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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16971793 , filed on 8/20/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 1 (and its dependents) is 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. With respect to claim 1, the claimed wherein for at least one distance ra n ge, the lens disks of the spectacle frame are designed for a clear visual acuity and not with a maximum visual acuity rendering the claim vague and indefinite. In line 9 of claim 1 applicant states that “the lens disks of the spectacle frame are varifocal …” thereby narrowing the scope of the lens to a varifocal lens. In line 17 of the claim 1, applicant claims “wherein the varifocal lens disks of the spectacle frame are designed…”, thus staying consistent with the previously claimed “the lens disks of the spectacle frame are varifocal.” It is unclear as to whether or not this was a n inadvertent typographical error and applicant intended to claim wherein for at least one distance range, the varifocal lens disks of the spectacle frame are designed for clear visual acuity and not with maximum visual acuity (assumed meaning) or if applicant intended to claim “wherein for at least one distance range, the lens disks of the additional frame are designed for clear visual acuity and not maximum visual acuity. Therefore, the lack of clarity renders the claim vague and indefinite. For examination purposes it is assumed , wherein for at least one distance range, the varifocal lens disks of the spectacle frame are designed for clear visual acuity and not with maximum visual acuity . Claims 2-13 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 from which they depend. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the deviation" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination the assumed meaning is “a deviation.” Claim 1 recites the limitation " the compensation " in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination the assumed meaning is “ a compensation .” Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1 , 2, 4-11, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-9, 11, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11927833 hereafter Binder . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-9, 11, 15, and 16 of Binder read on or make obvious claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13 of the instant invention . Regarding claim 1 Binder discloses s pectacles, comprising: a spectacle frame having lens disks made of transparent material; and an additional frame having lens disks made of transparent material, the additional frame being connectable to a front of the spectacle frame and removable from connection to the spectacle frame such that the additional frame has a connected state in which the additional frame is connected to the spectacle frame and a separated state, wherein, when in the connected state of the additional frame, the lens disks of the spectacle frame and the lens disks of the additional frame at least partially overlap, wherein the lens disks of the spectacle frame are varifocal lens disks for the purpose of correcting vision for different distance ranges in order to achieve maximum or clear visual acuity for at least one distance range, wherein the lens disks of the additional frame are single-vision lens disks or varifocal lens disks which, in combination with the lens disks of the spectacle frame, correct vision in a manner customized specifically to a user (see claim 1) , wherein for at least one distance range, the lens disks of the spectacle frame are designed for a clear visual acuity (see claim 1) , wherein the varifocal lens disks of the spectacle frame are designed for at least one of : maximum visual acuity in the long-sightedness range without possessing full corrective effect in the medium to short-distance range, or maximum visual acuity in the medium to short-distance range without possessing full corrective effect in the long-sightedness range, or wherein the deviation of the compensation of maximum to clear visual acuity with the vision correction in the short, middle and/or long distance range of the varifocal lens disks of the spectacle frame or the combination thereof with the lens disks of the additional frame is established at a specific amount of selectable correction strengths (see claim 3) . Claim 1 of Binder does not explicitly state the lens disk of the spectacle frame are designed for a clear visual acuity and not with a maximum visual acuity. However, claim 1 of Binder (col. 5, lines 53-56) does disclose the lens disk of the spectacle frame correcting vision for different distances in order to achieve maximum or clear visual acuity for at least one distance range. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, when selecting the lens disk of the frame for clear visual acuity then t here will not have maximum visual acuity. Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13, Binder discloses the limitations therein (see claims 1-9, 11, 15, and 16). 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 (s ) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 13 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (20080088791) hereafter Smith in view of Yi (20110181828) hereafter Yi. Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses spectacles, comprising: a spectacle frame (fig. 1, primary frame 14 as the claimed “spectacle frame”) having lens disks (12) made of transparent material (fig. 1, par. [0165], lines 1-3 , in fig. 1 depicts lenses 12 as transparent ); and an additional frame ( auxiliary frame 114 as the claimed “additional frame”) having lens disks (fig. 2, par. [0167] auxiliary lens 112 as the claimed lens disks) made of transparent material (fig. 2 clearly depicts lenses 112 as transparent) , the additional frame (114) being connectable to a front of the spectacle frame (14) and removable from connection to the spectacle frame (fig. 1 and 6, par. [0171]) such that the additional frame (114) has a connected state in which the additional frame (114) is connected to the spectacle frame (14) and a separated state, wherein, when in the connected state of the additional frame (114) , the lens disks (12) of the spectacle frame (14) and the lens disks (112) of the additional frame (114) at least partially overlap (fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 , par [ 0168], lines 6-8, [0171], lines 1-6) wherein the lens disks (12) of the spectacle frame (114) are varifocal lens disks (par. [0196], lines 2-5 , the primary lenses are prescription lenses that may be “progressive” reads on the claimed “varifocal lens” ) for the purpose of correcting vision (par. [0196], line 2) for different distance ranges in order to achieve maximum or clear visual acuity for at least one distance range ( par. [0196], lines 2-5, note that prescription progressive lenses provide clear visual acuity for at least one distance whether that’s far, intermediate, or near, depending on the need of the user ) , wherein the lens disks (112) of the additional frame (114) are single-vision lens disks or varifocal lens disks (par. [0204], lines 2-4) which, in combination with the lens disks (12) of the spectacle frame (114) , correct vision in a manner customized specifically to a user (par. [0196][0204], prescription lenses are customized specifically to correct a user’s vision) , wherein for at least one distance range, the lens disks of the spectacle frame are designed for a clear visual acuity and not with a maximum visual acuity ( par. [0196], lines 2-5, note that prescription progressive lenses for correcting vision provide clear visual acuity for at least one distance whether that’s fa, intermediate, or near, depending on the need of the user ) but does not specifically disclose wherein the varifocal lens disks of the spectacle frame are designed for at least one of: maximum visual acuity in the long-sightedness range without possessing full corrective effect in the medium to short-distance range, or maximum visual acuity in the medium to short-distance range without possessing full corrective effect in the long-sightedness range, or wherein a deviation of compensation of maximum to clear visual acuity with the vision correction in the short, middle and/or long distance range of the varifocal lens disks of the spectacle frame or the combination thereof with the lens disks of the additional frame is established at a specific amount of selectable correction strengths. Yi teaches that in an eyewear assembly having prescription glasses ( par. [0029], lines 1-4) with attachable power correction lenses (par. [0037]-[0039] lenses 502 and 504) that it is desirable to have the compensation of maximum to clear visual acuity with the vision correction in the short, middle and/or long distance range of the varifocal lens disks of the spectacle frame or the combination thereof with the lens disks of the additional frame is established at a specific amount of selectable correction strengths ( see fig. 5, par. [0037]-[0039] note that attaching the power correction lenses (502 and 504) to the prescription glasses 500 compensates for positive optical power for reading [0037], lines 6-7 . Note that par. [0039] gives examples of different selectable correction strengths/diopters for reading ) , the power correction lenses provide the optical correction strength needed for correcting vision for the short distance range (i.e. reading distance)) for the purpose of providing temporary eyesight power correction (par. [0037] -[ 0039]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the progressive lenses in the eyewear assembly of Smith as modified by Yi have the deviation of the compensation of maximum to clear visual acuity with the vision correction in the short, middle and/or long distance range of the varifocal lens disks of the spectacle frame or the combination thereof with the lens disks of the additional frame established at a specific amount of selectable correction strengths for the purpose of providing temporary eyesight power correction. Regarding claim 2, Smith and Yi disclose and teach as set forth above and Smith further discloses the spectacles according to claim 1, wherein the lens disks (12 and 112) of the spectacle frame (112) and the additional frame (114) are each provided with at least one vision correction such that they possess a refracting effect customized to the user and, therewith, the desired visual acuity for a short, middle and/or a long distance range, is achieved (par. [0196][0204] note that prescription lenses refract light) . Regarding claim 4, Smith and Yi discloses and teach as set forth above and Yi further teaches wherein the lens disks are cast (par. [0032], molded plastic lenses reads on the claimed “lens disks are cast”) and are made from different materials (par. [0032] , lines 1-4) for the purpose of providing quality vision correction at a lower cost . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the lenses of Smith as modified by Yi to be cast and made of different materials for the purpose of providing quality vision correction at a lower cost. Regarding claim 5 , Smith and Yi disclose and teach as set forth above and Smith further discloses the spectacles according to claim 1, wherein the lens disks are tinted lens disks (par. [0106], line 3, par. [0204] transmission reducing lenses as the claimed “tinted lens disks” ) . Regarding claim 8 , Smith and Yi disclose and teach as set forth above and Smith further discloses the spectacles according to claim 1, wherein the lens disks (12 and 112) of the spectacle frame (14) and the additional frame (114) are parallel to one another, overlap and have common external dimensions when the additional frame is in the connected state (see fig. 1-4 depicts that the lens disks have common external dimensions based on the way they overlap and align) . Regarding claim 9, Smith and Yi disclose and teach as set forth above and Smith further discloses the spectacles according to claim 1, wherein the additional frame (114) is placed on the front of the spectacle frame (14) so as to be removable by means of fixing elements (par. [0115], lines 1-3, magnets as the claimed “fixing elements”) . Regarding claim 13, Smith and Yi disclose and teach as set forth above and Smith further discloses the spectacles according to claim 1, wherein single-vision lens disks or varifocal lens disks (fig. 2, par. [0204], lines 1-3, auxiliary lens 112 as the claimed “varifocal lens”) are used for the lens disks (112) of the additional frame (114) , which lens disks (112) provide at least one additional vision correction (par. [0204], lines 1-2) compared with these lens disks (112) for different distance ranges (par. [0204], line 5, note that progressive lenses correct vision to allow you to see clearly at multiple distances) in combination with the lens disks (12) of the spectacle frame (14) , and wherein the vision corrections provided with the lens disks (12) of the spectacle frame (14) and combined therewith, are specifically customized with the lens disks (112) of the additional frame (114) to the vision comfort desired by the user (par. [0196][0204] lenses 12 and 112 are prescription lenses and provide comfort to a user by correcting their vision so they don’t have to strain their eye to see clearly) , wherein the lens disks (12) of the spectacle frame (114) are designed as varifocal lens disks for the purpose of the vision corrections for different distance ranges to obtain for each a maximum or a clear visual acuity for at least one distance range (par. [0196], lines 2-5, lenses 12 are prescription progressive lenses that provide clear vison at multiple distances) , and wherein these lens disks (12) are designed for at least for one distance range not with a maximum visual acuity but with a clear visual acuity (par. [0196], lines 2-5, note that progressive lenses correct vision to allow you to see clearly at multiple distances) . Claim(s) 3, 6, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (20080088791) hereafter Smith in view of Yi (20110181828) hereafter Yi and further in view of Blum (20140043584) hereafter Blum Regarding claim s 3, 7, and 12 Smith and Yi disclose as set forth above but they don’t specifically disclose wherein the specific amount of selectable correction strengths is between +0.5 and +4.0 diopters , between −0.5 and −2.5 diopters , +0.75 diopters, and -0.75 diopters . Blum teaches that in an eyeglass system having progressive lenses (par. [0048], line 1) that it is desirable have the specific amount of selectable correction strengths between +0.5 and +4.0 diopters , between −0.5 and −2.5 diopters , +0.75 diopters, and -0.75 diopters (par. [0048], lines 16-19, par. [0074], lines 5-6) for the purpose of providing a wearer with the best corrected vision (par. [0003], lines 8-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the progressive lenses of the eyeglass system of Smith and Yi, as further modified by Blum, to have the specific amount of selectable correction strengths is between +0.5 and +4.0 diopters, between −0.5 and −2.5 diopters, +0.75 diopters, and -0.75 diopters for the purpose of providing a wearer with the best corrected vision . Regarding claim 6 Smith and Yi disclose as set forth above but they do not specifically disclose wherein the transparent material is glass. Blum teaches that in an eyeglass system it is desirable for the lenses to be glass (par. [0042], line 6) of providing optical clarity (par. [0003], lines 8-9) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the lenses of Smith and Yi, as further modified by Blum to be glass for the purpose of providing better optical clarity. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103. Regarding claim 10 (and its dependent), the prior art does not disclose the claimed spectacles specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “ wherein the additional frame has a connecting member holding mounting parts to the lens disks of the additional frame, which connecting member is slightly arcuate and spring-loaded, whereby for attachment or removal, the mounting parts with the lens disks are pressed apart from one another by manually stretching the connecting member. ” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES JONES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1278 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Pinping Sun can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /JAMES C. JONES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872