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Claims 1-23 and 27-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/19/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 24-26 in the reply filed on 8/19/2025 is acknowledged.
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 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard [US4251302] in view of Riedel [EP0375211].
Leonard discloses a method comprising applying an adhesive to ophthalmic supports of eyewear (column 2, lines 56-66; column 4, lines 5-26). Leonard discloses the adhesive is selected and should be non-toxic, release cleanly and comfortably (column 5, lines 14-32). Leonard discloses the adhesive includes an evaporative carrier (column 5, lines 14-32) but does not disclose a resin comprising acrylates / octyacrylamide copolymer.
Riedel discloses a method of bonding including using an adhesive that is gentile, hypoallergenic, softness and conformability, breathable, and reduced the potential for skin damage (page 2, lines 22-26). Riedel discloses the adhesive includes a resin comprising acrylates / octylacrylamide copolymer (page 3, lines 19-23; page 4, lines 16-26; page 6, lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Leonard by using an adhesive with a resin comprising acrylates / octyacrylamide copolymer as taught by Riedel in order to improve the properties of the adhesive including gentileness, hypoallergenic, softness and conformability, breathability, and a reduced the potential for skin damage.
With respect to claim 26, Leonard discloses the method includes the evaporatative carrier solvent is allowed to evaporate somewhat prior to palcing the supports (column 5, lines 14-32).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard, Riedel, and further in view of Wang [CN104312758, machine translation provided].
Leonard as modified discloses a method comprising applying an adhesive to ophthalmic supports of eyewear. Applicant is referred to paragraph 5 for a detailed discussion of Leonard as modified. Leonard does not disclose cleaning the supports with alcohol prior to application of the adhesive. Using alcohol to clean a surface prior to applying an adhesive and bonding is a conventional and well-known technique to improve the quality of bond between the surface and the adhesive. In any event, Wang is cited to provide evidence that prepping a surface by cleaning the surface with alcohol prior to applying an adhesive was known (paragraph 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Leonard by cleaning the surface of the supports with alcohol prior to applying the adhesive as taught by Wang in order to remove oil and contamination from the supports and thereby improve the quality of bond between the adhesive and the supports.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2685. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/DANIEL MCNALLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
DPM
September 23, 2025