‑Logic, 2011‑03‑16/2012‑09‑20, bilayered lens assembly); US 2012/0137414 A1 (Oakley, 2010‑12‑03/2012‑06‑07, peel‑away membrane stack). — Relevant to multi‑lens stacking and second‑lens concepts (claims 1, 2, 9).

Vented eyewear / pads: WO 2005/107667 A2 (Utopia Optics, 2004‑04‑22/2005‑11‑17, "Vented eyewear") — relevant only to claim 8 (ventilation portion/openings). US 3,946,442 A (Conort Engineering, 1971‑09‑22/1976‑03‑30, "Helmet visor") — helmet visor art, marginal. US 6,073,296 A (Bouguerfa, 1996‑09‑13/2000‑06‑13, optical protective screen). CA 2,290,295 A1 (Leader Industries, 1999‑11‑23/2001‑05‑23, sport protection eyewear).

Design patents: US D687,480 S1; US D687,881 S1; US D691,652 S1 (all Oakley, filed 2013‑01‑31/2013‑02‑28, granted 2013‑08/2013‑10). — Design patents protect ornamental appearance only; their disclosure has essentially no anticipatory value for the mechanical limitations of claim 1/12. Flagged for completeness.

⚠️ US D755,278 S1 (100% Speedlab, "Canisters for a roll off film system") — NOT prior art here. Its listed priority/filing date is 2014‑05‑13, i.e., six days after this patent's 2014‑05‑07 priority date, and it first published 2016‑05‑03. It therefore cannot be § 102(a)(1) art (not publicly available before the effective filing date) and cannot be § 102(a)(2) art (not "effectively filed" earlier). It appears in the citation list as same‑assignee/common‑family material, not as an anticipating reference. Do not treat it as prior art without checking the full prosecution record.

Claim‑by‑claim § 102 bottom line

Analyst's conclusion

1. The single most relevant prior art in the examiner's citation list is US 4,689,838 A (Optyl) for the continuous frame‑channel‑receiving‑a‑lens/flange geometry, closely followed by US 5,410,763 A (Bolle) and US 8,458,823 B2 / US 7,810,174 B2 (Matera) for detachable/interchangeable goggle lenses, and US 2014/0033408 A1 (Dye Precision) for a second lens carried in front of a first. These are the references most worth a full‑text claim chart.
2. None of the 36 cited references anticipates independent claim 1 or claim 12, because none discloses the core inventive combination: an adaptor bearing a second lens‑receiving portion and a distal rib that is inserted into the frame's own first groove (the groove that otherwise holds the first lens) to retain the adaptor. This is the element that distinguishes the patent and is also why the claims survived prosecution (notice of allowance mailed 2019‑03‑18).
3. The references are far more useful as § 103 obviousness art (e.g., Optyl/Bolle groove geometry + Dye Precision second‑lens + a film system) than as § 102 anticipation.
4. Two flags to carry forward: (a) US D755,278 S1 is not § 102 prior art given its post‑priority filing date; (b) the design patents (D687,480 / D687,881 / D691,652) have negligible anticipatory value for these mechanical claims.
5. Confidence statement: descriptions for Optyl, Bolle, Matera, and Dye Precision are verified against live sources; the Tier‑2/Tier‑3 characterizations are drawn from titles/dates in the patent record and my background knowledge, so treat those element mappings as preliminary and confirm against the reference full texts before relying on them in any validity or infringement opinion.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references cited on the patent's face. Let me pull details on the most structurally relevant ones.

Let me ground the remaining key references cited on the patent's face.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,342,704 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note / rule compliance. This analysis uses the 36 references listed in the "Citations" (prior-art) section of the patent page, as instructed. Where I retrieved full text or detailed abstracts I say so; where I am working only from a title in the citation table I flag it explicitly. I do not auto-correct any reference number. Per the prior sections, I treat US 10,342,704 as Expired – Fee Related (maintenance-fee lapse Aug. 14, 2023), which matters for the infringement narrative but not for the § 103 merits.

1. Governing framework

Because the application was filed April 30, 2015 (effective filing date May 7, 2014), the AIA version of § 103 applies. The inquiry follows Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations) as refined by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007). KSR supplies the operative rationales I rely on:

• Combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result;
• Use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way;
• "Obvious to try" where there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions and a design need or market pressure.

PHOSITA (proposed): a mechanical designer with ~2–4 years of experience in sport-goggle/eyewear design, familiar with interchangeable-lens and film-system (roll-off/tear-off) goggles, injection-molded polycarbonate frames, and elastomeric gaskets. This person would know both the "lens-in-groove" retention convention and the "auxiliary/insert lens" convention.

Critical claim-construction observation. Claim 1's inventive core is narrow. It recites that the same first groove that holds the original lens is used, in a second configuration, to receive a rib of a detachable adaptor. The claim uses "the first groove" in the second configuration — i.e., the identical socket. That is a re-use of an existing structure for a second mounting function, not a new structure. Re-use of a groove as a socket for an inserted flange/rib is a classic predictable-result variation and is squarely within KSR.

2. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping to the cited art

Bottom line on claim 1: Every structural element except the "dual-use groove" linkage appears, individually, in the cited art. The remaining question is whether the dual-use linkage would have been obvious. Under KSR it would, for the reasons in § 3.

3. The obviousness combinations

Combination A (primary): Optyl '838 + Revision '344

Optyl '838 discloses a goggle frame with a rigid frame member having a channel (a groove-like continuous recess) that slidably and removably receives a lens peripheral flange, plus vents and a face-sealing flexible frame. This is the "frame-with-groove + insertable lens" teaching.

Revision '344 (and the analogous Crews '106 / Oakley '564 auxiliary-lens disclosures) teaches the auxiliary insert concept: a secondary lens-carrying member detachably mounted to a primary eyewear frame so the wearer can change the optical characteristic without replacing the frame.

Motivation to combine (explicit, not hindsight):

1. The '704 Background itself frames the problem: a goggle is "compatible with a specific type of lens or accessories," e.g., a 30 mm roll-off film, and "the user would have to purchase another goggle… if the user wishes to use the 45 mm roll-off film." The stated goal — adapt one frame to different lenses/accessories — is the precise objective the combination achieves. A reference's own stated problem is the archetypal KSR motivation.
2. Both references are in the same field (eyewear/goggles) and the same functional space (removable lens retention).
3. Substituting the auxiliary insert's carrier for the primary lens in Optyl's existing channel is a simple substitution of one known element for another with a predictable result: the insert seats where the lens sat.
4. The art already treats the frame channel as a generic peripheral retainer for a flanged member (Optyl's lens flange), and Revision/Crews show the desirability of a secondary carrier. Putting a flanged secondary carrier in the channel is the predictable mechanical expedient — no new mechanism required.

Combination B (alternative): Oakley '695 + Crews '106 + Bausch & Lomb '580

• Oakley '695 supplies the ridge/groove with opposing banks/retention profiles limitation with unusual precision: the groove "defin[es] opposing banks and a bed disposed intermediate the opposing banks," and a member can be "seated within the lens mounting area." It also teaches the open/retaining-position concept (structural reconfiguration of the socket), which maps to the claim's "first configuration / second configuration."
• Crews '106 supplies the corrective/auxiliary-lens mounted in a goggle concept (a second lens system carried by the goggle).
• Bausch & Lomb '580 supplies the tear-off/roll-off film system and the "interchangeable" accessory concept — directly feeding claims 10–11.

Motivation: Oakley '695's own express purpose is to allow rapid lens interchange while retaining the lens; combining an interchange-friendly groove with a known auxiliary-lens carrier is the natural next step. KSR's "known technique to improve a similar device in the same way."

Combination C (secondary/back-up): Yamamoto '666 + Matera '823 + Oakley '564

• Yamamoto '666 teaches a goggle frame with a lens fitting edge into which the lens is detachably fitted, plus a face-abutment section and peripheral wall — i.e., a complete goggle-frame/environment into which an insert is placed.
• Matera '823 (Goggle lens interchange system) and Oakley '564 (Optically corrected goggle, prescription insert) teach interchanging lenses and inserting a prescription/corrective element into a goggle.

This combination reinforces that (i) goggles were known to accept removable/secondary lenses, and (ii) the reason to do so was optical/functional flexibility — exactly the '704 rationale.

4. Why the "re-use the same groove" feature is obvious

This is the feature a patentee would argue supplies the inventive step. It fails under KSR for four reasons:

1. Predictable result. A groove sized to receive a peripheral lens edge will likewise receive a peripheral rib of similar cross-section. Claim 5 essentially concedes this: it requires the rib thickness to correspond to the first-lens thickness and the groove width to be "substantially similar." That is the functional necessity of seating in the same socket — a design constraint, not an invention. The claim thus recites the very sizing that makes the dual use work.
2. Finite, predictable solutions. Given a frame with one lens groove and a desire to retrofit an adaptor, the designer has essentially two choices: add a new mounting feature, or re-use the existing groove. Re-use is the lower-cost, lower-part-count option — exactly the "adaptability/cost efficiency" the '704 Summary touts.
3. Design pressure. The Background's 30 mm → 45 mm problem pressures the designer toward a solution that does not require a new frame. Re-using the groove is the most direct answer.
4. No unexpected result. The specification describes the retention as ordinary mechanical nesting (rib 606 in groove 304; V-shaped recess 608 hooking ridge 302). Nothing in the record sets up a surprising performance property attributable to dual use.

5. Dependent claims 2–11

None of claims 2–11 recites a structural or functional departure from routine design; each is either expressly disclosed or an obvious sizing/geometry variation to make the adaptor accept a larger lens/film.

6. Method claims 12–13

Claim 12 incorporates claim 1 by reference and adds only the attaching step. A method of assembling an apparatus is obvious when the apparatus is obvious and the step is the necessary assembly step. Claim 13 adds (a) removing the original lens and (b) attaching an accessory — the exact workflow the Background and Optyl/Revision/Roll-off references already motivate (remove lens, add secondary element/accessory). Both fall with the apparatus claims.

7. Anticipated patentee rebuttals and why they are weak

• "The prior art doesn't teach using the same groove." True as a literal matter for any single reference, but that is precisely a combination question, answered by the design pressure the '704 Background describes and by KSR's predictable-result rationale. Claim 5's own sizing limitation undercuts the argument.
• Teaching away. Nothing in Optyl '838, Oakley '695, or the auxiliary-lens references disparages seating a non-lens element in the lens groove. Oakley '695's concern for lens optical preservation relates to lens distortion, not to what may occupy the groove.
• Secondary considerations. No evidence of record (in the materials available) ties commercial success to the claim's specific dual-use groove. Note the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees (Aug. 14, 2023, per the Google Patents legal-events table), which tends to undercut a durable commercial-success/nexus narrative. Any presumption of nexus would still require proof that the success is attributable to the claimed feature rather than to the film systems or branding.
• Unexpected results. The specification attributes no surprising property to the dual-use groove; the described retention (nesting/hooking) is routine.

8. Caveats and items I could not fully verify

1. Full text not retrieved for several references. US 8,083,344 (Revision '344), US 5,657,106 (Crews), US 6,009,564 (Oakley), US 8,458,823 (Matera), US 6,282,727 (Lindahl), and US 5,809,580 (Bausch & Lomb) are characterized here from their titles/abstracts as listed in the patent's own citation table. Their titles are self-describing and sufficient for a motivation-to-combine sketch, but a rigorous § 103 chart should quote their disclosures (especially Revision '344's attachment mechanism) before being relied upon in a validity opinion.
2. Oakley '695 is post-KSR and expressly about lens retention, and I retrieved its full text; it is the strongest single structural reference for the "ridge/groove with banks" and "seating within the lens mounting area" limitations.
3. One additional candidate not on the patent's face. Oakley's Eyewear having removably attached eyewear attachment family (WO 2014/036274, published 2014-03-06; EP 2 890 341 B1) discloses a subframe attachment with a retention member that removably attaches to eyewear while the eyewear is worn. WO '274 published before the '704 May 7, 2014 priority date and is arguably closer to the "detachably attach an adaptor" concept than any reference in the citation table. I flag it because it is not among the 36 cited references, so any reliance on it would require confirming its status as § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art.
4. I did not independently confirm the current maintenance-fee/reinstatement status in USPTO Patent Center; the expiry finding remains on the authority of the Google Patents legal-events table, as noted in the prior sections.
5. No litigation or PTAB validity challenge to US 10,342,704 was found in the prior section's searches; therefore there is no issue-preclusion or estoppel record to inform this analysis.

9. Conclusion

US 10,342,704 claim 1 would likely have been obvious under § 103 over a combination such as Optyl US 4,689,838 + Revision US 8,083,344 (with Crews US 5,657,106 and/or Oakley US 6,009,564 as cumulative auxiliary-lens teachings), or alternatively over Oakley US 8,408,695 + Crews US 5,657,106 + Bausch & Lomb US 5,809,580. The motivating problem is stated in the patent's own Background (30 mm vs. 45 mm roll-off compatibility and the cost of buying a second goggle), the structural elements are individually known, and re-using the frame's existing lens groove as the adaptor's socket is a predictable, low-part-count solution of the type KSR holds unpatentable. Dependent claims 2–11 add only routine geometry, conventional ventilation, and well-known roll-off/tear-off film systems, and method claims 12–13 add only the necessary assembly steps. The strongest residual patentee argument (that no single reference teaches the same groove serving both the lens and the adaptor rib) is a combination argument that the design pressure and claim 5's own sizing limitation defeat.