DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed December 16, 2025 in which claims 16-19 are presented for examination, claims 20-31 are withdrawn, and claims 1-15 are canceled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s First Argument: Objection to claim 16 for informalities should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to claim 16.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although current amendments to claim 16 overcome the basis of objection to claim 16 detailed in the prior office action, current amendments to claim 16 have resulted in an updated basis of objection for informalities (see Claim Objections, above).
Applicant’s Second Argument: Rejection of claims 16-19 under 35 USC 112 should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although current amendments to the claims overcome the bases of rejection under 35 USC 112(b) detailed in the prior office action, current amendments to the claims have resulted in rejections to the claims under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) (see rejections under 35 USC 112, below).
Applicant’s Third Argument: Rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 over USPN 6,863,696 Chen should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. The rejection is withdrawn.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the amended claim limitation “a notional plane.” It is respectfully suggested that this objection may be obviated by amending claim 16 to merely recite “a plane.” No new matter should be entered.
Claim Interpretation
As confirmed in Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed December 16, 2025 (see page 8 of 9 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed December 16, 2025), it is respectfully noted that claims 16-19 now positively recite a temple front portion and all of its constituent parts (e.g., a plurality of spring tabs and a protrusion) as forming a part of the claimed “support assembly for a temple front portion.” The temple front portion and all of its constituent parts are no longer merely functionally recited in claims 16-19.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites the limitation “the spring tabs” (line 9). However, for purposes of proper antecedent basis, this limitation should be amended to recite “the plurality of spring tabs.”
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites the limitation “projection-securing” (line 3). This limitation should be amended to remove the hyphen between the words “projection” and “securing.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a notional plane” (lines 4-5). This limitation constitutes new matter because it was not present in the disclosure as originally filed. It is respectfully suggested that this rejection may be obviated by amending this limitation to merely recite “a plane.”
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 16-19 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a notional plane” (lines 4-5). This limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because it is not described in disclosure and because the meaning of the word “notional” is not understood in this context. It is respectfully suggested that this rejection may be obviated by amending this limitation to merely recite “a plane.”
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein the spring arm lies in a base plane which is parallel or identical to a plane defined by the eye in the relaxed position” (lines 2-3). This limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because it is unclear how “a base plane” in claim 17 relates the to “a base plane” as recited on line 4 of claim 16 and it is unclear how “a plane” in claim 17 relates to “a notional plane” as recited on lines 4-5 of claim 16. For purposes of examination, the limitation on lines 2-3 of claim 17 will be interpreted as reciting “wherein the spring arm lies in the base plane which is parallel or identical to the plane defined by the eye when the eye is in the relaxed position.”
Claim 19 recites the limitations “wherein the securing projection extends away non-parallel from the spring arm, the securing projection-securing the temple front portion in the parking position on the spring arm is configured to secure the temple front portion in the parking position” (lines 1-4). These limitations render the claim indefinite at least because the meaning of the phrase “is configured to secure the temple front portion in the parking position” on lines 3-4 is not understood and appears to be redundant in view of the phrase “the securing projection-securing the temple front portion in the parking position on the spring arm” on lines 2-3 and/or the result of drafting errors. For purposes of examination, the limitations in claim 19 will be interpreted as reciting “wherein the securing projection extends away non-parallel from the spring arm, the securing projection being configured to secure the temple front portion in the parking position on the spring arm.”
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 are currently free from prior art-based rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 but remain subject to the claim objections for informalities and rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b), detailed above. It is further respectfully noted that any further amendments to claim(s) 16-19 other than to address the claim objections for informalities and rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) (e.g., to broaden the scope of independent claim 16) may result in prior art-based rejection(s) under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 in future office action(s).
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-31 are currently withdrawn from consideration pursuant to the Requirement for Restriction mailed February 12, 2024. In any response to this office action, Applicant is required to either cancel claims 20-31 or amend claims 20-31 to include each and every limitation as recited in claim 16 in independent form. If Applicant chooses not to cancel claims 20-31, those claims will become subject to possible claim objections for informalities and/or claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b). It is further respectfully noted that a brief review of claim 20 reveals that claim 20 is replete with indefiniteness. As one example, claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein a securing projection extends non-parallel away from a spring arm and securing the temple front portion in the parking position is disposed on the spring arm” (lines 3-4). This limitation renders claim 20 indefinite at least because the meaning of the phrase “and securing the temple front portion in the parking position is disposed on the spring arm” is not understood (i.e., how can “securing the temple front portion in the parking position” be “disposed” on the spring arm when “securing the temple front portion in the parking position” appears to recite a function rather than a structural element). As a second example of indefiniteness in claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the temple front portion is provided with spring tabs via which it can be clipped into the lug of the support” (lines 5-6). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because “the lug” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear to which, if any, previously recited limitation it refers. It is respectfully noted that those two examples are merely exemplary and that claim 20 includes additional instances of indefiniteness which would result in rejection under 35 USC 112(b) if claims 20-31 are not canceled. Claims 21-30 have not been reviewed at this time in view of their possible future cancelation. It is further respectfully noted that examination of claims 20-31 for claim objections for informalities and claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) will likely not be possible under after final practice and may require the filing of a request for continued examination.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
