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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 5/12/2026. Claims 1-2, 8 and 16 are amended and claims 1-21 are currently pending. Note: The status identifier for Claim 2 improperly characterizes the claim as “Original” thought it is understood to be “Currently Amended”. In the Specifications, Applicant discloses [o]rbitals can be integral in that they can be formed of a single piece of material, without requiring connectors to attach components of the orbital to each other during insertion or removal of a lens” and “[o]rbitals can be unitary with the rest of the front face of the eyewear in that they can be formed of a single piece of material with the rest of the front face of the eyewear, without requiring connectors to attach the orbitals to the rest of the front face of the eyewear”. This description describes an embodiment of a “unitary lens” in which the orbital regions and non-optical medial region are formed of a same material and lack connecting structures. The scope of the claimed “unitary lens being integrally formed” is not commensurate in scope with the above-identified specie but rather extends to a genus including orbital sections with connecting structures. For example, in Chen ‘591, the “unitary lens being integrally formed” describes framed orbital lenses with a non-optical medial region that are wholly formed distinct from the spectacle frame and thus integrally formed. Based on the discussion during the 4/23/2026 Interview, it is understood that Applicant’s intent is to limit the claimed invention to two orbitals and a non-optical medial region are formed of a single material lacking connectors. One of the rejections below addresses unitary lenses, integrally formed, such as this in prior art.
Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the unitary lens being integrally formed” is herein discussed on account of continued disagreement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 6,283,591 to Chen (hereinafter Chen ‘591).
Regarding claim 1, Chen ‘591 discloses an antiballistic eyewear comprising: a frame (frame of spectacles 40, Figs. 1-6) with a front portion (bridge 41, unlabeled rims and unlabeled temples, Figs. 1-6) and earstems (unlabeled, Fig. 2); a clamp system (transverse extension 13 with axial hole 131, first and second clipping plates 21 and 22, and adjoining structure, Figs. 1-6) that is positioned in a medial region (bridge 41, Figs. 1-6) on the front portion of the frame (Figs. 1-6); and a unitary lens (frame 10 with glasses 11, Figs. 1-6) comprising first and second viewing zones (left and right glasses 11, Figs. 1-6) and a non-optical medial region (T-shaped bar 12 and transverse extension 13, Figs. 1-6) positioned between the first and second viewing zones, the unitary lens being integrally formed and removably attached to the frame by the clamp system contacting the unitary lens only in the non-optical medial region of the unitary lens (Fig. 1-6).
See Claim Interpretation section above regarding “the unitary lens being integrally formed”.
Regarding claim 2, Chen ‘591 discloses the frame does not contact the unitary lens when the clamp is closed on the lens and the eyewear is in an unworn state (Fig. 3 & 5).
Regarding claim 3, Chen ‘591 discloses the clamp system comprises a plurality of jaws (“pair of first and second clipping plates 21 and 22”, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Chen ‘591 discloses the clamp system comprises an actuator configured to induce relative movement between the plurality of jaws (“engage the axial holes 131, 211 and 221 together, then rotatably secured by an axial pin 23”, Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Chen ‘591 discloses the plurality of jaws comprises an upper jaw (second clipping plate in unhinged state, Fig. 2) and a lower jaw (first clipping plates 21, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Chen ‘591 discloses the clamp system includes a pivot lever (bent outward piece 214 and 224, Figs. 2 & 5) that functionally interacts with both of the upper jaw and the lower jaw (via a pair of magnets 216 and 226, Figs. 2 & 5).
Regarding claim 8, Chen ‘591 discloses an eyewear (Figs. 1-6) with a removable lens (Figs. 1-6), the eyewear comprising: a unitary lens (frame 10 with glasses 11, Figs. 1-6) with first and second viewing zones (left and right glasses 11, Figs. 1-6) and a non-optical medial region (T-shaped bar 12 and transverse extension 13, Figs. 1-6) the unitary lens being integrally formed (see Claim Interpretation above) and, each of the first and second viewing zones comprising an outer perimeter (Figs. 1-3); and a frame (bridge 41 of frame of spectacles 40, Figs. 1-6) configured to securely support the unitary lens on a head of a wearer, the unitary lens being removably attachable to the frame by a clamp system (transverse extension 13 with axial hole 131, first and second clipping plates 21 and 22, and adjoining structure, Figs. 1-6); wherein in a cosed state in which the unitary lens is attached to the frame, the outer perimeter of the first and second viewing zones is spaced from the frame (Fig. 3 & 5).
Regarding claim 9, Chen ‘591 discloses the clamp system comprising a single actuator configured to release or secure the unitary lens (Figs. 2 & 5).
Regarding claim 11, Chen ‘591 discloses the frame (bridge 41, Figs. 2-5) does not extent along the bottom edge of the unitary lens (Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 12, Chen ‘591 discloses the unitary lens attached to the frame only at a region of the frame that extends along an upper region of the unitary lens (Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 14, Chen ‘591 discloses the upper jaw (clipping plate 22, Fig. 5) is directly attached to the frame (Fig. 5).
Claims 16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 9,835,873 to Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen ‘873).
Regarding claim 16, Chen ‘873 discloses an eyewear (Figs. 1-4) comprising: a frame (upper frame 1, Figs. 1-4) and a unitary lens including integrally formed first and second viewing zones and a connecting medial region (lens 3, Figs. 1-4), the frame extending along an upper portion of the unitary lens and not along a lower portion of the unitary lens (Figs. 1-4); a nosepiece (lower frame 2 with nosepad 21, Fig. 1-4) with downwardly extending arms (Figs. 1-4); and a clamp system (assembling part 11, rod 12, fixing part 13, lower frame 2, Fig. 1-4; col. 3, ln. 22-col. 4, ln. 17) attached to the frame at a medial region on the frame (Figs. 1-4), the downwardly extending arms of the nosepiece extending further in left and right lateral directions than the clamp system (Figs. 1-4); wherein the unitary lens attaches to the frame by way of the clamp system (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 18, Chen ‘873 discloses the clamp system comprises a plurality of jaws (assembly part 11 and flat carrying part 133, Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, Chen ‘873 discloses the actuator includes a nosepiece (“Two lower lens assembling parts 22 having an opening on the upper half thereof are formed on two sides of the nose pad part 21”).
Regarding claim 20, Chen ‘873 discloses the unitary lens comprises first and second viewing zones (left and right lens portions 3, Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 21, Chen ‘873 discloses the unitary lens comprises a non-optical medial region between the first and second viewing zones (central portion between left and right lens portions 3, Figs. 1-4).
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, 3-5, and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by US 2015/0185497 to Ho, et al. (hereinafter Ho; previously cited) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ho in view of US Pat. No. 9,835,873 to Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen ‘873).
Regarding claim 1, Ho discloses an antiballistic (Fig. 1-2,4-5) eyewear comprising: a frame (metal 12, Figs. 1-2, 4-5) with a front portion (metal brow bar 26, Figs. 1-2, 4-5) and earstems (arms 24, Figs. 1-2, 4-5); a clamp system (“attachment member 21 is composed of the spacer 18, a clamp 20, and a clip 36”; [0024]) that is positioned in a medial region on the front portion of the frame (Figs. 1-2, 4-5); and a unitary lens (lens carrier 10, Fig. 1-2, 4-5) comprising first and second viewing zones (right and left lenses 14a and 14b, Figs. 1-2, 4-5) and a non-optical medial region (top bar 28, Figs. 1-2, 4-5) positioned between the first and second viewing zones, the unitary lens being integrally formed (lens carrier 10, Figs. 1-2, 4-5) and removably attached to the frame by the clamp system contacting the unitary lens only in the non-optical medial region of the unitary lens (Figs. 1-2, 4-5).
As noted in the Claim Interpretation section above, Applicant argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “unitary lens being integrally formed” excludes a construction, as in Ho, of optical regions and non-optical medial region formed separately or from separate materials and subsequently joined. Under this alternative interpretation, Ho does not anticipate the claimed invention but nonetheless evidences the obviousness of the claimed invention in part.
Chen discloses a clamp system (assembling part 11, rod 12, fixing part 13, lower frame 2, Fig. 1-4; col. 3, ln. 22-col. 4, ln. 17) and a unitary lens being integrally formed as argued by Applicant (Figs. 1-3).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the unitary lens as argued by Applicant as taught by Chen with the system as disclosed by Ho. The motivation would have been to provide a light-weight exchangeable lens system that simplifies replacement of lenses and thus reduces costs to the wearer (col. 3, ll. 48-62).
Regarding claims 3-4, Ho discloses the clamp system comprises a plurality of jaws (“Screws 22 or another attachment mechanism can thus be utilized to firmly attach the lens carrier 10, the spacer 18, and the clamp 20 together”, Figs. 1-2, 4-5) and the clamp system comprises an actuator (screws 22, Figs. 1-2,4-5) configured to induce relative movement between the plurality of jaws (“Screws 22 or another attachment mechanism can thus be utilized to firmly attach the lens carrier 10, the spacer 18, and the clamp 20 together”, Figs. 1-2, 4-5)
Regarding claim 5, Ho discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the actuator includes a nosepiece.
Chen ‘873 discloses the actuator includes a nosepiece (“Two lower lens assembling parts 22 having an opening on the upper half thereof are formed on two sides of the nose pad part 21”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a nosepiece actuator as taught by Chen ‘873 with the system as disclosed by Ho. The motivation would have been to reduce the number of loose parts required for lens exchange by providing an integral fastening means.
Regarding claim 8, Ho discloses that which is detailed above regarding Claim 1 and wherein in a closed state in which the unitary lens is attached to the frame, the outer perimeter of the first and second viewing zones is spaced from the frame (Figs. 1-2, 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, Ho discloses the clamp system comprising a single actuator configured to release or secure the unitary lens (Figs. 1-2, 4-5).
Regarding claim 10, Ho discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the actuator includes a nosepiece.
Chen ‘873 discloses the actuator includes a nosepiece (“Two lower lens assembling parts 22 having an opening on the upper half thereof are formed on two sides of the nose pad part 21”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a nosepiece actuator as taught by Chen ‘873 with the system as disclosed by Ho. The motivation would have been to reduce the number of loose parts required for lens exchange by providing an integral fastening means.
Regarding claim 11-12, Ho discloses the frame does not extend along a bottom edge of the unitary lens (Figs. 1-2, 4-5), wherein the clamp system is attached to the frame only at a region of the frame that extends along an upper region of the unitary lens (Figs. 1-2, 4-5)
Regarding claim 13-15, Ho discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the clamp system comprises an upper jaw and a lower jaw, wherein the upper jaw is directly attached to the frame, and the lower jaw is not directly attached to the frame.
Chen ‘873 discloses the plurality of jaws comprises an upper jaw and a lower jaw (assembly part 11 and flat carrying part 133, Figs. 1-4), the upper jaw is directly attached to the frame (upper lens assembling part 11 attached to upper frame 1, Figs. 1-4), and the lower jaw is not directly attached to the frame (Figs. 1-4).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide as taught by Chen ‘873 with the system as disclosed by Ho. The motivation would have been to reduce the number of loose parts required for lens exchange by providing an integral fastening means.
Regarding claim 16, Ho discloses an eyewear comprising: a frame (metal 12, Figs. 1-2, 4-5) and a unitary lens (lens carrier 10, Fig. 1-2, 4-5) including integrally formed first and second viewing zones (right and left lenses 14a and 14b, Figs. 1-2, 4-5) and a connecting medial region (top bar 28, Figs. 1-2, 4-5), the frame extending along an upper portion of the unitary lens and not along a lower portion of the unitary lens (Figs. 1-2, 4-5); a nosepiece (nose pad arms 32, Fig. 1-2, 4-5) with downwardly extending arms; and a clamp system (“attachment member 21 is composed of the spacer 18, a clamp 20, and a clip 36”; [0024]) attached to the frame at a medial region on the frame (Figs. 1-2, 4-5), the downwardly extending arms of the nosepiece extending further in left and right lateral directions than the clamp system (Fig. 5); wherein the unitary lens attaches to the frame by way of the clamp system (Figs. 1-2, 4-5).
As noted in the Claim Interpretation section above, Applicant argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “unitary lens being integrally formed” excludes a construction, as in Ho, of optical regions and non-optical medial region formed separately or from separate materials and subsequently joined. Under this alternative interpretation, Ho does not anticipate the claimed invention but nonetheless evidences the obviousness of the claimed invention in part.
Chen ‘873 discloses a clamp system (assembling part 11, rod 12, fixing part 13, lower frame 2, Fig. 1-4; col. 3, ln. 22-col. 4, ln. 17) and a unitary lens being integrally formed as argued by Applicant (Figs. 1-3).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the unitary lens as argued by Applicant as taught by Chen ‘873 with the system as disclosed by Ho. The motivation would have been to provide a light-weight exchangeable lens system that simplifies replacement of lenses and thus reduces costs to the wearer (col. 3, ll. 48-62).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho or Ho in view of Chen ‘873 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Chen ‘591.
Regarding claim 17, Ho discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the frame does not directly contact the unitary lens.
Chen ‘591 discloses the frame does not directly contact the unitary lens (Figs. 3 & 5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a clamp allowing for no direct contact between the unitary lens and frame as taught by Chen ‘591 with the system as disclosed by Ho. The motivation would have been to provide an attachment that is “very stable and without breaching off on any vibration” (col. 2, ll. 37-39) while providing the quick attachment and detachment for adding accessory lenses to the structure (Abstract & col. 1, ll. 6-22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims and the interpretation of “unitary lens being integrally formed” have been considered but are moot, in part, because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. 7,048,372, JP 3129562, US 8029132, and KR 20210125818 disclose lens attachment means whereby the lens only contacts the bridge of the eyewear frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights