DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 2/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed in the interview held on 1/27/2026 and the Interview Summary mailed 2/5/2026, reference Chiang discloses the one-piece seamless shell structure (Chiang fig. 1 – 125 which houses 144) is a tube-shaped temple (Chiang fig. 1 – 125 housing 144 is tube-shaped), and the shell walls are a single integral piece (Chiang fig. 1 – 125 housing 144 is a single integral piece surrounding 140 which fits into the hollow 120) to support internal components between a proximal end and a distal end (Chiang fig. 1-2 – 125 housing 144 includes hollow 140 as shown in fig. 2 which supports internal components 164 and 162). 125 of Chiang houses internal wall 144 and attaches to 124 similarly to how 20L and 20R attach to 10L and 10R respectively in instant figure 1 to make a pair of spectacles – 125 is a tubular one-piece seamless shell, and 144 is the internal wall of the seamless shell, see the annotated Chiang figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
625
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Moore also discloses a one-piece seamless shell structure, as paragraph 0054 of the Moore specification states that 222a and 222b which form 222 may be considered portions of the temple rather than separate parts with a hinge 224, see also the annotated Moore figure 2 below. Moore further discloses the one-piece seamless shell structure is a tube-shaped temple (Moore fig. 2 – 222 is tube-shaped and encloses a hollow compartment), and the shell walls (218) are a single integral piece (Moore fig. 2 – 218 is a single piece where 222a and 222b may be portions of 222 rather than hinged as described in para. 0054) to support internal components between a proximal end and a distal end of the tube-shaped temple (Moore para. 0055-0056 – 222a of 222 supports at least 240 and 242). Figure 4 of Moore also shows the invention with hinge 424, which would be seamless if 424 were removed.
PNG
media_image2.png
348
665
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Even if 125 of Chiang were not a seamless shell, making temple parts integral to form a one-piece seamless shell would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson 144 USPQ 347, 349, (CCPA 1965).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore et. al US 20190198982 (hereinafter “Moore”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Moore teaches a temple pre-form (Moore fig. 1-6, see also para. 0052, 0059, 0070) for constructing a smart glasses temple (Moore fig. 2 - 218), the temple pre-form comprising:
a one-piece seamless shell structure having shell walls (Moore fig. 2 – 218 including 222, 222a, and 222b) enclosing a hollow compartment (Moore fig. 2 – 222, see also para. 0053), the one-piece seamless shell structure is a tube-shaped temple (Moore fig. 2 – 222 is tube-shaped and encloses a hollow compartment), and the shell walls (218) are a single integral piece (Moore fig. 2 – 218 is a single piece where 222a and 222b may be portions of 222 rather than hinged as described in para. 0054) to support internal components between a proximal end and a distal end of the tube-shaped temple (Moore para. 0055-0056 – 222a of 222 supports at least 240 and 242); and
an opening (Moore fig. 2 - 236) at one end of the one-piece seamless shell structure providing physical access to an inside volume of the hollow compartment (Moore para. 0053), wherein the opening at one end (236) is at the proximal end that is configured to be affixed to a smart glasses frame (Moore fig. 4A – 406, see also para. 0070) such that the opening at one end is covered by the smart glasses frame (Moore fig. 2 – 236 is covered by 220),
wherein the shell walls enclosing the hollow compartment include one or more apertures (Moore fig. 2 – 236, 240) adapted to provide an externally accessible interface to a smart glasses component held in the hollow compartment (Moore para. 0053 and 0055).
Regarding claim 2, Moore teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1, and Moore further teaches
wherein the shell walls enclosing the hollow compartment are made of injection molded or compression molded thermoplastic materials (Moore para. 0078).
Regarding claim 4, Moore teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1, and Moore further teaches wherein the hollow compartment has a cylindrical shape with a rectangular, a square, a trapezoidal, an oval, or a circular cross-section (Moore fig. 2 - cylindrical shape with rectangular cross-section).
Regarding claim 7, Moore teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1, and Moore further teaches wherein the hollow compartment is adapted to receive and hold a smart glasses component received through the opening (236), the smart glasses component comprising at least one of a speaker, a microphone, an audio mesh, an on-off button, an optical window, a laser, a battery, a sensor, or heat spreader (Moore para. 0055-0058 and para. 0063).
Regarding claim 8, Moore teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1, and Moore further teaches wherein the smart glasses component comprising at least one of a speaker, a microphone, an on-off button, or an optical window (Moore fig. 3 – 340, see also para. 0063).
Regarding claim 11, Moore teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1, and Moore further teaches wherein the one-piece seamless shell structure includes a substantially straight temple section and a temple bend section, the substantially straight temple section extending from the opening toward and transitioning into, the temple bend section, the substantially straight temple section being adapted to rest on an ear of a person and the temple bend section being adapted to be curved behind the ear of the person (see annotated Moore fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
376
837
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Moore teaches the temple pre-form of claim 11, and Moore further teaches wherein the substantially straight temple section includes the hollow compartment (Moore fig. 2 includes aperture 236 allows components to be placed within eyewear through it, see also para. 0053).
Regarding claim 13, Moore teaches the temple pre-form of claim 11, and Moore further teaches wherein the temple bend section includes a core wire (Moore fig. 2 - 242) embedded in plastic or epoxy material filling a body volume of the temple bend section (see Moore para. 0056 and para. 0078).
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiang US 20120140321 (hereinafter “Chiang”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Chiang teaches a temple pre-form (Chiang fig. 1 – 125) for constructing a smart glasses temple, the temple pre-form (125) comprising:
a one-piece seamless shell structure having shell walls (Chiang fig. 2 – 125 which houses internal surface 144) enclosing a hollow compartment (Chiang fig. 2 – 125 includes 144 which surrounds 140, see also para. 0016), the one-piece seamless shell structure (144) is a tube-shaped temple (Chiang fig. 1 – 125 housing 144 is tube-shaped), and the shell walls are a single integral piece (Chiang fig. 1 – 125 which houses 144 is a single integral piece surrounding 140 via 144 which fits into the hollow 120, see also annotated Chiang fig. 1 below) to support internal components between a proximal end and a distal end (Chiang fig. 1-2 – 125 which houses 144 includes hollow 140 as shown in fig. 2 which supports internal components 164 and 162, see also para. 0016-0018); and
PNG
media_image1.png
625
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an opening (Chiang fig. 2 – 140 at the proximal end to form a full cavity with 120 of 124) at one end of the one-piece seamless shell structure (144) providing physical access to an inside volume of the hollow compartment (Chiang para. 0014), wherein the opening (140) at one end is at the proximal end that is configured to be affixed to a smart glasses frame (Chiang fig. 2 – 144 housing 140 is inserted into 124 which houses 120, see also para. 0014) such that the opening at one end is covered by the smart glasses frame (Chiang para. 0014),
wherein the shell walls (144) enclosing the hollow compartment (140) include one or more apertures (Chiang fig. 1-2 - 1440) adapted to provide an externally accessible interface to a smart glasses component held in the hollow compartment (Chiang para. 0016).
Regarding claim 4, Chiang teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1, and Chiang further teaches wherein the hollow compartment (140) has a cylindrical shape with a rectangular, a square, a trapezoidal, an oval, or a circular cross-section (Chiang fig. 1-2 – square or rectangular shape with rectangular cross-section).
Regarding claim 7, Chiang teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1, and Chiang further teaches wherein the hollow compartment (140) is adapted to receive and hold a smart glasses component received through the opening (Chiang para. 0018), the smart glasses component comprising at least one of a speaker, a microphone, an audio mesh, an on-off button, an optical window, a laser, a battery, a sensor, or a heat spreader (Chiang fig. 2 – 162 and 164, see also para. 0015-0018).
Regarding claim 8, Chiang teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1, and Chiang further teaches wherein the smart glasses component comprising at least one of a speaker, a microphone, an on-off button, or an optical window (Chiang fig. 2 – 162, see also para. 0020).
Regarding claim 11, Chiang teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1, and Chiang further teaches
wherein the one-piece seamless shell structure includes a substantially straight temple section and a temple bend section, the substantially straight temple section extending from the opening toward and transitioning into, the temple bend section, the substantially straight temple section being adapted to rest on an ear of a person and the temple bend section being adapted to be curved behind the ear of the person (see annotated Chiang fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
620
896
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Chiang teaches the temple pre-form of claim 11, and Chiang further teaches wherein the substantially straight temple section includes the hollow compartment (Chiang fig. 2 – 144 is included in the substantially straight section of 125).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3, 5-6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (as cited above).
Regarding claim 3, Moore teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1.
Moore does not specifically teach the shell walls enclosing the hollow compartment have a thickness of less than about 1.0 mm.
However, given that the hollow compartment is within eyeglasses temples, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the shell walls enclosing the hollow compartment have a thickness of less than about 1.0 mm, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Regarding claim 5, Moore teaches the temple pre-form of claim 4.
Moore does not specifically teach the hollow compartment has a length between about 60 mm and 100 mm, a width perpendicular to the length equal to or less than about 10 mm, and a height perpendicular to the width and length equal to or less than about 20 mm.
However, since the hollow compartment is within eyeglasses temples, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the hollow compartment has a length between about 60 mm and 100 mm, a width perpendicular to the length equal to or less than about 10 mm, and a height perpendicular to the width and length equal to or less than about 20 mm, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Regarding claim 6, Moore teaches the temple pre-form of claim 5, and Moore further teaches wherein the hollow compartment has a rectangular cross-section perpendicular to the length (Moore fig. 2 - the rectangular cross-section is perpendicular to the length of the temple).
Regarding claim 14, Moore teaches the temple pre-form of claim 11.
Moore does not specifically teach wherein the core wire is made of one of stainless steel, titanium, a metal, or a metal alloy, but Moore does teach a core wire (242) used for communication with a radio, which would have to be made of metal in order to conduct electricity, thus making it inherent to the structure of the device.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use electric wires made of metal to conduct electricity, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (as cited above) in view of Lim et. al US 20150338652 (hereinafter “Lim”) of record.
Regarding claim 9, Moore teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1.
Moore does not specifically teach the temple pre-form further comprising: a structure protruding from the hollow compartment through a surface of the temple pre-form, the structure including an optical window through which light is received in, or exits, the hollow compartment.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches the temple pre-form further comprising: a structure protruding from the hollow compartment through a surface of the temple pre-form (Lim fig. 2 - 280 extends from the temple), the structure including an optical window through which light is received in, or exits, the hollow compartment (Lim fig. 2 - 255_3, see also para. 0087) for the purpose of scanning the emitted infrared light on a virtual image output of a display unit (Lim para. 0087 and 0089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an optical window on a smart glasses temple for the purpose of creating a virtual image.
Regarding claim 10, Moore and Lim teach the temple pre-form of claim 9, and Lim further teaches the optical window (Lim 255_3).
Moore and Lim do not specifically teach a flat screen element having a thickness of about one millimeter or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have is a flat screen element having a thickness of about one millimeter or less, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Claims 3, 5-6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (as cited above).
Regarding claim 3, Chiang teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1.
Chiang does not specifically teach the shell walls enclosing the hollow compartment have a thickness of less than about 1.0 mm.
However, given that the hollow compartment is within eyeglasses temples, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the shell walls enclosing the hollow compartment have a thickness of less than about 1.0 mm, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Regarding claim 5, Chiang teaches the temple pre-form of claim 4.
Chiang does not specifically teach the hollow compartment has a length between about 60 mm and 100 mm, a width perpendicular to the length equal to or less than about 10 mm, and a height perpendicular to the width and length equal to or less than about 20 mm.
However, since the hollow compartment is within eyeglasses temples, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the hollow compartment has a length between about 60 mm and 100 mm, a width perpendicular to the length equal to or less than about 10 mm, and a height perpendicular to the width and length equal to or less than about 20 mm, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Regarding claim 6, Chiang teaches the temple pre-form of claim 5, and Chiang further teaches wherein the hollow compartment has a rectangular cross-section perpendicular to the length (Chiang fig. 1-2 – 144 is inserted into 120 which has a rectangular cross-section perpendicular to the length, fig. 2 shows 144 inserted into 120).
Regarding claim 14, Chiang teaches the temple pre-form of claim 11.
Chiang does not specifically wherein the core wire is made of one of stainless steel, titanium, a metal, or a metal alloy, but both do teach a wire (Chiang fig. 2 - 164) used for communication with electronic devices, which would have to be made of metal in order to conduct electricity, thus making it inherent to the structure of the device.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use electric wires made of metal to conduct electricity, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (as cited above) in view of Moore (as cited above).
Regarding claim 2, Chiang teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1.
Chiang does not specifically teach wherein the shell walls enclosing the hollow compartment are made of injection molded or compression molded thermoplastic materials.
In the same field of endeavor, Moore teaches wherein the shell walls enclosing the hollow compartment are made of injection molded or compression molded thermoplastic materials (Moore para. 0078) for the purpose of housing electronic components (Moore para. 0078). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have plastic temples in order to house electronic components.
Regarding claim 13, Chiang teaches the temple pre-form of claim 11, and Chiang further teaches a core wire (Chaing fig. 2 – 164).
Chiang does not teach a core wire embedded in plastic or epoxy material filling a body volume of the temple bend section.
In the same field of endeavor, Moore teaches wherein the temple bend section includes a core wire (Moore fig. 2 - 242) embedded in plastic or epoxy material filling a body volume of the temple bend section (see Moore para. 0056 and para. 0078) for the purpose of housing electronic components (Moore para. 0078). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have plastic or epoxy material in order to house electronic components (Moore 0078).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (as cited above) in view of Lim (as cited above).
Regarding claim 9, Chiang teaches the temple pre-form of claim 1.
Chiang does not specifically teach the temple pre-form further comprising: a structure protruding from the hollow compartment through a surface of the temple pre-form, the structure including an optical window through which light is received in, or exits, the hollow compartment.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches the temple pre-form further comprising: a structure protruding from the hollow compartment through a surface of the temple pre-form (Lim fig. 2 - 280 extends from the temple), the structure including an optical window through which light is received in, or exits, the hollow compartment (Lim fig. 2 - 255_3, see also para. 0087) for the purpose of scanning the emitted infrared light on a virtual image output of a display unit (Lim para. 0087 and 0089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an optical window on a smart glasses temple for the purpose of creating a virtual image.
Regarding claim 10, Chiang and Lim teach the temple pre-form of claim 9, and Lim further teaches the optical window (Lim 255_3).
Chiang and Lim do not specifically teach a flat screen element having a thickness of about one millimeter or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have is a flat screen element having a thickness of about one millimeter or less, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
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 ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872