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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 9-15, in the reply filed on February 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-8 and 16-20 are withdrawn and claims 9-15 are examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 14, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 9-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zandanel foreign patent document CA627826A, of record.
Regarding claim 9 Zandanel discloses a hinge for glasses (title e.g. figures 1-4 hinge 14), comprising: a first hinge portion defining a cam support surface (e.g. face 37) and a rotation assembly, the rotation assembly comprising a spring (e.g. spring 30), a shaft (e.g. pivot pin 22), and a linkage (e.g. extension 19); and a second hinge portion defining a cam (e.g. combination of temple hinge component 16 & link member 15) rotatably coupled with the linkage and having a first flat surface and a second flat surface (e.g. face 36 & face 34); wherein: the spring is configured to bias the cam to rotate about the shaft toward the cam support surface via the linkage (page 2 line 27-page 3 line 10 e.g. see figure 3); the cam is rotatable between a first position (e.g. see figure 1 solid lines show an open position) and a second position (page 3 lines 1-2 “from a folded position to an extended first position” e.g. see figure 3); the first flat surface engages the cam support surface in the first position (page 6 lines 1-11 e.g. see figure 3); and the second flat surface engages the cam support surface in the second position (implicit given structure and function).
Regarding claim 10 Zandanel discloses the hinge of claim 9, as set forth above. Zandanel further discloses wherein the cam comprises a second shaft (e.g. pivot pin 28) coupled to the linkage (e.g. see figure 3).
Regarding claim 11 Zandanel discloses the hinge of claim 9, as set forth above. Zandanel further discloses wherein: the rotation assembly further comprises a second linkage rotatably coupled with the cam; and the linkage is positioned opposite the first and second flat surfaces relative to the second linkage (e.g. extension 25 page 5 lines 17-24 discuss bore 24 of 25 being coaxial with bore 23 of 15 and being coupled by pivot pin 28).
Regarding claim 12 Zandanel discloses the hinge of claim 9, as set forth above. Zandanel further discloses wherein the cam (e.g. 15) comprises a hard stop surface configured to stop rotation of the cam relative to a stop surface of the first hinge portion (e.g. figure 3 top right corner of 15 would act a stopping surface when it contacts portion 12).
Regarding claim 14 Zandanel discloses the hinge of claim 9, as set forth above. Zandanel further discloses wherein the cam is rotatable about the shaft to a third position with the first and second flat surfaces spaced away from the cam support surface (e.g., “further extended position” see “∙-” outline of 13 at B).
Regarding claim 15 Zandanel discloses the hinge of claim 14, as set forth above. Zandanel further discloses wherein the spring biases the first and second flat surfaces toward the second position from the third position (page 4 line 13-page 5 line 1 discuss spring biasing the temple to remain in open/1st position and to urge the temple from a hyperextended/3rd position back to the open/1st position).
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zandanel foreign patent document CA627826A, of record, in view of Eriksson et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0265510.
Regarding claim 13 Zandanel discloses the hinge of claim 9, as set forth above. Zandanel does not disclose wherein the cam comprises an internal channel, wherein a cable is routable between the first and second hinge portions through the internal channel.
Erikson teaches a similar hinge for glasses (title e.g. figures 7a-7c), comprising: a first hinge portion (e.g. frame 2) defining a cam support surface (e.g. flat portion on outside left in figure 7a abutting flat of central part 7), a second hinge portion (e.g. temple 3), a cam (e.g. central part 7) and a spring (e.g. spring 8); and further teaches wherein the cam (e.g. 7) comprises an internal channel (e.g. throughgoing hole 11), wherein a cable (e.g. cable 14) is routable between the first and second hinge portions through the internal channel (e.g. see figures 7b) for the purpose of having a cable between the temple and frames not stretched in the store position or crinkled in the use position (inter alia abstract & paragraph [0048]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the hinge as disclosed by Zandanel to have the cam comprises an internal channel, wherein a cable is routable between the first and second hinge portions through the internal channel as taught by Eriksson for the purpose of having a cable between the temple and frames not stretched in the store position or crinkled in the use position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0063509; in regards to a similar hinge, see figures 1-4.
Wienicke US Patent Application Publication 2023/0324716; in regards to a similar hinge, see figures 3-4 & 6-7.
Eriksson et al. US Patent Application Publication 2024/0098918; in regards to a similar hinge, see figures 2a-4c.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 March 2, 2026