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 .
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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanover (US 9482882 B1).
Re Claim 1, Hanover discloses, (look to the charger of Fig. 1c, and the overall glasses of Fig. 2, and the temple hinge of Fig. 6 and 6a-6c), an eyewear system comprising: at least one optical element (unlabeled lens of Fig 6); a frame (Frame 318) employed to hold each optical element; a first temple (left temple 320A) [Col 9, Lines 30-40] and a second temple (unshown, but Fig. 2 and Hanover’s admission that the temple of Fig. 6 is similar in some ways to prior embodiments indicates there is an out of frame right temple in Fig. 6) [Col 9, Lines 30-40], wherein the first temple has a first proximal end (end face 322 of temple 320A) and a first distal end (unshown in Fig. 6, but the embodiment in Fig. 2 shows an ear portion 52 of temple 46 and 47, and Fig. 6 would inherently comprise at least a temple similar in this way) wherein the second temple has a second proximal end and a second distal end (unshown in Fig. 6, but Fig. 2 shows that there are two temples 46 and 47 both with proximal and distal ends and by way of and Hanover’s admission that the temple of Fig. 6 is similar in some ways to prior embodiments indicates there is an out of frame right temple in Fig. 6 which similarly has a proximal and distal end as temple 320a) [Col 9, Lines 30-40], wherein the first proximal end and the second proximal end (temple 320a connects at its proximal end to frame 318) connected pivotally to respective ones of two opposite ends of the frame (Fig. 2: shows that both left and right temples are connected to the lens frame); at least one electrical component associated with at least one of: the frame (electrical components in frame 318) [Col 10, Lines 10-20] a rechargeable power source (additional electronics 318a can be a battery) housed inside the first temple (temple 320a contains battery 318A) [Col 10, Lines 20-35], wherein the rechargeable power source supplies electricity to the at least one electrical component (batter 318a supplies charge to additional electronic devices) [Col 9, Lines 30-65 and Col 10, Lines 0-20]; a charging interface (port 350) having a first contact and a second contact (pins 352A and 352B) [Col 9, Lines 30-40], and wherein the charging interface is positioned at the first proximal end of the first temple (port 350 is on proximal end of temple 320a) [Col 9, Lines 30-40], wherein the charging interface enables charging of the rechargeable power source using a charger (See Fig. 1, 1a and 1C: internal connector 22 charges glasses) [Col 4, Lines 45-65 and Col 10, Lines 25-35]; and a first magnet having a south pole and a north pole (Fig. 6: magnet 354 must inherently have a north and south pole, as unipole magnets are not physically possible), arranged at the first proximal end of the first temple (magnet 354 is at the proximal end of temple 320a), wherein the first magnet lies between the first contact and the second contact (Fig. 6: magnet 354 is between pins 352A and 352B).
But Hanover does not explicitly disclose wherein a longitudinal axis of the first magnet is aligned perpendicularly to a first line (AB) that passes through a first centre of the first contact and a second centre of the second contact.
However, Hanover teaches, on Fig. 6 wherein, in order for magnet 354 to be attractive in the direction of magnet 344, inherently there are three optional arrangements: the north and south poles of magnet 354 must either be arranged horizontal, vertical, or the face of magnet 354 is one obverse pole and the alternate pole is hidden within temple 320a on the reverse face of magnet 354 similar to a coin [Col 9, Lines 30-40]. If the north and south poles are arranged either horizontally or like a coin, the longitudinal axis would extend either horizontally on the temple face or parallel to the temple, both of which would be perpendicular to a first line that passes through the center of the first and second contact. Simply arranging the poles of magnet 354 such that it satisfies one of these possible magnetic arrangements is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the longitudinal axis of the magnet in order to provide, different arrangements for maintaining continuous contact engagement between the cooperating ports on the temple [Col 3, Lines 0-15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hanover in order to provide continuous contact engagement between the cooperating ports on the temple, as taught by Hanover.
Re Claim 2, modified Hanover discloses, the eyewear system of claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 1, 1b, and 6, wherein the charger has a protrusion (Fig. 1c: area of case 14 around connector 22), which is in contact with an outer surface of the first temple (Fig. 6: contact face 322, when place against internal connection 22 would result in the area of case 14 around internal connector 22 resting against the outer surface of temple 320a, this can be seen in Fig. 1) [Col 10, Lines 25-35] to enable positioning of the charger in respect to the first temple when the first temple and the charger are coupled (Fig. 1 shows glasses in charging case and Fig. 1c shows internal connector 22 for positioning of charging while engaged with first temple 320a) ) [Col 4, Lines 45-65].
Re Claim 3, modified Hanover discloses, the eyewear system of claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 6, wherein in a closed position, the first temple is folded pivotally (see Fig. 6), and the charging interface is exposed (port 350 with pins 352A and 352B is exposed), thereby allowing for the charger to be coupled to the charging interface [Col 10, Lines 10-20], further wherein in an open position, the first temple is unfolded pivotally and the charging interface is concealed by a portion of the frame ( in open position temple contact port 350 interfaces with port 340 and are covered by face 322, see Fig. 8a for an example of this) [Col 10, Lines 0-10].
Re claim 4, modified Hanover discloses, the eyewear system of claim 1.
But modified Hanover does not explicitly disclose, wherein the south pole and the north pole are located at different sides of the first line (AB).
However, Hanover teaches, on Fig. 6 wherein, in order for magnet 354 to be attractive in the direction of magnet 344, inherently there are three optional arrangements: the north and south poles of magnet 354 must either be arranged horizontal, vertical, or the face of magnet 354 is one obverse pole and the alternate pole is hidden within temple 320a on the reverse face of magnet 354 similar to a coin [Col 9, Lines 30-40]. If the north and south poles are arranged either horizontally or like a coin, the longitudinal axis would extend either horizontally on the temple face or parallel to the temple, both of which would place the south pole and the north pole located at different sides of the first line. Simply arranging the poles of magnet 354 such that it satisfies one of these possible magnetic arrangements is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the longitudinal axis of the magnet in order to provide, different arrangements for maintaining continuous contact engagement between the cooperating ports on the temple [Col 3, Lines 0-15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hanover in order to provide continuous contact engagement between the cooperating ports on the temple, as taught by Hanover.
Re Claim 5, modified Hanover discloses, the eyewear system of claim 1, and Hanover further discloses on Fig. 2, 6 and 6a, wherein the at least one electrical component comprises a processor, at least one display, and at least one light sensor (Fig. 6 discloses only a potential hinge, which could then be used in conjunction with the electronics of Fig. 2 wherein electronics 60 are mounted to frame 32 and can include processors, cameras and thus sensors, and a display) [Col 5-6, Lines 65-60].
Re Claim 6, modified Hanover discloses, the eyewear system of claim 1, and Hanover further discloses on Fig. 2, wherein the at least one electrical component comprises at least one light source (optical elements 43 and 44 can be LCD displays and electronics 60 can include a computer 61, and a display processor, an LCD display would inherently require a backlight) [Col 5-6, Lines 45-60].
Re Claim 7, modified Hanover discloses, the eyewear system of claim 2, and further discloses on Fig. 1c. wherein the charger has an L-shaped form (internal connector 22 and surrounding area of case 14 together comprise an L-shape).
Re Claim 8, modified Hanover discloses, the eyewear system of claim 1, and Hanover further discloses on Fig. 1c, wherein the charger has a third contact and a fourth contact (internal connector 22 has a third and fourth contact), wherein the third contact and the fourth contact are to be connected to the first contact and the second contact of the charging interface to enable charging of the rechargeable power source (internal connector is configured to couple to the corresponding connector of the glasses) [Col 4, and Lines 5-25 and Col 10, Lines 10-20].
Re Claim 9, modified Hanover discloses, the eyewear system of claim 1, and Hanover further discloses on Fig. 1c, wherein the charger (Fig. 1c, with internal connector 122c) has a second magnet (magnet 23) having a magnetic south pole and a magnetic north pole (all magnet are dipoles), and wherein the second magnet lies between the third contact and the fourth contact (Fig. 1c: magnet 23 is between both contacts of internal connector 22).
But Hanover does not disclose wherein a length axis (XY) of the second magnet is aligned perpendicularly to a second line (GH) that passes through a third centre of the third contact and a fourth centre of the fourth contact.
However, Hanover teaches, on Fig. 1c wherein, in order for magnet 23 to be attractive in the direction of the temple magnet, inherently there are three optional arrangements: the north and south poles of magnet 23 must either be arranged horizontal, vertical, or the face of magnet 23 is one obverse pole and the alternate pole is hidden within case 14 on the reverse face of magnet 23 similar to a coin [Col 5, Lines 0-15]. If the north and south poles are arranged either horizontally or like a coin, the longitudinal axis would extend either horizontally on the connector 22 face or into the case body, both of which would be perpendicular to a first line that passes through the center of the third and fourth contact. Simply rearranging the poles of magnet 23 such that it satisfies one of these possible magnetic arrangements is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the axis of the magnet in order to provide, different arrangements for maintaining continuous contact engagement between the cooperating ports on the temple [Col 3, Lines 0-15 and Col 5, Lines 0-15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hanover in order to provide continuous contact engagement between the cooperating ports on the temple, as taught by Hanover.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Klosinksi (US 20170255029 A1) similarly discloses temple connecting rechargeable glasses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872