DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 16-21, and 23-26 are pending. Claims 1, 3-6, 7, 10, 12, 17, 18, and 21-24 are amended. Claim 15 is cancelled.
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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on December 31, 2025. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1, 3-6, 7, 10, 12, 17, 18, and 21-24 have been amended, claim 15 has been cancelled, and claim 26 has been added. Thus, claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 16-21, and 23-26 are presently pending in this application with claims 6, 10-14, 16, 17, and 25 being withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome some of the 112(b) rejections, but introduce additional rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 31, 2025. These drawings are not acceptable.
The amendment filed December 31, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Fig. 16 introduces a configuration that appears to be goggles. The supposed support for this Figure comes from paras. 0034-0035 (of the present application) as well as para. 0079. The examiner disagrees. Paras. 0035 and 0078 only recite that the protective surfaces are joined together, but makes no mention of any difference in the geometry or structure of the second portions with respect to these surfaces. Fig. 16 appears to remove the second portions entirely. There are also no markings on Fig. 16 to assist one to understand what supposed components are shown in the figure.
Fig. 17 introduces a configuration that is not supported by the original disclosure. The supposed support for this recitation is in para. 0071 which recites:
[0071] According to some possible embodiments of this invention, each of the second portions 5 and/or the connecting portions 7 comprises a receiving seat 14 for applying a respective lens 9 positioned behind the second portion 5, that is to say, facing the user 200. For example, the lens 9 may consist of the removable portion 11 of the second portion 5 forming the above-mentioned second protective surface 6.
Para. 0072 follows:
[0072] In other words, the receiving seat 14 is designed to receive a lens along a direction which extends away from the user 200.
Para. 0074 which specifically refers to Figs. 13A-15B recites:
[0074] According to these embodiments, the lens 9 is inserted in the receiving seat 14 along a direction which, in use, extends away from the user 200.
Thus, Fig. 13B depicts a receiving seat 14, that extends away from the user 200. This is similar language as recited in para. 0072, thus it is reasonable to presume, without additional information, that the configuration of 13B would correspond to the configuration described in para. 0071.
PNG
media_image1.png
291
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11B provides information as to what is considered a “removable portion 11” as described in para. 0071 from which supposedly support for Fig. 17 is derived. However the removable portion is not located between the user and the second portion, but rather the second portion is between the removable portion and the user. Thus, the figure introduces new matter.
PNG
media_image2.png
279
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Specification
The specification amendments are to the specification of an application not the publication. Thus, providing paragraphs of the publication is inappropriate. See MPEP 714(I)(B), detailing amendments to the application not the publication. It is therefore unclear which paragraphs are being amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 24 includes the claim identifier as “previously presented” however the claim is amended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 18-21, 23, 24, and 26 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 and 21 includes forming “a pair of recesses . . . the pair of recesses are open to one another in an upper central portion of the visor.” There is no support for this language or concept.
“Thereby forming, between the first portion and the pair of second protective surfaces, a single continuous recessed space across a width of the visor sufficient to encompass an entire width span of the eyes of the user”. There is no support for this language or concept in specification or figures.
Para. 0079 (of the application) is identified as the paragraph that provides support for the amended language. Para. 0079, however, only recites that the visor comprises a single lens located in a single space defined by the protective surfaces 6 joined to each other. There is no recitation that the pair of recess form a single continuous recess. It is further unclear how a single continuous recessed space can be interpreted as have a “pair” of recesses. It is entirely unclear what is meant by this phrase. The Examiner has not rejected these claims utilizing art because it appears to defy the language of the specification for the examiner to interpret a “single continuous space” as a space that includes a “pair of recesses”.
Claim 26 recites “at least one receiving seat for engaging a respective lens, the at least one receiving seat being positioned rearward of said pair of second portions to position the respective lens between the pair of second portions and the user”. There is no support for this concept in the specification or drawings. The paragraph from which support is supposedly found, which is paragraph 0071 of the application, states that “each of the second portions 5 and/or the connecting portions 7 comprises a receiving seat 14 for applying a respective lens 9 positioned behind the second portion 5, that is to say, facing the user 200. For example, the lens 9 may consist of a removable portion 11 of the second portion 5 forming the above-mentioned second protective surface 6”. Paragraph 0072 clarifies this paragraph and recites “in other words, the receiving seat 14 is designed to receive a lens along a direction which extends away from the user 200”. Thus, the words “behind” means “a direction which extends away from the user”. Furthermore, if taking the paragraph 0071 to mean that the lens extends further toward the user then it is unclear how the second portion or the connecting portion could include a seat that would position the lens more toward the user than the second portion or the connecting portion themselves. That is, if the seat is IN the second portion or the connecting portion, it is unclear how such a seat could somehow extend further toward the user than the second portion of the connecting portion. Because the specification does not provide support for the language, or concept of the “seat being positioned rearward of said pair of second portions to position the respective lens between said pair of second portions and the user” the claim introduces new matter.
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.
Claim 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 18-21, 23, 24, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 24 recite “a pair of recesses” but then also recite that the protective surfaces are joined together “thereby forming, between the first portion and the pair of second protective surfaces, a single continuous recessed space across a width of the visor sufficient to encompass an entire width span of the eye of the user”. It is unclear how a “single continuous recessed space” can exist with a “pair of recesses”. If the Examiner were to interpret a “single continuous recessed space” as including a “pair of recesses” this would be repugnant to the meaning of a “pair of recesses”. Furthermore, such a reading would be in direct conflict with the disclosure which shows distinct recesses (see Figs. 1-15B). It is further unclear what would be considered a “pair of second portions” which “delimit . . at least partly, said pair of recesses”. It is entirely unclear what is being claimed.
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baragar et al. (US 6282728).
Regarding claim 26, Baragar describes a protective visor (goggles 10), to act as a safety device for the face of a user, comprising
a pair of recesses (see annotated Fig. 3, in left and right eye piece 20)
- at least a first portion (see annotated Fig. 3) forming at least a respective first protective surface configured to protect the periocular zones of the user (configured to protect the periocular zones);
- a pair of second portions (see annotated Fig. 3, left and right eye piece 20) of substantially transparent material (goggles body, including portion 22, is transparent, col. 3, ll. 6-10 ) which delimit in the protective visor, at least partly, said pair of recesses (delimit a portion of the recesses),
- connecting portions (see annotated Fig. 3) between said first portion and said pair of second portions (see annotated Fig. 3), configured to form a surface continuity of the protective visor forming a protection for the face of the user, the pair of second portions and the connecting portions forming the pair of recesses (see annotated Fig. 3), each of the pair of second portions being stably applicable to respective ones of the connecting portions (is secured to the connecting portions),
wherein said pair of recesses project from the first portion towards the eyes of the user (extend towards the eyes) when the protective visor is worn by the user for (what follows is a recitation of intended use) positioning, in a position closer to the eyes of the user than the first portion (recess extends beyond the first portion toward the user’s eyes), of viewing and/or amplification instruments separate from the pair of second portions (the instruments are not claimed and therefore the protective visor of Baragar is fully capable of permitting components to be positioned within the recesses beyond the first portion);
a pair of second protective surfaces configured to protect the ocular zones of the user (see annotated Fig. 3, left and right);
said connecting portions extending between said first portion and said pair of second protective surfaces (see Fig. 3);
said second protective surfaces and said connecting portions forming at least partly said pair of recesses (see annotated Fig. 3);
the pair of second portions forming the pair of second protective surfaces (form the second protective surfaces); and
at least one receiving seat (see annotated Fig. 3) for engaging a respective lens (anti-fogging member 72), the at least one receiving seat being positioned rearward of said pair of second portions to position the respective lens between said pair of second portions and the user (lens 72 located between the second portions and the user).
PNG
media_image3.png
504
1127
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Clint Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732