Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102b as being anticipated by Metcalf US 1,568,900 (“Metcalf”).
As per claim 5, Metcalf discloses a visual aid device (eye glass)(Fig. 1; page 1, lines 29-66) comprising: a frame from eyewear (eye glass frame 1)(Fig. 1; page 1:29-35) without lenses configured to mount in front of a user's eyes (celluloid shades 3 and 4, each, mount to the frame)(Fig. 1; 1:35-42);one or more opaque upper portions disposed to cover and block a user's upper peripheral vision along and above a lower edge of the one or more opaque upper portions (construed as an upper portion of any celluloid shades 3 and/or 4)(Fig. 1; note the examiner’s markings hereinafter); and one or more opaque lower portions disposed (construed as an lower portion of any celluloid shades 3 and/or 4)(Fig. 1; and markings) to cover and block a user's lower peripheral vision wherein the lower edge of the opaque upper portions is disposed spaced from the upper edge of the opaque lower portions to define a tunnel vision field of view therebetween (the celluloid shades placed upon the glass and forming opening 6 for user’s view)(Fig. 1; 1:43-56); and the visual aid device sized and shaped to fit a user's face when a user is looking directly forward (Fig. 1 in conjunction to1:43-66, the aperture and the celluloid shades to provide shade while a user uses the eye glass; e.g. 1:44+ ”section 5 which projects beyond the plane of the shade so as to provide an opening 6 shaped as a segment of a circle above the section 7 which is preferably flat and prevents the reflection from the ground from striking the eye while the portion 5 prevents the rays coming from above from striking the eye.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
837
1109
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 10, Metcalf discloses further comprising at least one temple configured to fit the visual aide device to a user's head (suitable bows 2)(Fig. 1; 1:29-34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant discussed the reference to Metcalf and concluded “Thus, the Applicant’s invention claiming opaque upper portions 20 above a transparent region 22 and opaque lower portions 18 below the transparent region 22 are not anticipated by Metcalf that claims an upper portion (part above the cut) and a lower portion (the lower part of the disk below the cut) made of translucent material.” (page 15 of his remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees and further asserts that applicant is taking out of context what is that the examiner relied upon the teachings of Metcalf relevant to applicant’s claimed subject matter.
First, as applicant pointed out, Metcalf’s elements 3 and 4 (which the examiner construed as the equivalent to the claimed “upper and lower opaque portions”) are “shade material” (e.g., Metcalf, page 1, lines 9-42). The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term “shade” as---comparative darkness or obscurity produced when something blocks the light of the sun--.
Thus, Metcalf’s shades 3 and 4 (as shown for example in Fig. 1) are clearly dark, shady, obscure, opaque, portions that are “one or more opaque upper portions disposed to cover and block a user's upper peripheral vision” and “one or more opaque lower portions disposed to cover and block a user's lower peripheral vision”, as claimed.
Second, attention to Metcalf’ page 1, lines 9-21 ”This invention relates to eye shades and 0 has for an object to provide a construction which may be used alone or in connection with eye glasses and when in use will shield he eye against certain rays of the sun. Another object of the invention is to provide an eye shade wherein means are presented which will shade the eye while openings are provided permitting the circulation of air and for permitting the eye to observe objects without looking through the shade. “
Accordingly, Metcalf discloses and teaches a visual aid, that includes all the claimed limitations, and contradicting to applicant’s assertions, Metcalf anticipated the device of claim 1, as set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 12/9/2025
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711