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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/26/2024 was considered by the examiner.
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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 6,644,808) in view of Bidgood (US 4,917,479).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses an eyeglass frame retaining apparatus comprising a pair of attachments (Fig, 1), each attachment of the pair of attachments comprising:
a sleeve (Fig, 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3, fastener 11, Col. 2, lines 33-45) having an open end (Fig, 1, portion of fastener 11 toward the temple 12, Fig. 2, temple piece insertion opening 16, Col. 2, lines 39-45), and a closed end (Fig, 1, portion of fastener 11 towards cord 10), the sleeve defining a channel which has a size such that the sleeve is configured for receiving an end of an associated temple of a pair of temples of an eyeglass frame into the channel through the open end (Fig. 3, bore 17, Col. 2, lines 40-50), the sleeve comprising a friction material (Fig. 3, the body 15 of the fastener 11 is made of an elastomeric material such as rubber or synthetic rubber, Col. 3, lines 7-13) such that the sleeve is configured to secure the sleeve to the associated temple via a friction fit (Col. 3, lines 39-48, Fig. 7, the temple end piece 32 is frictionally held in section 22).
Liu does not specifically disclose a counterweight being coupled to the closed end of the sleeve, the counterweight having a mass such that the counter weight is configured to counteract a movement of the eyeglass frame downwardly and forwardly with respect to a user wearing the eyeglass frame when the sleeve is secured to the associated temple and the counterweight is positioned behind an associated ear of a pair of ears of the user.
However, Bidgood, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a counterweight being coupled to the closed end of the sleeve (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, a heavy material inside the sleeve 12, Col. 3, lines 62-68), the counterweight having a mass such that the counter weight is configured to counteract a movement of the eyeglass frame downwardly and forwardly with respect to a user wearing the eyeglass frame when the sleeve is secured to the associated temple (Col. 3, lines 53-61, remains positioned in a proper position for maximum optical correction) and the counterweight is positioned behind an associated ear of a pair of ears of the user (Col. 3, line 68 and Col. 4, lines 1-2), for the purpose of reducing trauma to the nose of the wearer (Col. 3, lines 57-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyeglass frame of Liu with a counterweight being coupled to the closed end of the sleeve, the counterweight having a mass such that the counter weight is configured to counteract a movement of the eyeglass frame downwardly and forwardly with respect to a user wearing the eyeglass frame when the sleeve is secured to the associated temple and the counterweight is positioned behind an associated ear of a pair of ears of the user, of Bidgood, for the purpose of reducing trauma to the nose of the wearer (Col. 3, lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu in view of Bidgood discloses as is set forth above and Liu further discloses wherein the friction material comprises rubber (Fig. 3, the body 15 of the fastener 11 is made of an elastomeric material such as rubber or synthetic rubber, Col. 3, lines 7-13).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu in view of Bidgood discloses as is set forth above and Liu further discloses wherein the friction material is resiliently flexible such that the sleeve is configured to conform to the associated temple (Fig. 3, the body 15 of the fastener 11 is made of an elastomeric material such as rubber or synthetic rubber, Col. 3, lines 7-13).
Regarding Claim 4, Liu in view of Bidgood discloses as is set forth above and Bidgood further discloses wherein the counterweight has a width configured to be greater than a width of the associated temple such that the counterweight is configured to engage the user to prevent the movement of the eyeglass frame (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, a heavy material inside the sleeve 12 surrounding the earhook 11 in the smaller space 15b, Col. 4, lines 5-9, Col. 3, lines 53-61, remains positioned in a proper position for maximum optical correction), for the purpose of reducing trauma to the nose of the wearer (Col. 3, lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu in view of Bidgood discloses as is set forth above and Bidgood further discloses wherein the counterweight of each attachment of the pair of attachments has an oblong shape, the counterweight extending transversely to a central axis of the sleeve extending from the open end to the closed end (Fig. 4, a heavy material inside the sleeve 12 surrounding the earhook 11 in the smaller central space 15b, the cross-section being oblong, Col. 4, lines 5-9, Col. 3, lines 53-61, remains positioned in a proper position for maximum optical correction, Fig. 1, sleeve 12 extending from narrow left side, to wider right side), for the purpose of reducing trauma to the nose of the wearer (Col. 3, lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim 8, Liu in view of Bidgood discloses as is set forth above and Bidgood further discloses wherein the counterweight of each attachment of the pair of attachments has a teardrop shape (Fig. 1, the sleeve 12 is generally teardrop shaped because it widens from left to right, and is round at the right-most end), a rounded portion of the teardrop shape being positioned distally from the sleeve (Fig. 1, the rounded portion of the sleeve 12 is positioned farthest from the opening of the sleeve, which is to the left, and is round at the right-most end), a tapering portion of the teardrop shape tapering from the rounded portion to the sleeve (Fig. 1, the sleeve 12 is generally teardrop shaped because it widens from left (the sleeve) to right (rounded portion)), for the purpose of reducing trauma to the nose of the wearer (Col. 3, lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim 9, Liu in view of Bidgood discloses as is set forth above and Liu further discloses wherein further comprising a neck strap being coupled to and extending between the pair of attachments, the neck strap being configured to hang the eyeglass frame on a neck of the user (Fig. 3, the left and right fasteners 11 are connected to the retainer cord 10, Col. 2, lines 33-38, Col. 3, lines 60-64).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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 5, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of an apparatus including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein: each attachment of the pair of attachments further comprises a magnet being coupled to the counterweight; and the magnets of the pair of attachments are configured to retain the ends of the pair of temples together when the pair of attachments are secured to the pair of temples and the ends of the pair of temples are positioned adjacent to each other.
Specifically, with respect to claim 6, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of an apparatus including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the counterweight of each attachment of the pair of attachments has a first face and a second face positioned opposite to each other and being oriented parallel to each other, each attachment of the pair of attachments further comprising an ornament being coupled to the first face of the counterweight, wherein the counterweight is positionable when the sleeve is secured to the associated temple such that the first face faces away from the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 10, Liu (US 6,644,808) discloses an eyeglass frame retaining apparatus comprising: a pair of attachments (Fig, 1), each attachment of the pair of attachments comprising: a sleeve (Fig, 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3, fastener 11, Col. 2, lines 33-45) having an open end (Fig, 1, portion of fastener 11 toward the temple 12, Fig. 2, temple piece insertion opening 16, Col. 2, lines 39-45), and a closed end (Fig, 1, portion of fastener 11 towards cord 10), the sleeve defining a channel which has a size such that the sleeve is configured for receiving an end of an associated temple of a pair of temples of an eyeglass frame into the channel through the open end (Fig. 3, bore 17, Col. 2, lines 40-50), the sleeve comprising a friction material (Fig. 3, the body 15 of the fastener 11 is made of an elastomeric material such as rubber or synthetic rubber, Col. 3, lines 7-13) such that the sleeve is configured to secure the sleeve to the associated temple via a friction fit (Col. 3, lines 39-48, Fig. 7, the temple end piece 32 is frictionally held in section 22),
the friction material comprises rubber (Fig. 3, the body 15 of the fastener 11 is made of an elastomeric material such as rubber or synthetic rubber, Col. 3, lines 7-13).
friction material is resiliently flexible such that the sleeve is configured to conform to the associated temple (Fig. 3, the body 15 of the fastener 11 is made of an elastomeric material such as rubber or synthetic rubber, Col. 3, lines 7-13).
Bidgood (US 4,917,479) further discloses a counterweight being coupled to the closed end of the sleeve (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, a heavy material inside the sleeve 12, Col. 3, lines 62-68), the counterweight having a mass such that the counter weight is configured to counteract a movement of the eyeglass frame downwardly and forwardly with respect to a user wearing the eyeglass frame when the sleeve is secured to the associated temple (Col. 3, lines 53-61, remains positioned in a proper position for maximum optical correction) and the counterweight is positioned behind an associated ear of a pair of ears of the user (Col. 3, line 68 and Col. 4, lines 1-2),
the counterweight has a width configured to be greater than a width of the associated temple such that the counterweight is configured to engage the user to prevent the movement of the eyeglass frame (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, a heavy material inside the sleeve 12 surrounding the earhook 11 in the smaller space 15b, Col. 4, lines 5-9, Col. 3, lines 53-61, remains positioned in a proper position for maximum optical correction).
Zargari (US 10,634,931) discloses a magnet being embedded in the counterweight (Fig. 3, magnet 4); and
Sandt (US 2017/0285367) additionally discloses an ornament being coupled to the first face of the counterweight (Fig. 1A, all faces of the counterweight 120 can be decorative, Paragraphs 0026-0027),
Bidgood (US 4,917,479) additionally discloses wherein the counterweight is positionable when the sleeve is secured to the associated temple such that the first face faces away from the user (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, a heavy material inside the sleeve 12, the first face facing away from the user, Col. 3, lines 62-68).
Neither Liu (US 6,644,808), Bidgood (US 4,917,479), Zargari (US 10,634,931), nor Sandt (US 2017/0285367) specifically disclose “… the counterweight having a first face and a second face positioned opposite to each other and being oriented parallel to each other; … wherein the magnets of the pair of attachments are configured to retain the ends of the pair of temples together when the pair of attachments are secured to the pair of temples and the ends of the pair of temples are positioned adjacent to each other.”.
Additionally, neither Tahara (US 2009/0040455), Jain (US 2007/0236650), Fulks (US 2020/0110279), Bryant et al. (US 2021/0338370), Luttner (US 4,139,281), Cloessner, Jr (US 4,141,628), Anderson (US 2016/0109724), Nakamats (US 5,096,284), Aftab (US 2023/0229016), Chisolm (US 6,764,177), Williams (US 2012/0105796), Yribarren (US 2016/0025997), Carter (US 2007/0242214), Williams (US 8,366,268), Williams (US 8,092,009), nor Miller et al. (US 2007/0046889) remedy the deficiencies of Liu (US 6,644,808), Bidgood (US 4,917,479), Zargari (US 10,634,931), and Sandt (US 2017/0285367).
Reasons for Allowance/Examiner’s Comments
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, regarding the allowability of independent claim 10: The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest an eyeglass frame retaining apparatus comprising “… the counterweight having a first face and a second face positioned opposite to each other and being oriented parallel to each other; … wherein the magnets of the pair of attachments are configured to retain the ends of the pair of temples together when the pair of attachments are secured to the pair of temples and the ends of the pair of temples are positioned adjacent to each other.”, along with other claim limitations. Claims 11-13 are allowable due to pendency on independent claim 10.
Conclusion
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