DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4,6-7,9-13 and 17-19 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 17-19 have been amended.
Claims 5, 14-16, and 20 have been cancelled.
This office action is in response to the amendment submitted on 07-Aug-2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31-Mar-2026 has been entered.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC 103
On pgs. 9-12 of the Applicant/Arguments Remarks, Applicant argues the amended claims overcome the rejection under 35 USC 103.
On page 11, the applicant argues Fonte doesn’t disclose keeping some of the eyewear features constant while only modifying the remaining features.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in [0172] “The advantage of the parameterized eyewear model is that the width 907 of the bridge and nose pads is retained, the height 908 is retained, and the overall aesthetic appearance between eyewear models 901 and 902 is consistent” and [0175] Fonte teaches: “The 4 rows 2901 illustrate the combinations of varying parameters for nose bridge width 2905, the distance 2906 between the temples where they contact the ears, the height 2907 from the front frame to the ears, and other subtle changes. Key features such as the material thickness 2908 and the hinge size and location 2909 remain unchanged”
The applicant additionally argues on pg. 12 that Fonte doesn’t disclose modifying determined data while keeping unchanged a frontal 2D projection of the selected frame as the predetermined conception rule.
The examiner would like to point out that Fonte discloses modifying parts of the frame that don’t affect the frontal 2D projection. See Fonte [0287] where the temple length is modified thereby keeping the frontal 2D projection unaffected.
The applicant comments on the interview indicating that the claims have been amended to include additional features from the specification. However, Claim 1 has only been amended to include the cancelled claim 5. Claim 2 has been amended to include features of claim 1.
The arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abitbol et al. (US20030123026A1) in view of Fonte et al. (US20150154678A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Abitbol teaches a method for generating modified eyeglass frame manufacturing data the method comprising:
providing a plurality of eyeglass frames ([0009] "providing a wide view of the frames as actually fitted onto the customer's face" also [0067]).
selecting one frame among the plurality of eyeglass frames ([0010] "the 3D spectacles fitting system of the present invention is operative to provide improved vision quality and aesthetics by computer evaluation of an improved or optimal fit between the customer's face, the selected frame, and the manufacture, cutting and mounting of a selected lens").
determining predetermined frame data relative to the selected frame ([0010] "the 3D spectacles fitting system of the present invention is operative to provide improved vision quality and aesthetics by computer evaluation of an improved or optimal fit between the customer's face, the selected frame, and the manufacture, cutting and mounting of a selected lens," [0012] "Optionally, at least some fit parameters computed for spectacles ordered by an individual, typically fit parameters which are not frame-dependent, are archived in order to facilitate the fitting process the next time the same individual orders spectacles, even if he orders a different frame," and [0015] "to generate therefrom at least one parameter for face-and-frame customized manufacture and cutting of the lens" Also [0101 and 0128]).
The predetermined frame data being stored in a storage ([0067] :“The frames inventory 40 typically contains a virtual inventory of frames including 3D frame representations which may comprise 3D content files of a multiplicity of frames which may be imported from frame modelling sources working in accordance with a suitable standard such as the Pulse 3D Player standard described at www.pulse.com.” and [0101 and 0128])
computing the modified data obtained by said modification to generate modified eyeglass frame manufacturing data (Fig 4 and [0078] "Customized lens designer 80 is typically operative to generate parameters for automatic customized manufacture and cutting of lenses for an individual customer's spectacles. The parameters computed by the customized lens designer 80 are customized to the customer's face, frame/face fit, and lenses, and may include some or all of the following: backsurface-eyeball distance, lens decentration, bifocal lens position and orientation, progressive lens fitting point (also termed herein the “positioning mark” of the progressive lens), and lens type," and [0120] “In step 440, output is generated which is sent on to the edger and/or the manufacturer including the above parameters generated in steps 410, 420 or 430, and 403, and the frame border which typically arrives from an external source such as the frame manufacturer”).
PNG
media_image1.png
781
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Abitbol does not seem to explicitly teach
modifying the determined data whilst respecting at least one predetermined conception rule, to obtain modified data
the at least one predetermined conception rule being related to one or more of a pantoscopic angle, a base curve, a wrap angle, and a temple thickness of the frame
the modifying the determined data comprising modifying the determined data whilst keeping constant an eyewear feature related to the inner frame shape and the outer frame shape chosen among temple size, size of the connection to the temple, nose bridge size, and nose shape as the predetermined conception rule
manufacturing the frame using the generated modified eyeglass frame manufacturing data
Fonte teaches modifying the determined data whilst respecting at least one predetermined conception rule, to obtain modified data ([0172] "FIG. 9 shows an example of an eyewear model 901 that was adjusted to eyewear model 902 by altering a parameter for the width 903 of the eyewear around the lens. The advantage of the parameterized eyewear model is that the width 907 of the bridge and nose pads is retained, the height 908 is retained, and the overall aesthetic appearance between eyewear models 901 and 902 is consistent. The parameterization enables a substantial change to just one aspect of the frame 901 without affecting other important elements of the design. The parameterized eyewear model has an advantage in propagating changes from a feature to the rest of the model while constraining all other features").
the at least one predetermined conception rule being related to one or more of a pantoscopic angle, a base curve, a wrap angle, and a temple thickness of the frame (([0175] “FIG. 29 illustrates an example of customization achieved with configurable product model; in particular, the ability to combine various parameters to refine and customize a product model. An eyewear model 2900 is configured to the 16 variations in the illustration. The 4 columns 2902 illustrate example configurations of the eyewear lens width 2903 and height 2904. The 4 rows 2901 illustrate the combinations of varying parameters for nose bridge width 2905, the distance 2906 between the temples where they contact the ears, the height 2907 from the front frame to the ears, and other subtle changes. Key features such as the material thickness 2908 and the hinge size and location 2909 remain unchanged” [0124-0127] including “FIG. 6 shows an illustration of the relationship between eyewear 601 and a user's face 602. The locations where the eyewear and face contact are of high importance since they control the fit of the eyewear. The contact locations between the eyewear 601 and the user's nose 603 are shown. Also shown are the contact locations between the eyewear 601 and the user's ears 604, as well as the height and length between the top of the eyewear 605 and top of the ear 606.” “By way of example, FIG. 7 also shows the distance between nosepads of the eyewear 707. In this regard, FIG. 7 shows a model of a nose 711, which is used to derive quantitative measurements, including by not limited to its length 712 and width 713 at various locations. Since each user's nose varies in dimensions, there is a great advantage in being able to precisely measure its size and shape and then custom fit eyewear to perfectly fit that anatomy.” And “FIG. 7 also shows additional measurements of the length of the temples 705 and distance between the temples 706 needed to achieve a fit with the user's face. Further, the brow, cheekbones, length of nose, and width of the head may provide limitations of where eyewear could fit on a user's face. Other dimensions of the face, such as the shape of head, curvatures, the length, shape, and angle of the nose, and more is used to help suggest the best eyewear style and shape for a particular user. The locations of the pupils relative to eyewear are important to ensure good optical quality.” [0204] “In another embodiment, the product model is configured to optimize the optical parameters used to make lenses. In addition to using the details and dimensions from the anatomic model to inform the lens design, the eyewear frame can be optimized to enhance the optical design. For example, standard vertex distance (distance from eye to inner surface of lens) is around 12-14 mm. With normal glasses, this can vary greatly, but configurable frames could be adjusted to achieve the optimal measurement. Other parameters include but are not limited to: frame wrap, eye placement relative to the center of the lens, pantoscopic tilt, etc. In this embodiment, a) A computer system obtains a scaled face model (using any previously described method) that has key facial features identified, including but not limited to points, lines, and surfaces of the eyes, nose, ears, brow, etc., b) The computer system obtains a configurable 3D product model that has key features identified, including but not limited to points, lines, and surfaces of the temples, nose pads, lenses, bridge, etc, c) The computer system analyzes dimensions of interest, including but not limited to vertex distance, pantoscopic tilt, Pd, and frame wrap, d) The computer system optimizes the product model parameters, which changes the shape of the eyewear and how it rests on the user's face, until the dimensions are within their desired range (e.g. vertex distance 12-14 mm), e) The computer system updates the configurable product model with new parameters, f) The computer system performs an optimization to obtain a rigid transformation to align the product model to the face. The error between key features of the product and face is minimized, and some features is weighted more than others, and g) The computer system transforms the coordinates of the product model to align it with the anatomic model.” Also see [0302] and Abitbol [0164]).
the modifying the determined data comprising modifying the determined data whilst keeping constant an eyewear feature related to the inner frame shape and the outer frame shape chosen among temple size, size of the connection to the temple, nose bridge size, and nose shape as the predetermined conception rule ([0172] and [0175] “The 4 rows 2901 illustrate the combinations of varying parameters for nose bridge width 2905, the distance 2906 between the temples where they contact the ears, the height 2907 from the front frame to the ears, and other subtle changes. Key features such as the material thickness 2908 and the hinge size and location 2909 remain unchanged” [0208] "The user may use the system to create a model of their eyewear, and adjust the frame color and nose pad width using the methods and systems previously described. The user may also use this system to indicate where on his nose he prefers to wear existing eyewear (for aesthetic, utilitarian, or comfort reasons)").
manufacturing the frame using the generated modified eyeglass frame manufacturing data ([0002] “The invention pertains to the on-demand creating, manufacturing, and delivering one-up custom products from scratch. More particularly, the subject invention creates, manufactures, and delivers custom personal products on-demand that are best suited to the needs and preferences of an individual user by building the product from a specification that is generated from automatic and/or user-guided user-specific preference profiles and by building a unique one-up custom product based on the profiles” Also see: [0304-0306]).
Abitbol and Fonte are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in custom eye frame manufacturing. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Abitbol and Fonte to offer a wide variety of customization options in the custom eyeframes market. “it will be appreciated that the subject invention involves the creation, production and delivering of a wide variety of products that relate to the anatomical or physical characteristics of the user as well as the users preferences for particular product.” (Fonte, [0003])
Regarding Claim 2, Abitbol teaches a method for generating modified eyeglass frame manufacturing data, the method comprising: providing a plurality of eyeglass frames ([0009] also see [0063])
selecting one frame among the plurality of eyeglass frames; ([0010])
determining predetermined frame data relative to the selected frame, ([0010], [0012] [0015] Also [0101 and 0128]).
the predetermined frame data being stored in a storage ([0067] and [0101 and 0128])
computing the modified data obtained by said modification to generate modified eyeglass frame manufacturing data (Fig 4, [0078 and 0120])
However, Abitbol isn’t relied on for:
modifying the determined data whilst respecting at least one predetermined conception rule to obtain modified data, the at least one predetermined conception rule being related to one or more of a pantoscopic angle, a base curve, a wrap angle, and a temple thickness of the frame
the modifying the determined data comprising modifying the determined data whilst keeping unchanged a frontal 2D projection of the selected frame as the predetermined conception rule
manufacturing the frame using the generated modified eyeglass frame manufacturing data.
Fonte teaches modifying the determined data whilst respecting at least one predetermined conception rule to obtain modified data, the at least one predetermined conception rule being related to one or more of a pantoscopic angle, a base curve, a wrap angle, and a temple thickness of the frame ([0175] [0204] [0302] [0124-0127] and Abitbol [0164]).
Fonte further teaches the modifying the determined data comprising modifying the determined data whilst keeping unchanged a frontal 2D projection of the selected frame as the predetermined conception rule ( [0205] "In this case, the additional information provided by the quantitative anatomic model allows the automatic determination of the center of the nose even if the individual 2D images used to construct the quantitative anatomic model were alone not sufficient to perform said measurement (for example, in no 2D image was the user perfectly facing the camera)"). And [0287] “In another embodiment, the computer system alerts the user to certain key areas to adjust, including but not limited to the nose pads and temples. The nose and top of both ears are the three key contact points that must fit well, and each ear may be at a different height. The computer system may ask the user to inspect these particular areas and adjust as needed. For example, the user may adjust the length of the temples until they fit well over the ears, or adjust the temple angles independently to correspond to his differing ear heights such that the front frame of the eyewear sits ideally and aesthetically level on his nose.”)
manufacturing the frame using the generated modified eyeglass frame manufacturing data ([0002] and [0304-0306])
For motivation to combine please see claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Abitbol in view of Fonte teaches the method of claim 1. Fonte further teaches further comprising providing an activity for which the modified eyeglass frame is intended ([0187] "Optimal values may vary based other factors entered by the user or determined from the image data, such as gender, age, face shape, eyewear style, purpose of eyewear").
Regarding Claim 4, Abitbol in view of Fonte teaches the method of claim 3. Fonte further teaches wherein the activity for which the modified eyeglass frame is intended is chosen among sport activity, sunny activity, and driving ([0187] " Users choosing eyewear for recreational use may prefer increased frame wrap and a tighter temple fit to reduce wind in their eyes, widen their field of corrected vision, and/or provide more impact or sun protection").
Regarding Claim 6, Abitbol in view of Fonte teaches the method of claim 1. Abitbol further teaches wherein the modifying the determined data comprises modifying the determined data whilst keeping constant another feature of the selected frame chosen among color, transparency, opacity, pattern, decorative features as the predetermined concept rule ([0143] "Searching by a frame profile including a logical combination of at least one frame attribute stored in frame inventor 40 such as type, material, price, frame contour (oval, rectangular, round, cat-eye), manufacturer, color. Typically, at least one frame-attribute is used automatically by the system to customize the inventory to the customer such as gender, facial size, facial shape (elongate, wide, round) and age category” The attributed searched for is kept constant while the other attributes are queried and provided).
Regarding Claim 7, Abitbol in view of Fonte teaches the method of claim 1. Abitbol further teaches wherein the modifying the determined data comprises modifying the determined data whilst fitting the eyeglass frames to 3D measurements of the head of a wearer as the predetermined conception rule ([0145] "FIG. 6B is a simplified pictorial illustration of a try-on session in which a frame, typically selected using the selection process shown above and the frame identification process of FIG. 6A, is fitted to the customer's 3D face as stored in the system").
Regarding Claim 9, Abitbol in view of Fonte teaches the method of claim 1. Fonte further teaches wherein the providing the plurality of eyeglass frames comprises providing a digital frame as one eyeglass frame of the plurality of eyeglass frames ([0021] "The first part is the understanding that what is desired is a from-scratch, one-up customized product that is not manufactured exclusively from off-the-shelf, previously designed, mass-produced, or stock components." the entire concept of the Bespoke is a digital one off eyeglass frame).
Regarding Claim 10, Abitbol in view of Fonte teaches the method of claim 1. Abitbol further teaches wherein the providing the plurality of eyeglass frames comprises providing a physical frame as one eyeglass frame of the plurality of eyeglass frames ([0067] "The frames inventory 40 typically contains a virtual inventory of frames including 3D frame representations which may comprise 3D content files of a multiplicity of frames which may be imported from frame modelling sources working in accordance with a suitable standard such as the Pulse 3D Player standard described at www.pulse.com").
Regarding Claim 11, Abitbol in view of Fonte teaches the method of claim 1. Abitbol further teaches wherein the providing the plurality of eyeglass frames comprises providing a picture of a frame as one of the plurality of eyeglass frames ([0149] " In the illustrated embodiment, a display which takes into account lens parameters is generated by replacing a standard 3D lens object included in each 3D frame image in the frames inventory 40").
Regarding Claim 12, Abitbol in view of Fonte teaches the method of claim 1. Fonte further teaches wherein the modified eyeglass frame manufacturing data allows the modified eyeglass frame to integrate an electronic compound ([0038] "Eyewear includes eyeglass frames, sunglass frames, frames and lenses together, prescription eyewear, non-prescription (piano) eyewear, sports eyewear, or electronic or wearable technology eyewear").
Claims 13 and 17-19 recite substantially the same elements as method Claims 3 and 6 respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schwarz et al (US20200142224A1): Discloses customized eye frame manufacturing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR DARWISH whose telephone number is (571)272-4779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Thurs.
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.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights