DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 6-7), filed 02/05/2026, regarding claim interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C 112(f) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments that the claims do not invoke a 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) interpretation and that the term “a lens retention component configured to fix/affix…” is not a nonce term by virtue of incorporating newly amended limitations directed to the structures that the lens retention component is configured to be affixed to (pgs. 6-7 of Remarks). However, Applicant’s arguments are not germane to the issue at hand, which is namely that “a lens retention component” as recited in claims 1, 3, 5, 21 and 25 is a generic placeholder (nonce term) not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. Applicant’s amendments directed to specifying the other structures that the lens retention component is affixed to is insufficient to rebut Examiner's findings regarding the claim interpretation. As stated previously (see pgs. 4-6 of Non-Final Office Action on 11/06/2025), Examiner notes that “a lens retention component” is a generic placeholders (nonce term) not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. Furthermore, the Examiner maintains that the generic placeholder is modified by functional language which serve to further describe the recited functions of “fixing” and/or “affixed to” performed by the claimed lens retention component. See MPEP § 2181 Section I, Parts A-C. See also Mas-Hamilton, 156 F.3d at 1213, 48 USPQ2d at 1016. Applicant has failed to provide any evidence beyond mere conclusory statements that said ‘lens retention component’ possesses any generally understood structural meaning in the art or connotate sufficient structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art that would preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Thus, the Examiner maintains that Applicant’s arguments are insufficient to overcome the claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), since the claimed generic placeholder(s) remain(s) unmodified by sufficient structure(s), material(s) or acts for achieving the specified function(s).
2. As a preliminary matter, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s assertions that “the Examiner agreed [during the interview of 01/21/2026] that the amendments overcame the rejections [under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)]…the Examiner agreed that amending the claim to more clearly define that the lens retention component is affixed in the loading cavity under the detachable rim piece overcame the clarity issue regarding how the lens retention component can be secured in the first lens rim” (pgs. 6-7 of the Remarks of 02/05/2026) are not correct. With respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the alleged “amendments” were not provided in the interview agenda. Rather, Applicant and Examiner discussed during the interview in the form of suggestions by the Examiner and by the Applicant to clarify the indefinite issues. The agenda submitted by the Applicant provided no proposed amendments—only broad discussion points stating that the Applicant “would like to discuss potential options for addressing the Office’s position” with no further details (see attached Agenda of 01/21/2026). Furthermore, the Examiner did not agree that claim 1 is now definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as alleged by Applicant. In the interview of 01/21/2026, the Examiner provided clarification of the rejection of Claim 1, and Applicant was apprised of the Examiner’s understanding of the present claim language. The Examiner also suggested that amendments clarifying the positional relationships of the structures with respect to an objective standard or reference frame(s) may be helpful towards overcoming the rejections of record. During the interview, Applicant suggested proposed amendments and the Examiner responded that such a proposed amendments may be helpful in overcoming the clarity issues, but the Examiner did not indicate any particular amendments that would overcome such rejections, especially since no proposed amendments were provided in the agenda (see Interview Summary form of 01/28/2026 for Examiner’s summary of interview on 01/26/2026).
3. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 8-11), filed 02/05/2026, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration because the new grounds of rejection in light of a change of statutory basis and/or in light of Zhang’s teachings are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 02/05/2026), as detailed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 12/16/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lens retention component configured to be affixed in the loading cavity under the detachable rim piece must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1 and 25. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1, 3, 5, 21 & 25 limitation “a lens retention component to fix…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This is interpreted to correspond to a retaining clip or the like (¶0030 of originally-filed specification). For purposes of prosecution, the Examiner will consider known equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 (and 25) both recite the limitation: “a lens retention component configured to be affixed in the loading cavity under the detachable rim piece”. It is unclear what is meant by the limitation “under the detachable rim piece” as there appears to be no reference frame or context whereby one could envisage the positional relationship between the recited structures since both the lens retention component and the detachable rim piece are three-dimensional structures (i.e., under with respect to which aspect/portion of the detachable rim piece?). See also MPEP § 2173.05(b), Section II, citing Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). Furthermore, the as-filed specification fails to provide an objective standard for measuring the scope of the term in the form of specifying what ‘under’ corresponds to, thereby rendering the limitation indefinite. Rather, the instant disclosure merely restates in ipsis verbis the generic claim language. Similarly, the as-filed Drawings (of 06/02/2023) fail to depict with clarity what is meant by “under the detachable rim piece” (see e.g., FIGS. 3, 7 & 13 wherein the detachable rim piece 324 is not depicted with the lens retention component 332 in assembled form, thereby rendering unclear the positional relationships between these structures; see also corresponding Drawings objection). When subjective terminology is used in a claim, some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) Sections I & IV, citing Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970) and Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1344-45. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as inherent.
Claims 2-10 and 21-24 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN 113156652 A) in view of Zhang (CN 210534440 U).
The Examiner notes that the text of foreign references as cited throughout this Office Action are to the English translation retrieved from the Patent Translate feature of https://worldwide.espacenet.com and provided herewith.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Gao discloses: An eyewear display (¶0006) comprising: a frame comprising two lens rims and a nose bridge, at least a first lens rim of the two lens rims to hold a stack comprising a first lens, a second lens, and a waveguide between the first lens and the second lens (see FIGS. 1-2, 14-18 showing lens rims and nose bridge of 220 holding stack of 600 comprising a first lens, a second lens, and a waveguide 620 between them; ¶0034-35: the frame 200 supports the optical components 600 and includes an eyeglass frame body 220 having a first side 222 and a second side 224 arranged opposite to each other; ¶0067-68: the optical component 600 may include the optical waveguide 620 and two functional lenses); a detachable rim piece attached to the first lens rim; and a lens retention component to fix the second lens within the stack (¶0075: the frame body 220 may have two mounting holes 226 [loading cavity]; ¶0036, 0066-68: lens of optical component 600 is detachably installed in the mounting hole 226…the second connecting part 629 and the fourth connecting part 683 [detachable rim piece] of the first lens can be detachably connected by means such as fastening, clamping; ¶0069: the second lens may have a fifth connecting part 686 and a sixth connecting part 687 [lens retention component] which be detachably connected by means such as clamping, fastening; see FIG. 8 (and FIGS. 2, 17 of different view) showing detachable rim piece of first lens rim and lens retention component fixing second lens within the stack).
Although Gao discloses a detachable rim piece attached to the first lens rim and a lens retention component to fix the second lens within the stack (see rejection supra), Gao does not appear to explicitly disclose: a detachable rim piece attached to the first lens rim, the detachable rim piece covering a loading cavity within the first lens rim; and a lens retention component configured to be affixed in the loading cavity under the detachable rim piece, the lens retention component to fix the second lens within the stack.
Zhang is related to Gao with respect to an eyewear display comprising: a frame comprising two lens rims and a nose bridge, at least a first lens rim of the two lens rims to hold a stack of lenses; a detachable rim piece; and a lens retention component (¶0054, 0073, 0078; FIGS. 7-11; ¶0054, 0058: The first lenses 2 are optical lenses for augmented reality display, virtual reality display, or mixed reality display…further includes two second lenses 43, the two second lenses 43 are optical correction), and Zhang teaches: a detachable rim piece attached to the first lens rim (¶0058: detachable mechanism 4 further includes two second lenses 43, which are fixedly connected to the second frame portion 41 [detachable rim piece]; ¶0078: The second lightweight frame 5 comprises a second lightweight frame portion 51 [first lens rim] and lightweight temples 52; ¶0076: The second lightweight frame 5 can be connected to the second frame portion 41), the detachable rim piece covering a loading cavity within the first lens rim (see FIGS. 8, 10-11 showing detachable rim piece 41 covering a loading cavity 511+512 within the first lens rim 51); and a lens retention component configured to be affixed in the loading cavity under the detachable rim piece (¶0078: The second lightweight frame portion 51 is located at the opposite ends of the side of the second frame portion 41 closest to the second lightweight frame portion 51. Two circular second insertion holes 511 are provided on one side, and the insertion strip 421 is inserted into the second insertion holes 511. A rectangular second receiving cavity 512 is provided at the end of the second insertion hole 511 away from the second frame part 41, and a spherical expansion head 422 is provided at the end of the insertion strip 421 away from the second frame part 41. The insertion strip 421, the expansion head 422, and the second receiving cavity 512 are coaxially arranged; ¶0068: Two circular insertion holes 111 are correspondingly provided on the side of the first frame portion 11 and the insert strips 421 are inserted into the corresponding insertion holes 111. The connector strip 421, the expansion head 422, and the receiving cavity 112 are coaxially arranged; ¶0069: In use, the connector strip 421 is inserted into the connector hole 111 to facilitate the detachable connection between the second frame part 41 and the first frame part 11; see FIGS. 8 & 10-11 showing a lens retention component 421+422 configured to be affixed in the loading cavity 511+512 under the detachable rim piece 41), the lens retention component to fix the second lens within the stack (¶0073: the second lens 43 is two sunglasses lenses or two optical sunglasses lenses with vision correction, which helps to reduce direct light exposure to the user's eyes and increase the effectiveness of the first lens 2; at the same time, the sunglasses lenses provide some protection for the first lens 2; ¶0069, 0079: In use, the connector strip 421 is inserted into the connector hole 111 to facilitate the detachable connection between the second frame part 41 and the first frame part 11…the insertion strip 421 and the second insertion hole 511 are inserted to facilitate the detachable connection between the second frame part 41 and the second lightweight frame part 51; see FIGS. 7, 9 & 11 showing the lens retention component 421+422 on 41 to fix the second lens 2 within the stack).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear display of Gao in view of Zhang to satisfy the claimed condition because such a detachable rim piece and a lens retention component are known and would be selected such that detachable connections are facilitated in that “A user can… to alternate between wearing ordinary glasses and smart glasses…and choose multiple eyeglass kits, including kits with different colors, appearances, and sunglasses depths, suitable for different occasions”, with the beneficial result of “enhancing the stability of the glasses”, as taught in ¶0069, 0076, 0079 of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 2, Gao discloses the eyewear display according to Claim 1, as above. Gao further discloses: wherein the second lens comprises a curvature corresponding to a vision correction prescription (¶0061: the optical component 600 may include a diopter correcting lens).
Regarding Claim 3, Gao discloses the eyewear display according to Claim 1, as above. Gao further discloses: wherein the first lens is a world-side lens and the second lens is an eye-side lens, and wherein the loading cavity is on an eye-side of the first lens rim (see FIG. 8 showing the first lens is a world-side lens 682 and the second lens is an eye-side lens 684).
Gao does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the loading cavity is on an eye-side of the first lens rim.
Zhang is related to Gao (see rejection of claim 1 supra) Zhang teaches: wherein the loading cavity is on an eye-side of the first lens rim (¶0068: Two circular insertion holes 111 are correspondingly provided on the side of the first frame portion 11 and the insert strips 421 are inserted into the corresponding insertion holes 111. The connector strip 421, the expansion head 422, and the receiving cavity 112 are coaxially arranged; ¶0069: In use, the connector strip 421 is inserted into the connector hole 111 to facilitate the detachable connection between the second frame part 41 and the first frame part 11; see FIG. 8 showing loading cavity 111-112 is on an eye-side of the first lens rim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear display of Gao in view of Zhang to satisfy the claimed condition because such a loading cavity is known and would be selected such that detachable connections are facilitated in that “A user can… to alternate between wearing ordinary glasses and smart glasses…and choose multiple eyeglass kits, including kits with different colors, appearances, and sunglasses depths, suitable for different occasions”, with the beneficial result of “enhancing the stability of the glasses”, as taught in ¶0069, 0076, 0079 of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood, Gao discloses the eyewear display according to Claim 1, as above. Zhang further discloses: wherein the loading cavity comprises a hole in which the lens retention component is affixed to (¶0078: The second lightweight frame portion 51 is located at the opposite ends of the side of the second frame portion 41 closest to the second lightweight frame portion 51. Two circular second insertion holes 511 are provided on one side, and the insertion strip 421 is inserted into the second insertion holes 511; see FIGS. 8 & 10-11 showing loading cavity 511 comprises a hole in which the lens retention component 421 is affixed to).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear display of Gao in view of Zhang to satisfy the claimed condition because such a loading cavity is known and would be selected such that detachable connections are facilitated in that “A user can… to alternate between wearing ordinary glasses and smart glasses…and choose multiple eyeglass kits, including kits with different colors, appearances, and sunglasses depths, suitable for different occasions”, with the beneficial result of “enhancing the stability of the glasses”, as taught in ¶0069, 0076, 0079 of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 6, Gao discloses the eyewear display according to Claim 5, as above. Gao further discloses: wherein the lens retention component comprises a retaining clip (¶0068-69: clamping connecting parts to slots and mounting holes).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Gao discloses the eyewear display according to Claim 1, as above. Gao further discloses: wherein the frame comprises a front frame component and a rear frame component attached to one another forming a carrier cavity, wherein a world-side carrier and an eye-side carrier are at least partially housed within the carrier cavity, wherein the waveguide is positioned between the eye-side carrier and the world-side carrier and the first lens is positioned on an opposite side of the world-side carrier (see e.g., FIG. 2 showing front and rear frame components 222, 224 housing carrier cavity with waveguide 620 and first lens 660 positioned as claimed; ¶0034-35).
Regarding Claim 23, as best understood, Gao discloses the eyewear display according to Claim 1, as above. Gao further discloses: wherein a second lens rim of the two lens rims holds a second stack comprising a third lens, a fourth lens, and a second waveguide between the third lens and the fourth lens (see FIGS. 1-2, 14-18 showing a second lens rim of the two lens rims holds a second stack of 600 comprising a first lens, a second lens, and a waveguide 620 between them; ¶0034-35: the frame 200 supports the optical components 600 and includes an eyeglass frame body 220 having a first side 222 and a second side 224 arranged opposite to each other; ¶0067-68: the optical component 600 may include the optical waveguide 620 and two functional lenses).
Regarding Claims 24 and 25, as best understood, Gao discloses the eyewear display according to Claims 23 and 24, respectively, as above.
Although Gao discloses a second detachable rim piece attached to the second lens rim (¶0075: the frame body 220 may have two mounting holes 226 [loading cavity]; ¶0036, 0066-68: lens of optical component 600 is detachably installed in the mounting hole 226…the second connecting part 629 and the fourth connecting part 683 [detachable rim piece] of the first lens can be detachably connected by means such as fastening, clamping) and a lens retention component to fix the second lens within the stack (¶0069: the second lens may have a fifth connecting part 686 and a sixth connecting part 687 [lens retention component] which be detachably connected by means such as clamping, fastening; see FIG. 8 (and FIGS. 2, 17 of different view) showing detachable rim piece of first lens rim and lens retention component fixing second lens within the stack), Gao does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the eyewear display comprises a second detachable rim piece attached to the second lens rim, the second detachable rim piece covering a second loading cavity within the second lens rim (claim 24); wherein the eyewear display comprises a second lens retention component affixed in the second loading cavity under the second detachable rim piece, the second lens retention component to fix the fourth lens within the second stack (claim 25).
Zhang is related to Gao (see rejection of claim 1 supra), and Zhang teaches: wherein the eyewear display comprises a second detachable rim piece attached to the second lens rim (¶0058: detachable mechanism 4 further includes two second lenses 43, which are fixedly connected to the second frame portion 41 [detachable rim piece]; ¶0078: The second lightweight frame 5 comprises a second lightweight frame portion 51 [second lens rim] and lightweight temples 52; ¶0076: The second lightweight frame 5 can be connected to the second frame portion 41), the second detachable rim piece covering a second loading cavity within the second lens rim (see FIGS. 8, 10-11 showing second detachable rim piece 41 covering a second loading cavity 511+512 within the second lens rim 51); wherein the eyewear display comprises a second lens retention component affixed in the second loading cavity under the second detachable rim piece, the second lens retention component to fix the fourth lens within the second stack (claim 25) (¶0078: The second lightweight frame portion 51 is located at the opposite ends of the side of the second frame portion 41 closest to the second lightweight frame portion 51. Two circular second insertion holes 511 are provided on one side, and the insertion strip 421 is inserted into the second insertion holes 511. A rectangular second receiving cavity 512 is provided at the end of the second insertion hole 511 away from the second frame part 41, and a spherical expansion head 422 is provided at the end of the insertion strip 421 away from the second frame part 41. The insertion strip 421, the expansion head 422, and the second receiving cavity 512 are coaxially arranged; ¶0068: Two circular insertion holes 111 are correspondingly provided on the side of the first frame portion 11 and the insert strips 421 are inserted into the corresponding insertion holes 111. The connector strip 421, the expansion head 422, and the receiving cavity 112 are coaxially arranged; ¶0069: In use, the connector strip 421 is inserted into the connector hole 111 to facilitate the detachable connection between the second frame part 41 and the first frame part 11; see FIGS. 8 & 10-11 showing a second lens retention component 421+422 configured to be affixed in the second loading cavity 511+512 under the second detachable rim piece 41), the lens retention component to fix the second lens within the stack (¶0073: the second lens 43 is two sunglasses lenses or two optical sunglasses lenses with vision correction, which helps to reduce direct light exposure to the user's eyes and increase the effectiveness of the first lens 2; at the same time, the sunglasses lenses provide some protection for the first lens 2; ¶0069, 0079: In use, the connector strip 421 is inserted into the connector hole 111 to facilitate the detachable connection between the second frame part 41 and the first frame part 11…the insertion strip 421 and the second insertion hole 511 are inserted to facilitate the detachable connection between the second frame part 41 and the second lightweight frame part 51; see FIGS. 7, 9 & 11 showing the second lens retention component 421+422 on 41 to fix the second lens 2 within the stack).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear display of Gao in view of Zhang to satisfy the claimed condition because such a detachable rim piece and a lens retention component are known and would be selected such that detachable connections are facilitated in that “A user can… to alternate between wearing ordinary glasses and smart glasses…and choose multiple eyeglass kits, including kits with different colors, appearances, and sunglasses depths, suitable for different occasions”, with the beneficial result of “enhancing the stability of the glasses”, as taught in ¶0069, 0076, 0079 of Zhang.
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.
Claims 4, 6-8 and 21-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN 113156652 A) in view of Zhang (CN 210534440 U), and further in view of Page (US 4,101,208 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Gao discloses the eyewear display according to Claim 1, as above. Gao does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the detachable rim piece is a detachable nose piece adjacent to the nose bridge.
Page is related to Gao with respect to an eyewear display comprising: a frame comprising two lens rims and a nose bridge, at least a first lens rim of the two lens rims to hold a stack of lenses; a detachable rim piece; and a lens retention component (c. 2-4; FIGS. 1-3, 10-11), and Page teaches: wherein the detachable rim piece is a detachable nose piece adjacent to the nose bridge (c. 2: A nose pad arm 6 is attached to the nasal side portion of the rim member 2 and a nose pad 7 is attached to the nose pad arm 6 in the usual manner… bracket member 11 extends rearwardly from the rim member 2 and then turns to be redirected toward the center of the lens forming a loop and then forwardly and temporally; see FIGS. 1-3 showing detachable nose piece 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Gao in view of Page to satisfy the claimed condition because such a detachable rim piece is known and would be selected such that “auxiliary lenses can be removed from the device or can be interchanged by the wearer so that lenses for different purposes can be prescribed”, as taught in col. 5 of Page.
Regarding Claim 6, Gao discloses the eyewear display according to Claim 5, as above.
While Gao teaches the limitation of “wherein the lens retention component comprises a retaining clip” (see rejection supra) in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the present claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that Gao does not explicitly disclose a different interpretation of the lens retention component as recited, and thus further submits Page. Page is related to Gao with respect to an eyewear display comprising: a frame comprising two lens rims and a nose bridge, at least a first lens rim of the two lens rims to hold a stack of lenses; a detachable rim piece; and a lens retention component (c. 2-4; FIGS. 1-3, 10-11), and Page teaches: wherein the lens retention component comprises a retaining clip (c. 2: The normal state of the bracket member 11 [clip] is shown by the dash lines 13 and provides additional spring tension to releasably secure the lens to the rim member).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Gao in view of Page to satisfy the claimed condition because such a retaining clip is known and would be selected “to yield temporally allowing the auxiliary lens to enter therebetween and come to rest against the rim member”, as taught in col. 3 of Page.
Regarding Claim 7, Gao-Page discloses the eyewear display according to Claim 6, as above. Gao does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the retaining clip comprises two ends, which when placed in the hole, lock the retaining clip in the loading cavity.
Page is related to Gao (see claim 6 supra), and Page teaches: wherein the retaining clip comprises two ends, which when placed in the hole, lock the retaining clip in the loading cavity (c. 4: he lenses 31, 32 are each releasably attached in the rim member 25 by placing the nasal side of the lens so that the notched portion thereof engages the corresponding side bracket member. The temporal side portion of the lens is then positioned so that the notch in the lens is in alignment with the corresponding bracket member; see FIGS. 1-3, 8-11 showing two ends locking the clip in hole of loading cavity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Gao in view of Page to satisfy the claimed condition because such a retaining clip is known and would be selected “to provide spring action for releasably holding the lens therein”, thereby “temporally allowing the auxiliary lens to enter therebetween and come to rest against the rim member”, as taught in cols. 3-4 of Page.
Regarding Claim 8, Gao-Page discloses the eyewear display according to Claim 7, as above. Gao does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the retaining clip is configured to fix the second lens within the first lens rim by applying a force to the second lens, the force caused by an elastic deformation of the retaining clip.
Page is related to Gao (see claim 6 supra), and Page teaches: wherein the retaining clip is configured to fix the second lens within the first lens rim by applying a force to the second lens, the force caused by an elastic deformation of the retaining clip (c. 2: The bracket member 11 extends rearwardly from the rim member 2 and then turns to be redirected toward the center of the lens forming a loop and then forwardly and temporally as shown in FIG. 3…the normal state of the bracket member 11 is shown by the dash lines 13 and provides additional spring tension to releasably secure the lens to the rim member; c. 3: The temporal side of the auxiliary lens 12 is positioned so that the notch 15 is in alignment with the bracket member 11. The temporal side portion of the auxiliary lens 12 is pressed against the curved portion of the bracket member 11 in the direction of A to B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Gao in view of Page to satisfy the claimed condition because such a retaining clip is known and would be selected “to provide spring action for releasably holding the lens therein”, thereby “temporally allowing the auxiliary lens to enter therebetween and come to rest against the rim member”, as taught in cols. 3-4 of Page.
Regarding Claims 21-22, Gao discloses the eyewear display according to Claims 1 and 21, respectively, as above. Gao does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the lens retention component is configured to elastically deform upon being affixed in the loading cavity and apply a force to the second lens (claim 21); wherein the force presses the second lens against an inner perimeter of the first lens rim (claim 22).
Page is related to Gao (see claim 6 supra), and Page teaches: wherein the lens retention component is configured to elastically deform upon being affixed in the loading cavity and apply a force to the second lens (claim 21); wherein the force presses the second lens against an inner perimeter of the first lens rim (claim 22) (c. 2: The bracket member 11 extends rearwardly from the rim member 2 and then turns to be redirected toward the center of the lens forming a loop and then forwardly and temporally as shown in FIG. 3…the normal state of the bracket member 11 is shown by the dash lines 13 and provides additional spring tension to releasably secure the lens to the rim member; c. 3: The temporal side of the auxiliary lens 12 is positioned so that the notch 15 is in alignment with the bracket member 11. The temporal side portion of the auxiliary lens 12 is pressed against the curved portion of the bracket member 11 in the direction of A to B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Gao in view of Page to satisfy the claimed condition because such a retaining clip is known and would be selected “to provide spring action for releasably holding the lens therein”, thereby “temporally allowing the auxiliary lens to enter therebetween and come to rest against the rim member”, as taught in cols. 3-4 of Page.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN 113156652 A) in view of Zhang (CN 210534440 U), and further in view of Osterhout et al. (US 2011/0213664 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Gao discloses the eyewear display according to Claim 1, as above. Gao does not appear to explicitly disclose: further comprising a seal applied around an inner perimeter of the first lens rim.
Osterhout is related to Gao with respect to an eyewear display comprising: a frame comprising two lens rims and a nose bridge, at least a first lens rim of the two lens rims to hold a stack of lenses; a detachable rim piece; and a lens retention component (FIGS. 1-8; ¶0164-65, 0169, 0175, 0202), and Osterhout teaches: further comprising a seal applied around an inner perimeter of the first lens rim (¶0203: a continuous sealing lip of the frame engages an enlarged edge of the lens, which then snap-fits into the lip, or possibly over the lip).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Gao in view of Osterhout to satisfy the claimed condition because such a sealing is known and would be selected of having an advantage of a sturdier joint with fewer chances for admission of very small dust and dirt particles, as taught in ¶0203 of Osterhout.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (EST).
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, BUMSUK WON can be reached on 571-272-2713713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872