DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 7-8 and 9 of Remarks filed 02/03/2026) directed to the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Albouy and the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Xie have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration because the new grounds of rejection in light Peng’s and Houston et al.’s teachings are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 02/03/2026), as detailed below.
2. Applicant’s remaining remarks (see pgs. 8-9) regarding the secondary reference of Lim as utilized in the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “Lim fails to cure the deficiencies of Albouy to describe or suggest the left eye glass rim and the right eye glass rim both being configured to completely encircle the circumference of a lens mounted within the left eye glass rim and the right eye glass rim, respectively, when the nose bridge component is attached or unattached to the left-side frame component or the right-side frame component. Lim also fails to cure the deficiency of Albouy to describe or suggest the left-side frame component and the right side frame component being separate pieces from each other. Lim also does not disclose a left-side frame component with a clasp and a right-side frame component with a clasp” (pgs. 8-9 of Remarks) However, the Examiner notes that the Lim reference was not relied upon for teachings directed to the newly amended limitations of “the left eye glass rim and the right eye glass rim both being configured to completely encircle the circumference of a lens mounted within the left eye glass rim and the right eye glass rim, respectively, when the nose bridge component is attached or unattached to the left-side frame component or the right-side frame component” and/or “the left-side frame component and the right side frame component being separate pieces from each other” (see claims filed 02/03/2026). Rather, the Lim reference is solely relied upon for combining the teachings of the Peng reference with Lim’s teachings specifically directed to claim 6 limitation of the clasps of the frame components and the nose bridge component each having magnetic strips that magnetize and hold together upon contact, wherein the magnetic strips are located where the frame clasps meet the nose bridge. Applicant is respectfully reminded that it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review, and that combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. See MPEP § 2145 Section III, stating "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973). The Applicant has not disputed the Examiner’s findings regarding Peng’s teaching and Peng in view of Lim’s teaching, both findings rendering the obviousness of the claimed conditions as recited in claim 6. Thus, the Examiner maintains that the claimed features of the eyeglass frame would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as further detailed below.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19-20 recite the limitation: “wherein detaching the left-side frame component from the nose bridge component results in the nose bridge component resting against the nose of the wearer and right-side frame component attached to the nose bridge and detaching the right-side frame component from the nose bridge component results in the nose bridge component resting against the nose of the wearer and left-side frame component attached to the nose bridge component”. There appear to be grammatical issues in this limitation in the form of a run-on clause lacking proper punctuation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “wherein detaching the left-side frame component from the nose bridge component results in: the nose bridge component resting against the nose of the wearer while the right-side frame component is attached to the nose bridge; detaching the right-side frame component from the nose bridge component results in: the nose bridge component resting against the nose of the wearer while the left-side frame component is attached to the nose bridge component”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 19-20 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.
Claims 19-20 contain 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The replacement claims submitted 02/03/2026 were not filed with the original disclosure filed on 10/19/2023 and are therefore examined for new matter, see MPEP 608.04(b) and 714.01(e). Claims 19-20 limitation “wherein detaching the left-side frame component from the nose bridge component results in the nose bridge component resting against the nose of the wearer and right-side frame component attached to the nose bridge and detaching the right-side frame component from the nose bridge component results in the nose bridge component resting against the nose of the wearer and left-side frame component attached to the nose bridge component” amounts to prohibited new matter. Specifically, the limitation lacks support in the original specification and claims submitted 10/19/2023 because all embodiments corresponding to FIGS. 1-6 fail to disclose and/or depict any details regarding the contingent limitations directed to the nose bridge component as recited in claims 19-20. Applicant’s statement in the Remarks that “Support for this amendment (claims 19-20) is found in the specification as filed” (pg. 6 of Remarks filed 02/03/2026) appears to be insufficient. In fact, the specification appears to be completely silent with regard to ‘detaching the left-side frame component from the nose bridge component results in the nose bridge component resting against the nose of the wearer and right-side frame component attached to the nose bridge and detaching the right-side frame component from the nose bridge component results in the nose bridge component resting against the nose of the wearer and left-side frame component attached to the nose bridge component’.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claims be amended to recite limitations that are supported by the originally-filed specification.
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.
Claims 19-20 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.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP § 2173.05 (p), citing Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990, wherein the court held that a claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it was ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In the present case, claims 19-20 both recite limitations directed to the apparatus of the eyeglass frame and limitations directed to method steps of using the apparatus, thereby creating confusion as to when direct infringement occurs and rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, these limitations will be treated as inherent. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claim such that it may be further treated on the merits.
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 1-5, 10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng (CN 111708164 A).
The Examiner notes that the text of foreign references as cited throughout this Office Action are to the English translation retrieved from the Patent Translate feature of https://worldwide.espacenet.com and provided herewith.
Regarding Claim 1, Peng discloses: A detachable three-piece eyeglass frame (¶0033: disassembled into three parts for storage) comprising: a left-side frame component comprising a left temple arm, a left temple tip, and a left eye glass rim (¶0032: The first sub-eyepiece 1 includes a first frame 11 and a first temple 12; see FIG. 1 showing temple arm and tip 12 and left eye glass rim 11) having a left clasp (¶0032: The first frame 11 is provided with a first connecting portion 111); a right-side frame component comprising a right temple arm, a right temple tip, and a right eye glass rim (¶0032: The second sub-eyepiece 2 includes a second frame 21 and a second temple 22; see FIG. 1 showing temple arm and tip 22 and left eye glass rim 21) having a right clasp (¶0032: The second frame 21 is provided with a second connecting portion 211); and a nose-bridge component comprising slits on both sides and separate from both the left-side frame component and the right-side frame component (¶0032: The nose pad 3 is provided with a third connecting portion 31 and a fourth connecting portion 32. The first frame 11 and the nose pad 3 are detachably connected through the first connecting portion 111 and the third connecting portion 31, and the second frame 21 and the nose pad 3 are detachably connected through the second connecting portion 211 and the fourth connecting portion 32; ¶0035: the third connecting part 31 [slit] of the nose pad 3 can be set as a matching slot; ¶0038: the fourth connecting part 32 [slit] of the nose pad 3 can be set as a matching slot; see FIG. 1 showing separate components as claimed and nose bridge component with slots 31-22), wherein the slits and clasps are configured to allow the clasps to: mechanically or magnetically attach to the nose bridge component when clasps are pushed into the respective slits; and release from the nose bridge component when attached clasps are pressed and/or pulled outwards (¶0035: the first connecting part 111 of the first frame 11 can be set as an insert, and the third connecting part 31 of the nose pad 3 can be set as a matching slot, with the first connecting part 111 plugged into the third connecting part 31; ¶0038: the second connecting part 211 of the second frame 21 can be set as a insert, and the fourth connecting part 32 of the nose pad 3 can be set as a matching slot, with the second connecting part 211 plugged into the fourth connecting part 32; ¶0036-37: [they] can also be magnetically connected, making it very convenient to connect and disassemble by magnetic attraction), wherein the left eye glass rim is configured to completely encircle the circumference of a lens mounted within the left eye glass rim and the right eye glass rim is configured to completely encircle the circumference of a lens mounted within the right eye glass rim when the nose bridge component is attached or unattached to the left-side frame component or the right-side frame component (¶0033: the first frame 11 and the second frame 21 have lenses embedded in them; see FIGS. 1-2 showing both rims 11, 21 configured to completely encircle the circumference of the respective lens mounted when the nose bridge component 3 is attached or unattached), and wherein the left-side frame component and the right side frame component are separate pieces from each other (FIG. 1; ¶0032).
Regarding Claim 2, Peng discloses the eyeglass frame according to Claim 1, as above. Peng further discloses: wherein the slits and clasps are configured to allow the clasps to: mechanically attach to the nose bridge component when clasps are pushed into the respective slits; and release from the nose bridge component when attached clasps are pressed outwards (¶0035, 0038: The plug-in connection can be a unidirectional plug-in connection of the insert(s) 111/211 of frame(s) 11/21 into the matching slot(s) 31/32 of nose pad 3; ¶0035: the first connecting part 111 of the first frame 11 and the third connecting part 31 of the nose pad 3 can be connected by a plug-in connection; ¶0038: the second connecting part 211 of the second frame 21 and the fourth connecting part 32 of the nose pad 3 can be connected by a plug-in joint; see FIGS. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 3, Peng discloses the eyeglass frame according to Claim 1, as above. Peng further discloses: wherein the slits and clasps are configured to allow the clasps to: magnetically attach to the nose bridge component when clasps are pushed into the respective slits; and release from the nose bridge component when attached clasps are pulled outwards (¶0034, 0037: one of the first connecting part 111 and the third connecting part 31 is a magnetic component and the other is a magnetic suction component…one of the second connecting part 211 and the fourth connecting part 32 is a magnetic component and the other is a magnetic suction component; ¶0036-37: [they] can also be magnetically connected, making it very convenient to connect and disassemble by magnetic attraction; see FIGS. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 4, Peng discloses the eyeglass frame according to Claim 1, as above. Peng further discloses: wherein the slits and clasps are configured to allow the clasps to: mechanically and magnetically attach to the nose bridge component when clasps are pushed into the respective slits; and release from the nose bridge component when attached clasps are pressed outwards (¶0035, 0038: The plug-in connection can be a unidirectional plug-in connection of the insert(s) 111/211 of frame(s) 11/21 into the matching slot(s) 31/32 of nose pad 3; ¶0035: the first connecting part 111 of the first frame 11 and the third connecting part 31 of the nose pad 3 can be connected by a plug-in connection; ¶0038: the second connecting part 211 of the second frame 21 and the fourth connecting part 32 of the nose pad 3 can be connected by a plug-in joint; ¶0036-37: [they] can also be magnetically connected, making it very convenient to connect and disassemble by magnetic attraction; see FIGS. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 5, Peng discloses the eyeglass frame according to Claim 1, as above. Peng further discloses: wherein the nose bridge component comprises nose pads (¶0032: nose pad; FIG. 6:3).
Regarding Claim 10, Peng discloses the eyeglass frame according to Claim 1, as above. Albouy further discloses: wherein the rims are fitted with corrective lenses (¶0020, 0033: lenses embedded in first frame 11 and second frame 21…so that eye has normal vision).
Regarding Claim 19, as best understood, Peng discloses the eyeglass frame according to Claim 1, as above. Peng further discloses: A method of correcting vision during application of cosmetics (The Examiner notes that the preamble merely states an intended use of the invention which is not considered a limitation and does not limit the claim scope, since the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure of the claimed invention, thus rendering the preamble to be of no significance to the claim construction; see MPEP § 2111.02, Section II, citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and Intirtool, Ltd. v. Texar Corp., 369 F.3d 1289, 1294-96, 70 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) comprising: wearing the three-piece eyeglass frame fitted with corrective lenses (¶0020, 0033); and detaching a left-side frame component or the right-side frame component from the nose bridge component as needed, wherein detaching the left-side frame component from the nose bridge component results in the nose bridge component resting against the nose of the wearer and right-side frame component attached to the nose bridge and detaching the right-side frame component from the nose bridge component results in the nose bridge component resting against the nose of the wearer and left-side frame component attached to the nose bridge component (¶0032; ¶0035: the first connecting part 111 of the first frame 11 can be set as an insert, and the third connecting part 31 of the nose pad 3 can be set as a matching slot, with the first connecting part 111 plugged into the third connecting part 31; ¶0038: the second connecting part 211 of the second frame 21 can be set as a insert, and the fourth connecting part 32 of the nose pad 3 can be set as a matching slot, with the second connecting part 211 plugged into the fourth connecting part 32; ¶0036-37: [they] can also be magnetically connected, making it very convenient to connect and disassemble by magnetic attraction; see FIGS. 1-4 showing the various detaching mechanisms as claimed).
Regarding Claim 20, as best understood, Peng discloses the eyeglass frame according to Claim 1, as above. Peng further discloses: A method of correcting vision during examining samples under a microscope (The Examiner notes that the preamble merely states an intended use of the invention which is not considered a limitation and does not limit the claim scope, since the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure of the claimed invention, thus rendering the preamble to be of no significance to the claim construction; see MPEP § 2111.02, Section II, citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and Intirtool, Ltd. v. Texar Corp., 369 F.3d 1289, 1294-96, 70 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) comprising: wearing the three-piece eyeglass frame fitted with corrective lenses (¶0020, 0033); and detaching a left-side frame component or the right-side frame component from the nose bridge component as needed, wherein detaching the left-side frame component from the nose bridge component results in the nose bridge component resting against the nose of the wearer and right-side frame component attached to the nose bridge and detaching the right-side frame component from the nose bridge component results in the nose bridge component resting against the nose of the wearer and left-side frame component attached to the nose bridge component (¶0032; ¶0035: the first connecting part 111 of the first frame 11 can be set as an insert, and the third connecting part 31 of the nose pad 3 can be set as a matching slot, with the first connecting part 111 plugged into the third connecting part 31; ¶0038: the second connecting part 211 of the second frame 21 can be set as a insert, and the fourth connecting part 32 of the nose pad 3 can be set as a matching slot, with the second connecting part 211 plugged into the fourth connecting part 32; ¶0036-37: [they] can also be magnetically connected, making it very convenient to connect and disassemble by magnetic attraction; see FIGS. 1-4 showing the various detaching mechanisms as claimed).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111708164 A) in view of Lim et al. (US 2021/0157167 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Peng discloses the eyeglass frame according to Claim 3 respectively, as above. Although Peng discloses a magnetic attachment between the clasps and the nose bridge component (¶0034, 0036-37), Peng does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the clasps of the frame components and the nose bridge component each have magnetic strips that magnetize and hold together upon contact, wherein the magnetic strips are located where the frame clasps meet the nose bridge.
Lim is related to Peng with respect to a detachable eyeglass frame comprising: a left-side frame component, a right-side frame component, and a nose-bridge component comprising slits on both sides, wherein the slits and clasps are configured to allow the clasps to: mechanically attach to the nose bridge component when clasps are pushed into the respective slits; and release from the nose bridge component (FIGS. 1-2, 33-34, 50-53; ¶0084-85, 0088-89, 0137-38) and Lim teaches: wherein the clasps of the frame components and the nose bridge component each have magnetic strips that magnetize and hold together upon contact, wherein the magnetic strips are located where the frame clasps meet the nose bridge (claim 6; ¶0087-88: magnetically attached groove part 14 of the bridge part 10…transparent magnet films 18a as the magnetic members 18 disposed at the right and left end portions of lens 12, and the transparent magnet films 18a extend vertically in a band shape; ¶0221: The components of the glasses can be assembled, disassembled, and fixed by magnetism).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyeglass frame of Peng in view of Lim to satisfy the claimed condition because such a magnetic attachment mechanism is known and would be selected such that it is possible to assemble and disassemble components of the glasses to achieve customizable eyeglasses where various features can be adjusted according to the wearer’s taste (¶0010-11, 0081, 0185 of Lim); furthermore, such a magnetic strip is utilized so it “doesn’t lose magnetism not only at room temperature but also at high temperature and is almost transparent with respect to visible light” as taught in ¶0159 of Lim.
Claims 7-9 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111708164 A) in view of Houston et al. (US 6,106,116 A).
Regarding Claims 7, 9 and 11-18, Peng discloses the eyeglass frame according to Claims 1 and 5, as above. Peng does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the three-piece eyeglass frame is comprised of titanium metal (claims 7, 11-14); wherein the three-piece eyeglass frame is comprised of cellulose acetate (claims 15-18); and the temple arm, the temple tip, and/or the nose bridge component are (partially) comprised of rubber, cellulose acetate, silicone, or combinations thereof (claims 9, 11, 12, 15-16); and the temple arm, the temple tip, and/or the nose bridge component are partially coated with rubber, cellulose acetate, silicone, or combinations thereof (claims 13, 14, 17-18).
However, it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), wherein the court upheld that “selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious”. See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), as cited in MPEP § 2144.07.
In the present case, Houston is related to Peng with respect to a three piece eyeglass frame comprising: a left-side frame component, a right-side frame component, a nose-bridge component comprising slits on both sides, wherein the nose bridge component mechanically attaches to the frame components (FIGS. 7, 10-12; col’s. 9, 12-13) and Houston teaches that the three-piece eyeglass frame is comprised of plastic and polymeric materials (col. 8: “purely polymeric compositions which exhibit sufficient structural integrity to accomplish the desired stabilizing results”; col. 10: “any one or more of the foregoing components can optionally be constructed from more conventional materials such as metal wire or plastic.”); wherein the three-piece eyeglass frame is comprised of titanium metal (claim 7, 11-14) (col. 2, 10: the first orbital 42 and second orbital 44 comprise a metal, such as titanium or a titanium-containing alloy); and the temple arm, the temple tip, and/or the nose bridge component are partially comprised of rubber, cellulose acetate, silicone, or combinations thereof (claims 9, 11, 12, 15-16) (col. 11: By adjusting the durometer and/or thickness of the damper pad, together with the relative compression in the mounted configuration…Silicone, polyurethane, and any of a variety of other elastomeric or resilient materials can be used; col. 13: Any of a variety of dampers may be positioned between the stop 127 and the corresponding contact surface, such as polyurethane or silicone pads); and the temple arm, the temple tip, and/or the nose bridge component are partially coated with rubber, cellulose acetate, silicone, or combinations thereof (claims 13, 14, 17-18) (col. 11: By adjusting the durometer and/or thickness of the damper pad, together with the relative compression in the mounted configuration…Silicone, polyurethane, and any of a variety of other elastomeric or resilient materials can be used; col. 13: Any of a variety of dampers may be positioned between the stop 127 and the corresponding contact surface, such as polyurethane or silicone pads).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyeglass frame of Peng in view of Houston to satisfy the claimed condition because such a titanium eyeglass frame is known and would be selected for “as a lightweight metal with high strength with the advantage of the ability to minimize torsional distortion through the eyeglass system”, as taught in col.’s 7 & 10-11 of Houston, and a polymeric plastic eyeglass frame such as cellulose acetate is known and would be selected for exhibiting sufficient structural integrity to accomplish the desired stabilizing results, as taught in col. 10 of Houston; furthermore such a nose bridge component and/or temple tip being partially comprised and coated with rubber is known and would be selected as a resilient and elastomeric material, as taught in col. 11 of Houston; and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 8, Peng discloses the eyeglass frame according to Claim 5, as above. Peng does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the nose pad is comprised of rubber, cellulose acetate, silicone, or combinations thereof.
However, it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), wherein the court upheld that “selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious”. See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), as cited in MPEP § 2144.07.
In the present case, Houston is related to Peng with respect to a three piece eyeglass frame comprising: a left-side frame component, a right-side frame component, a nose-bridge component comprising slits on both sides, wherein the nose bridge component mechanically attaches to the frame components (FIGS. 7, 10-12; col’s. 9, 12-13) and Houston teaches that the nose pad may be comprised of plastic and polymeric materials (col. 8: “purely polymeric compositions which exhibit sufficient structural integrity to accomplish the desired stabilizing results”; col. 10: “any one or more of the foregoing components can optionally be constructed from more conventional materials such as metal wire or plastic.”; col. 16: “The medial component of the orbital 140 in the illustrated embodiment is thus also integrally formed with the nose piece. In this embodiment, the nose piece is formed as a sculpted portion of the bridge 110 and orbitals as illustrated. Generally, the bridge 110 and medial portion 140 will extend rearwardly to provide a nose contacting surface adjacent the nose opening as illustrated”; see FIGS. 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyeglass frame of Peng in view of Houston to satisfy the claimed condition because such a nose pad is known and would be selected for exhibiting sufficient structural integrity to accomplish the desired stabilizing results, as taught in col. 10 of Houston; and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (EST).
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 on 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872