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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on March 2, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 11, and 15.
Claims 1-23 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim 1-23 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. Claims 1, 11 and 15 have been amended to include the phrase “one or more inertial measurement (IMU) sensors” that is not supported by the specification of originally filed.
Claims 21-23 have been newly added (in the previous amendment) to include the phrases “the single flex circuit is not positioned along a bottom perimeter of the frame” and “the single flex circuit is not within the eyepiece”, that are not explicitly supported by the specification of originally filed. The specification simply does not teach explicitly that the single flex circuit cannot be positioned along a bottom perimeter of the frame. The specification also simply does not teach explicitly that the single flex circuit cannot be within the eyepiece. In response to applicant’s arguments, a single drawing is not sufficient support for the negative limitations recited in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Figler et al (US 2009/0251660 A1) in view of the US application publication by Fermigier et al (US 2023/0213787 A1), US patent application publication by Mukawa (US 2015/0260995 A1) and US patent application publication by Zak et al (US 2022/0101499 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Figler et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, an eyewear that serves as the device, (please see Figure 7) that is comprised of an interior frame (114) serves as the frame, a control circuit (152, Figure 11) serves as the flex circuit with electrode layers (52A and 52B) that positioned along a top perimeter of the frame and extending between a first temple arm or leg (115) and a second temple arm or leg (115) at a second end, and an exterior frame (112, Figure 7) serves as the cover coupled with the frame to cover a portion of the electrode layer of the control circuit along the top perimeter of the frame and a portion of the electrode layer of the control circuit extends between temple arm or leg at the first end and at the second end, (please see Figure 7).
Figler et al further teaches that the device comprises an eyepiece (26’ in Figure 2 and 26’R and/or 26’L in Figures 7 and 11, and 162R and 162L in Figure 12) wherein the eyepiece includes a front glass with a front cross section (50A, Figure 2) and a rear glass with a rear cross section (50B) and an active element (58) with an active element cross section, (please see Figure 2) between the front glass and the rear glass and configured to be electrically activated via an interconnection (170 and 172, Figures 11-12) by the flex circuit, (59, Figure 2 or 152, Figures 11-12, and paragraph [0045]).
Claim 1 further includes the phrase “a single flex circuit”.
Figler et al teaches in an embodiment (Figure 11) that a single control circuit (152) serves as the single flex circuit may be arranged for the eyewear.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the flex circuit or the control circuit is positioned along a top perimeter of the frame and extending toward a first temple art at the first end and toward a second temple at the second end.
Fermigier et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyeglass device wherein processing circuit (301 or 302, Figure 1, paragraph [0100]) with processor and memory may be placed at the connecting or bridge portion of the frame of the eyeglass device. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Fermigier et al to alternatively position the flex circuit at the connecting or bridge portion of the frame such that the flex circuit with the electrode layer may be arranged to extend toward the first temple or leg at a first end and to extend toward the second temple or leg at a second end. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Fermigier et al to modify the eyeglasses of Figler et al to alternatively place the flex circuit at the bridge portion of the frame for the benefit to use just a single control or flex circuit located along a top perimeter of the frame as an alternative design for the eyewear to control the active element.
Figler et al in light of Fermigier et al teaches that the cover would cover a portion of the single flex circuit positioned along the top perimeter of the frame and a portion of the single flex circuit extending toward the first temple arm the first end and toward the second temple arm at the second end.
Claim 1 also includes the phrase “the front cross section has a surface area that is larger than a surface area of the rear cross section and a surface area of the active element cross section such that the front glass is coupled between a portion of the frame and a portion of the cover and the active element is not coupled between the portion of the frame and the portion of the cover”.
Mukawa in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyeglass device that is comprised of active member (700, Figure 1) wherein the front glass (121) has a front cross section with a surface area larger than a surface area of the cross section of the rear glass (703) and a surface area of the active element cross section (706). As shown in Figure 7 of Figler et al the front glass of the eyepiece is coupled between a portion of the frame (114) and a portion of the cover (112). Further, it is either implicitly met or within general level of skilled in the art to design that the active element is not coupled between the portion of the frame and the portion of cover for the benefit of allowing the active element not to be blocked by the frame and cover.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Mukawa to modify the eyepiece to have the front glass has a cross section surface area that is larger than a surface area of the rear cross section and a surface of the active element for the benefit of allowing the eyeglass to be mounted in the frame, (please see Figure 2).
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrases “first temple arm coupled to the frame at a first end of the frame and a second temple arm coupled to the frame at a second end of the frame”, and “one or more cameras situated on the frame and electrically coupled to the single flex circuit; one or more microphones situated within one or more of the first temple arm and the second temple arm and electrically coupled to the single flex circuit; one or more inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors situated within one or more of the first temple arm and the second temple arm and electrically coupled to the single flex circuit”.
Both Figler et al and Fermigier et al teach that the eyeglass frame comprises a first temple arm coupled to the frame at a first end of the frame and a second temple arm coupled to the frame at a second end of the frame, (please see Figure 1 of Figler et al and Figure 1 of Fermigier et al). Fermigier et al teaches the eyeglass may comprise movement sensor (400, Figure 1, please see paragraph [0086]). But these references do not teach explicitly about the camera, microphone and inertial measurement unit (IMU) situated at the cited locations.
Zak et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyewear that is comprised of frame (105, Figure 1A) and a right and left temple arm (125B) coupled to the frame at end of the frame. Zak et al teaches to include a camera (114, Figure 1A) that is situated on the frame and a microphone (116) situated within one or more of the first temple arm and the second temple arm. Zak et al also teaches to include a head movement tracker sensor unit (IMU, please see Figure 2) that may be situated within one or more the temple arm. Zak et al teaches that the camera, the microphone and the movement tracker sensor unit may be coupled to an electrical circuit, (please see paragraph [0040]).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Zak et al to modify the eyewear to include camera, microphone and motion/movement tracker unit (IMU) for the benefit of providing additional functions for the eyewear.
With regard to claim 2, in light of Fermigier et al the single flex or control circuit is electrically coupled to a memory and a processor, (please see Figure 1). Mukawa teaches image forming unit implicitly may comprise processor and memory that may be placed at the temple or leg of the eyeglasses, (please see Figures 12A and 12B). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the memory and processor alternatively be positioned at the temple or leg of the eyeglasses for the benefit of allowing a different design for the eyeglasses.
With regard claim 3, Fermigier et al teaches that the eyeglass device may comprise prescription, (please see paragraph [0005]) which implicitly mean a prescription layer is included in the eyeglass device. The size of the prescription layer may be the same size as the active member, (please see Figure 2 of Mukawa).
With regard to claim 4, it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to provide foaming material to fill the space between the frame and the cover for the benefit of providing proper cushion between the two for reducing unwanted unfitness.
With regard to amended claim 6, Figler et al teaches that the interconnection tab (62, or 166 or 170, 172) includes conductive materials to electrically coupling the active member in the eye piece and the control circuit and for mechanically securing the interconnection tab to the frame, (please see Figures 11-12). Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the conductive member is conductive rubber gasket, however such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 8, Figler et al teaches a perimeter member to mount the eyepiece, (please see Figure 14).
With regard to claim 10, Figler et al teaches to include a plurality of alignment sockets (138) on the frame to align the active element of the eyepiece.
With regard to claim 21, Figler et al in light of Fermigier et al teaches that the single flex circuit or the control circuit (153, Figure 11) is not positioned along a bottom perimeter of the frame, as an obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art.
With regard to claim 23, Figler et al in light of Fermigier et al teaches that the single flex circuit or the control circuit (153, Figure 11) is not positioned within the eyepiece, as an obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figler et al, Fermigier et al, Mukawa and Zak et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Kosa et al (IS 2009/0201461 A1) and US patent application publication by Matsui (US 2012/0075578 A1).
The eyeglass device taught by Figler et al in combination with the teachings of Fermigier et al, Mukawa and Zak et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 5, these references do not teach explicitly that the interconnect comprises an insulating material. Kosa et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyeglasses device including a frame wherein the frame may comprise groove (please see Figure 6) to have the eyepiece be formed in the groove during assembly. Kosa et al teaches that the interconnect tab (500) may comprise insulator (502, please see paragraph [0027]). Matsui teaches the eyeglass device may have certain groove structure to engage the eyepiece device, (please see Figures 1 and 2). Matsui also teaches various elements to ensure electrical contact as needed. It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Matsui to have groove structure to allow the eyepiece to be engaged in the frame.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figler et al, Fermigier et al, Mukawa and Zak et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Kosa et al (US 2009/0201461 A1).
The eyeglass device taught by Figler et al in combination with the teachings of Fermigier et al, Mukawa and Zak et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 7, these references do not teach explicitly that the interconnect includes a conductive adhesive. Kosa et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyeglasses device including that connection tab (500, Figure 4-6) for connecting the active element and the control circuit may comprise conductive adhesive (530, 531, 562 and 563, Figure 4). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kosa et al to modify the eyeglasses device of Figler et al to include the specific design of the interconnect for the benefit of properly electrically connecting the circuit and the active element of the eyepiece.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figler et al, Fermigier et al, Mukawa and Zak et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Wang et al (PN. 9,360,685).
The eyeglass device taught by Figler et al in combination with the teachings of Fermigier et al, Mukawa and Zak et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 9, there references do not teach explicitly that the eyepiece may be snapped to mechanically couple to the frame. Wang et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a clip device for the eyepiece to be snapped fit to the frame, (please see Figures 2 and 4). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Wang et al to modify the eyeglasses device of Figler et al to alternatively use art well known manner to snap fit the eyepiece to the frame.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Figler et al (IS 2009/0251660 A1) in view of the US application publication by Fermigier et al (US 2023/0213787 A1), US patent application publication by Mukawa (US 2015/0260995 A1) and US patent application publication by Zak et al (US 2022/0101499 A1).
Claim 11 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Figler et al teaches, with regard to the to claim 11, an eyewear that serves as the device, (please see Figure 7) that is comprised of an interior frame (114) serves as the frame, a control circuit (152, Figure 11) serves as the flex circuit with electrode layers (52A and 52B) that positioned along a top perimeter of the frame and extending between a first temple arm or leg (115) and a second temple arm or leg (115) at a second end, and an exterior frame (112, Figure 7) serves as the cover coupled with the frame to cover a portion of the electrode layer of the control circuit along the top perimeter of the frame and a portion of the electrode layer of the control circuit extends between temple arm or leg at the first end and at the second end, (please see Figure 7).
Figler et al further teaches that the device comprises an eyepiece (26’ in Figure 2 and 26’R and/or 26’L in Figures 7 and 11, and 162R and 162L in Figure 12) wherein the eyepiece includes a front glass with a front cross section (50A, Figure 2) and a rear glass with a rear cross section (50B) and an active element (58) with an active element cross section, (please see Figure 2) between the front glass and the rear glass and configured to be electrically activated via an interconnection (170 and 172, Figures 11-12) by the flex circuit, (59, Figure 2 or 152, Figures 11-12, and paragraph [0045]).
Claim 11 also includes the phrase “a single flex circuit”
Figler et al teaches in an embodiment (Figure 11) that a single control circuit (152) serves as the single flex circuit may be arranged for the eyewear.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the flex circuit or the control circuit is positioned along a top perimeter of the frame and extending toward a first temple art at the first end and toward a second temple at the second end.
Fermigier et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyeglass device wherein processing circuit (301 or 302, Figure 1, paragraph [0100]) with processor and memory may be placed at the connecting or bridge portion of the frame of the eyeglass device. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Fermigier et al to alternatively position the flex circuit at the connecting or bridge portion of the frame such that the flex circuit with the electrode layer may be arranged to extend toward the first temple or leg at a first end and to extend toward the second temple or leg at a second end. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Fermigier et al to modify the eyeglasses of Figler et al to alternatively place the flex circuit at the bridge portion of the frame for the benefit to use just a single control or flex circuit for control the active element.
Figler et al in light of Fermigier et al teaches that the cover would cover a portion of the single flex circuit positioned along the top perimeter of the frame and a portion of the single flex circuit extending toward the first temple arm the first end and toward the second temple arm at the second end.
Claim 11 also includes the phrase “the front cross section has a surface area that is larger than a surface area of the rear cross section and a surface area of the active element cross section such that the front glass is coupled between a portion of the frame and a portion of the cover and the active element is not coupled between the portion of the frame and the portion of the cover”.
Mukawa in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyeglass device that is comprised of active member (700, Figure 1) wherein the front glass (121) has a front cross section with a surface area larger than a surface area of the cross section of the rear glass (703) and a surface area of the active element cross section (706). As shown in Figure 7 of Figler et al the front glass of the eyepiece is coupled between a portion of the frame (114) and a portion of the cover (112). Further, it is either implicitly met or within general level of skilled in the art to design that the active element is not coupled between the portion of the frame and the portion of cover for the benefit of allowing the active element not to be blocked by the frame and cover.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Mukawa to modify the eyepiece to have the front glass has a cross section surface area that is larger than a surface area of the rear cross section and a surface of the active element for the benefit of allowing the eyeglass to be mounted in the frame, (please see Figure 2).
These references do not teach explicitly that the headset is an augmented reality headset however since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Madham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 11 has been amended to include the phrases “first temple arm coupled to the frame at a first end of the frame and a second temple arm coupled to the frame at a second end of the frame”, and “one or more cameras situated on the frame and electrically coupled to the single flex circuit; one or more microphones situated within one or more of the first temple arm and the second temple arm and electrically coupled to the single flex circuit; one or more inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors situated within one or more of the first temple arm and the second temple arm and electrically coupled to the single flex circuit”.
Both Figler et al and Fermigier et al teach that the eyeglass frame comprises a first temple arm coupled to the frame at a first end of the frame and a second temple arm coupled to the frame at a second end of the frame, (please see Figure 1 of Figler et al and Figure 1 of Fermigier et al). Fermigier et al teaches the eyeglass may comprise movement sensor (400, Figure 1, please see paragraph [0086]). But these references do not teach explicitly about the camera, microphone and inertial measurement unit (IMU) situated at the cited locations.
Zak et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyewear that is comprised of frame (105, Figure 1A) and a right and left temple arm (125B) coupled to the frame at end of the frame. Zak et al teaches to include a camera (114, Figure 1A) that is situated on the frame and a microphone (116) situated within one or more of the first temple arm and the second temple arm. Zak et al also teaches to include a head movement tracker sensor unit (IMU, please see Figure 2) that may be situated within one or more the temple arm. Zak et al teaches that the camera, the microphone and the movement tracker sensor unit may be coupled to an electrical circuit, (please see paragraph [0040]).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Zak et al to modify the eyewear to include camera, microphone and motion/movement tracker unit (IMU) for the benefit of providing additional functions for the eyewear.
With regard to claim 12, in light of Fermigier et al the flex or control circuit is electrically coupled to a memory and a processor, (please see Figure 1). Mukawa teaches image forming unit implicitly may comprise processor and memory that may be placed at the temple or leg of the eyeglasses, (please see Figures 12A and 12B). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the memory and processor alternatively be positioned at the temple or leg of the eyeglasses for the benefit of allowing a different design for the eyeglasses.
With regard to claim 14, it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to provide foaming material to fill the space between the frame and the cap for the benefit of providing proper cushion between the two for reducing unwanted unfitness.
With regard to claim 22, Figler et al in light of Fermigier et al teaches that the single flex circuit or the control circuit (153, Figure 11) is not positioned along a bottom perimeter of the frame, as an obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figler et al, Fermigier et al, Mukawa and Zak et al as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Bonnin et al (US 2012/0274892 A1).
The eyeglass device taught by Figler et al in combination with the teachings of Fermigier et al, Mukawa and Zak et al as described in claim 11 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 13, Fermigier et al teaches that the eyeglass device may comprise prescription, (please see paragraph [0005]) which implicitly mean a prescription layer is included in the eyeglass device. This reference does not teach explicitly that the prescription layer is removable. Bonnin et al teaches a prescription lens wherein the lens surfaces may be machinable to conform to a lens prescription which means the lens element with prescription may be removable, (please see Figures 1A and 1B). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the prescription lens element in the device may be removable.
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Figler et al (US 2009/0251660 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Fermigier et al (US 2023/0213787 A1), US patent application publication by Mukawa (US 2015/0260995 A1) and US patent application publication by Zak et al (US 20220101499 A1).
Claim 15 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Figler et al teaches, with regard to the to claim 15, an eyewear that serves as the headset, (please see Figure 7) which implicitly includes a method for assembling the headset. The method comprises providing an interior frame (114) serves as the frame, placing a control circuit (152) serves as the flex circuit with electrode layers (52A and 52B) along a top perimeter of the frame and extending between a first temple arm or leg (115) and a second temple arm or leg (115) at a second end, and coupling an exterior frame (112, Figure 7) serves as the cover coupled with the frame to cover a portion of the electrode layer of the control circuit along the top perimeter of the frame and a portion of the electrode layer of the control circuit extends between temple arm or leg at the first end and at the second end, (please see Figure 7).
Figler et al further teaches that the device comprises an eyepiece (26’ in Figure 2 and 26’R and/or 26’L in Figures 7 and 11, and 162R and 162L in Figure 12) wherein the eyepiece includes a front glass with a front cross section (50A, Figure 2) and a rear glass with a rear cross section (50B) and an active element (58) with an active element cross section, (please see Figure 2) between the front glass and the rear glass and configured to be electrically activated via an interconnection (170 and 172, Figures 11-12) by the flex circuit, (59, Figure 2 or 152, Figures 11-12, and paragraph [0045]).
Claim 15 also includes the phrase “a single flex circuit”
Figler et al teaches in an embodiment (Figure 11) that a single control circuit (152) serves as the single flex circuit may be arranged for the eyewear.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the flex circuit or the control circuit is positioned along a top perimeter of the frame and extending toward a first temple art at the first end and toward a second temple at the second end.
Fermigier et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyeglass device wherein processing circuit (301 or 302, Figure 1, paragraph [0100]) with processor and memory may be placed at the connecting or bridge portion of the frame of the eyeglass device. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Fermigier et al to alternatively position the flex circuit at the connecting or bridge portion of the frame such that the flex circuit with the electrode layer may be arranged to extend toward the first temple or leg at a first end and to extend toward the second temple or leg at a second end. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Fermigier et al to modify the eyeglasses of Figler et al to alternatively place the flex circuit at the bridge portion of the frame for the benefit to use just a single control or flex circuit for control the active element.
Figler et al in light of Fermigier et al teaches that the cover would cover a portion of the single flex circuit positioned along the top perimeter of the frame and a portion of the single flex circuit extending toward the first temple arm the first end and toward the second temple arm at the second end.
Claim 15 also includes the phrase “the front cross section has a surface area that is larger than a surface area of the rear cross section and a surface area of the active element cross section such that the front glass is coupled between a portion of the frame and a portion of the cover and the active element is not coupled between the portion of the frame and the portion of the cover”.
Mukawa in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyeglass device that is comprised of active member (700, Figure 1) wherein the front glass (121) has a front cross section with a surface area larger than a surface area of the cross section of the rear glass (703) and a surface area of the active element cross section (706). As shown in Figure 7 of Figler et al the front glass of the eyepiece is coupled between a portion of the frame (114) and a portion of the cover (112). Further, it is either implicitly met or within general level of skilled in the art to design that the active element is not coupled between the portion of the frame and the portion of cover for the benefit of allowing the active element not to be blocked by the frame and cover.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Mukawa to modify the eyepiece to have the front glass has a cross section surface area that is larger than a surface area of the rear cross section and a surface of the active element for the benefit of allowing the eyeglass to be mounted in the frame, (please see Figure 2).
Claim 15 has been amended to include the phrases “providing a frame”, “coupling a first temple arm to the frame at a first end of the frame and coupling a second temple arm to the frame at a second end of the frame”, and “placing one or more cameras on the frame and one or more camera electrically coupled to the single flex circuit; placing one or more microphones within one or more of the first temple arm and the second temple arm and the one or more microphones electrically coupled to the single flex circuit; placing one or more inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors within one or more of the first temple arm and the second temple arm, the one or more IMU sensors electrically coupled to the single flex circuit”.
Both Figler et al and Fermigier et al teach that the eyeglass is provided with a frame and is provided with a first temple arm coupled to the frame at a first end of the frame and a second temple arm coupled to the frame at a second end of the frame, (please see Figure 1 of Figler et al and Figure 1 of Fermigier et al). Fermigier et al teaches the eyeglass may comprise movement sensor (400, Figure 1, please see paragraph [0086]). But these references do not teach explicitly about the camera, microphone and inertial measurement unit (IMU) situated at the cited locations.
Zak et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyewear that is comprised of frame (105, Figure 1A) and a right and left temple arm (125B) coupled to the frame at end of the frame. Zak et al teaches to include a camera (114, Figure 1A) that is situated on the frame and a microphone (116) situated within one or more of the first temple arm and the second temple arm. Zak et al also teaches to include a head movement tracker sensor unit (IMU, please see Figure 2) that may be situated within one or more the temple arm. Zak et al teaches that the camera, the microphone and the movement tracker sensor unit may be coupled to an electrical circuit, (please see paragraph [0040]).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Zak et al to modify the eyewear to include camera, microphone and motion/movement tracker unit (IMU) for the benefit of providing additional functions for the eyewear.
With regard to claim 18, Figler et al in light of Fermigier et al teaches that the cover (112) may be over the circuit and the interconnect. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to fill the space between the flex circuit and the interconnect tab with electrically insulating material for the benefit of allowing the cap to be properly and electrically insulated to fix the cap on the circuit and the interconnect tab.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figler et al, Fermigier et al, Mukawa and Zak et al as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Wang et al (PN. 9,360,685).
The eyeglass device taught by Figler et al in combination with the teachings of Fermigier et al, Mukawa and Zak et al as described in claim 15 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 16, these references do not teach explicitly that the eyepiece is clapped and snapped to the groove of the frame. Wang in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyepiece on the frame of the headset that comprises clamping the front glass in the eyepiece (please see the Abstract of Wang) and snapping the front glass in the frame. It is implicitly true that the snapping needs to be received by a groove. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to alternatively using a clamping device to assemble the eyepiece.
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figler et al, Fermigier et al, Mukawa and Zak et al as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Kosa et al (US 2009/0201461 A1).
The eyeglass device taught by Figler et al in combination with the teachings of Fermigier et al, Mukawa and Zak et al as described in claim 15 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 17, these references do not teach explicitly to include insulating material. Kosa et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an eyeglasses device that includes eyepiece which may be fixed into a groove of the interconnect tab (500) with an insulator (502, Figure 6, paragraph [0027]).
With regard to claims 19-20, Kosa et al teaches that the eyepiece may be fitted into the frame for the headset in a groove or a perimeter gasket, (please see Figure 6) wherein the eyepiece may be securely held against certain stop. Although this reference does not teach explicitly the fitting is via snap-fitting a clip onto a front portion of the frame, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for a snap fitting is an art well-known means for holding the optical element.
It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Kosa et al to modify the designs of the eyeglasses device to provide alternative method for assembling the eyeglasses device as an alternative design for one skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the amended claims that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the locations of the various elements coupled to the frame and temple arms of the eyewear are considered to be obvious matters of design choices to one skilled in the art. The applicant being one skilled in the art must know that to make an eyewear with a single electric circuit, cameras, microphones and different sensors etc. are commonly known in the art. These features therefore do not provide novelty to the claims.
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872