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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 7-21 have been renumbered as claims 6-20, respectively.
Renumbered claims 9 and 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In renumbered claim 9, line 1, “claim 9” should be --claim 8--.
In each renumbered claim 11-20, line 1, “claim 11” should be --claim 10--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and renumbered claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cornelius (20150121610). Cornelius et al. ‘610 discloses (claim 1) a helmet system with a helmet (paragraph [0030]), a lens 212 having a conductive layer (conductive regions A-H, fig. 6, A-X, fig. 8) attached to the helmet, wherein the conductive layer is configured to receive electrical current (from voltage source 202) and includes at least one region that, in response to the conductive layer receiving electric current, generates heat faster than other regions of the conductive layer, and the at least one region is positioned corresponding to eye positions of a wearer of the helmet (paragraph [0020], “…A heating profile may typically be used where one or more parts of the eye-shield are to be intentionally made warmer than other parts of the eye-shield (e.g., where one side is warmer than another, or the edges are warmer than the middle of the eye-shield). Thus, for example, in the case of a snowboarder, one side of the lens corresponding to the forward foot of the snowboarder may require more heat since the snowboarder typically stands more sideways while going down a hill…” and paragraph [0079] “…Thus, it may be appreciated that, whether an evenly-heated embodiment of the eye-shield is desired, or a customized heated embodiment of the eye-shield is desired, the desired result may be achieved by varying the resistivity of different segments of the eye-shield by varying the thickness, by choosing a different formulation of heating material, or by utilizing PWM heating channel technology as disclosed in the PWM application.”).
Regarding claim 2, Cornelius et al. ‘610 further discloses a first electrode (one of the bus bars to regions A-X) disposed proximal to a top edge of the lens 212 in electrical communication with the conductive layer (corresponding region A-X, Fig. 8), a second electrode (another one of the bus bars to region A-X) disposed proximal to the top edge of the lens in electrical communication with the conductive layer (another corresponding region A-X, Fig. 8); and a power source 202 in electrical communication with both the first electrode and the second electrode and configured to provide electrical current through the conductive layer.
Regarding claim 3, Cornelius et al. ‘610 discloses an active anti-fog (AAF) eyewear system (paragraph [0030]) with an inherent a lens holder (not shown), an AAF lens 212 comprising a conductive layer (conductive regions A-H, fig. 6, A-X, fig. 8) and a power supply 202 in electrical communication with the conductive layer, wherein the AAF lens 212 is attachable to the lens holder, the lens holder is configurable to dispose the attached AAF lens in front of eyes of a user of the AAF eyewear system with an inherent first region of the lens positioned along a line of sight of the user, and when the power supply provides an electric current to the conductive layer (conductive regions A-H, fig. 6, A-X, fig. 8), the first region of the AAF lens generates heat more rapidly than other regions of the AAF lens (paragraphs [0020] and [0079]).
Regarding claim 5, Cornelius et al. ‘610 discloses that the inherent lens holder is mountable on a helmet (as a helmet visor, paragraph [0030]) and the lens holder is configurable to dispose the attached AAF lens 212 in front of eyes of the user, with the first region of the lens positioned along a line of sight of the user, when the lens holder is mounted on the helmet and the user wears the helmet (paragraphs [0020] and [0079]) .
Regarding renumbered claim 7, Cornelius et al. ‘610 further discloses a first electrode (one of the bus bars to regions A-X, Fig. 8) and a second electrode (another one of the bus bars to regions A-X, Fig. 8), wherein the first electrode is disposed proximal to a first edge of the AAF lens 212 (Fig. 8) and the second electrode is disposed on a second edge of the AAF lens 212 (Fig. 8), and wherein the first edge of the AAF lens and the second edge of the AAF lens are non-opposing edges (Fig. 8).
Regarding renumbered claim 8, Cornelius et al. ‘610 further discloses a first electrode (one of the bus bars to regions A-X, Fig. 8) disposed proximal to the top edge of the lens in electrical communication with the conductive layer (corresponding region A-X, Fig. 8); and a second electrode (another one of the bus bars to regions A-X, Fig. 8) disposed proximal to the top edge of the lens in electrical communication with the conductive layer (another corresponding region A-X, Fig. 8).
Regarding renumbered claim 10, Cornelius et al. ‘610 discloses an active anti-fog (AAF) lens for eyewear (paragraph [0030]) with an optical lens 212 having an inherent inner surface that is proximal to a wearer when the eyewear is worn, an inherent outer surface that opposes the inner surface, an electrically conductive layer ((conductive regions A-X, fig. 8) disposed on the inner surface of the optical lens, a first electrode (one of the bus bars to regions A-X) disposed proximal to a top edge of the optical lens 212 in electrical communication with the electrically conductive layer (corresponding region A-X, Fig. 8); a second electrode (another one of the bus bars to regions A-X) disposed proximal to the top edge of the optical lens in electrical communication with the electrically conductive layer (another corresponding region A-X, Fig. 8), and a power source 202 in electrical communication with both the first electrode and the second electrode and configured to provide electrical current through the electrically conductive layer.
Regarding renumbered claim 11, Cornelius et al. ‘610 further discloses that the first electrode is disposed proximal to a right edge of the lens 212 (Fig. 8) and the second electrode is disposed proximal to a left edge of the lens 212 (Fig. 8).
Regarding renumbered claim 13, Cornelius et al. ‘610 further discloses that the electrically conductive layer comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) (paragraph [0060]).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius et al. ‘610, as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Sperbeck (5,471,036). Cornelius et al. ‘610 discloses all of the claimed subject matter except that the AAF lens is removably attachable to the lens holder.
Sperbeck teaches for a defogging lens attachable to a lens holder and that (claim 4) the lens is removably attachable to the lens holder for the purposes of replacing the lens if it is cracked or broken. See Sperbeck col. 3, lines 14-23.
Since Cornelius et al. ‘610 and Sperbeck are both in the same field of endeavor the purpose disclosed by Sperbeck would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Cornelius et al. ‘610. It would have been obvious at a time before the invention was effectively filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the AAF lens of Cornelius such that it is removably attachable to the lens holder for the purposes of replacing the lens if it is cracked or broken.
Renumbered claims 6, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius et al. ‘610, as applied to claim 3 and renumbered claim 10 above. Cornelius et al. ‘610 discloses all of the claimed subject matter except for specific operating characteristics according to a NSRDEC Fog Tester protocol.
Cornelius et al. ‘610 discloses that the defogging ability of the heating element is determined by many adjustable variables namely the voltage applied, the amount of time the voltage is applied, and the electrical resistance of the heating element. All of these variables can be adjusted or designed to meet a design standard and thus are deemed results effective variables.
Since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of results effective variables involves only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious at a time before the invention was effectively filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the defogging ability of the lens of Cornelius et al. ‘610 such that it meets specific operating characteristics according to the NSRDEC Fog Tester protocol.
Renumbered claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius et al. ‘610, as applied to renumbered claim 10 above. Cornelius et al. ‘610 discloses all of the claimed subject matter except for at least one functional layer disposed on the outer surface, the at least one functional layer comprising one or more of: a reflective coating; a hydrophobic coating; and a tint coating.
Official notice is taken that reflective coating, hydrophobic coating, and tint coating are well known functional layers that applied to lenses to protect a user from the blinding sun and rain buildup. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the lens of Cornelius et al. ‘610 to include a functional layer disposed on the outer surface as a matter of engineering expedience.
Renumbered claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius et al. ‘610, as applied to renumbered claim 10 above, in view of Cornelius (8,566,962). Cornelius et al. ‘610 discloses all of the claimed subject matter except that the first electrode and the second electrode are each electrically connected to the electrically conductive layer and are each adhered to the optical lens with an electrically conductive adhesive.
Cornelius et al. ‘962 teaches for an AAF lens (Fig. 4) and that that (renumbered claim 17) the first electrode (one of the bus bars to regions A-X, Fig. 4) and the second electrode (another one of the bus bars to regions A-X, Fig. 4) are each electrically connected to the electrically conductive layer (corresponding region A-X, Fig. 4) and are each adhered to the optical lens with an electrically conductive adhesive (col. 11, lines 4-13) for the purposes of providing a connection from the power supply to the conductive layer.
Since Cornelius et al. ‘610 and Cornelius et al. ‘962 are both in the same field of endeavor the purpose disclosed by Cornelius et al. ‘962 would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Cornelius et al. ‘610. It would have been obvious at a time before the invention was effectively filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the AAF lens of Cornelius et al. ‘610 such that the first electrode and the second electrode are each electrically connected to the electrically conductive layer and are each adhered to the optical lens with an electrically conductive adhesive for the purposes of providing a connection from the power supply to the conductive layer.
Renumbered claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius et al. ‘610, as applied to renumbered claim 10 above. Cornelius et al. ‘610 discloses all of the claimed subject matter except for the power source is electrically connected to the first electrode at two or three or more locations on the first electrode and is electrically connected to the second electrode at two or three or more locations on the second electrode.
Since the applicant has not disclosed that having the power source electrically connected to the electrode at two or three or more locations solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that power is supplied to the electrode and it appears that the electrodes of Cornelius et al. ‘610 would perform equally well with the power source electrically connected at two or three or more locations as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of engineering expedience to further modify the electrodes of Cornelius et al. ‘610 such that the power source is electrically connected to each of the first and second electrodes at two or three or more locations. as claimed for the purposes of supplying power to each of the first and second electrodes.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure for showing other anti-fog lenses eyewear systems with electrodes and conductive layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Renumbered claims 9 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The improvement comprises (renumbered claim 9) that the first region of the lens is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode and (renumbered claim 20) the lens is disposed in a frame that encloses at least a portion of the top edge and of the optical lens and does not enclose the bottom edge, wherein the frame covers the first and second electrodes and includes electrical contacts for electrically connecting with the first and second electrodes.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Lazo whose telephone number is (571) 272-4818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Nathaniel Wiehe, can be reached on (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for this Group 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.
/THOMAS E LAZO/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3745
January 10, 2026