DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the RCE filed July 29, 2025 in which claims 16-19 are presented for examination, claims 20-31 are withdrawn, and claims 1-15 are canceled.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
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the support" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 6-7 recite the limitation “the plurality of spring tabs are disposed in the eye to clip the temple front portion into the eye.” However, for further clarity, it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to include language such as “configured to be,” “adapted to be,” or “removably.” For example, “the plurality of spring tabs are configured to be disposed in the eye to clip the temple front portion into the eye” or “the plurality of spring tabs are removably disposed in the eye to clip the temple front portion into the eye.”
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8 includes the typographical error “portion-between.” The hyphen should be removed.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “…and secures the temple front portion in the parking position” (line 15). However, for further clarity, this limitation should be amended to recite, for example, “…and to secure the temple front portion in the parking position.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 “the spring arm comprising a securing projection extending away from a base plane that is parallel or identical to a plane defined by the eye in a relaxed position” (lines 3-5). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to what element the phrase “a relaxed position” refers? For example, is the limitation reciting a relaxed position of the spring arm, a relaxed position of the securing projection, or a relaxed position of the eye? For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as reciting “the spring arm comprising a securing projection extending away from a base plane that is parallel or identical to a plane defined by the eye in a relaxed position of the spring arm.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a protrusion disposed on an intermediate portion” (line 14). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to what the phrase “intermediate portion” refers (i.e., an intermediate portion of what)? For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as reciting “a protrusion disposed on an intermediate portion of the temple front portion.”
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a base plane which is parallel or identical to a plane defined by the eye in a relaxed position” (lines 2-3). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because claim 16, from which claim 17 depends previously recites “a base plane that is parallel or identical to a plane defined by the eye in a relaxed position.” It is unclear whether the limitations in claim 17 are intended to refer to the same or different base plane, plane, and relaxed position as those recited in claim 16? For purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 17 will be interpreted as reciting “the base plane which is parallel or identical to the plane defined by the eye in the relaxed position.”
Claim 18 recites the limitations “wherein the securing projection extends away non-parallel from the spring arm and securing the temple front portion in the parking position is disposed on the spring arm” (lines 2-4). The meaning of these limitations is not understood and upon information and belief is the result of drafting error(s). For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as reciting “wherein the securing projection extends away non-parallel from the spring arm.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the securing projection securing the temple front portion in the parking position on the spring arm” (lines 3-4). This limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because of the phrase “on the spring arm.” It is not understood what is meant by the securing projection being configured to secure the temple front portion in the parking position on the spring arm? Upon information and belief, the “the parking position” is a configuration of the device and not a location on the device. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as reciting “the securing projection being configured to be secure the temple front portion in the parking position.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claims 16-19 are rejected, insofar as definite and as best understood by the Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 6,863,396 Chen.
To claim 16, Chen discloses a support assembly for a temple front portion (see Figures 1-2 reproduced below for convenience; col. 1, lines 10-56), the support assembly comprising:
the support (12) comprising an eye (123) and a spring arm (124) (see Figures 1-2; col. 1, lines 10-28), the spring arm comprising a securing projection (distal tip of spring arm 124) extending away from a base plane that is parallel or identical to a plane defined by the eye in a relaxed position of the spring arm (as depicted in annotated Figure 2, see below, inasmuch as currently claimed, the support assembly of Chen reads on both the limitation that the securing projection extends away from a base plane that is “identical to a plane defined by the eye” as well as the far-broader limitation that the securing projection extends away from a base plane “parallel … to a plane defined the eye”),
a plurality of spring tabs provided on the temple front portion (see Figures 1-2; col. 1, lines 29-44; projection 143 is defined by two spring tabs), the plurality of spring tabs are removably disposed in the eye to clip the temple front portion into the eye (see Figures 1-2; col. 1, lines 29-44), the spring tabs are configured to rotate relative to the eye to pivot the temple front portion between a work position and a parking position (see Figures 1-2; col. 1, lines 10-28); and
wherein the spring is configured to be biased by a spring force responsive to a protrusion (areas between slots 144) disposed on an intermediate portion (it is respectfully noted that the term “portion” is very broad) of the temple front portion during a pivoting movement of the temple front portion and to secure the temple front portion in the parking position (see Figures 1-2; col. 1, lines 10-28; although Chen would properly anticipate the protrusion and intermediate portion if they were positively claimed, it is respectfully noted that the limitation “wherein the spring is configured to be biased by a spring force responsive to a protrusion disposed on an intermediate portion of the temple front portion during a pivoting movement of the temple front portion and to secure the temple front portion in the parking position” is functionally claimed and not positively claimed, and that to read on claim 16, it is therefore not necessary that Chen explicitly disclose either a protrusion or an intermediate portion of the temple front portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
927
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
908
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
To claim 17, Chen further discloses a support assembly wherein the spring arm lies in the base plane which is parallel or identical to the plane defined by the eye in the relaxed position, and in that the spring arm leaves the base plane during the pivoting movement (see Figures 1-2; col. 1, lines 10-28).
To claim 18, Chen further discloses a support assembly wherein the securing projection extends away non-parallel from the spring arm (see Figures 1-2; col. 1, lines 10-28).
To claim 19, Chen further discloses a support assembly wherein the securing projection extends away non-parallel from the spring arm, the securing projection being configured to securing the temple front portion in the parking position (see Figures 1-2; col. 1, lines 10-28).
Conclusion
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