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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Yang (and/or Chene) failing to disclose a hook, the examiner is unpersuaded. Broadly read a hook includes both open-loop hooks and closed-loop (a.k.a. eye) hooks. Yang discloses an eye hook. Since an eye hook is a kind of hook Yang reads on the claimed hook.
[AltContent: textbox (open-loop hook)][AltContent: textbox (eye hook)]
PNG
media_image1.png
466
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Photograph of two kinds of hooks.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Yang (and/or Chene) failing to disclose rotating the temple via the hole on the hinge head, examiner is unpersuaded. The claim has no “rotating” limitation. Particularly, there is no limitation indicating there is a twisting/rotation of the temple around the temple length. The only reference to rotating is in the preamble naming the device as a “rotatable spectacle temple” with no indication in the body that would “breath life” into a twisting/rotation of the temple around the temple length. The preamble is not a limitation and there is no further limitation to “breathe life” into the specific rotational function argued by applicant. It has been held that the determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the application "to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification; Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989), see MPEP 2111.02. Yang disclosure covers an invention that rotates in at least two directions, e.g. see at least figures 6-7. 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).
In general, the examiner agrees that Yang does not disclose an open loop hook and/or the specific rotational function argued, however, the scope of the current claims do not reflect these features. The claims define the property rights provided by a patent, and thus require careful scrutiny. The goal of claim analysis is to identify the boundaries of the protection sought by the applicant and to understand how the claims relate to and define what the applicant has indicated is the invention. The opinion in In re Hiniker Co., 47 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1998) stated "...the name of the game is the claim.” See MPEP 2103. However, any changes to the claim language would now be after final, with prosecution closed, and would requiring further searching and consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0318554, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Yang discloses a rotatable spectacle temple (title e.g. figures 12-13 temple body 12), which mainly assembles two temples on a spectacle frame (abstract “A temple assembly for a pair of spectacles”), wherein the temple comprises: a fixed piece (e.g. first temple core 14), assembled on the spectacle frame (e.g. pile head 110), wherein the fixed piece has a second connection hole arranged on a front section thereof (e.g. see unlabeled hole in first connecting end 141) and a hook hole arranged on a rear section thereof (e.g. see unlabeled hole in second connecting end 142); a connecting rod (e.g. spring core rod 1522), assembled on the fixed piece, wherein the connecting rod has a hook arranged on a front section thereof (e.g. hinge head 1521 has an eye hook) and a limiting end arranged on a rear section thereof (e.g. end opposite to 1521); wherein the hook of the connecting rod is hooked into the hook hole of the fixed piece (inter alia paragraph [0080] “hinge head 1521 is pivotally connected to the second connecting end 142 of the first temple core 14” see figures 12-13); a positioning block (e.g. combination of guide member 13 and fixing member 151), assembled on the connecting rod (e.g. see figure 12), wherein the positioning block has a movable space disposed in a middle thereof (e.g. through hole 130), a rod hole (e.g. see figures 12-13) and a hook groove (e.g. axial limiting groove 1513) respectively disposed in the movable space (e.g. see figures 12-13), a latching portion provided on a rear section thereof (e.g. unlabeled in figure 13 but region of 151 w/ visible screw/pin hole) and penetrated by the rod hole (e.g. see figures 12-13), and a resisting end (e.g. unlabeled in figure 12 but region of 13 that would contact 12) provided in the latching part (e.g. see figures 12-13); an elastic element (e.g. spring 153), assembled on the connecting rod (e.g. see figures 12-13); a stopper (e.g. unlabeled in figures 12-13 but visible spring stop head 1523 disposed at the end of the spring core 1522), assembled on the connecting rod (e.g. see figures 12-13); and a body (e.g. 12), assembled on the positioning block (e.g. see figures 12-13), wherein the body (e.g. 12) has a concave groove (e.g. receiving cavity 120) in a front section thereof (e.g. see figures 12-13), a rod groove in the concave groove (inherent for proper operation), and a fourth connection hole (inherent given the required pin/screw to attach 12 to 151) in an inner side of the body (implicit given figures 1-7, 10 & 17) and penetrating the concave groove (inherent requirement for proper operation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0318554, of record, in view of Chene et al. US Patent 6,168,341, of record.
Regarding claims 2-3 Yang figures 12-13 discloses the rotatable spectacle temple, as recited in claim 1, as set forth above. Yang figures 12-13 further discloses wherein the spectacle frame (e.g. 110) has a joint portion (e.g. pile head 111) each provided on two sides thereof (implicit given figure 17 showing a right and left temples), wherein the joint portion has two arc surfaces (e.g. curved top and bottom rear surfaces of 111) and a blocking edge (e.g. flat edge on the outer side of 111) respectively provided at a rear end thereof (e.g. see figure 12), a slot provided in a middle thereof (e.g. see figure 12 unlabeled slot in 111 where 141 is inserted), and a first connection hole (e.g. see figure 12 unlabeled hole in 111) penetrating the slot (inherent requirement for proper operation) as required by claim 2; and wherein the positioning block (e.g. combination of 13 & 151) has two arc surfaces (e.g. front inside surface of 13 and 131) and a blocking wall (e.g. limiting portion 131) respectively disposed on a front end thereof (see figure 12), and a third connection hole provided on the latching portion (e.g. unlabeled hole in 151) that penetrates the rod hole (e.g. see figure 13), as required by claim 3.
Yang figures 12-13 does not disclose the two arc surfaces of the joint portion are concave or the first connection hole is on an inner side the joint portion, as required by claim 2; or the two arc surfaces of the positioning block are convex.
Regarding the orientation of the first connection hole – Yang teaches other embodiments (e.g. see figures 8-9) including a joint portion (e.g. hinge lug 181) with two convex arc surfaces having a slot provided in a middle thereof (see figure 8) and a first connection hole penetrating the slot (see figure 8); and further teaches said hole provided on an inner side thereof (see figure 8). There are a limited number of surfaces and orientation that the pin/screws/connection holes can pass through, i.e. upper, lower, inner and outer. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp, KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), see MPEP 2143. Further, Yang’s further embodiments provide a teaching and suggestion that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the embodiment in figures 12-13 to arrive at the claimed invention, KSR, see MPEP 2143. 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 first connection hole in joint portion of the embodiment disclosed by Yang in figures 12-13 to be on an inner side as taught by the embodiment taught by Yang in figures 8-9 since there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp and Yang further provides a teaching and suggestion that would have led one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed invention with predictable results.
Regarding the mating concave and convex surfaces of the joint portion and the positioning block – Yang discloses concave surfaces on the positioning block and convex surfaces on the joint portion, which is opposite to the placement of the concave and convex surfaces required by claims 2 and 3.
Chene discloses a similar rotatable spectacle temple (abstract & column 3 lines 28-31 e.g. figures 2-5 element/spectacle temple 104 & element/spectacle frame front 105) including a rod (e.g. elongated component 109) and an elastic member (e.g. spring 26); and further teaches the mating portion of surfaces on either side of the hinge has two concave surfaces (e.g. see figure 2 L-shaped part 17 on left and right) on the frame side (e.g. 105) and two convex surfaces (e.g. see figure 2 side/lateral face 16 curving into cutout 19 on left and right) on the temple side (e.g. 104) for the purpose of guiding the rotation of the temple (column 6 lines 36-48 see figures 4-5). Further, as noted above Yang discloses the claimed invention except for the concave/convex surfaces being reversed with respect to the frame and temple, as noted above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to switch the positions, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) see MPEP 2144.04. 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 mating concave and convex surfaces in the rotatable spectacle temple as disclosed by Yang to be rearranged such that the surfaces on the joint portion are concave and the surfaces of the positioning block are convex as taught by Chene for the purpose of guiding the rotation of the temple and since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
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 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 January 12, 2026