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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/2/2023 was considered by the examiner.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmair et al. (US 5,270,743) in view of De Luis et al. (US 2024/0097311).
Regarding Claim 1, Hofmair discloses an eyewear device comprising:
a lens element (Fig. 1, lens 3, Col. 3, lines 15-30); and
a support frame (Fig. 1, two lens holding rings 2 with top rim member 4 and bottom rim member 5 and bridge 1, Col. 3, lines 15-30) comprising:
an upper portion (Fig. 1, two lens holding rings 2 with top rim member 4, Col. 3, lines 15-30) spanning at least one of a nose bridge and at least half of a length of the lens element (Fig. 1, as shown); and
a lower portion (Fig. 1, two lens holding rings 2 with bottom rim member 5, Col. 3, lines 15-30),
wherein the upper portion has a higher stiffness than the lower portion (Col. 2, lines 26-30, Col. 3, lines 15-25, Col. 3, lines 29-34, the top region of the rim is stiff for support and the bottom of the rim is flexible in order to easily install the lens into the frame), wherein the lens element is located between the upper portion and the lower portion (Col. 2, lines 26-30, Col. 3, lines 15-25).
However, Hofmair, does not specifically disclose a lower portion associated with an antenna
However, De Luis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a lower portion associated with an antenna (Paragraph 0025, lines 1-10) for the purpose of increasing antenna efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyewear device of Hofmair, with a lower portion associated with an antenna, of De Luis, for the purpose of increasing antenna efficiency.
Regarding Claims 2 and 16, Hofmair in view of De Luis discloses as is set forth above but does not specifically disclose wherein the upper portion is less RF-permeable than the lower portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the upper portion is less RF-permeable than the lower portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (De Luis, Fig. 3A, lower overmold portion 308A is manufactured using an RF transparent material, Paragraph 0038, lines 16-20, Paragraph 0043, lines 18-21, for the purpose of increasing antenna efficiency), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, Hofmair in view of De Luis discloses as is set forth above but does not specifically disclose wherein the upper portion is primarily composed of a first material with a first permittivity or conductivity and the lower portion is primarily composed of a second material with a second permittivity or conductivity higher than the first permittivity or conductivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the upper portion is primarily composed of a first material with a first permittivity or conductivity and the lower portion is primarily composed of a second material with a second permittivity or conductivity higher than the first permittivity or conductivity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (De Luis, Fig. 3A, lower overmold portion 308A is manufactured using an RF transparent material, Paragraph 0038, lines 16-20, Paragraph 0043, lines 18-21, for the purpose of increasing antenna efficiency), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18 Hofmair in view of De Luis discloses as is set forth above but does not specifically disclose wherein the upper portion is primarily composed of one or more of a metal, a metal alloy, and carbon fiber and the lower portion is primarily composed of one or more of Polytetrafluoroethylene, foam, plastics, ceramics, and glass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the upper portion is primarily composed of one or more of a metal, a metal alloy, and carbon fiber and the lower portion is primarily composed of one or more of Polytetrafluoroethylene, foam, plastics, ceramics, and glass, since 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 (Hofmair, Col. 2, lines 26-30, Col. 3, lines 15-25, Col. 3, lines 29-34, the top region of the rim is stiff for support and the bottom of the rim is flexible in order to easily install the lens into the frame). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), also In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146.
Regarding Claims 5, 13, and 20 Hofmair in view of De Luis discloses as is set forth above but does not specifically disclose wherein the upper portion has a higher Young's Modulus or Shear Modulus than the lower portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the upper portion has a higher Young's Modulus or Shear Modulus than the lower portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Hofmair, Col. 2, lines 26-30, Col. 3, lines 15-25, Col. 3, lines 29-34, the top region of the rim is stiff for support and the bottom of the rim is flexible in order to easily install the lens into the frame), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Hofmair in view of De Luis discloses as is set forth above but does not specifically disclose wherein the upper portion has a higher thermal conductivity than the lower portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the upper portion has a higher thermal conductivity than the lower portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Hofmair, Col. 2, lines 26-30, Col. 3, lines 15-25, Col. 3, lines 29-34, the top region of the rim is stiff for support, for example a thermally conductive metal, and the bottom of the rim is flexible, such as a thermally insulating foam, in order to easily install the lens into the frame), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding Claim 7, Hofmair in view of De Luis discloses as is set forth above and Hofmair further discloses wherein the lower portion is secured to the upper portion (Col. 3, lines 35-47).
Regarding Claim 8, Hofmair in view of De Luis discloses as is set forth above but the combination does not specifically disclose wherein the lens element includes a waveguide and the eyewear device is included in an augmented reality (AR) eyewear display system.
However, De Luis further discloses wherein the lens element includes a waveguide and the eyewear device is included in an augmented reality (AR) eyewear display system (Paragraph 0102), for the purpose of providing both real world and artificial reality content.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyewear device of Hofmair in view of De Luis, with a lower portion associated with an antenna, of De Luis, for the purpose of providing both real world and artificial reality content.
Regarding Claim 9, Hofmair discloses an eyewear device comprising:
a lens element (Fig. 1, lens 3, Col. 3, lines 15-30); and
a support frame (Fig. 1, two lens holding rings 2 with top rim member 4 and bottom rim member 5 and bridge 1, Col. 3, lines 15-30) including:
an upper portion (Fig. 1, two lens holding rings 2 with top rim member 4, Col. 3, lines 15-30) spanning at least one of a nose bridge and at least half of a length of the lens element (Fig. 1, as shown); and
a lower portion (Fig. 1, two lens holding rings 2 with bottom rim member 5, Col. 3, lines 15-30),
wherein the lens element is located between the upper portion and the lower portion (Col. 2, lines 26-30, Col. 3, lines 15-25).
However, Hofmair, does not specifically disclose a lower portion associated with an antenna, wherein the upper portion is less RF-permeable than the lower portion.
However, De Luis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a lower portion associated with an antenna (Paragraph 0025, lines 1-10) for the purpose of increasing antenna efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyewear device of Hofmair, with a lower portion associated with an antenna, of De Luis, for the purpose of increasing antenna efficiency.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the upper portion is less RF-permeable than the lower portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (De Luis, Fig. 3A, lower overmold portion 308A is manufactured using an RF transparent material, Paragraph 0038, lines 16-20, Paragraph 0043, lines 18-21, for the purpose of increasing antenna efficiency), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, Hofmair in view of De Luis discloses as is set forth above but does not specifically disclose wherein the upper portion has a higher stiffness or stiffness-to-mass ratio than the lower portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the upper portion has a higher stiffness or stiffness-to-mass ratio than the lower portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Hofmair, Col. 2, lines 26-30, Col. 3, lines 15-25, Col. 3, lines 29-34, the top region of the rim is stiff for support and the bottom of the rim is flexible in order to easily install the lens into the frame), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding Claim 15, Hofmair discloses an eyewear device comprising:
a lens element (Fig. 1, lens 3, Col. 3, lines 15-30); and
a support frame (Fig. 1, two lens holding rings 2 with top rim member 4 and bottom rim member 5 and bridge 1, Col. 3, lines 15-30) including:
an upper portion (Fig. 1, two lens holding rings 2 with top rim member 4, Col. 3, lines 15-30) spanning at least one of a nose bridge and at least half of a length of the lens element (Fig. 1, as shown); and
a lower portion (Fig. 1, two lens holding rings 2 with bottom rim member 5, Col. 3, lines 15-30),
wherein the lens element is located between the upper portion and the lower portion (Col. 2, lines 26-30, Col. 3, lines 15-25).
However, Hofmair, does not specifically disclose a lower portion associated with an antenna, wherein the upper portion has a higher thermal conductivity than the lower portion.
However, De Luis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a lower portion associated with an antenna (Paragraph 0025, lines 1-10) for the purpose of increasing antenna efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyewear device of Hofmair, with a lower portion associated with an antenna, of De Luis, for the purpose of increasing antenna efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the upper portion has a higher thermal conductivity than the lower portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Hofmair, Col. 2, lines 26-30, Col. 3, lines 15-25, Col. 3, lines 29-34, the top region of the rim is stiff for support, for example a thermally conductive metal, and the bottom of the rim is flexible, such as a thermally insulating foam, in order to easily install the lens into the frame), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jacquemin (US 2010/0283958), Jacquemin (US 8,079,701), Moore et al. (US 2019/0196228), and Goodine et al. (US 2020/0112828) are cited to show similar eyewear devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872