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 § 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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Lima (US 6,099,120).
Regarding Claim 1, De Lima discloses a method of tightening loose arms of an eye frame (Col. 2, lines 40-46), the arms coupled to a front frame of the eye frame using hinge joints (Fig. 1, Col. 1, lines 36-48, the assembly and manufacturing of goggles), the method comprises:
providing a spacer (Fig. 1, side blade 6, Col. 2, lines 40-46), the spacer comprises a body (see annotated Fig. 1, below), the body has a front face (see annotated Fig. 1, below), a rear face (see annotated Fig. 1, below), and a wall (see annotated Fig. 1, below) extending between the front face and the rear face, wherein a height (see annotated Fig. 1, below) of the wall defines a thickness of the body; and
PNG
media_image1.png
446
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
inserting the spacer within a left hinge joint of the hinge joints (Fig. 2, spacer 6, as shown), wherein the spacer is sandwiched between a proximal end portion of the front frame and an end of a left arm of the arms of the eye frame (Fig. 4, spacer 6, is between front frame 2 and the left arm 7).
Regarding Claim 6, De Lima discloses a spacer (Fig. 1, side blade 6, Col. 2, lines 40-46) for an eye frame, the eye frame comprises a pair of arms (Fig. 2, two arms 7, Col. 2, lines 30-46) coupled to a front frame (Fig. 2, frame 2, Col. 2, lines 30-46) using hinge joints (Fig. 2, pivot point 5 and opening 8, Col. 2, lines 31-46), the spacer comprises:
a body (Fig. 1, side blade 6, Col. 2, lines 40-46), the body has a front face (see annotated Fig. 1, above), a rear face (see annotated Fig. 1, above), and a wall (see annotated Fig. 1, above) extending between the front face and the rear face, wherein a height of the wall (see annotated Fig. 1, above) defines a thickness of the spacer,
wherein the spacer is configured to be inserted within a hinge joint of the hinge joints (Fig. 2, spacer 6, as shown) and sandwich between an end portion of the front frame and an end of an arm of the pairs of arms of the eye frame (Fig. 4, spacer 6, is between front frame 2 and the left arm 7).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lima (US 6,099,120) in view of Goodger (US 2017/0219844).
Regarding Claim 2, De Lima discloses as is set forth above but does not further disclose wherein the spacer further comprises an adhesive layer disposed on the front face of the body, the adhesive layer is protected by a release liner.
However, Goodger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the spacer further comprises an adhesive layer disposed on the front face of the body (Fig. 3, foam block 14 with adhesive layer 13, Paragraph 0024, lines 1-6), the adhesive layer is protected by a release liner (Fig. 3, release liner 13a, Paragraph 0024, lines 1-6), for the purpose of providing a cushioned spacing apparatus for eyewear.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of De Lima, with the wherein the spacer further comprises an adhesive layer disposed on the front face of the body, the adhesive layer is protected by a release liner, of Goodger, for the purpose of providing a cushioned spacing apparatus for eyewear.
Regarding Claim 3, De Lima in view of Goodger discloses as is set forth above and Goodger further discloses wherein the method further comprises: removing the release liner before inserting the spacer (Fig. 3, release liner 13a is removed, Paragraph 0024, lines 1-6), for the purpose of providing a cushioned spacing apparatus for eyewear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 4, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations wherein the front face adheres to the proximal end portion of the front frame and the rear face adheres to the end of the left arm.
Specifically, with respect to claim 7, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose a spacer including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations wherein the spacer further comprises: an adhesive layer disposed on the front face; and a rear adhesive layer disposed on the rear face, wherein the adhesive layer is protected by a release liner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yokoyama (US 2024/0019719), Hunt (US 2018/0129077), Reane (US 2005/0225717), Filtz (US 3,744,886), Zemer (US 2024/0201514), Stutelberg (US 2024/0302676), Eloranta (US 2,671,379), Linossier (US 10,634,933), Conway (US 5,418,581), Spill (US 2,210,507), Thorsell et al. (US 2022/0390761), Thorsell et al. (US 2020/0278564), Bove et al. (US 6,679,604), Kigami et al. (US 2018/0044555), Minoura et al. (US 2023/0132107), and Nishiwaki et al. (US 2023/0132305) are cited to show similar devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872