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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, in the submission dated 12/29/2025, are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1 and 13 are amended. Claims 3, 6, and 8 are cancelled by the applicant. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 9-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5 and 12 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.
Claim 5 is indefinite because the claim recites the limitation “a keyhole-like receptacle”, but keyholes can be varied in shape and size, therefore a person of ordinary skill would not be appraised of what size and shape of receptacle would infringe on the device as currently claimed. For purposes of examination, Examiner will assume any receptacle disclosed in the prior art will satisfy the limitation of being a keyhole-like receptacle. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Claim 12 is indefinite because the claim recites the limitation “twistable, at least partially”. The degree of twistability is uncertain and undescribed, and therefore a person of ordinary skill would not be appraised of what degree of partially twistable would infringe on the device as currently claimed. For purposes of examination, Examiner will assume any degree of twistability in the prior art will satisfy the limitation as recited. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 4 and 5 depend on claim 3, and claim 7 depends on claim 6, but claims 3 and 6 have been cancelled by the Applicant in the amended claim set dated 12/29/2025.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-5, 7, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruck US PGPub 2006/0279692 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 10/13/2023, hereinafter, “Bruck”).
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Bruck discloses glasses (see at least Fig. 1 depicting eye glasses, par. [0026]),
a) having a lens arrangement (Fig. 1, eyeglasses 1 have lens 2, par. [0026], equivalent to a lens arrangement),
b) having a glasses frame (Fig. 1, eyeglasses 1 have frame piece 3, par. [0026]), and
c) having at least one pivot point for joining together the lens arrangement and the glasses frame by pivoting them relative to one another (Fig. 1, lens 2 is capable of being pivoted upward relative to frame 3, par. [0034], therefore eyeglasses 1 must have a pivot point joining lens 2 and frame 3 so that these elements are pivotable relative to each other),
d) wherein the glasses frame has a nose support device configured for support against a nose of a glasses wearer (Fig. 3, frame 3 of eyeglasses 1 has nose region 10, par. [0028], equivalent to a nose support device because the nose region 10 will rest against a nose of a glasses wearer when worn as intended),
e) wherein the lens arrangement has a nose support device receptacle which, in a joined-together state of the lens arrangement and the glasses frame, receives the nose support device (Fig. 2, lens 2 has nose recess 14, par. [0029], and nose recess 14 receives hook projection 19 of vertical extension 17 of nose region 14, par. [0031], see also Fig. 1),
wherein the lens arrangement has at least one lower pre-centring pivoting means (Fig. 2, lens 2 has U-shaped recesses 15, par. [0029], and lateral recesses 16, par. [0030], either of these recesses being equivalent to a lower pre-centering pivoting means), and the glasses frame has at least one lower counterpart pre-centring pivoting means for interacting with the at least one lower pre-centring pivoting means upon joining together the lens arrangement and the glasses frame (Fig. 3, frame 3 has lateral projections 8, par. [0027] and hook-like projections 11, par. [0028], and lateral projections 8 interact with lateral recesses 16, par. [0033], while U-shaped recesses 15 interact with projections 11, par. [0034], see also Fig. 4), wherein the lens arrangement has at least one upper pre-centring means (Fig. 2, lens 2 has U-shaped recesses 15, par. [0029], and lateral recesses 16, par. [0030], either of these recesses being equivalent to an upper pre-centering pivoting means), and the glasses frame has at least one upper counterpart pre-centring means for interacting with the at least one upper pre-centring means upon joining together the lens arrangement and the glasses frame (Fig. 3, frame 3 has lateral projections 8, par. [0027] and hook-like projections 11, par. [0028], and lateral projections 8 interact with lateral recesses 16, par. [0033], while U-shaped recesses 15 interact with projections 11, par. [0034], see also Fig. 4), wherein the lens arrangement and the glasses frame are connected to one another by positive engagement in at least one upper glasses region in the joined-together state (Fig. 1, eyeglasses 1 have lens 2 and frame 3 connected by positive engagement of lateral projections 8 and lateral recesses 16, par. [0033], and U-shaped recesses 15 are connected by positive engagement with projections 11, par. [0034]), wherein a tongue-and-groove connection is present between the lens arrangement and the glasses frame (Figs. 3, 4, and 5, lateral projections 8, hook-like projections 11, and U-shaped recesses 15, pars. [0027-29], are equivalent to tongue-and-groove connections between the lens 2 and frame piece 3, where Examiner understands tongue-and-groove to refer to a connection of ridges into slots for joining separate elements), wherein the at least one upper pre-centring means is arranged in a lateral edge region of the lens arrangement (Fig. 2, lens 2 has lateral recesses 16, par. [0030]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Bruck discloses the glasses according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one pivot point is predefined (Fig. 1, lens 2 is capable of being pivoted upward relative to frame 3, par. [0034], therefore eyeglasses 1 must have a pivot point joining lens 2 and frame 3 so that these elements are pivotable relative to each other, and consequently the pivot point must be predefined in the eyeglasses 1 so that a user can pivot the elements relative to each other in a known and defined manner).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Bruck discloses the glasses according to Claim 3, wherein the at least one lower pre-centring pivoting means is designed as a receptacle (Fig. 2, lens 2 has U-shaped recesses 15, par. [0029], and lateral recesses 16, par. [0030], either or both of these elements are equivalent to a receptacle, see Fig. 4).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Bruck discloses the glasses according to Claim 4, wherein the at least one lower pre-centring pivoting means is designed as a keyhole-like receptacle (Fig. 2, lens 2 has U-shaped recesses 15, par. [0029], and lateral recesses 16, par. [0030], either or both of these elements are equivalent to a receptacle, see Fig. 4, and as noted in the rejection of claim 5 under 112(b) above, the receptacles disclosed by Bruck are assumed to be equivalent to keyhole-like receptacles).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Bruck discloses the glasses according to Claim 6, wherein the at least one upper pre-centring means is designed as a protrusion (Fig. 3, frame 3 has lateral projections 8, par. [0027] and hook-like projections 11, par. [0028], equivalent to protrusions).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Bruck discloses the glasses according to Claim 1, wherein the nose support device is pivotable as a whole for joining together of the lens arrangement and the glasses frame (Fig. 3, vertical extension 17 of frame 3 is pivotable as a whole so that lens 2 and frame 3 can be joined, pars. [0033-34]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Bruck discloses the glasses according to Claim 1, wherein the nose support device is pivotable upwards (Fig. 3, vertical extension 17 of frame 3 is pivotable as a whole so that lens 2 and frame 3 can be joined, pars. [0033-34]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Bruck discloses the glasses according to Claim 10, wherein the glasses frame has a frame part which carries the nose support device and is twistable, at least partially, in order to pivot the nose support device (Fig. 3, vertical extension 17 of frame 3 is twistable, at least partially, so that lens 2 and frame 3 can be joined, pars. [0033-34]).
Regarding amended independent claim 13, Bruck discloses a method for joining together the glasses
a) having a lens arrangement (Fig. 1, eyeglasses 1 have lens 2, par. [0026], equivalent to a lens arrangement),
b) having a glasses frame (Fig. 1, eyeglasses 1 have frame piece 3, par. [0026]), and
c) having at least one pivot point for joining together the lens arrangement and the glasses frame by pivoting them relative to one another (Fig. 1, lens 2 is capable of being pivoted upward relative to frame 3, par. [0034], therefore eyeglasses 1 must have a pivot point joining lens 2 and frame 3 so that these elements are pivotable relative to each other),
d) wherein the glasses frame has a nose support device for support against a nose of a glasses wearer (Fig. 1, eyeglasses 1 have nose region 10, par. [0028], equivalent to a nose support device because the nose region 10 will rest against a nose of a glasses wearer),
e) wherein the lens arrangement has a nose support device receptacle which, in a joined-together state of the lens arrangement and the glasses frame, receives the nose support device (Fig. 2, lens 2 has nose recess 14, par. [0029], and nose recess 14 receives hook projection 19 of vertical extension 17 of nose region 14, par. [0031]),
wherein the lens arrangement has at least one lower pre-centring pivoting means (Fig. 2, lens 2 has U-shaped recesses 15, par. [0029], and lateral recesses 16, par. [0030], either of these recesses being equivalent to a lower pre-centering pivoting means), and the glasses frame has at least one lower counterpart pre-centring pivoting means for interacting with the at least one lower pre-centring pivoting means upon joining together the lens arrangement and the glasses frame (Fig. 3, frame 3 has lateral projections 8, par. [0027] and hook-like projections 11, par. [0028], and lateral projections 8 interact with lateral recesses 16, par. [0033], while U-shaped recesses 15 interact with projections 11, par. [0034], see also Fig. 4),
wherein the lens arrangement has at least one upper pre-centring means (Fig. 2, lens 2 has U-shaped recesses 15, par. [0029], and lateral recesses 16, par. [0030], either of these recesses being equivalent to an upper pre-centering pivoting means), and the glasses frame has at least one upper counterpart pre-centring means for interacting with the at least one upper pre-centring means upon joining together the lens arrangement and the glasses frame (Fig. 3, frame 3 has lateral projections 8, par. [0027] and hook-like projections 11, par. [0028], and lateral projections 8 interact with lateral recesses 16, par. [0033], while U-shaped recesses 15 interact with projections 11, par. [0034], see also Fig. 4),
wherein the lens arrangement and the glasses frame are connected to one another by positive engagement in at least one upper glasses region in the joined-together state (Fig. 1, eyeglasses 1 have lens 2 and frame 3 connected by positive engagement of lateral projections 8 and lateral recesses 16, par. [0033], and U-shaped recesses 15 are connected by positive engagement with projections 11, par. [0034]),
wherein a tongue-and-groove connection is present between the lens arrangement and the glasses frame (Figs. 3, 4, and 5, lateral projections 8, hook-like projections 11, and U-shaped recesses 15, pars. [0027-29], are equivalent to tongue-and-groove connections between the lens 2 and frame piece 3, where Examiner understands tongue-and-groove to refer to a connection of ridges into slots for joining separate elements), the method comprising the step of pivoting the lens arrangement and the glasses frame relative to one another about at least one pivot point (Fig. 1, lens 2 is capable of being pivoted upward relative to frame 3, par. [0034], therefore eyeglasses 1 must have a pivot point joining lens 2 and frame 3 so that these elements are pivotable relative to each other).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Bruck discloses the method according to Claim 13, wherein the nose support device is pivoted for the pivoting of the lens arrangement and the glasses frame relative to one another (Fig. 3, vertical extension 17 of frame 3 is pivotable as a whole so that lens 2 and frame 3 can be joined, pars. [0033-34]).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Bruck discloses the method according to Claim 13, wherein the nose support device is pivoted upwards, for the pivoting of the lens arrangement and the glasses frame relative to one another (Fig. 3, vertical extension 17 of frame 3 is pivotable as a whole so that lens 2 and frame 3 can be joined, pars. [0033-34]).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruck as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Howard et al. US PGPub 2005/0036104 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 10/13/2023, hereinafter, “Howard”).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Bruck discloses the glasses according to Claim 1, wherein the nose support device and the nose support device receptacle are connected to one another in the joined-together state of the lens arrangement and the glasses frame (Figs. 1, 2, and 3 show nose region 10 of frame 3 and nose recess 14 of lens 2 are connected to one another in the joined-together state).
Bruck does not disclose a bolt-like manner for the connection of the lens and frame.
In the same field of invention, Howard discloses safety eyeglasses 10, shown in at least Fig. 1 thereof, with elastomeric inset 24 with post-receiving aperture 24a on nose bridge portion 20, configured to receive complementary mounting post members 28, 30a, and 30b on lens 14 (par. [0045] thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Howard to the disclosure of Bruck and included an elastomeric inset and aperture to receive a post, such as taught by Howard to secure lens 14 to frame 12 with snug frictional fitting providing stability for lens 14 on frame 12 (Howard par. [0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has stated that Claims 5 and 12, rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) in the Office action dated 10/01/2025, have been amended to overcome this rejection. However, the claims dated 12/29/2025 do not have amendments, therefore withdrawal of the rejection cannot be granted.
Applicant has argued the claimed limitations of "a tongue-and-groove connection is present between the lens arrangement and the glasses frame" and "the at least one upper pre-centring means is arranged in a lateral edge region of the lens arrangement” are not taught, disclosed or made obvious by the cited prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted in the mapping of elements in the rejection above, Bruck teaches a tongue-and-groove connection present between the lens arrangement and the glasses frame (Figs. 3, 4, and 5, lateral projections 8, hook-like projections 11, and U-shaped recesses 15, pars. [0027-29], are equivalent to tongue-and-groove connections between the lens 2 and frame piece 3, where Examiner understands tongue-and-groove to refer to a connection of ridges into slots for joining separate elements), and Bruck teaches the at least one upper pre-centring means is arranged in a lateral edge region of the lens arrangement (Fig. 2, lens 2 has lateral recesses 16, par. [0030]). Applicant has argued that in the eyeglasses disclosed by Bruck, the projections 11 do not encompass the lens 2 from above, arguing that therefore they do not form a part of a "tongue-and-groove connection" formed by the glasses frame. Examiner respectfully disagrees, because from Fig. 4 of Bruck, at least, projections 11 appear to encompass lens 2 from above.
Applicant has further argued that Bruck does not disclose “pre-centring means” according to the instant application, because projection 11 does not form a pre-centring means. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and has interpreted “pre-centring” and “pre-centring means” in a broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the specification. As best understood by the Examiner, Bruck teaches the equivalent of “pre-centring” and “pre-centring means” in the eyeglasses and related methods for fastening and assembly disclosed by Bruck.
Applicant has argued that because Bruck does not disclose a tongue-and-groove connection as claimed, a person ordinarily skilled in the art would not have been motivated to search for a strong accurate connection which may be reached in a simple releasable manner, in particular without touching the viewing region with fingers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, Bruck teaches a tongue-and-groove connection present between the lens arrangement and the glasses frame (Figs. 3, 4, and 5, lateral projections 8, hook-like projections 11, and U-shaped recesses 15, pars. [0027-29], are equivalent to tongue-and-groove connections between the lens 2 and frame piece 3, where Examiner understands tongue-and-groove to refer to a connection of ridges into slots for joining separate elements), and Bruck teaches several advantages of the disclosed eyeglasses, including the joining of elements as being advantageous from a production point of view (par. [0013]).
Applicant has argued that, according to currently amended claim 1, the pre-centring pivoting means is positioned "low", while the pre-centring means and the tongue-and-groove connection is positioned "above", and that these positions have a special technical effect and have to be considered. Examiner has interpreted these terms in the broadest reasonable way in light of the specification, and does not see any conflict between the claimed positions of “low” and “above” and the elements of the eyeglasses of Bruck mapped in the rejection above.
Finally, Applicant has argued the upper pre-centring means is arranged in a lateral edge region of the lens arrangement and that such an arrangement is not compatible with the teaching of Bruck. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bruck teaches lateral recesses 16, par. [0030], equivalent to a lower pre-centering pivoting means as best understood by the Examiner within a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
No other substantial arguments were presented after page 12 of Remarks. As such, the prior art teaches and discloses the invention as currently claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872