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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1, 4-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument(s). See new ground(s) of rejection in the present Office action below, for Claim 1 now relies on Chou US 20040141148 A1 in view of Holzer et al. US 9726900 B1 (herein after "Holzer").
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted method Claims 14 and 15 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 14 and 15 are now independently directed to a method, which constitutes a different statutory category and invention that is independent/distinct from the apparatus/product invention originally claimed. For patentably distinct inventions, see MPEP §§ 806.05(a) and 806.05(c) - 806.05(j). Furthermore, “[i]f, after an office action on an application, the applicant presents claims directed to an invention distinct from and independent of the invention previously claimed, the applicant will be required to restrict the claims to the invention previously claimed if the amendment is entered, subject to reconsideration and review as provided in §§ 1.143 and 1.144.” See MPEP § 821.03 and 37 CFR 1.145.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 eyewear device further comprising electronic circuitry in one or more of: the frame; one or more of said arms; or one or more hinges must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, and 4-13 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.
With respect to Claim 1, the term “a rotating angle of substantially 360 degrees” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially 360 degrees” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The first hinge and first arm have been rendered indefinite by the use of “a rotating angle of substantially 360 degrees,” for the limitation does not define how close to 360 degrees the rotation must be. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not know whether this includes, for example, 330 degrees, or only a full continuous rotation with overlap. Since the claim provides no objective boundary, the scope of the rotation is unclear and makes it difficult to determine infringement with reasonable certainty.
Furthermore, “the first hinge provides the first arm with a rotating angle” does not specify structural features of the hinge that enable this rotation (e.g., continuous rotation joint, ring, locking mechanism, etc.). Since the scope cannot be ascertained, the dependent claims inherit all deficiencies of Claim 1.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets “wherein the first hinge provides the first arm with a rotating angle of substantially 360 degrees” as the claimed subject matter introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional conditional expressions, and optional functionality of an eyewear device.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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 1, and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou US 20040141148 A1 in view of Holzer et al. US 9726900 B1 (herein after "Holzer").
With respect to Claim 1, Chou discloses an eyewear device (pair of foldable glasses 10; [0015]), comprising:
a frame (two rims 14; [0015]) comprising one or more lenses or displays (two lenses 12; [0015]);
a first arm and a second arm (two temples 16; [0015]), wherein the first arm (first of temple 16; [0015]; fig. 1) is foldable (folding mechanism; [0020]; fig. 2 & 4-5) with respect to the frame (fig. 2) to a folded position (fig. 4-5) to at least partially cover (fig. 5) at least a first side (side 122; [0020]) of the frame (two rims 14; [0015]), and the second arm (second of temple 16; [0015]) is foldable (folding mechanism; [0020]; fig. 2 & 4-5) with respect to the frame (fig. 2) to a folded position to at least partially cover (fig. 5) at least a second side (side 124; [0016]) of the frame (two rims 14; [0015]), such that the first and second arm (two temples 16; [0015]), in the folded positions (fig. 5), at least partially surround the frame (two rims 14; [0015]); and
a first hinge (first of pivoting mechanism 17 comprising first and second hinges 174 and 176; [0018]) for folding (fig. 2) the first arm (first of temple 16; [0015]; fig. 1) with respect to the frame (two rims 14; [0015]), and a second hinge (second of pivoting mechanism 17 comprising first and second hinges 174 and 176; fig. 1) for folding (fig. 4-5) the second arm (second of temple 16; [0015]) with respect to the frame ([0020]);
Chou does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the first hinge provides the first arm with a rotating angle of substantially 360 degrees.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Holzer teaches a magnetically locking reversible eyewear and method of reversing orientation (fig. 1-14), wherein a first hinge (hinge unit 12; col. 3, lines 10-25) provides a first arm (temple arms 10; col. 3, lines 10-25) with a rotating angle (from position of fig. 2, temple arms 10 are pivoted or flipped about opposite ends 14 of lens frame 14, see fig. 3, in direction of arrow 22 to reach reversed position of fig. 4; col. 3, lines 30-40) of substantially 360 degrees (temple arms 10 rotating substantially 360 degrees, as seen in fig. 3-13; figs. 5-7, 8-10 and 11-13 depict three different ways that the eyewear may have its temple arms 10 folded relative to lens frame 16, both of temple arms 10 folded to rear of lens frame 16 (fig. 5-7) or be alternated between front and rear of lens frame 16 (fig. 8-10, one of temple arms 10 folded at substantially 360 degrees) or both folded in front of lens frame 16 (fig. 11-13, both of temples arms 10 folded at substantially 360 degrees); col. 3, lines 40-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the foldable glasses of Chou to include the technical feature of providing a hinge element that allows a temple arm to have a rotating angle of substantially 360 degrees, for the purpose of producing a reversible hinge to show off both sides of a design while allowing glasses to be worn either way, as taught by Holzer (col. 5, lines 1-15).
With respect to Claim 4, Chou in view of Holzer teaches the eyewear device (pair of foldable glasses 10; [0015]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first hinge (first of pivoting mechanism 17 comprising first and second hinges 174 and 176; [0018]) provides the first arm (first of temple 16; [0015]; fig. 1) with a rotating angle of substantially 270 degrees (front sections 18 of the temples 16 turn toward lenses 12 along the first hinge 174 pivoting 90 degrees [0018], adding 180 degree rotating angle when temples 16 turn away from lenses 12 [0018], and thus, temples 16 having 270 degree rotating angle; as seen in fig. 1-2; Chou)
With respect to Claim 5, Chou in view of Holzer teaches the eyewear device (pair of foldable glasses 10; [0015]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second hinge (second of pivoting mechanism 17 comprising first and second hinges 174 and 176; fig. 1) provides the second arm (second of temple 16; [0015]) with a rotating angle of substantially 90 degrees (front sections 18 of the temples 16 turn toward lenses 12 along the first hinge 174 pivoting 90 degrees; [0018]; Chou).
With respect to Claim 6, Chou in view of Holzer teaches the eyewear device (pair of foldable glasses 10; [0015]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the first arm (first of temple 16; [0015]; fig. 1) comprises a first element (first of rear section 19; [0017]), the first element (first of rear section 19; [0017]) being extendable (extended rearwards; [0019]; fig. 3) with respect to the first arm (first of temple 16; [0015]; fig. 1), such that, when the first arm (first of temple 16; [0015]; fig. 1) is in the folded position (fig. 4-5), more of the first side (side 122; [0020]) of the frame (two rims 14; [0015]) is covered when the first element (first of rear section 19; [0017]) is extended than when the first element (first of rear section 19; [0017]) is not extended (when rear section 19 is extended as seen in fig. 2-3, there is more coverage of side 122 by temples 16 as opposed to rear section 19 not being extended as seen in fig. 4-5; Chou).
With respect to Claim 7, Chou in view of Holzer teaches the eyewear device (pair of foldable glasses 10; [0015]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the second arm (second of temple 16; [0015]) comprises a second element (second of rear section 19; [0017]), the second element (second of rear section 19; [0017]) being extendable (extended rearwards; [0019]; fig. 3) with respect to the second arm (second of temple 16; [0015]), such that, when the second arm (second of temple 16; [0015]) is in the folded position (fig. 4-5), more of the second side (side 124; [0016]) of the frame (two rims 14; [0015]) is covered when the second element (second of rear section 19; [0017]) is extended than when the second element (second of rear section 19; [0017]) is not extended (when rear section 19 is extended as seen in fig. 2-3, there is more coverage of side 124 by temples 16 as opposed to rear section 19 not being extended as seen in fig. 4-5; Chou).
With respect to Claim 8, Chou in view of Holzer teaches the eyewear device (pair of foldable glasses 10; [0015]) as claimed in claim 6, wherein the first arm (first of temple 16; [0015]; fig. 1) and the second arm (second of temple 16; [0015]) have a hinge end (base member 172; [0018]) and a distal end (opening 183 at a rear end; [0019]), wherein the first element (first of rear section 19; [0017]) is extendable (rear section 19 slidably received in the chamber 184, or extended rearwards; [0017-19]) at the distal end (opening 183 at a rear end; [0019]) of the first arm (front sections 18 of temples 16 have chamber/cavity 184 with opening 183 at a rear end, rear section 19 is slidably received in the chamber 184, or extended rearwards; [0019]; Chou).
With respect to Claim 9, Chou in view of Holzer teaches the eyewear device (pair of foldable glasses 10; [0015]) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising at least one third hinge (hinge 128; [0016]), wherein the third hinge (hinge 128; [0016]) allows at least partially changing shape (through folding mechanism 126; [0016]; fig. 4-5) of the frame (two rims 14; [0015]; Chou).
With respect to Claim 10, Chou in view of Holzer teaches the eyewear device (pair of foldable glasses 10; [0015]; Chou) as claimed in claim 1.
Chou does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the eyewear device further comprises one or more locking mechanisms for locking at least one of the first arm and the second arm in the folded position.
However, Holzer (fig. 1-14) further teaches a locking mechanism (rotatable locking piece 20; col. 3, lines 10-15) for locking the arms (temple arms 10; from position of fig. 2, temple arms 10 are pivoted or flipped about opposite ends 14 of lens frame 14, see fig. 3, in direction of arrow 22 to reach reversed position of fig. 4, locking piece 20 is then rotated back in opposite direction from before to reach magnetically locking position at which magnetically attractive elements 18 magnetically attract each other; col. 3, lines 30-45) in a folded position (as seen in fig. 3-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the foldable glasses of Chou in view of Holzer to further include the technical feature of comprising a rotatable locking mechanism, for the purpose of manually rotating, clockwise or counterclockwise as desired, a locking piece within a hinge (col. 3, lines 25-35) to show off both sides of a design while allowing glasses to be worn either way, as taught by Holzer (col. 5, lines 1-15).
With respect to Claim 11, Chou in view of Holzer teaches the eyewear device (pair of foldable glasses 10; [0015]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first arm (first of temple 16; [0015]; fig. 1) and the second arm (second of temple 16; [0015]) are dimensioned such that, in the folded position (fig. 5), said one or more lenses or displays (two lenses 12; [0015]) are completely covered with said arms (lenses 12 protected by the temples 16 to prevent them from being damaged or scratched; [0020]; Chou).
With respect to Claim 12, Chou in view of Holzer teaches the eyewear device (pair of foldable glasses 10; [0015]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least part of the first arm (first of temple 16; [0015]; fig. 1) and at least part of the second arm (second of temple 16; [0015]) are at least as wide as said lenses or displays (as wide as lenses 12 as seen in fig. 4-5), such that, the first arm (first of temple 16; [0015]; fig. 1) and the second arm (second of temple 16; [0015]) at least partially prevent external light from impinging (front sections 18 of temples 16 being tube-like element having chamber/cavity 184, and thus, preventing external light from impinging lenses 12; [0019]; fig. 1; recitation of the intended use, if prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987)) onto said lenses or displays (two lenses 12; [0015]) when the eyewear device (pair of foldable glasses 10; [0015]) is in an unfolded position (fig. 1; Chou).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou US 20040141148 A1 in view of Holzer et al. US 9726900 B1 (herein after "Holzer") as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Klant US 20160033789 A1.
With respect to Claim 13, Chou in view of Holzer teaches the eyewear device (pair of foldable glasses 10; [0015]) as claimed in claim 1.
Chou in view of Holzer does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the eyewear device further comprises electronic circuitry in one or more of: the frame; one or more of said arms; and one or more hinges.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Klant teaches foldable spectacles (11; fig. 7-9) being embodied as so-called “smart glasses,” wherein the spectacles are equipped with additional electronic features such as a camera 71 rotated into the spectacle frame 15 ([0039-40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pair of foldable glasses of Chou in view of Holzer to include the technical feature of a camera being integrated into the frames, for the advantages of a wearer not being required to hold a camera when taking photos and photos being taken at any time in whichever direction the wearer of the spectacles is looking, as taught by Klant ([0040]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
AMERICAN PAPER OPTICS. “Historic and Tech - American Paper Optics, LLC.” American Paper Optics, LLC, 12 Feb. 2020, www.3dglassesonline.com/solutions/legacy/. Accessed 22 Dec. 2025.
Wikipedia Contributors. “Stereoscopy, 3D Viewers, Pages 7-9.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Oct. 2025, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy#3D_viewers.
Ebay. “2009 Coraline 3d Glasses Promotion Glasses Vintage.” EBay, 2017, www.ebay.com/itm/396973408596. Accessed 22 Dec. 2025.
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 K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 22 December 2024
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights