DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 (line 7) should read “wherein said capacitive sensor is integrated within said single flexible cable and is thus arranged at the front.”
In each of claims 28 and 29, “said hinge comprises” should read “said hinges comprise[[s]]”
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments (see Remarks dated 03/17/2026) with respect to claims 17 and 19-32 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, the applicant misinterprets the previous Office Action as “alleg[ing] that component 2420 in Figure 24A [of Blum] corresponds with Applicant’s claimed flexible cable.” Instead, the examiner has cited the “flexible conductive cable” of Blum’s Figure 21, which Blum identifies as component 1108 (Figs. 14-15 & 18; [0104]-[0105]). The previous rejection has only cited Blum’s printed circuit board 2420 to convey that flexible conductive cable 1108 is “adapted to…carry data signals and/or power supply to said temples” (as claimed by applicant) via interacting with 2420.
Further, applicant disagrees that Blum’s component 2410 corresponds to Applicant’s claimed capacitive sensor. However, Blum discloses “a switch 2410” ([0146]) and explicitly provides a “capacitive touch sensor” as a type of switch ([0147]).
On page 7, applicant argues that Hino fails to disclose a “capacitive sensor…arranged at the front,” because Hino allegedly “provides a capacitance sensor that is arranged at the control module, laterally with respect to the front of the eyeglasses.” However, Figure 11 shows that capacitance sensor 200 extends to front 12. Applicant should consider amending to more precisely describe how the capacitive sensor and/or flexible cable are arranged in relation to the front.
Applicant further argues that “Hino provides two separate flexible cables.” However, the applicant has claimed “wherein the electronic eyeglasses comprise a single flexible cable” (open-ended transitional phrase) rather than “consist of a single flexible cable” (closed transitional phrase). Therefore, a reference disclosing more than one flexible cable may be used to teach a single flexible cable. For clarity, the instant rejection relies upon 202 of Hino’s Figure 11 to disclose the single flexible cable, rather than both 202 and 204.
On page 8, applicant argues that “Zhong discloses a capacitive sensor…that is arranged at one of the temples and thereby does not satisfy the limitation of being integrated at the front.” However, Zhong’s Figure 3 depicts wherein capacitive sensor 310 extends to front 206, and is therefore arranged at the front.
Examiner’s Note
5. To improve readability, the examiner suggests amending claim 17 (lines 3-4) to read “a single flexible cable adapted to be incorporated within said front and configured to carry data signals and/or power supply,” to clarify that the “single flexible cable” (and not “said front”) is configured to carry data/power.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. Claims 17, 19-20, 22-25, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blum et al. (US 20130250233 B2, of record).
Regarding claim 17, Blum discloses electronic eyeglasses (Figs. 1-2) comprising: a front (Fig. 1, 102) and a pair of temples respectively connected to the front by hinges (Fig. 1, left and right temples; [0055]), wherein the electronic eyeglasses comprise a single flexible cable (Figs. 14-15, 18, and 21, flexible conductive cable 1108; [0104]-[0105]) adapted to be incorporated within said front (Fig. 21) configured to carry data signals and/or power supply to said temples (Fig. 24A, via 2420), and wherein said single flexible cable forms at least one active region adapted to act as a capacitive sensor configured to detect gestures on the part of a user (Fig. 24A, 2410; [0146]-[0154]), wherein said capacitive sensor is integrated within said single flexible cable (Fig. 21; Fig. 24A, 2410 & 2420; [0138] & [0146]-[0154]) and being thus arranged at the front (Fig. 18, 1108 is arranged at the front).
Regarding claim 19, Blum discloses wherein said single flexible cable has, at ends thereof, a pair of plates adapted to support at least one ambient light sensor (Fig. 24A, 2410; [0147], photo-detector).
Regarding claim 20, Blum discloses a locking element adapted to be inserted in holes formed in the front, configured to couple at the rear of the front with said pair of plates ([0089], rimlocks 712 & 714, “holes … such as those for screws”).
Regarding claim 22, Blum discloses a battery and electronic circuitry which are adapted to be accommodated within at least one of said temples ([0029]).
Regarding claim 23, Blum discloses an additional capacitive sensor adapted to be inserted in at least one of said temples configured to detect gestures on the part of the user (Figs. 24A&C, at least one sensor 2420 is on each side of the glasses).
Regarding claim 24, Blum discloses at least one additional sensor, which is accommodated within at least one of said temples and is adapted to detect whether said eyeglasses are being worn or not by said user (Figs. 24A&C, at least one sensor is on each side of the glasses; [0147]).
Regarding claim 25, Blum discloses wherein said at least one additional sensor accommodated within at least one of said temples configured to detect whether said eyeglasses are being worn or not by said user is of the capacitive or inertial or ambient type (Figs. 24A&C, at least one sensor is on each side of the glasses; [0147], gyroscope or accelerometer).
Regarding claim 27, Blum discloses wherein at least one of lenses of the eyeglasses comprises a power supply cable adapted to be inserted in said battery ([0075]).
Regarding claim 30, Blum discloses wherein said single flexible cable is overmolded within said front, in a rear position so that said flexible cable is directed toward said user, integrated within said front ([0098]).
8. Claims 17, 22, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hino et al. (EP 3396438 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 17, Hino discloses electronic eyeglasses (Fig. 11) comprising: a front (Fig. 11, 12) and a pair of temples respectively connected to the front by hinges (Fig. 11, 16L & 16R), wherein the electronic eyeglasses comprise a single flexible cable adapted to be incorporated within said front configured to carry data signals and/or power supply to said temples (Fig. 11, 202), and wherein said single flexible cable forms at least one active region (Fig. 11, 200) adapted to act as a capacitive sensor configured to detect gestures on the part of a user ([0032]), wherein said capacitive sensor is integrated within said single flexible cable (Fig. 11, 200 is integrated within 202; [0032]) and being thus arranged at the front (Fig. 11, 202 is arranged at the front).
Regarding claim 22, Hino discloses a battery and electronic circuitry which are adapted to be accommodated within at least one of said temples (Fig. 10, 18L&R).
Regarding claim 27, Hino discloses wherein at least one of lenses of the eyeglasses comprises a power supply cable adapted to be inserted in said battery (Fig. 11, 202 & 204).
Regarding claim 30, Hino discloses wherein said flexible cable is overmolded within said front, in a rear position so that said single flexible cable is directed toward said user, integrated within said front (Fig. 11, 202).
9. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhong et al. (US 10582295 B1, of record).
Regarding claim 17, Zhong discloses electronic eyeglasses (Figs. 1-3) comprising: a front (Fig. 3, 206) and a pair of temples (Fig. 3, 308L & 308R), respectively connected to the front by hinges (Fig. 3, 306L & 306R), wherein the electronic eyeglasses comprise a single flexible cable adapted to be incorporated within said front configured to carry data signals and/or power supply to said temples (Fig. 2, 222), and wherein said single flexible cable forms at least one active region adapted to act as a capacitive sensor configured to detect gestures on the part of a user (Fig. 3, 310), wherein said capacitive sensor is integrated within said single flexible cable (column 5 lines 34-44) and being thus arranged at the front (Fig. 3, 310 extends to the front, and is therefore arranged at the front).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
11. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Blum.
Regarding claim 21, Blum fails to explicitly disclose wherein said locking element is made of a material adapted to diffuse light to collect ambient light and diffuse ambient light onto an ambient light sensor provided at said plates.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the material of the locking element such that it was adapted to diffuse light, 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, 125 USPQ 146. It would have been obvious, motivated by optimizing lighting conditions of the device.
12. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Huh et al. (US 9477096 B2).
Regarding claim 26, Blum fails to disclose wherein said at least one additional sensor adapted to detect whether said eyeglasses are being worn or not by said user is an adherence sensor located in nose pads of said eyeglasses.
However, Huh teaches similar electronic glasses (Abstract), and discloses wherein at least one sensor adapted to detect whether said eyeglasses are being worn or not by said user is an adherence sensor (column 4 lines 62-63, 123b) located in nose pads of said eyeglasses (column 4 lines 65-66, 123b is installed at 111a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Blum and Huh such that an adherence sensor was located in nose pads of said eyeglasses, motivated by promoting compact design.
13. Claims 28-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Peloux et al. (US 20180210236 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 28, Blum fails to disclose wherein said hinge comprises, in an internal position, adapted to be directed toward said user, at least one LED configured to provide a feedback to said user.
However, Peloux teaches similar electronic eyeglasses (Fig. 1), and discloses wherein a hinge comprises, in an internal position, adapted to be directed toward said user, at least one LED configured to provide a feedback to said user (Fig. 1, 10; [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Blum and Peloux such that said hinge was to comprise an LED, motivated by the LED acting as an indicator to a user.
Regarding claim 29, modified Blum discloses wherein said hinge comprises additional sensors adapted to measure data to be displayed by means of said LED (Peloux - Fig. 1, 9 & 11).
Regarding claim 31, Blum fails to disclose a reset sensor integrated within at least one of said temples.
However, Peloux teaches similar electronic eyeglasses (Fig. 1), and discloses a reset sensor integrated within a temple (Fig. 1, 11; [0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Blum and Peloux such that a reset sensor was integrated within a temple, motivated by minimizing electrical power consumption ([0114]).
14. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Peloux, and further in view of Zhan (CN 111175979 A, of record).
Regarding claim 32, modified Blum discloses wherein said reset sensor is adapted to detect a presence of magnetic fields (Peloux - [0114]).
Modified Blum fails to explicitly disclose wherein said reset sensor comprises a Hall sensor.
However, Zhan teaches similar electronic eyeglasses (Abstract), and discloses wherein a reset sensor comprises a Hall sensor adapted to detect a presence of magnetic fields (Fig. 1, 210).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Blum and Zhan such that a reset sensor was to comprise a Hall sensor, motivated by promoting compact size of the device.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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 Allen can be reached at 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights