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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 17, 2025. The amendments to the drawings add numerical references to label a frame attachment part (101, 203, 303), a first cam surface (103, 205, 305), a charging interface (105, 213, 313), a first proximal end of the temple (107, 215, 315), a first volume (201A, 301), a second volume (201B), a second cam surface (207, 307), a first width (209, 309), a second width (211, 311). These additions to the drawings do not add any new matter and are acceptable.
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 “a curved channel that extends past the first hinge and the second hinge” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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 amendment filed December 17, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: in the Marked-up version the new language on page 30 lines 1-17 “Optionally, there is a spring … at the second rotational point.” and page 31 line 26-page 32 line 12 “Optionally, there is a spring … at the second rotational point.” Said new language adds specific arrangements of springs (not shown) in context of the embodiments shown in amended figures 2 and 3; and adds specific details of curved channels (not shown) in context of the embodiments shown in amended figures 2 and 3. These specific details amount to prohibited new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s statement (emphasis in applicant’s remarks) “as clearly shown in Fig. 5 of Eriksson, which is reproduced below, in Eriksson the cable 14 is offset from the axel protrusions 18a and 18b on the central part 7.” The examiner is unpersuaded. Figure 5 does not show “the axel protrusions 18a and 18b on the central part 7.” One of skilled in the art would reasonably infer from the drawings the small circles in throughgoing hole 11 would suggest an axes of rotation with pins and holes without explicitly indicating any specific pin/hole arrangement. The feature of the cable (electrical conductor) being “offset” from (or “overlapping”) any other element is not a claimed feature. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, the rejection was made over the combination of Eriksson in view of Moskowitz, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on the examiner not explaining how the pins from Moskowitz are bodily incorporated into Eriksson means “that there is no apparent reason or motivation to modify this specific arrangement in Eriksson with the co-axial pins of Moskowitz because merely replacing the axel protrusions 18a, 18b with the co-axial pins of Moskowitz would render such arrangement unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” the examiner is unpersuaded. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). A person of ordinary skill would understand that the pins and holes in a pivot-type hinge may have the pin integrated in to one element of the hinged portion and a hole in the other element of the hinged portion or that the two hinged elements each have a hole and a separate pin completing the hinge. In this case, the modification is combining known prior art elements and a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), see MPEP 2143. Regarding a motive, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner has provided a motive from the text of Moskowitz of “having the conductor being hidden or obscured from external view in any operational position of the hinge.” Further, it is noted that Moskowitz paragraph [0036] notes that its pin/hole arrangement is for the purpose of “providing substantially watertight sealing”. It is further noted that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” and in addition it has been further held that "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" and taking into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007), see MPEP 2141.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0265510, of record, in view of Moskowitz et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0129200, of record.
Regarding claim 2 Eriksson disclose an eyewear apparatus (title e.g. spectacle 1) comprising: a frame (e.g. frame 2); at least one optical element supported by the frame (paragraph [0046] “frames with lenses”); a temple (e.g. temple 3); at least one electrical component associated with at least one of: the at least one optical element, and the frame (paragraph [0046] “Spectacles comprising electronics for example having frames with lenses, which are electrically driven and controlled”); a power source housed inside the temple (paragraph [0046] “battery or control circuit is positioned at at least one temple”), wherein the power source supplies electricity to the at least one electrical component (paragraph [0046] “when a battery or control circuit is positioned at at least one temple at least one connecting cable must pass the hinge 4 between the frame 2 and the temple 3”); an electrical conductor connects the power source to the at least one electrical component (e.g. figure 5 cable/wire 14); a rotating member (e.g. central part 7); a first hinge couples the temple to the rotating member (e.g. see figures 4a-8b), wherein the first hinge provides a first rotation point to allow rotation of the temple with respect to the rotating member (e.g. see figures 4a-8b), and a second hinge couples the frame to the rotating member (e.g. see figures 4a-8b), wherein the second hinge provides a second rotation point to allow rotation of the frame with respect to the rotating member (e.g. see figures 4a-8b).
Eriksson does not disclose wherein the first hinge comprises a first pin and a second pin, wherein the second pin is disposed concentrically to the first pin at a first distance from the first pin, and wherein a first volume is provided between a first end of the first pin and a second end of the second pin, wherein the first end of the first pin and the second end of the second pin are facing towards each other, and wherein the electric conductor passes through the first volume, wherein the second hinge comprises a third pin and a fourth pin, wherein the fourth pin is disposed concentrically to the third pin at a second distance from the third pin, and wherein a second volume is provided between a third end of the third pin and a fourth end of the fourth pin, further wherein the third end of the third pin and the fourth end of the fourth pin are facing towards each other, and wherein the electric conductor passes through the second volume.
Moskowitz teaches a similar eyewear apparatus (title e.g. figure 1 eyewear device 100) including a frame (e.g. frame 106); at least one optical element supported by the frame (e.g. lenses 112); a temple (e.g. temples 109); at least one electrical component (e.g. camera 130 and/or onboard electronics 124) is associated with at least one of: the at least one optical element, and the frame (see figure 1); a power source housed inside the temple (paragraph [0028] “temples 109 can include … battery components”), wherein the power source supplies electricity to the at least one electrical component (paragraph [0028] “temples 109 may in different embodiments include components that are conductively coupled to cooperating components in the frame 106”); an electrical conductor (e.g. figure 9 cables 816) connects the power source to the at least one electrical component (paragraph [0028] “temples 109 may in different embodiments include components that are conductively coupled to cooperating components in the frame 106”); and a first hinge couples the frame and the temple (e.g. hinge mechanism 700), wherein the first hinge provides a first rotation point to allow rotation of the temple with respect to the frame (e.g. hinge axis 226), wherein the first hinge comprises a first pin (e.g. upper hinge pin 272) and a second pin (e.g. lower hinge pin 272), wherein the second pin is disposed concentrically to the first pin at a distance from the first pin (e.g. paragraph [0036] notes pins 272 are co-axial, see figure 9), and wherein a volume (e.g. transverse passage 259) is provided between a first end of the first pin (e.g. inner end of upper 272) and a second end of the second pin (e.g. inner end of lower 272), wherein the first end of the first pin and the second end of the second pin are facing towards each other (e.g. see figure 9), and wherein the electric conductor passes through the volume (e.g. see figure 9). Moskowitz further teaches a hinge (e.g. 700) that comprises a first pin (e.g. upper 272) and a second pin (e.g. lower 272), wherein the second pin is disposed concentrically to the first pin at a first distance from the first pin (e.g. paragraph [0036] see figure 9), and wherein a first volume (e.g. 259) is provided between a first end of the first pin and a second end of the second pin (e.g. see figure 9), wherein the first end of the first pin and the second end of the second pin are facing towards each other (e.g. see figure 9), and wherein the electric conductor (e.g. 816) passes through the first volume (e.g. see figure 9) for the purpose of having the conductor being hidden or obscured from external view in any operational position of the hinge (inter alia abstract) and that its pin/hole arrangement is for the purpose of “providing substantially watertight sealing” (paragraph [0036]). 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 hinges in the eyewear apparatus as disclosed by Eriksson to have co-axial pins defining a volume therebetween where a wire passes through said volume as taught by Moskowitz for the purpose of having the conductor being hidden or obscured from external view in any operational position of the hinge and that its pin/hole arrangement is for the purpose of providing substantially watertight sealing.
Regarding claim 4 Eriksson as modified by Moskowitz discloses the eyewear apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above. Eriksson further discloses wherein there is a frame attachment part fixed to the frame with the first hinge, and wherein the frame attachment part provides a first cam surface (e.g. central knuckle 714).
Regarding claim 5 Eriksson as modified by Moskowitz discloses the eyewear apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above. Eriksson further discloses wherein the rotating member (e.g. 7) is linking the frame attachment part and the temple together (e.g. see figures 4a-8b), and wherein the rotating member is fixed to the temple and provides a second cam surface (e.g. figure 4c surface with protrusion 9 and/or recess 10).
Regarding claim 3 Eriksson disclose an eyewear apparatus (title e.g. spectacle 1) comprising: a frame (e.g. 2); at least one optical element supported by the frame (e.g. paragraph [0046]); a temple (e.g. 3); at least one electrical component associated with at least one of: the at least one optical element, and the frame (e.g. paragraph [0046]); a power source housed inside the temple (e.g. paragraph [0046]), wherein the power source supplies electricity to the at least one electrical component (e.g. paragraph [0046]); an electrical conductor (e.g. 14) connecting the power source to the at least one electrical component (paragraph [0046]); a rotating member (e.g. 7); a first hinge couples the temple to the rotating member (e.g. see figures 4a-8b), wherein the first hinge provides a first rotation point to allow rotation of the temple with respect to the rotating member (e.g. axial connection 5b), and a second hinge coupling the frame to the rotating member (e.g. axial connection 5a), wherein the second hinge provides a second rotation point to allow rotation of the frame with respect to the rotating member (e.g. see figures 4a-8b), and wherein the second hinge comprises a third pin (implicit that this element is part of 5a), and wherein the electric conductor (e.g. 14) passes around the third pin (e.g. see figure 5).
Eriksson does not disclose wherein the first hinge comprises a first pin and a second pin, the second pin is disposed concentrically to the first pin and at a distance from the first pin, and wherein a first volume is provided between a first end of the first pin and a second end of the second pin, wherein the first end of the first pin and the second end of the second pin are facing towards each other, and wherein the electric conductor passes through the first volume.
Moskowitz teaches a similar eyewear apparatus, as set forth above. Moskowitz further teaches a hinge (e.g. 700) that comprises a first pin (e.g. upper 272) and a second pin (e.g. lower 272), wherein the second pin is disposed concentrically to the first pin at a first distance from the first pin (e.g. paragraph [0036] see figure 9), and wherein a first volume (e.g. 259) is provided between a first end of the first pin and a second end of the second pin (e.g. see figure 9), wherein the first end of the first pin and the second end of the second pin are facing towards each other (e.g. see figure 9), and wherein the electric conductor (e.g. 816) passes through the first volume (e.g. see figure 9) for the purpose of having the conductor being hidden or obscured from external view in any operational position of the hinge (inter alia abstract) and that its pin/hole arrangement is for the purpose of “providing substantially watertight sealing” (paragraph [0036]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a hinge in the eyewear apparatus as disclosed by Eriksson to have co-axial pins defining a volume therebetween where a wire passes through said volume as taught by Moskowitz for the purpose of having the conductor being hidden or obscured from external view in any operational position of the hinge and that its pin/hole arrangement is for the purpose of providing substantially watertight sealing.
Regarding claims 12-13, the limitations of claims 12-13 are the same as the limitations of claims 4-5, respectively, and claims 12-13 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0265510, of record, in view of Moskowitz et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0129200, of record, and in further view of Eriksson et al. US Patent Application Publication 2024/0098918, of record.
Regarding claims 8 and 10 Eriksson ‘510 as modified by Moskowitz disclose the eyewear apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above. Eriksson ‘510 and Moskowitz do not disclose or teach wherein the electrical conductor passes through a curved channel that extends past the first hinge and the second hinge, to minimize the bending of the electrical conductor during use, as required by claim 8; or wherein a first width of the curved channel at the first rotation point is larger than a second width of the curved channel at the second rotation point, as required by claim 10.
Eriksson ‘918 teaches a similar eyewear apparatus (e.g. see figures 3-4 spectacles 1) including a cable/wire (14) running from a temple (3) to a frame (3), a hinge (4) including a central part (7) having two axis of rotation (5a & 5b), and the central part (7) including a recess/throughgoing hole (11) that the wire (14) passes through; and further teaches recess/throughgoing hole (11) the curved channel at the first rotation point (e.g. 20) is larger than a second width (e.g. see figure 2b, particularly further enlargement of 20 in section 28 that is not present on 22 side of 11) of the curved channel at the second rotation point (e.g. 22) for the purpose of allowing the wire to pass through freely, minimizing wire bending and not stretching or crinkling the wire when changing between the use and storage positions (paragraph [0008]). 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 eyewear apparatus as disclosed by Eriksson ‘510 as modified by Moskowitz to have the electrical conductor passes through a curved channel that extends past the first hinge and the second hinge, to minimize the bending of the electrical conductor during use; and wherein a first width of the curved channel at the first rotation point is larger than a second width of the curved channel at the second rotation point as taught by Eriksson ‘918 for the purpose of allowing the wire to pass through freely, minimizing wire bending and not stretching or crinkling the wire when changing between the use and storage positions.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0265510, of record, in view of Moskowitz et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0129200, of record, and in further view of Meisenholder US Patent 9,482,883, of record, with evidence of certain facts provided by Wikipedia webpage “Rechargeable battery” as of October 16, 2023.
Regarding claim 11 Eriksson as modified by Moskowitz discloses the eyewear apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above. Eriksson further discloses the power source is a battery (paragraph [0046]). Moskowitz further teaches the battery may be a rechargeable battery (paragraph [0025]). One would be motivated to use a rechargeable battery for the purpose reducing total cost of ownership and reducing environmental impact, as evidenced by Wikipedia first sentence of second paragraph. 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 battery in the eyewear apparatus as disclosed by Eriksson as modified by Moskowitz to be a rechargeable battery as further taught by Moskowitz for the purpose reducing total cost of ownership and reducing environmental impact.
Moskowitz is silent on details of how the rechargeable battery is recharged. Specifically, Eriksson and Moskowitz do not disclose or teach the eyewear apparatus further comprises a charging interface, which is positioned at a first proximal end of the temple.
Meisenholder teaches a similar eyewear (title e.g. figure 2) including a battery (e.g. figure 6-6B additional electronics 318A column 10 lines 28-29 “such as a battery”) in a temple (e.g. temple 320A); and further teaches a charging interface (e.g. port 350 column 10 lines 28-33 “configured to deliver a charge to and from the battery” see figure 7), which is positioned at a first proximal end of the temple (see figure 6) for the purpose of covering the connection ports when in use and accessible when not in use (inter alia column 10 lines 9-19). 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 eyewear apparatus as disclosed by Eriksson as modified by Moskowitz to have a charging interface, which is positioned at a first proximal end of the temple as taught by Meisenholder for the purpose of covering the connection ports when in use and accessible when not in use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wienicke US Patent Application Publication 2023/0324716; in regards to a similar eyewear apparatus, e.g. see figures 2-4 & 6-7.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 February 18, 2026