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 1/31/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 10 and 11 are repeated from claims 8 and 9. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holtan, Jr. et al. (US 5,009,496).
Regarding Claim 1, Holtan discloses an eyeglasses device for head surgery patients comprising:
an eyeglasses frame comprised of a single frame arm (Fig. 18, temple tip portion 70, Col. 9, lines 28-36), a first lens (Fig. 18, left lens, see annotated Fig. 18 below), a second lens (Fig. 18, right lens, see annotated Fig. 18 below), and a nosepiece (Fig. 18, connector between left lens and right lens, see annotated Fig. 18 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, Holtan discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the first lens and the second lens are comprised of prescription lenses (Col. 4, lines 18-20).
Regarding Claim 7, Holtan discloses an eyeglasses device for head surgery patients comprising:
an eyeglasses frame comprised of a single frame arm (Fig. 18, temple tip portion 70, Col. 9, lines 28-36), a first lens (Fig. 18, left lens, see annotated Fig. 18 below), a second lens (Fig. 18, right lens, see annotated Fig. 18 below), and a nosepiece (Fig. 18, connector between left lens and right lens, see annotated Fig. 18 below),
and a strap comprised of a first fastener and a second fastener (see annotated Fig. 18 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
362
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 3, 4, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtan, Jr. et al. (US 5,009,496) in view of Biver et al. (US 2022/0187621).
Regarding Claims 3 and 16, Holtan discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the first lens and the second lens are comprised of progressive lenses.
However, Biver, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first lens and the second lens are comprised of progressive lenses (Paragraph 0034, lines 3-5, progressive surface), for the purpose of providing both near and far vision to wearers with compromised accommodation ability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyeglasses of Holtan with the wherein the first lens and the second lens are comprised of progressive lenses, for the purpose of providing both near and far vision to wearers with compromised accommodation ability.
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, Holtan discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the first lens and the second lens are comprised of UV-coated lenses.
However, Biver, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first lens and the second lens are comprised of UV-coated lenses (Paragraph 0123, lines 1-9, layers 4 and 5 to filter ultraviolet radiation), for the purpose of protecting a wearer’s eye from harmful UV radiation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyeglasses of Holtan with the wherein the first lens and the second lens are comprised of UV-coated lenses, of Biver, for the purpose of protecting a wearer’s eye from harmful UV radiation.
Claims 5, 6, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtan, Jr. et al. (US 5,009,496) in view of Fayolle et al. (US 2017/0322430).
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, Holtan discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the nose piece is comprised of a fixed nosepiece.
However, Fayolle, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the nose piece is comprised of a fixed nosepiece (Paragraph 0097, lines 2-4, the nose bridge with two fixed surfaces), for the purpose of reducing the adjustments to eyewear.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyeglasses of Holtan with the wherein the nose piece is comprised of a fixed nosepiece, of Fayolle, for the purpose of reducing the adjustments to eyewear.
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, Holtan discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the nose piece is comprised of an adjustable nosepiece.
However, Fayolle, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the nose piece is comprised of an adjustable nosepiece (Paragraph 0097, lines 4-8, the nose pads are adjustable), for the purpose of increasing wearer’s comfort by adjusting for the size of the wearer’s nose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyeglasses of Holtan with the wherein the nose piece is comprised of an adjustable nosepiece, of Fayolle, for the purpose of increasing wearer’s comfort by adjusting for the size of the wearer’s nose.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtan, Jr. et al. (US 5,009,496) in view of Davidson (US 4,515,449).
Regarding Claims 8 and 10, Holtan discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the first fastener attaches to the frame arm.
However, Davidson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first fastener attaches to the frame arm (Fig. 1, strap 11 attaches to the far side temple 12 at position 13), for the purpose of improving stability of the eyewear.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyeglasses of Holtan with the wherein the first fastener attaches to the frame arm, of Davidson, for the purpose of improving stability of the eyewear.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtan, Jr. et al. (US 5,009,496) in view of Davidson (US 4,515,449), further in view of Valdez-Campbell (US 8,602,553).
Regarding Claims 9 and 11, Holtan in view of Davidson discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the first fastener is comprised of a clip, a latch, an adhesive, a snap button, a hook and loop fastener, or a tie.
However, Valdez-Campbell, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first fastener is comprised of a clip, a latch, an adhesive, a snap button, a hook and loop fastener (Col. 2, lines 50-53, hook and loop fabric combination attachments), or a tie, for the purpose of providing a reversible and adjustable attachment for a strap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyeglasses of Holtan in view of Davidson with the wherein the first fastener is comprised of a clip, a latch, an adhesive, a snap button, a hook and loop fastener, or a tie, of Valdez-Campbell, for the purpose of providing a reversible and adjustable attachment for a strap.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtan, Jr. et al. (US 5,009,496) in view of Alfaro et al. (US 5,184,354).
Regarding Claim 12, Holtan discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the strap is comprised of a padded material.
However, Alfaro, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the strap is comprised of a padded material (Col. 3, lines 30-35, a strap of padded material), for the purpose of increasing the comfort for the wearer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyeglasses of Holtan with the wherein the strap is comprised of a padded material, of Alfaro, for the purpose of increasing the comfort for the wearer.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtan, Jr. et al. (US 5,009,496) in view of Valdez-Campbell (US 8,602,553).
Regarding Claim 13, Holtan discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the strap is comprised of an adjustment fastener.
However, Valdez-Campbell, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the strap is comprised of an adjustment fastener (Col. 2, lines 59-68, the straps are adjustable in length, Col. 3, lines 34-39, each strap can be adjusted to fit securely) for the purpose of providing a secure fit for eyewear.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyeglasses of Holtan with the wherein the strap is comprised of an adjustment fastener, of Valdez-Campbell, for the purpose of providing a secure fit for eyewear.
Regarding Claim 14, Holtan in view of Valdez-Campbell discloses as is set forth above and Valdez-Campbell further discloses wherein the adjustment fastener allows the strap to increase and decrease in length (Col. 2, lines 59-68, the straps are adjustable in length, Col. 3, lines 34-39, each strap can be adjusted to fit securely), for the purpose of providing a secure fit for eyewear.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 4,515,449) in view of Ogonowsky (US 7,058,992).
Regarding Claim 20, Davidson discloses a method of using an eyeglasses device for head surgery patients, the method comprising the following steps:
providing an eyeglasses device for head surgery patients comprised of a strap and a frame comprised of a frame arm and a lens;
attaching the strap to the frame arm via a first fastener of the strap (See annotated Figure below);
PNG
media_image3.png
414
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
placing the frame around a user's head such that the arm rests on or above an ear of the user on a side of the user's head that was not operated on or injured (Col. 2, person is wearing the eyeglasses, lines 17-25).
Davidson does not specifically disclose attaching the strap to the frame via a second fastener of the strap; … adjusting the strap such that the strap rests on, above, or around an ear on a side of the user's head that was operated on or injured.
However, Ogonowsky, in the same field of endeavor, teaches attaching the strap to the frame via a second fastener of the strap (see “second fastener” as shown in annotated Fig. 1, below),
PNG
media_image4.png
288
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
adjusting the strap such that the strap rests on, above, or around an ear on a side of the user's head that was operated on or injured (Col. 2, lines 5-22, Fig. 4, the cup 20 attached to the ring 18 so that there is no downward pressure on the ear or on the area surrounding the ear, which would have avoided an injured ear), for the purpose of avoiding irritation from the elastic strap putting pressure on the ears.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Davidson with the attaching the strap to the frame via a second fastener of the strap; … adjusting the strap such that the strap rests on, above, or around an ear on a side of the user's head that was operated on or injured of Ogonowsky, for the purpose of avoiding irritation from the elastic strap putting pressure on the ears.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Godeau et al. (US 2021/0109371), Martin (US 11,782,291), Gamperling et al. (US 2021/0382330), Jackson (US 2,609,538), and Lorenzo (US 4,129,362) are cited to show similar eyewear.
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 at (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