Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/086,170

CUSTOMIZABLE, BIODEGRADABLE AND/OR COMPOSTABLE EYEGLASSES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 21, 2022
Examiner
THOMAS, BRANDI N
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Four 20/20 Optical Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
897 granted / 1089 resolved
+14.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1113
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
58.5%
+18.5% vs TC avg
§102
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
§112
6.2%
-33.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1089 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
--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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/30/2025. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 9/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant argues that claims 1-18 together because all these claims relate to subject matter relating to a frame that is at least partially compostable and/or compostable. This is found persuasive. The Examiner agrees with the Applicant and claims 1-18 will be examined below. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 (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 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) 1, 7-9, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano, Tomihito et al. (JP H08146355), hereinafter Nakano. Regarding claims 1 and 13, Nakano discloses Eyeglasses (spectacles) (paragraphs 0001, 0018, and 0025), comprising: a frame that is at least partially compostable and/or biodegradable (biodegradable; paragraphs 01008 and 0027), and at least one lens that may be dissolvable, compostable and/or biodegradable in water (biodegradable; paragraphs 0007 and 0025). Regarding claim 7, Nakano discloses having no metal part (paragraph 0008 discloses the frame is made of biodegradable resin) (Examiner notes that biodegradable resin does not contain metal). Regarding claim 8, Nakano discloses capable of being formed for customizable fit on a human being’s face (paragraph 0037 discloses glasses are fitted on the face and will not deform or deviate). Regarding claim 9, Nakano discloses having a riveting portion, a ball hinge portion, a ball lock system, or a loose, no snap hinge (paragraph 15). Regarding claim 14, Nakano discloses wherein the visual improvement device is a frame of eyeglasses (spectacles; paragraph 0018). Regarding claim 15, Nakano discloses installed with at least one lens (figure 4 and paragraph 0018). Regarding claim 17, Nakano discloses wherein the lens is comprised of no plant-based material (paragraph 0002). 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 2-6, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Tomihito et al. (JP H08146355), hereinafter Nakano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ding Y (CN 109354991), hereinafter Ding. Regarding claims 2 and 18, Nakano discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated. Nakano does not disclose wherein the frame is made from a plant-based material. Nakano and Ding are related as eyeglass frames. Ding discloses wherein the frame is made from a plant-based material (paragraph 13). 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 device of Nakano with the hemp fiber of Ding for the purpose of its durability, stiffness, and lightweight properties. Regarding claim 3, Ding discloses wherein the plant-based material is made from or derived from hemp (paragraph 13). Regarding claim 4, Ding discloses wherein the plant-based material is substantially free from tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (paragraph 13 discloses the use of hemp fibers) (Examiner notes that hemp discloses approximately 0.3% of THC and is therefore substantially free of THC). Regarding claim 5, Ding discloses containing no detectable amount of THC (paragraph 13 discloses the use of hemp fibers) (Examiner notes that not all hemp discloses THC and the hemp that does only contains approximately 0.3% and therefore THC may not be detectable). Regarding claim 6, Ding discloses wherein the plant-based material is fibrous (paragraph 13 discloses the use of hemp fibers) (Examiner notes the hemp is a plant). Regarding claim 10, Ding discloses wherein the entire frame consists essentially of a hemp material (paragraph 13). Claim(s) 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Tomihito et al. (JP H08146355), hereinafter Nakano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (JP H0799412), hereinafter ‘412. Regarding claim 11, Nakano discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated. Nakano does not disclose further comprising a luxury accessory. Nakano and ‘412 are related as spectacle frames. ‘412 discloses further comprising a luxury accessory (paragraph 7 discloses the use of gems, precious metal, accessories and the like). 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 device of Nakano with the luxury accessory of ‘412 for the purpose of embellishing the frames of the spectacles. Regarding claim 12, ‘412 discloses wherein the luxury accessory is comprised of a precious metal (paragraph 7 discloses the use of gems, precious metal, accessories and the like). Regarding claim 16, ‘412 discloses installed with a removable lens (paragraph 13). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 3:30. 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. /BRANDI N THOMAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 21, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601897
OPTICAL LENS ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601919
COMPACT DISPLAY SYSTEM HAVING UNIFORM IMAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585168
ZOOMING ACTUATOR HAVING DUAL STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575730
OPHTHALMIC SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CLINICAL DEVICE USING TRANSCLERAL ILLUMINATION WITH MULTIPLE POINTS SOURCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564319
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR QUANTITATIVE OCULAR SURFACE DIAGNOSTICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+7.6%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1089 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month