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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13, 19-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terakawa (Japanese Pub. No. JP 6343744). All citations to Terakawa are directed toward the English machine translation of the Japanese document, provided as a reference.
Regarding claim 13, Terakawa teaches an article of eyewear comprising
a frame to receive a pair of lenses (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 6, and 8-10; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034);
wherein the frame and the pair of lenses define a front face (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 6, and 8-10; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034); and
wherein each lens extends from an uppermost portion of the front face to a lowermost portion of the front face (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 6, and 8-10; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034);
a pair of temple bars (2) extending from the frame (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 4, and 6-10; Paragraph 0029),
wherein each temple bar includes a first end, a second end, an inner surface, and a top length portion (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 4, and 6-10; Paragraph 0029);
wherein each temple bar extends from the frame at the first end of the temple bar (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 4, and 6-10; Paragraph 0029);
wherein each temple bar includes a zygomatic arch side support (3) attached to the inner surface of the temple bar (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, 0044, 0046, and 0048-0049, e.g. Paragraph 0029: “The protrusion 6 attached to the lower front pressing part 3 enters into a recess 14 on the zygomatic arch 15 in the sideburns 1 of the wearer and comes into contact with the skin” and Paragraph 0040: “…a joint is provided in the lower front presser portion 3 so that the lower front presser portion 3 can rotate”);
wherein each zygomatic arch side support is located between the first end and the second end of the temple bar (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, 0044, 0046, and 0048-0049); and
wherein each zygomatic arch side support is in the form of a pad (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, 0044, 0046, and 0048-0049); and
a back ear contact (4) extending from each temple bar, each back ear contact including a proximal end and a distal end (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, 0044, 0046, and 0048-0049);
wherein the back ear contact is pivotably connected to the second end of the temple bar via a friction hinge (16, 18) at the proximal end of the back ear contact (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, and 0044-0049, e.g. Paragraph 0044: “…a joint 16 is provided at the rear end of the temple 2 to enable the angle to be changed according to the fifth invention, and the lower front pressing part 3 integrated with the rear pressing part is attached so as to be rotatable in the vertical direction”);
wherein the distal end of the back ear contact is rotatable toward the lowermost portion of the front face (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, and 0044-0050); and
wherein the distal end of the back ear contact is restricted from rotating to a position above the top length portion of the temple bar (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, and 0044-0050, e.g. Paragraph 0048: “The temple 2 is sandwiched in a gap provided in the center of the connecting part 12, parallel to the temple 2, and the glasses are fixed in place by tightening the screw 18…connecting part 12 is attached to the rear presser part 4 and the lower front presser part 3 so as to be rotatable in the vertical direction as shown by the arrows. The joint 16 is attached so as to rotate with a force equal to or greater than a certain level”).
Regarding claim 19, Terakawa teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that the zygomatic arch side supports are detachably attached to the inner surface of the temple bars (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0014, 0024, 0048, and 0050).
Regarding claim 20, Terakawa teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that the frame does not include nose supports (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0006 and 0058, e.g. Paragraph 0058: “You can also wear them without placing them on your nose”).
Regarding claim 21, Terakawa teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that the frame includes nose supports (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 6, and 8-10; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034).
Regarding claim 22, Terakawa teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that the friction hinge comprises a center rivet (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, and 0044-0049, e.g. Paragraph 0044: “…a joint 16 is provided at the rear end of the temple 2 to enable the angle to be changed according to the fifth invention, and the lower front pressing part 3 integrated with the rear pressing part is attached so as to be rotatable in the vertical direction” and Paragraph 0048: “The temple 2 is sandwiched in a gap provided in the center of the connecting part 12, parallel to the temple 2, and the glasses are fixed in place by tightening the screw 18…”).
Regarding claim 23, Terakawa teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that each back ear contact is formed from silicone or nitinol (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 25, Terakawa teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that the zygomatic arch side supports are fastened to the inner surface of the temple bars by a fastener; and wherein each of the fasteners is at least one of an adhesive, a screw, a bolt, a hinge, and a nut (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0014, 0024, 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, and 0044-0050, e.g. Paragraph 0048: “The temple 2 is sandwiched in a gap provided in the center of the connecting part 12, parallel to the temple 2, and the glasses are fixed in place by tightening the screw 18…connecting part 12 is attached to the rear presser part 4 and the lower front presser part 3 so as to be rotatable in the vertical direction as shown by the arrows. The joint 16 is attached so as to rotate with a force equal to or greater than a certain level”).
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terakawa in view of Gish (U.S. Patent No. 4,790,645).
Regarding claim 13, Terakawa teaches an article of eyewear comprising
a frame to receive a pair of lenses (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 6, and 8-10; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034);
wherein the frame and the pair of lenses define a front face (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 6, and 8-10; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034); and
wherein each lens extends from an uppermost portion of the front face to a lowermost portion of the front face (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 6, and 8-10; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034);
a pair of temple bars (2) extending from the frame (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 4, and 6-10; Paragraph 0029),
wherein each temple bar includes a first end, a second end, an inner surface, and a top length portion (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 4, and 6-10; Paragraph 0029);
wherein each temple bar extends from the frame at the first end of the temple bar (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 4, and 6-10; Paragraph 0029);
wherein each temple bar includes a zygomatic arch side support (3) attached to the inner surface of the temple bar (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, 0044, 0046, and 0048-0049, e.g. Paragraph 0029: “The protrusion 6 attached to the lower front pressing part 3 enters into a recess 14 on the zygomatic arch 15 in the sideburns 1 of the wearer and comes into contact with the skin” and Paragraph 0040: “…a joint is provided in the lower front presser portion 3 so that the lower front presser portion 3 can rotate”);
wherein each zygomatic arch side support is located between the first end and the second end of the temple bar (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, 0044, 0046, and 0048-0049); and
wherein each zygomatic arch side support is in the form of a pad (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, 0044, 0046, and 0048-0049); and
a back ear contact (4) extending from each temple bar, each back ear contact including a proximal end and a distal end (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, 0044, 0046, and 0048-0049);
wherein the back ear contact is pivotably connected to the second end of the temple bar via a friction hinge (16, 18) at the proximal end of the back ear contact (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, and 0044-0049, e.g. Paragraph 0044: “…a joint 16 is provided at the rear end of the temple 2 to enable the angle to be changed according to the fifth invention, and the lower front pressing part 3 integrated with the rear pressing part is attached so as to be rotatable in the vertical direction”);
wherein the distal end of the back ear contact is rotatable toward the lowermost portion of the front face (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, and 0044-0050); and
wherein the distal end of the back ear contact is restricted from rotating to a position above the top length portion of the temple bar (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, and 0044-0050, e.g. Paragraph 0048: “The temple 2 is sandwiched in a gap provided in the center of the connecting part 12, parallel to the temple 2, and the glasses are fixed in place by tightening the screw 18…connecting part 12 is attached to the rear presser part 4 and the lower front presser part 3 so as to be rotatable in the vertical direction as shown by the arrows. The joint 16 is attached so as to rotate with a force equal to or greater than a certain level”).
While Terakawa teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed friction hinge, Examiner further submits reference Gish.
Gish teaches fitted eyeglass frames comprising a pair of temple bars (17, 18) extending from a frame (12) and a back ear contact (19, 21) extending from each temple bar, each back ear contact including a proximal end and a distal end; wherein the back ear contact is pivotably connected to the second end of the temple bar via a friction hinge (23, 24) at the proximal end of the back ear contact; wherein rotation of the back ear contact directs the distal end of the back ear contact toward the lowermost portion of the first plane; wherein the distal end of the back ear contact is restricted from rotating to a position above the second plane; and wherein the friction hinge is configured to resist a pivoting motion of the back ear contact (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 4, L. 10 – C. 5, L. 18).
Gish teaches this friction hinge on the proximal end of the back ear contact to provide “an eyeglasses frame which can be fit precisely to the particular ear and head configuration of the wearer with the eyeglasses supported on the bridge of the nose of the wearer and held precisely in position by ear engaging members closely conforming to the contours of the back of the ear around which they are engaged” such that “the fit is so precise that the eyeglasses cannot slide or accidentally be dislodged while being worn” and “to facilitate the forward movement of the frames which is necessary for easy removal of the eyeglasses from the head of the wearer” (C. 2, L. 26-41).
Therefore, even if Terakawa did not disclose the required friction hinge, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Terakawa with the friction hinge of Gish to provide “an eyeglasses frame which can be fit precisely to the particular ear and head configuration of the wearer with the eyeglasses supported on the bridge of the nose of the wearer and held precisely in position by ear engaging members closely conforming to the contours of the back of the ear around which they are engaged” such that “the fit is so precise that the eyeglasses cannot slide or accidentally be dislodged while being worn” and “to facilitate the forward movement of the frames which is necessary for easy removal of the eyeglasses from the head of the wearer,” as taught by Gish (C. 2, L. 26-41).
Regarding claim 19, Terakawa in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that the zygomatic arch side supports are detachably attached to the inner surface of the temple bars (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0014, 0024, 0048, and 0050).
Regarding claim 20, Terakawa in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that the frame does not include nose supports (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0006 and 0058, e.g. Paragraph 0058: “You can also wear them without placing them on your nose”).
Regarding claim 21, Terakawa in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that the frame includes nose supports (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 6, and 8-10; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034).
Additionally, Gish further teaches that the frame includes nose supports (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 4, L. 10-27).
Regarding claim 22, Terakawa in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that the friction hinge comprises a center rivet (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, and 0044-0049, e.g. Paragraph 0044: “…a joint 16 is provided at the rear end of the temple 2 to enable the angle to be changed according to the fifth invention, and the lower front pressing part 3 integrated with the rear pressing part is attached so as to be rotatable in the vertical direction” and Paragraph 0048: “The temple 2 is sandwiched in a gap provided in the center of the connecting part 12, parallel to the temple 2, and the glasses are fixed in place by tightening the screw 18…”).
Additionally, Gish further teaches that the friction hinge comprises a center rivet (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 4, L. 10 – C. 5, L. 18).
Regarding claim 23, Terakawa in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that each back ear contact is formed from silicone or nitinol (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraph 0056).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicone or nitinol for the back ear contacts 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 use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 24, Terakawa in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that the zygomatic arch side supports are detachably attached to the inner surface of the temple bars (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0014, 0024, 0048, and 0050).
Terakawa fails to explicitly disclose that the zygomatic arch side supports are detachably attached to the inner surface of the temple bars by a magnetic connector.
However, Gish further teaches that the side supports are detachably attached to the inner surface of the temple bars by a magnetic connector (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 4-20).
Gish teaches this magnetic connector “for releasably holding them in the desired wearing position” (C. 3, L. 4-20) to provide “an eyeglasses frame which can be fit precisely to the particular ear and head configuration of the wearer with the eyeglasses supported on the bridge of the nose of the wearer and held precisely in position by ear engaging members closely conforming to the contours of the back of the ear around which they are engaged” such that “the fit is so precise that the eyeglasses cannot slide or accidentally be dislodged while being worn” and “to facilitate the forward movement of the frames which is necessary for easy removal of the eyeglasses from the head of the wearer” (C. 2, L. 26-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Terakawa with the magnetic connector of Gish “for releasably holding them in the desired wearing position” to provide “an eyeglasses frame which can be fit precisely to the particular ear and head configuration of the wearer with the eyeglasses supported on the bridge of the nose of the wearer and held precisely in position by ear engaging members closely conforming to the contours of the back of the ear around which they are engaged” such that “the fit is so precise that the eyeglasses cannot slide or accidentally be dislodged while being worn” and “to facilitate the forward movement of the frames which is necessary for easy removal of the eyeglasses from the head of the wearer,” as taught by Gish (C. 2, L. 26-41; C. 3, L. 4-20).
Regarding claim 25, Terakawa in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Terakawa further teaches that the zygomatic arch side supports are fastened to the inner surface of the temple bars by a fastener; and wherein each of the fasteners is at least one of an adhesive, a screw, a bolt, a hinge, and a nut (See e.g. Figs. 1-10; Paragraphs 0014, 0024, 0029-0030, 0036-0038, 0040, and 0044-0050, e.g. Paragraph 0048: “The temple 2 is sandwiched in a gap provided in the center of the connecting part 12, parallel to the temple 2, and the glasses are fixed in place by tightening the screw 18…connecting part 12 is attached to the rear presser part 4 and the lower front presser part 3 so as to be rotatable in the vertical direction as shown by the arrows. The joint 16 is attached so as to rotate with a force equal to or greater than a certain level”).
Claim(s) 13 and 19-25 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0072558; hereinafter – “Ikuta”) in view of Gish (U.S. Patent No. 4,790,645).
Regarding claim 13, Ikuta teaches an article of eyewear comprising
a frame (1) to receive a pair of lenses (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0027-0028);
wherein the frame and the pair of lenses define a front face (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0027-0028); and
wherein each lens extends from an uppermost portion of the front face to a lowermost portion of the front face (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0027-0028);
a pair of temple bars (2) extending from the frame (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0029),
wherein each temple bar includes a first end, a second end, an inner surface, and a top length portion (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0029);
wherein each temple bar extends from the frame at the first end of the temple bar (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0029);
wherein each temple bar includes a zygomatic arch side support (4) attached to the inner surface of the temple bar (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0029 and 0031-0033);
wherein each zygomatic arch side support is located between the first end and the second end of the temple bar (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0029 and 0031-0033); and
wherein each zygomatic arch side support is in the form of a pad (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0029 and 0031-0033); and
a back ear contact (3) extending from each temple bar, each back ear contact including a proximal end and a distal end (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0031);
wherein the back ear contact is pivotably connected to the second end of the temple bar via a friction hinge (6, Ha, Hb) at the proximal end of the back ear contact (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0031);
wherein the distal end of the back ear contact is restricted from rotating to a position above the top length portion of the temple bar (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0031).
Ikuta fails to explicitly disclose that the distal end of the back ear contact is rotatable toward the lowermost portion of the front face.
Gish teaches fitted eyeglass frames comprising a pair of temple bars (17, 18) extending from a frame (12) and a back ear contact (19, 21) extending from each temple bar, each back ear contact including a proximal end and a distal end; wherein the back ear contact is pivotably connected to the second end of the temple bar via a friction hinge (23, 24) at the proximal end of the back ear contact; wherein rotation of the back ear contact directs the distal end of the back ear contact toward the lowermost portion of the first plane; wherein the distal end of the back ear contact is restricted from rotating to a position above the second plane; and wherein the friction hinge is configured to resist a pivoting motion of the back ear contact (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 4, L. 10 – C. 5, L. 18).
Gish teaches this rotatable back ear contact distal end to provide “an eyeglasses frame which can be fit precisely to the particular ear and head configuration of the wearer with the eyeglasses supported on the bridge of the nose of the wearer and held precisely in position by ear engaging members closely conforming to the contours of the back of the ear around which they are engaged” such that “the fit is so precise that the eyeglasses cannot slide or accidentally be dislodged while being worn” and “to facilitate the forward movement of the frames which is necessary for easy removal of the eyeglasses from the head of the wearer” (C. 2, L. 26-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Ikuta with the rotatable back ear contact distal end of Gish to provide “an eyeglasses frame which can be fit precisely to the particular ear and head configuration of the wearer with the eyeglasses supported on the bridge of the nose of the wearer and held precisely in position by ear engaging members closely conforming to the contours of the back of the ear around which they are engaged” such that “the fit is so precise that the eyeglasses cannot slide or accidentally be dislodged while being worn” and “to facilitate the forward movement of the frames which is necessary for easy removal of the eyeglasses from the head of the wearer,” as taught by Gish (C. 2, L. 26-41).
Regarding claim 19, Ikuta in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Ikuta further teaches that the zygomatic arch side supports are detachably attached to the inner surface of the temple bars (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0029, 0031-0033, and 0040).
Regarding claim 20, Ikuta in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Ikuta further teaches that the frame does not include nose supports (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 21, Ikuta in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Ikuta further teaches that the frame includes nose supports (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0028 and 0034).
Additionally, Gish further teaches that the frame includes nose supports (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 4, L. 10-27).
Regarding claim 22, Ikuta in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Ikuta further teaches that the friction hinge comprises a center rivet (6) (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0031).
Additionally, Gish further teaches that the friction hinge comprises a center rivet (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 4, L. 10 – C. 5, L. 18).
Regarding claim 23, Ikuta in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Ikuta further teaches that each back ear contact is formed from silicone or nitinol (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0029-0030).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicone or nitinol for the back ear contacts 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 use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 24, Ikuta in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Ikuta further teaches that the zygomatic arch side supports are detachably attached to the inner surface of the temple bars (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0029, 0031-0033, and 0040).
Ikuta fails to explicitly disclose that the zygomatic arch side supports are detachably attached to the inner surface of the temple bars by a magnetic connector.
However, Gish further teaches that the side supports are detachably attached to the inner surface of the temple bars by a magnetic connector (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 4-20).
Gish teaches this magnetic connector “for releasably holding them in the desired wearing position” (C. 3, L. 4-20) to provide “an eyeglasses frame which can be fit precisely to the particular ear and head configuration of the wearer with the eyeglasses supported on the bridge of the nose of the wearer and held precisely in position by ear engaging members closely conforming to the contours of the back of the ear around which they are engaged” such that “the fit is so precise that the eyeglasses cannot slide or accidentally be dislodged while being worn” and “to facilitate the forward movement of the frames which is necessary for easy removal of the eyeglasses from the head of the wearer” (C. 2, L. 26-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Ikuta with the magnetic connector of Gish “for releasably holding them in the desired wearing position” to provide “an eyeglasses frame which can be fit precisely to the particular ear and head configuration of the wearer with the eyeglasses supported on the bridge of the nose of the wearer and held precisely in position by ear engaging members closely conforming to the contours of the back of the ear around which they are engaged” such that “the fit is so precise that the eyeglasses cannot slide or accidentally be dislodged while being worn” and “to facilitate the forward movement of the frames which is necessary for easy removal of the eyeglasses from the head of the wearer,” as taught by Gish (C. 2, L. 26-41; C. 3, L. 4-20).
Regarding claim 25, Ikuta in view of Gish teaches the article of eyewear of claim 13, as above.
Ikuta further teaches that the zygomatic arch side supports are fastened to the inner surface of the temple bars by a fastener; and wherein each of the fasteners is at least one of an adhesive, a screw, a bolt, a hinge, and a nut (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0027-0033, and 0040).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 08/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Terakawa have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Terakawa does not disclose a ‘back ear contact’ as recited in claim 13” and that “The rear presser portion 4 of Terakawa does not contact the back of a user’s ear.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Terakawa explicitly teaches that “The rear pressing portion 4-1 presses the back of the ears and has the same effect as a conventional modern style” (Paragraph 0030). Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Terakawa does disclose a back ear contact reading on the claimed back ear contact.
Moreover, no special definition of “back ear contact” is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a back ear contact”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “a back ear contact,” which states/seems to imply that the back ear contact must make specific contact with the ear, and cannot simply contact a region in the back of the ear. Therefore, while Terakawa explicitly teaches a pressing portion that contacts the back of the ears, Terakawa’s additional disclosure of portions that extend upward behind the ear also read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “back ear contact.”
PNG
media_image1.png
484
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Terakawa teaches the required friction hinge at a proximal end of the back ear contact
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 08/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Terakawa and Gish have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Gish does not teach or suggest a ‘friction hinge’ as recited in claim 13. Instead, Gish merely discloses a hinge 39 and use of a resilient spring or magnetic attractive members 34.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Gish’s disclosure of the hinge reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “friction hinge” as it includes a hinge with a resilient member for fixing the elements in place. No special definition of “friction hinge” is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a friction hinge”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 08/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Ikuta and Gish have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Ikuta does not disclose a temple bar extending from the frame as recited in claim 13” because “The temple 3 of Ikuta is not attached to a frame; instead, Ikuta teaches that an end piece 2 is attached to its frame.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the “end pieces 2” of Ikuta read on the claimed “temple bars” of the claim as they include all of the structural limitations of the claimed “temple bars” as detailed previous and above.
Applicant further argues that “Ikuta does not teach or suggest a back ear contact that is pivotably connected to the second end of the temple bar ‘wherein each zygomatic arch side support is located between the first end and the second end of the temple bar.’” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Ikuta explicitly teaches a pivotably connected back ear support in Paragraphs 0027-0031 (see e.g. Paragraph 0030: “a convex curved surface 22b formed on an outer wall 22a of the bent portion 22 of the end piece 2 is provided to follow a concave curved surface 32c formed on an outer wall 32b of the recess 32, and a screw 6 is twisted into a vertical hole Ha formed on the bent portion 22 from a shaft hole Hb formed on a bottom wall 32d of the recess 32 as illustrated in FIG. 3, thereby pivotally supporting the front-end portion of the temple 3 at the back end of the end piece 2”).
Finally, Applicant argues that “the Office has selectively culled aspects of Terakawa, Gish, or Ikuta’s disclosures to stitch together the obviousness rejection with no motivation to combine the references, which Applicant submits amounts to an improper rejection.” However, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Moreover, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation was provided, as detailed previously and above, to provide “an eyeglasses frame which can be fit precisely to the particular ear and head configuration of the wearer with the eyeglasses supported on the bridge of the nose of the wearer and held precisely in position by ear engaging members closely conforming to the contours of the back of the ear around which they are engaged” such that “the fit is so precise that the eyeglasses cannot slide or accidentally be dislodged while being worn” and “to facilitate the forward movement of the frames which is necessary for easy removal of the eyeglasses from the head of the wearer,” as explicitly taught by Gish (C. 2, L. 26-41).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896