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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 07/07/2026 have been entered. Claims 14 and 17-26 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record, Liu in view of Baek, fails to disclose the limitations of amended claim 14, specifically, “the temple is defined by the single temple body and the single covering element”. Applicant further argues that Liu fails to disclose “a profile that is complementary to a profile of said electronic components, so that said electronic components are supported and retained to said single covering element” in order to be able to extract the electronic components altogether. Applicant further argues that Baek fails to disclose a single element as defined by claim 14 and that the proposed combination appears to be the result of impermissible hindsight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument wherein the prior fails to disclose the limitation of claim 14, Examiner notes that the claims are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation and according to the language set forth in said claim. In the instant case, applicant uses the language of “said temple being defined by said single temple body and by said single covering element” examiner is taking the temple body 11 and the covering element 121 of Liu as defining said temple since the cover 121, which provides the structure, defines the shape of the temple while 122 acts as an over molded element over covering element 121, imparting no structure and used to seal the electronic components. Furthermore, the language in claim 14 does not exclusively define the temple as only consisting of said temple body and said covering element.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., to extract the electronic components altogether) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to Liu failing to disclose “a profile that is complementary to a profile of said electronic components, so that said electronic components are supported and retained to said single covering element”, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case the limitation is being disclosed by Liu in view of Baek with Baek disclosing the limitation in Fig 3 and Para [0046] as stated in the rejection below.
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). Examiner further provides Wang (US 2021/0173232) as evidence of the obviousness of the modification of Liu in view of Baek. Wang discloses in Fig 7 and Para [0131] a temple with a covering element, which examiner takes as temple 151, that supports and retains said electronic components 161. For these reasons examiner maintains the rejection of claim 14 under USC 103.
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.
Claims 14, 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Machine Translation of CN 108897143, of record) in view of Baek (US 2020/0271960, of record).
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses a temple for eyeglasses (see Fig 1) comprising: a single temple body which is provided internally with a cavity configured for accommodating electronic components (see Fig 1; Para [0028-0029]; containing body 11 has chamber 111 configured for accommodating circuit assembly 13), wherein said cavity is accessible via an opening formed at a lower surface of said single temple body (see Fig 1; Para [0028-0029]; chamber 111 has opening 112 formed at a lower surface of the containing body 11), a single covering element being adapted to close said cavity by insertion in said cavity (see Fig 1; Para [0028-0029]; Bracket 121 which is adapted to close cavity 111 by inserting and attaching to containing body 11), wherein said single covering element defines part of a lower outer profile of the single temple body (Fig 1; Para [0028-0029]; The hard bracket 121 which provides the structural rigidity defines a lower outer profile of the temple body); said temple being defined by said single temple body and by said single covering element (Fig 1; Para [0028-0029]; The hard bracket 121 which provides the structural rigidity defines a lower outer profile of the temple body while temple body 11 forms the upper profile of the temple body).
Liu does not disclose wherein said single covering element supports and retains said electronic components, wherein said single covering element has a profile that is complementary to a profile of said electronic components, so that said electronic components are supported and retained to said single covering element. Liu in view of Baek are related because both disclose temples for eyeglasses.
Baek discloses a temple for eyeglasses (see Fig 3) wherein said single covering element supports and retains said electronic components, wherein said single covering element has a profile that is complementary to a profile of said electronic components, so that said electronic components are supported and retained to said single covering element (see Fig 3; Para [0046]; a single cover 400 on each temple supports, electronic components/circuits and has a profile that complements circuits and sensors 320, 340, and 360; said circuits are retained as in the auxiliary frame 380).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Liu with wherein said single covering element supports and retains said electronic components, wherein said single covering element has a profile that is complementary to a profile of said electronic components, so that said electronic components are supported and retained to said single covering element of Baek for the purpose of improving the capabilities of the device to protect sensitive electronic components by proper element fixing (Para [0046]).
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of Baek discloses the temple for eyeglasses according to claim 14 (see Fig 1). Liu further discloses wherein said single covering element has a profile that is configured to enter said cavity and occupy at least part of a space of said cavity (see Figs 1 and 3; Para [0032-0033]; bracket 121 which is physically connected to temple body 11 extending into the cavity of 111 as seen in Fig 3) and allow at the same time a seal between said single covering element and internal walls of said cavity (see Figs 1 and 3; Para [0032-0033]; bracket 121 closes cavity 111 by sealing up into the internal walls of said cavity as seen in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 18, Liu in view of Baek discloses the temple for eyeglasses according to claim 14 (see Fig 1). Liu further discloses further comprising a layer of overmolded material that is adapted to be overmolded on said covering element when said single covering element is inserted in said cavity so as to close said cavity (see Fig 1 and 3; Para [0030-0032]; the soft cap layer 122 is overmolded over bracket 121 further sealing the cavity 111).
Regarding claim 19, Liu in view of Baek discloses the temple for eyeglasses according to claim 14 (see Fig 1). Liu further discloses further comprising an undercut formed at an internal shape of said temple body, said single covering element abutting against said undercut (see Fig 4; Para [0036-0038]; containing body 11 has inner region 1131 that examiner is interpreting as undercut; inner region 1131 abuts element 121).
Regarding claim 20, Liu in view of Baek discloses the temple for eyeglasses according to claim 19 (see Fig 1). Liu further discloses wherein said undercut is formed by a gasket (see Fig 5; Para [0036-0038]; examiner is interpreting this to mean the undercut is formed with a gasket which examiner interprets as element 122 which acts as a seal).
Regarding claim 21, Liu in view of Baek discloses the temple for eyeglasses according to claim 19 (see Fig 1). Liu further discloses wherein said undercut is coupled with a gasket which abuts against said undercut (see Fig 5; Para [0036-0038]; element 122 acts as gasket and abuts interpreted undercut region).
Regarding claim 22, Liu in view of Baek discloses a method for the assembly of a temple for eyeglasses according to claim 14 (see Fig 1). Liu further discloses the method including the following steps: coupling said single covering element to said electronic components (see Fig 1; Para [0028-0029]; containing body 11 has chamber 111 configured for accommodating circuit assembly 13), inserting, through said opening for access to said cavity, said single covering element coupled to said electronic elements in said cavity of the body of the temple, and sealing said single covering element against said internal walls of the cavity of the body of the temple (see Fig 1; Para [0028-0029]; cover 12 has a bracket 121 which is adapted to close cavity 111 by attaching to the walls of containing body 11 as seen in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 23, Liu in view of Baek discloses the method according to claim 22 (see Fig 1). Liu further discloses wherein said single covering element, when inserted in said cavity, is flush with adjacent surface portions of the temple body (see Fig 4; Para [0036-0038]; covering may be interpreted as both elements 121 and 122 which produce a flush surface with the side walls of the device).
Regarding claim 24, Liu in view of Baek discloses the method according to claim 22 (see Fig 1). Liu further discloses further comprising a step of overmolding a layer of material on said covering element, in order to seal said single covering element in said cavity of the temple body (see Fig 4; Para [0030-0034]; a soft cap layer may be placed over the bracket 121 in order to further seal the device).
Regarding claim 25, Liu in view of Baek discloses the method according to claim 24 (see Fig 1). Liu further discloses wherein said covering element, when inserted in said cavity, is in a recessed position with respect to the adjacent surface portions of the temple body, said recess being filled by said layer of overmolded material (see Fig 6; Para [0041]; bracket 121 may be recessed with respect to containing body 11 as seen in Fig 6 creating a gap which may be filled by cap layer 122).
Regarding claim 26, Liu in view of Baek discloses a method for assembling a temple for eyeglasses according to claim 14 (see Fig 1). Liu further discloses the method including the steps of: inserting, through said opening for access to said cavity, said electronic components in said cavity of the body of the temple (see Fig 1; Para [0028-0029]; containing body 11 has chamber 111 configured for accommodating circuit assembly 13; can be inserted as seen in Fig 4), inserting, through said opening for access to said cavity, said single covering element, separately from said electronic components, and sealing said single covering element against said internal walls of the cavity of the body of the temple (see Fig 1; Para [0028-0029]; cover 12 has a bracket 121 which is adapted to close cavity 111 by attaching to the walls of containing body 11 as seen in Fig 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US 2021/0173232) discloses electronic eyewear with temple comprising a temple body and a covering element.
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 GABRIEL ANDRES SANZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3844. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am -5:30 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/G.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
