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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on IT102022000023094 dated 11/09/2022.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dacey (US 3288666 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dacey teaches in Fig. 1a and Fig. 4: a frame for eyeglasses with color gradation (“the invention is a decorative laminate from which decorative eyeglass frames may be cut”; col 2 lines 30-33, Fig. 1a), the frame comprising:
at least one first acetate sheet (2) having a color gradation (“Wedge 4 is the pearlized colored material which provides the color gradient”; col 2 lines 46-48) on at least one part of the first acetate sheet (“Two or more streams of cellulose acetate, at least one of which is colored orientable material”; col 3 lines 19-21) and a transparency along at least one second part thereof (“By transparent is meant that when the sheet is in contact with a "pearlized" supporting sheet or other oriented material, the color pattern is visible therethrough”; col 2 lines 64-66), and at least one second acetate sheet having a color gradation on at least one part of the second acetate sheet (“Two or more streams of cellulose acetate, at least one of which is colored orientable material”; col 3 lines 19-25) , said first and second acetate sheets being coupled together by superimposition (“Two or more streams of cellulose acetate, at least one of which is colored orientable material, are simultaneously extruded through an extruder 10”; col 3 lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 2, Dacey teaches the frame according to claim 1. Dacey further teaches in Fig. 1a and Fig. 5: said first acetate sheet is configured to be arranged on a front of the eyeglasses frame (“12 and sheet 14 are then pressed together by polishing rolls 16, 18, and 20. The resulting product is cooled to produce a novel laminate in accordance with the present invention”; col 3 lines 30-35, therefore the front and back of the spectacle frame are arranged using two different sheets).
Regarding claim 3, Dacey teaches the frame according to claim 1. Dacey further teaches in Fig. 1a and Fig. 5: said second acetate sheet is configured to be arranged on a rear part of the eyeglasses frame (“12 and sheet 14 are then pressed together by polishing rolls 16, 18, and 20. The resulting product is cooled to produce a novel laminate in accordance with the present invention”; col 3 lines 30-35, therefore the front and back of the spectacle frame are arranged using two different sheets).
Regarding claim 4, Dacey teaches the frame according to claim 1. Dacey further teaches in Fig. 1a and Fig. 5: wherein other sheets having different color gradations are superimposed on said at least one first and second acetate sheets configured to obtain multiple color gradations (“In an example of the invention, a molten stream of clear, transparent cellulose acetate and a molten ribbon of taupe-colored orientable cellulose acetate (containing a silky form of lead carbonate to provide the oriented nacreous appearance) were simultaneously extruded in the manner described in the Rowland patent to provide a cellulose acetate sheet having a pearlized taupe color gradient decreasing in color intensity from an outer edge towards the center of the sheet.”; col 3 lines 38-46).
Regarding claim 5, Dacey teaches the frame according to claim 1. Dacey further teaches in Fig. 1a and Fig. 5: said second acetate sheet comprises a color gradation (“Two or more streams of cellulose acetate, at least one of which is colored orientable material”; col 3 lines 19-23) at least on one part of the second acetate sheet and a transparency along at least one second part thereof (“The embossed surface of transparent covering sheet 1 is placed contiguous to the pearlized surface 3 of sheet 2”; col 2 lines 43-46, “By transparent is meant that when the sheet is in contact with a "pearlized" supporting sheet or other oriented material, the color pattern is visible therethrough”; col 2 lines 63-66).
Regarding claim 7, Dacey teaches the frame according to claim 1. Dacey further teaches in Fig. 1a and Fig. 5: the acetate of the first and second acetate sheets is a bioacetate (“Two or more streams of cellulose acetate”; col 3 lines 19-20).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dacey (US 3288666 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cecchin (US 20220137429 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Dacey teaches the frame according to claim 1. Dacey fails to teach: said first and second acetate sheets are coupled by adhesive bonding.
However, in a related invention in the field of spectacle frames, Cecchin teaches in Fig. 6: said first and second acetate sheets are coupled by adhesive bonding (“With reference to frames made of polymeric material, for example cellulose acetate, the side pieces and front pieces of the frames are obtained from sheets of cellulose acetate which are glued and pressed together to produce semi-finished products”; [0007]).
Cecchin further teaches this configuration such that “A further task of the present invention is to provide a method for manufacturing a spectacle frame which allows materials of a different nature to be stably joined together” (Cecchin, [0021]). Therefore, using glue as the bonding/stabilizing element would be normal design choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dacey to incorporate the teachings of Cecchin to provide a device in which said first and second acetate sheets are coupled by adhesive bonding, for the purpose of securing the layers to be stably joined together (Cecchin, [0021]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dacey (US 3288666 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kan (US 20200363567 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Dacey teaches the frame according to claim 1. Dacey fails to explicitly teach: said eyeglasses are goggles.
However, in a related invention in the field of spectacle frames, Kan teaches: said eyeglasses are goggles (“the eyewear according to the present invention encompasses glasses (including electronic glasses and sunglasses) and goggles”; [0231]). Kan further teaches this configuration such that “the present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiments, and various modifications can be made without departing from the spirit of the present invention” (Kan, [0231]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dacey to incorporate the teachings of Kan to provide a device in which said eyeglasses are goggles, for the purpose of providing alternate uses for said invention in related fields (Kan, [0231]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm 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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872