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
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
-“cam to form a hinge” of claim 2.
-“a socket” of claim 3
-“side of the fastener that has threading includes the hemispherical shape” of claim 4
-“screw socket” of claim 5
-“a socket” of claim 7
-“serrations” and “ingress protection seal” of claim 12
-interface has a passthrough 217 (examiner notes that the hinge arm has passthrough 217)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Eyeglass hinge having a curved interface surface.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 19. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Regarding claim 19: applicant claims “an artificial reality device” comprising the mechanical interface of claim 1, “for coupling an artificial reality glasses arm with a frame of the artificial reality device”. The scope does not claim any structure or feature that makes the interface “an artificial reality device”, nor does applicant positively claim the glasses in claim 19. The record is unclear how claim 1 is different in scope than claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1: applicant claims an “interface”. The record is not clear if applicant intends to claim a hinge, or another feature. The structure of what applicant claims is a curved surface 203 with two holes, and possibly with fasteners going through the holes. This does not allow the “interface” to pivot the arm and the frame of glasses. Examiner contends there are missing essential elements in order for the claimed device to function as a hinge. The record is not clear as to the names of the elements that are missing, however, the ball and socket are required to be claimed if applicant intends to claim a hinge. At this time, claim 1 requires a curved surface with two holes, possibly with fasteners going through the holes.
Regarding claim 2: Applicant claims “configured to be coupled with a cam”. The record is not clear if the cam is positively claimed. Further, the “cam” is not definitely disclosed in the specification, nor the drawings. Applicant claims “to form a hinge for opening and closing the glasses arm”, the “hinge” being disclosed as part 208 shown in figure 3b. Examiner is not sure if applicant is positively including the secondary holder on the right side of surface 203 in figure 3b, or something else. The record is not clear.
Regarding claim 3: Examiner assumes that the “socket” is the indentation of figure 3a formed by edges 300a and 300b, the lower surface having holes 216a-c, the lower surface being curved. The record is not clear what “the generally spherical curvature” refers to, however examiner assumes this refers to “surface”. The record is not clear how using fasteners of claim 1 “allows the generically spherical curvature [assumed to be surface 203] to rotate about the socket”. The shape of the surface 203 seems to be identical to the shape of the socket in figure 3a, and therefore, the plate/surface 203 is unable to move within the socket as shown in figure 3a.
Regarding claim 5: applicant claims “screw socket”, which is not shown anywhere in the drawings. IF applicant intends to claim the shape surrounding a hole engaging the head of the fastener as shown in figure 2e, then examiner notes that the surface engaging the head of the fastener is part of part 202, not surface 203 from claim 1. Further, part 202 has been assumed to be part of the glasses arm in figure 3a as it has what is assumed to be the socket from claim 3.
Regarding claim 7: Applicant claims a third socket. None of the sockets are clearly described in the specification or clearly shown in the drawings. If applicant is referring to the socket only of claim 7, the “socket” is assumed to be around the hole of surface 203, as shown in figure 2e. The record is not clear how the socket could be “on a surface of the glasses arm”.
Regarding claims 12 and 13: Applicant claims “serrations” and “ingress protection seal”, neither of which are shown in the drawings. Serrations are only mentioned in [0023], the seal is only mentioned in [0023] and [0024]. Neither disclosures indicate the parts, or what these parts are, or how these features are even related to the hinge. There is no indication of the seal to show that it is, or even can be, spherically shaped.
Regarding claim 16: applicant claims “configured to allow five degrees of rotational freedom”. The record is not clear what this “configuration” is. Examiner notes that there are only 6 total “degrees of freedom” in three dimensional space. The applicant has claimed the surface 203 of figure 3b to abut a surface of a socket of figure 3a using screws going through holes which are larger than the screws. Therefore, only two degrees of freedom are allowed, if the socket is larger than the surface 203. The record is not clear how this claim further limits the hinge of claim 1, or how it is even possible to achieve this degree of rotational freedom.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any issues.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
The record is not clear if applicant is claiming the combination of glasses arm, frame, and interface, or just the interface. It seems that applicant intends to claim the combination in at least claim 3. Further, the record is not clear about the term “interface”. Examiner assumes that “interface” is functionally equivalent to “hinge”.
The record is not clear if the fasteners are positively claimed. The surface is “configured to be secured to a portion of the glasses arm by a fastener that is received along a first axis through a first hole of the at least two holes” by having two holes. Examiner assumes that applicant intends to claim “an eyeglass hinge, comprising a curved surface having two holes”. Applicant could argue that applicant intends to claim “an eyeglass hinge, comprising a curved surface having two holes, and one fastener extending through each hole”.
The ”surface having a generally spherical curvature” is not definite. The record is not clear as to what the “surface” is. IF applicant intends that “surface” is surface 203, examiner notes that the surface is merely arced, it is not “spherical”, it is not hemispherical. The surface is “curved”. Should applicant intend that the surface 208 of figure 3b, examiner would agree that this surface is “generally spherical”.
Regarding claim 2:
Applicant claims “configured to be coupled with a cam”. The record is not clear if the cam is positively claimed. Further, the “cam” is not definitely disclosed in the specification, nor the drawings. Applicant claims “to form a hinge for opening and closing the glasses arm”, the “hinge” being disclosed as part 208 shown in figure 3b. Examiner is not sure if applicant is positively including the secondary holder on the right side of surface 203 in figure 3b, or something else. The record is not clear.
Regarding claim 3:
Applicant positively limits the glasses arm, which is claimed as intended combination in claim 1. The record is not clear if the combination is now positively claimed. Further, “socket” is not given a part number in the specification, so examiner is not sure if it is shown in the drawings. Examiner assumes that the “socket” is the indentation of figure 3a formed by edges 300a and 300b, the lower surface having holes 216a-c, the lower surface being curved. The record is not clear what “the generally spherical curvature” refers to, however examiner assumes this refers to “surface”. The record is not clear how using fasteners of claim 1 “allows the generically spherical curvature [assumed to be surface 203] to rotate about the socket”. The shape of the surface 203 seems to be identical to the shape of the socket in figure 3a, and therefore, the plate/surface 203 is unable to move within the socket as shown in figure 3a.
Regarding claim 4: applicant claims “side of the fastener that has threading includes the hemispherical shape”. Examiner notes that applicant does not previously claim “threading”, nor does applicant refer to a “side of the fastener”. Examiner assumes applicant means “head of the fastener has a hemispherical shape adjacent a threaded stem”.
Regarding claim 5: Applicant claims “configured to mate to a screw socket”. First, the record does not positively include the screw socket, while examiner assumes that applicant intends to positively claim the screw socket. Second, the “screw socket” is not shown in the drawings, is not given a part number in the specification, and is not clearly shown in the drawings. If applicant refers to a shape of the hole shown in figure 2e that would accommodate a rounded fastener head 204b, examiner notes that the rounded shape surrounding the hole is that of part 202, not surface 203. Further, if figure 3a indicates the “socket of the glasses arm” of claim 3, then part 202 is part of the glasses arm, not another part of the interface.
Applicant claims the combination of socket and screw socket. Neither of these are clearly shown or indicated in the drawings.
Regarding claim 7: applicant claims “a socket”, which has not been previously shown or disclosed anywhere. Further, the “socket” of claim 3 and the “screw socket” of claim 5 have already been previously rejected as indefinite, not described, and not shown in the drawings. Further, if applicant intends to refer to figure 2e, the rounded part of nut 212 abuts surface 203 surrounding the existing holes required in claim 1. Applicant is not clear as to “socket” from claim 3, “socket” from claim 7, or “screw socket” of claim 5.
If applicant is referring to the socket only of claim 7, the “socket” is assumed to be around the hole of surface 203, as shown in figure 2e. The record is not clear how the socket could be “on a surface of the glasses arm”.
Regarding claim 8: applicant claims “secured via a torx driver”. Examiner notes that this seems to be a method step, and applicant is not claiming a method step. If applicant is referring to the shape of engagement feature of the screw, applicant should claim “fastener comprises an engagement feature configured to engage a torx driver”.
Regarding claim 9: “threaded nut is secured via a nut retention bracket”. The record is not clear if this is positively claimed, or if the “nut retention bracket” is a tool for application of the threaded nut. Applicant discloses that “nut retention bracket” is part 210, which seems to be a plate. The record is not clear how the plate “restricts freedom of movement of the threaded nut via the key”, since this is a functional limitation and not a structural limitation. The record is not clear as to the location, structure, or even whether “nut retention bracket” is even claimed. Further, “the threaded nut” is improper since it is not present in claim 1. The record is not clear if claim 9 supposed to depend from claim 7.
Regarding claims 11 and 14: applicant’s claim 11 “interface has a shape”. The record is not clear what the “mechanical interface” even is, let alone what the shape of the entire “interface” is. The record is not clear what part of the interface has a “shape that is configured to accommodate one or more electrical components”. This phrase is only mentioned in [0017]-[0018], which infers that the passthrough 217 is the “shape that is configured”. The disclosure states that the glasses arm has the passthrough 217. The record is not clear how claim 12 further limits the interface of claim 1. Claim 14 requires the “pass through”, but improperly includes it on the mechanical interface; the passthrough is disclosed as part of the glasses arm.
Regarding claims 12 and 13: applicant claims “serrations” and “ingress protection seal”, neither of which are shown in the drawings. Serrations are only mentioned in [0023], the seal is only mentioned in [0023] and [0024]. Neither disclosures indicate the parts, or what these parts are, or how these features are even related to the hinge. Claim 13 further limits the seal to be “spherically shaped”, but does not indicate any part in the drawings that could be considered the “seal”.
Regarding claim 16: applicant claims “configured to allow five degrees of rotational freedom”. The record is not clear what this “configuration” is. Examiner notes that there are only 6 total “degrees of freedom” in three dimensional space. The applicant has claimed the surface 203 of figure 3b to abut a surface of a socket of figure 3a using screws going through holes which are larger than the screws. Therefore, only two degrees of freedom are allowed, if and only if the socket is larger than the plate 203.
Regarding claim 17: applicant claims a second interface (assumed to be hinge) attached to “another side of the glasses frame”, which is not claimed, nor claimed in combination or claimed in intended combination, in claim 1. The record is not clear if applicant intends to claim glasses, or not.
Regarding claim 18: Applicant claims “without using a ring clamp”, which is not further limiting, since the surface 203 is attached using fasteners through holes in claim 1. The record is not clear how this further limits the structure of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19: applicant claims “an artificial reality device” comprising the mechanical interface of claim 1, “for coupling an artificial reality glasses arm with a frame of the artificial reality device”. The scope does not claim any structure or feature that makes the interface “an artificial reality device”, nor does applicant positively claim the glasses in claim 19. The record is unclear how claim 1 is different in scope than claim 19.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over 4017165 Davis.
PNG
media_image1.png
329
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that based on the myriad of description issues, drawing issues, and indefiniteness issues, that the claims are rejected “as best understood”, and therefore are rejected under 102/103, to ensure that all limitations are assumed to be considered.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Davis discloses a spherically-shaped mechanical interface (hinge, see 112b above) for coupling a glasses arm with a frame (title, all figures), the spherically-shaped mechanical interface comprising:
a surface 42 having a generally spherical curvature (shown best in figure 2) and at least two holes 46 (on top and bottom of surface 42 in figure 2) extending through the surface; wherein:
the surface is configured to be secured to a portion of a glasses arm by a fastener that is received along a first axis through a first hole of the at least two holes (if applicant is positively claiming the “Fastener” then fastener 52 extends through the upper hole 46), the surface is configured to be secured to the portion of the glasses arm by another fastener that is received along a second axis, distinct from the first axis, through a second hole of the at least two holes (if applicant is positively claiming the second “fastener”, then fastener 54 extends into the lower hole 46).
Regarding claim 19, examiner notes that there is no structure that make the hinge device of claim 1 “an artificial reality device”, and therefore, rejection of claim 1 properly rejects claim 19.
Fasteners 52 and 54 are not disclosed as being on the same axis, however, applicant could argue that they are on the same axis as shown in figure 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the fasteners 52 and 54 to not be on the same axis, as doing so would further adjust the rotational position, which is already adjusted by the fastener in the elongated hole 46, shown in figure 3. The rearrangement of known parts into a known arrangement is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (c). Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 2, Davis, or Davis as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the surface 42 is configured to be coupled with a cam to form a hinge for opening and closing the glasses arm (examiner assumes that the device 44 in figure 5 is considered the “cam”, and connecting these parts provides for rotation of the eyeglass arm 32 in the manner shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Davis, or Davis as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the glasses arm 32 includes a socket 50 that has a shape (circular) that conforms to the generally spherical curvature (of surface 42, shown in figure 1), and allows the generally spherical curvature (of surface 42) to rotate about the socket.
Regarding claim 10, Davis or Davis as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the at least two holes 46 have a diameter that is greater than a diameter of the fastener 54 and a diameter 52 of the other fastener (elongated, as shown in figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Davis or Davis as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the spherically-shaped mechanical interface has a shape (circular) that is configured to accommodate one or more electrical components located within the glasses arm (with through hole 50).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Davis or Davis as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the surface 42 includes serrations (within the elongated hole 46, see claim 7) on spherical face configured to dig into a surface of an ingress protection seal (ingress protection seal is unknown, please see 112a and 112b rejections, and drawing objections).
Regarding claim 14, Davis or Davis as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the spherically-shaped mechanical interface includes a pass-through (through hole 50) for one or more electrical components.
Regarding claim 16, Davis or Davis as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the spherically-shaped mechanical interface is configured to allow five degrees of rotational freedom (please see 112a and 112b rejections above; the Davis hinge allows the same amount of freedom as the disclosed invention).
Regarding claim 17, Davis or Davis as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein another corresponding spherically-shaped mechanical interface is affixed to another side of the glasses frame to be secured to a portion of another glasses arm (on two sides of the frame 16 to connect two arms 26/28, shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Davis or Davis as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the surface 42 is configured to be secured to a portion of a glasses arm without using a ring clamp (no ring clamp is used in figure 2).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over 7731356 Gilbert.
Examiner notes that based on the myriad of description issues, drawing issues, and indefiniteness issues, that the claims are rejected “as best understood”, and therefore are rejected under 102/103, to ensure that all limitations are assumed to be considered.
PNG
media_image2.png
409
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Gilbert discloses a spherically-shaped mechanical interface for coupling a glasses arm with a frame (as is shown in figure 10), the spherically-shaped mechanical interface comprising:
a surface 132 having a generally spherical curvature (to accommodate ball 140) and at least two holes (for fasteners 139) extending through the surface; wherein:
the surface 132 is configured to be secured to a portion of a glasses arm by a fastener that is received along a first axis through a first hole of the at least two holes (if applicant positively claims the fastener, fastener 139 goes through one hole),
the surface is configured to be secured to the portion of the glasses arm by another fastener that is received along a second axis, distinct from the first axis, through a second hole of the at least two holes (fastener 139 goes through the other hole, the fasteners are parallel).
Regarding claim 19, examiner notes that there is no structure that make the hinge device of claim 1 “an artificial reality device”, and therefore, rejection of claim 1 properly rejects claim 19.
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 2, Gilbert or Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the surface 132 is configured to be coupled with a cam to form a hinge for opening and closing the glasses arm (coupled to cam 131 to form a hinge, figure 10).
Regarding claim 3, Gilbert or Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the glasses arm 120 includes a socket 140 that has a shape that conforms to the generally spherical curvature 132 (ball, that goes in the curvature of 132), and allows the generally spherical curvature to rotate about the socket (in the manner shown in figures 9, 11, 12).
Regarding claim 6, Gilbert or Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the fastener 139 is a threaded fastener (“screws or fasteners 139” column 7 line 51), and screws into a threaded nut 131 to lock the position of the threaded fastener in a fixed position (in the manner of compressing the surfaces around the ball 140).
Regarding claim 7, Gilbert or Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 6, wherein the threaded nut 131 has a surface with a hemispherical shape 138a, and the hemispherical shape is configured to mate to a socket (socket= ball 140, as it does detailed in figure 13), wherein: the socket 140 is on a surface of the glasses arm 120 opposite of the portion of a glasses arm and the socket 140 is along the first axis, and the threaded nut 131 is configured to rotate about the socket (by having a round shaped surface).
Regarding claim 8, Gilbert or Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 6, wherein the fastener 139 is secured using a conventional tool such as a screwdriver with flat or Phillips head. Gilbert does not disclose that the screws 139 are fastened using a “torx driver”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the engagement feature of the conventional screws 139 to engage with any preferred or desired tool that drives screws, such as a “torx driver”. Examiner contends that any known head engagement shape is known, for a flat screwdriver, a Phillips head screwdriver, a hex driver, or even a torx driver. This change in shape for the purpose of using the known and desired tool does not alter the form, function, or use, or the hinge of Gilbert, or Gilbert as modified. A change of shape is considered a matter of choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (b). Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claim 9, Gilbert or Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the threaded nut 131 has a key 136, and the threaded nut 131 is secured via nut retention bracket 133, further wherein the nut retention bracket 133 restricts freedom of movement of the threaded nut, via the key 131 (as shown in figures 9, 11, 12).
Regarding claim 10, Gilbert or Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the at least two holes (detailed in figure 13) have a diameter that is greater than a diameter of the fastener 139 and a diameter of the other fastener 139 (so that the fasteners 139 can fit through the holes).
Regarding claim 15, Gilbert or Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the surface is configured to be secured to the portion of the glasses arm by yet another fastener that is received along a third axis, distinct from the first axis and second axis, through a third hole (if applicant positively claims the third screw and a third hole, please see below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a third through hole and receiving hole for a third screw 139, as the use of a third screw and a third hole does not alter the form, function, or use, of the hinge of Gilbert. Examiner notes that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (b).
Regarding claim 16, Gilbert or Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the spherically-shaped mechanical interface is configured to allow five degrees of rotational freedom (as shown between figures 9, 11, 12).
Regarding claim 17, Gilbert or Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein another corresponding spherically-shaped mechanical interface is affixed to another side of the glasses frame to be secured to a portion of another glasses arm (as shown in figures 2 and 8).
Regarding claim 18, Gilbert or Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 1, wherein the surface 132 is configured to be secured to a portion of a glasses arm without using a ring clamp (uses a notched edge detailed in figure 13, which is not a “ring clamp”).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 5797912 Runciman.
Regarding claim 4, Gilbert or Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 3, wherein a head of the fastener has a hemispherical shape (protruding above the exterior surface of 132, as shown in figure 13), wherein the side of fastener that has threading is flat (best shown in figure 13).
Runciman discloses a screw (figure 2) that has a head H1 and a threaded stem S1, the head H1 has a hemispherical shape adjacent the threaded stem S1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize another known screw such as the one taught in Runciman, in the location of the known and required screws 139 of Gilbert, as these are known alternatives to each other. The use of the rounded surface allows for a countersunk threaded head, as shown in figure 2. Examiner contends that the head of screws 139, whether they are on top of a flat surface of 135, or counter sunk within surface 135, does not make a functional difference to the hinge of Gilbert. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claim 5, Gilbert as modified discloses the spherically-shaped mechanical interface of claim 4, wherein: the head of the fastener (as shown in Runciman) with the hemispherical shape is configured to mate to a screw socket on the spherically-shaped mechanical interface (through hole, elongated hole, or socket, as taught by Runciman), and the screw socket is on a substantially opposite side of the surface having the generally spherical curvature, such that the fastener can rotate about the socket (this is the concept of a leveling screw, which the structure of Gilbert nor the structure claimed by applicant, requires).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892. Also, for other leveling screws, please see cited references Henri, Lin, Johnson, Kerechani, Schilling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677