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 .
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.
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 19-20 were previously rejected in the Office Action field on 10/28/2025 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.
In light of the amendments, the rejection of Claims 19-20 under 35. U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the teachings of Winkelsas neither teach nor obviate the following limitation of Claim 1 and 13: “the pair of ocular sockets having lenses that are selectively movable to an open position.”, despite the teachings of Fig. 7 of Winkelsas.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and again points to Fig. 7, where Winkelsas teaches, wherein said lenses are movable to an open position (opaque lens surfaces 5 are suspended from a helmet 130 by a hinge 145, which can be a barrel hinge or pivoting fastener, allowing the rotation of each opaque lens 5 for position of apertures in front of each eye similar to binoculars, rotating each lens out of the way of the eyes would put the lenses in an “open position”) [Par 52]. Applicant’s comparison between the size of Winklesas lens in comparison to the size/shape of the lens in the Instant Application, is not relevant unless said characteristic are explicitly claimed. Further any such size/shape limitation are obviated by Winkelsas teaching on Fig. 2a-5b, of a variety of lens portion shapes and designs (adjustable barrel 60), “that can take any number of forms” [Par 44], and that the Court has held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination; see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, all the limitation of Claims 1 and 13 are taught or obviated by the prior art, and the rejections are sustained.
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(s) 1, 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkelsas.
Re Claim 1, Winkelsas discloses, on Fig. 1a-8 (See Fig. 1a for general embodiment, Fig. 2a-5b for specific variations of lens module 20, Fig. 6 for an adjustable barrel, Fig. 7 for a helmet attachable version, and Fig. 8 for a goggles version ), a pair of sports training goggles worn on the head of a user to provide vision through an eye or eyes of said user comprising: a faceplate (adjustable width frame 120 or goggles 125)[Par 38-40] having a pair of opposed temples shaped to engage the head of said user (Fig. 1a: unlabeled temples and Fig. 8: goggle band has opposing temple portions); a pair of spaced ocular sockets disposed generally over the eyes of said user (the location of opaque lenses 5 over left and right eye, with liner 10 that can be a gasket )[Par 38-40], each socket having a central aperture therein (Fig 1a-1c and 8 have an aperture in frame 120 where lenses 5 are located), first and second lenses (opaque lenses 5 over left and right eye, including lens module 20)[Par 38-40], each shaped to engage one of said ocular sockets and occlude the central aperture thereof (Fig. 1a and 8: opaque lenses can be seen engaged in to the unlabeled eye socket of frame 120 or goggles 125), said first and second lenses each having an aperture therein (apertures 15 )[Par 38-40] for directing said user's eyes in a predetermined direction [Par 38-40],
further comprising a portion ( See Fig. 3A helicoid 70) on each lens terminating in a trailing edge (Fig. 3a: adjustable barrel 60 can be seen to have a concentric helicoid 70 with a diagonal trailing edge) [Par 45]; and a shaped recess disposed around the aperture of said ocular sockets (Fig. 6: aperture 15 can be seen to have a recess as a part of securing mechanism 40 with complimenting geometries between the aperture and proximal end 30 of articulating module 20) [Par 41], wherein said recess is engaged by said portion (adjustable barrel 60 has articulation module 20 with proximal end 30 which has complimentary geometry with aperture 15 which can be seen in Fig. 3a and 6) [Par 41],
wherein said lenses (opaque lenses 5) are movable within said ocular socket thereby allowing said lens apertures to be positioned to a desired focal point (“… Pushing on the distal end 35 of the accordion-style barrel 75 shortens its length while pulling on the distal end 35 lengthens it” and “…the width of the opaque lens surface 5 may be adjustable. Referring again to FIGS. 1A-1C and FIG. 8, the adjustable width frames 120 are designed with overlapping sleeves 140 allowing the user to position the desired apertures 15 in front of one or both eyes”) [Par 46 and 51],
wherein said lenses are movable to an open position (opaque lens surfaces 5 are suspended from a helmet 130 by a hinge 145, which can be a barrel hinge or pivoting fastener, allowing the rotation of each opaque lens 5 for position of apertures in front of each eye similar to binoculars, rotating each lens out of the way of the eyes would put the lenses in an “open position”) [Par 52].
But Winkelsas does not explicitly disclose, the portion on each lens is a truncated hemispherical portion.
However, Winkelsas does disclose on Fig. 2a-5b, a variety of lens portion shapes and designs (adjustable barrel 60), “that can take any number of forms” [Par 44], which include a leaf shutter mechanism as seen in Fig. 5a-5b [Par 47], or a circular portion as seen in Fig. 2b-4b. Thus, Winkelsas explicitly teaches changing or adjusting the shapes or designs of the lens portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to simply use a lens portion that has a different shape. Note that the Court has held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination; see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention, to modify Winkelsas, such that there is a truncated hemispherical portion on each lens, in order to provide alternate arrangements for limiting the wearer’s line of sight to the desired viewing aperture [Par 14].
Re Claim 5, modified Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 1, and Winkelsas further discloses an embodiment on Fig. 3a, a tab (protrusion 115) extending from each of said lenses (opaque lens 5 and attachment of barrel 60), said tab located above said lens aperture (115 is above aperture 15), for adjusting the position of said lens within said ocular socket (115 adjusts the positioning of barrel 60 in frame 120) and shielding said aperture (protrusion 115 extends or retracts helicoid 70 thus further shielding or un-shielding aperture 15) [Par 45-46].
Re Claim 6, modified Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 4.
But Winkelsas does not explicitly disclose wherein, said shaped ocular sockets are generally hemispherical in shape.
However, Winkelsas does disclose on Fig. 2a-5b, a variety of lens portion shapes and designs (adjustable barrel 60), “that can take any number of forms” [Par 44], which include a leaf shutter mechanism as seen in Fig. 5a-5b [Par 47], or a circular portion as seen in Fig. 2b-4b. Thus, Winkelsas explicitly teaches changing or adjusting the shapes or designs of the lens portion and thus the frame 120 in which the lenses are place. Further Winkelsas teaches that; “…the width of the opaque lens surface 5 may be adjustable. Referring again to FIGS. 1A-1C and FIG. 8, the adjustable width frames 120 are designed with overlapping sleeves 140 allowing the user to position the desired apertures 15 in front of one or both eyes”) [Par 46 and 51]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to simply use an ocular socket that has a different shape. Note that the Court has held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination; see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention, to modify Winkelsas, such that the ocular sockets are generally hemispherical, in order to provide alternate arrangements for limiting the wearer’s line of sight to the desired viewing aperture [Par 14].
Re Claim 7, modified Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 5, and Winkelsas further discloses on Fig. 1a and 7, wherein the apertures of said shaped ocular sockets are directed at an angle below a horizontal orientation (Fig. 1a and 7 show a variety of apertures 15 at different heights and directions for the viewing directions of different sports, some of which are directed below a horizontal orientation, at least Fig. 1a) [Par 18 and 23].
Re Claim 8, modified Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 6, and Winkelsas further discloses on Fig. 1a and 2a-5b, wherein said lenses are removable and replaceable (the lenses 5 are attached to and include adjustable length barrel 60, where width of lenses 5 is adjustable and removable as a result of adjustable width frames 120, and adjustable length barrel 60 can be replaced with other barrels such as fixed length barrel 55 as seen in Fig. 1a and 2a-5b)[Par 43-44, 47, and 51].
Re Claim 9, modified Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 6, and Winkelsas further discloses on Fig. 5a-5b, wherein said first and second lenses (opaque lenses 5 can include an articulating module 20 with the leaf shutter mechanism 80 of Fig. 5a-5b) comprise: a variable aperture (Viewing area 110) having a plurality of variable position rotatable vanes capable of inward or outward rotation to form said variable aperture (leaf shutter mechanism 80 has blades 85 to limit viewing area 110) [Par 48].
Re Claim 10, modified Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 6, and further discloses on Fig. 1c and 2a-4b, wherein said lens apertures (Fig. 1c: lens apertures 15) have a predetermined minimum diameter (Fig. 2a-4b shows that distal end 35 also has an aperture which would inherently limit the adjustable length barrel 60 and thus the resulting aperture, to a minimum diameter to that of distal end 35) [Par 42-46].
Re Claim 11, modified Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 6, and Winkelsas further discloses on Fig. 8, a strap (Fig. 8 clearly shows a strap though it is unlabeeled) secured to said faceplate (frame which is unlabeled in Fig. 8 but its previously frame 120) for securing said goggles on a user's head [Par 19 and 30].
Re Claim 12, modified Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 6, and Winkelsas further discloses on Fig. 1a, wherein said faceplate (Frame 120) is shaped to engage a user's nose, temples, and brow (lenses 5 are in frame 120 and conform to human face) [Par 38], and wherein said faceplate blocks light reaching a user's eyes except light entering through said lens apertures (light obscuring liner 10 provides a light barrier, restricting user’s vision to the apertures) [Par 38].
Re Claim 13, Winkelsas discloses, on Fig. 1a-8 (See Fig. 1a for general embodiment, Fig. 2a-5b for specific variations of lens module 20, Fig. 6 for an adjustable barrel, Fig. 7 for a helmet attachable version, and Fig. 8 for a goggles version ), a pair of sports training goggles worn on the head of a user to provide vision through an eye or eyes of said user comprising: a faceplate (Fig. 1a: adjustable width frame 120 or goggles 125)[Par 38-40] having a pair of opposed temples shaped to engage the head of said user (Fig. 1a: unlabeled temples and Fig. 8: goggle band has opposing temple portions) and a pair of viewing apertures disposed in general alignment with the eyes of said user (Fig. 1a: liner 10 can be a gasket for lenses 5 thus creating a viewing aperture in alignment with the eyes of the user) [Par 38-40]; a pair of spaced ocular sockets disposed generally over the eyes of said user (the location of opaque lenses 5 over left and right eye, with liner 10 that can be a gasket )[Par 38-40], each socket having a central aperture therein (Fig 1a-1c and 8 have an aperture in frame 120 where lenses 5 are located), first and second lenses (opaque lenses 5 over left and right eye, including lens module 20][Par 38-40], each shaped to engage one of said ocular sockets and occlude the central aperture thereof (Fig. 1a and 8: opaque lenses can be seen engaged in to the unlabeled eye socket of frame 120 or goggles 125), said first and second lenses each having an aperture therein (apertures 15) )[Par 38-40] for directing said user's eyes in a predetermined direction.
But Winkelsas does not explicitly disclose the previously cited limitations in a single embodiment along with the following limitations: the ocular sockets are secured to said faceplate in a hinged fashion, wherein said ocular sockets can be positioned in an open hinged position for unimpeded user vision when desired.
However, Winkelsas does teach in the embodiment on Fig. 7, wherein the ocular sockets (the location of opaque lenses 5 over left and right eye with the unlabeled liner, thought its 10 in other embodiments, wherein the liner is a gasket which defines a socket )[Par 38-40] are secured to said faceplate (in this case helmet 130) [Par 50] in a hinged fashion (pivoting fastener hinge 145)[Par 50], wherein said ocular sockets can be positioned in an open hinged position for unimpeded user vision when desired (See Fig. 7 where the displayed arrows show that the lens surfaces 5 can be rotated separately to only position one, or both lenses in front of the user, thus inherently one can position neither lens in front of the user for unimpeded vision) [Par 52].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Winkelsas, such that, the ocular sockets are secured to said faceplate in a hinged fashion, wherein said ocular sockets can be positioned in an open hinged position for unimpeded user vision when desired, to provide better control over the position of the lenses over the user’s eyes.
Re Claim 14, modified Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 13, and Winkelsas further discloses on Fig. 1a, wherein said first and second lenses comprise (opaque lenses 5 and lens module 20): a generally flat circular portion (Aperture 15 is flat and circular) having said aperture generally in the center thereof (aperture 15 can be in the middle of lens 5)
Re Claim 15, modified Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 14, and Winkelsas further discloses an embodiment on Fig. 3a, a tab (protrusion 115) extending from each of said lenses (opaque lens 5 and attachment of barrel 60), above said aperture (115 is above aperture 15), for adjusting said lens aperture position (protrusion 115 extends or retracts helicoid 70 thus further shielding or un-shielding aperture 15) [Par 45-46].
Re Claim 16, modified Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 14, and Winkelsas further discloses on Fig. 7 an alternative embodiment, comprising: first and second retainers (left and right side of barrel hinge 145) [Par 152] for engaging said ocular sockets (area of helmet 130 around lenses 5) and capturing said lenses between said ocular sockets and said faceplate (whole of helmet 130).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkelsas in view of Park (Lens Fixing Apparatus Goggles, 02-19-2014, Espacenet, KR200471400Y1 Machine Translation (Year: 2014)).
Re Claim 17, Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 16.
But Winkelsas does not explicitly disclose, a plurality of locking tabs extending from a perimeter of said first and second retainers; and a plurality of locking tab slots disposed around a perimeter of said ocular socket, wherein said locking tabs engage said locking tab slots to secure said retainers to said ocular sockets.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Park teaches, on Fig. 6 and 8, that it is desirable in goggles, to include a plurality of locking tabs (permanent magnets 28) extending from a perimeter of said first and second retainers (left and right side of lens rim 15) [Par 17-18]; and a plurality of locking tab slots (mounting groove 2) disposed around a perimeter of said ocular socket (frame rim 5), wherein said locking tabs engage said locking tab slots to secure said retainers to said ocular sockets (magnets 28 engage metal pieces 23 that are inserted in grove 2) [Par 17-18].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Winkelsas with Park in order to provide, easier and faster attachment and detachment of a lens, as taught by Park [Par 15].
Re Claim 18, Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 16, and Winkelsas further discloses on Fig. 5, a plurality of raised grip portions (securing mechanism 45, such as a pin or thumb screw) around a perimeter of a structure (securing mechanism 45 retains Articulating module 20 in aperture 15, and is around perimeter of aperture 15) [Par 42].
But Winkelsas does not explicitly wherein said retainers comprise: a plurality of raised grip portions disposed around a perimeter of said retainer.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Park teaches, on Fig. 3-4 that it is desirable in goggles to include, a raised grip portions (levers 35) disposed around a perimeter of said retainer (fixed piece 32) [Par 28-32].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Winkelsas with Park in order to firmly fix the lens as taught by Park [Par 31].
But Winkelsas in view of Park does not explicitly disclose, a plurality of raised grip portions.
However, Park does disclose a singular raised grip portion (lever 35) with many raised components (clip member 40), with the expressed purpose of giving the user the ability to secure the lens in place or detach the lens [Par 31]. Note that the Court has held that mere duplication of parts has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention, to simply duplicate the raised grip portion taught by Park, in order to better fix the lens in place.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkelsas in view of Parks (US 20040139532 A1), referred to herein as Gerald for clarity.
Re Claim 19, Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 13, and Winkelsas further discloses on Fig. 8, a pair of strap locks (Goggles of Fig. 8 have an unlabeled strap lock).
But does not explicitly disclose, the faceplate having a temple aperture disposed in each of said temples; a frame having a perimeter shaped to engage an outer edge of said faceplate, said frame having a pair of temple apertures that align with said faceplate temple apertures; and a pair of strap locks, each having a post for engaging both a temple aperture of said faceplate and a temple aperture of said frame, thereby securing said frame to said faceplate.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Gerald teaches, on Fig. 2, 3, and 4a-6, that it is desirable in goggles, for the faceplate (Fig. 2: base 15) to have a temple aperture disposed in each of said temples (registration opening 90) [Par 26]; a frame (Fig. 3: frame 25) having a perimeter shaped to engage an outer edge of said faceplate (see Fig. 4a-5), said frame having a pair of temple apertures (registration opening 90 of frame 25) [Par 26] that align with said faceplate temple apertures [Par 26]; and a pair of strap locks (Fastener 100) [Par 25-26], each having a post (Fig. 6: coupler 105 of fastener 100) for engaging both a temple aperture of said faceplate and a temple aperture of said frame [Par 25-26] , thereby securing said frame to said faceplate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Winkelsas with Gerald in order to secure the base and frame, as taught by Gerald [Par 25].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkelsas in view of Chou (US 5249002 A)
Re Claim 20, Winkelsas discloses, the sports training goggles of claim 14, and Winkelsas further discloses on Fig. 7, multiple retainers (left and ride side of fastener 145) and lenses (lenses 5)
But does not explicitly disclose, an o-ring disposed between said retainer and said lens; whereby said o-ring permits movement of said lens in said ocular socket.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Chou teaches, on Fig. 4, that it is desirable in spectacles to include an o-ring (snap rings 40) disposed between said retainer (body 28) and said lense (46); whereby said o-ring permits movement of said lens (all attachment mechanisms inherently have internal flaws that allow for at least miniscule movement, it would be impossible for snap ring 40 not to allow lens 46 to at least partially move) in said ocular socket (objective lens system 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Winkelsas with Chou in order to provide support for the lens as taught by Chou [Col 3, Lines 20-35].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moore (US 7048371 B1) similarly teaches sport glasses with lens apertures.
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 RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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 at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights