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 .
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be established since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what variation of electrical resistance values would be acceptable. Appropriate correction required.
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(s) 1-6, 9, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius (US 8,566,962) in view of Ryden (US 5,319,397). The device of Cornelius teaches,
With respect to claim 1,
An eye protection device comprising:
a lens (300, figure 3);
a first transparent conductive layer (TCL) (302, Figure 3; column 8, lines 5-10, column 10 lines 25-30) coupled to the lens (Figure 3) and covering a first heating area (302, figure 3) on the lens;
and a second TCL (304, 306) coupled to the lens (Figure 3) and covering a second heating area on the lens (Figure 3), the second TCL and second heating area being spaced from the first TCL and first heating area (see space between elements 302, 304, 306),
The device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention including the first and second TCL positioned in a series (Figure 3) but is lacking where the first and second TCL are electrically connected to each other.
The device of Ryden teaches,
wherein the first TCL and second TCL (Column 3, lines 12-15) are electrically connected to one another in series (Figure 2, Column 3, Lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the series configuration taught by Ryden in order to provide heating when non conductive parts are present.
With respect to claim 2,
Cornelius teaches, a first bus bar (308) extending along a portion of a periphery of the lens and electrically connected to the first TCL (302, column 10, lines 30-35);
and a second bus bar (316) extending along another portion of the periphery of the lens and electrically connected to the second TCL (306, column 10, lines 40-45), wherein the first and second bus bars are spaced from one another (Figure 3)
With respect to claim 3,
Cornelius teaches, a third bus bar (320) extending along another portion of the periphery of the lens opposite the first and second bus bar and between the first TCL and the second TCL (Figure 3), the third bus bar being electrically connected to the first TCL and second TCL (Column 10, lines 45-47).
With respect to claim 4, wherein the first bus bar (308), the second bus bar (316), and the third bus bar (320) do not directly contact one another (Figure 3).
With respect to claim 5, wherein the first bus bar and second bus bar each extend along a top surface of the lens (Figure 3), by a distance generally equal to or less than a width of the first and second heating area respectively (Figure 3).
With respect to claim 6, as best understood, wherein the first TCL and second TCL have substantially equal bulk electrical resistance values. (column 13, lines 10-17).
With respect to claim 9, wherein the space between the first heating area (302, Figure 3) and second heating area (306; figure 3) is configured to align with a nasal bridge of a user wearing the eye protection device (Figure 3).
With respect to claim 14, wherein the first TCL and second TCL are mirror images of one another across a center line of the lens. (Figure 3, 302, 306 are mirror images).
With respect to claim 15, wherein the first TCL and the second TCL each include indium tin oxide (ITO). (Column 8, lines 12-16).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius and Ryden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pengyu (CN 204314562). The modified device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention but is silent with respect to convex and concave lenses.
The device of Pengyu teaches,
With respect to claim 7, wherein the lens (2) includes a concave rear surface (Figure 2, inner side) and a convex front surface (outer side), and wherein the first and second TCL ( 3) are mounted on the convex front surface of the lens. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the convex/concave lens taught by Pengyu in order to provide and improved fit against the face of a user.
With respect to claim 8, wherein there is no TCL disposed on the front surface of the lens in the space between the first heating area and second heating area. Pengyu teaches two separate lenses, with no TCL located between the two lenses or heating areas; figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize an area free of TCL as taught by Pengyu in order provide for an alternative style of glasses.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius and Ryden, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saylor et al. (US 10.073,282).
The modified device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking anti reflection layers covering the first and second TCL.
The device of Saylor et al teaches,
With respect to claim 10, teaches lenses (102) a first anti-reflection (AR) layer (column 11, lines 64-65) substantially covering the first TCL and the second TCL such that the first TCL and second TCL are sandwiched between the lens (Figures 3a, 3b) and the first AR layer; and a second AR layer substantially covering a surface of the lens opposite the first AR layer. (Figure 3a, 3b, shows multiple layers of the AR material and the TCL material).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the layered lens taught by Saylor et al. in order to provide improved clarity for a user.
With respect to claim 11, the modified device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a gap between eh first and second lens. The device of Saylor et al. teaches,
wherein the lens is a first lens (102a), the eye protection device further comprising: a second lens (102b), the second lens being spaced from the first lens such that a gap (Figure 1) is formed between the first lens and the second lens.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the separation between first and second lenses as taught by Saylor et al. in order to provide an alternative style of eyewear.
With respect to claim 12, the modified device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking and laser absorptive dye.
The device of Saylor et al. teaches, wherein at least one of the first lens and second lens includes a laser absorptive dye (Column 12, lines 6-12). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the laser protective dye taught by Oakley in order to provide improved protection for the users’ eyes.
With respect to claim 17, the modified device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a hydrophobic coating.
The device of Saylor et al teaches, wherein the lens includes a hydrophobic coating. (column 12, lines 6-12). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the hydrophobic coating taught by Saylor et al. in order to provide resistance to water build up on the lens and thereby improving the viewing experience for the user.
With respect to claim 18, the modified device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention but is silent with respect to an optical element for attenuating light. The device of Saylor et al. teaches, an optical element configured to attenuate light based on ambient light conditions (column 13, lines 48-60). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the optical element of electrochromic layer to provide improved viewing in different lighting scenarios.
With respect to claim 19, The modified device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking an optical element including photochromic, electrochromic or liquid crystal technology. Saylor et al teaches, wherein the optical element includes one or more of photochromic, electrochromic or liquid crystal technology (Column 13, lines 48-60). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the optical element of electrochromic layer to provide improved viewing in different lighting scenarios.
With respect to claim 20, the modified device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention but is silent with respect to a laser light coating. The device of Saylor et al teaches, a laser light protective coating applied to the lens (column 12, liens 6-12). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the laser light coating taught by Saylor et al. in order to provide improve protection by not allowing hazardous light to contact the wearers eyes.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius, Ryden and Saylor et al, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Osterhout et al. (US 2014/0063054). The modified device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a second lens having a ballistic material.
The device of Osterhourt teaches a lens (2106) having a ballistic material. It would have been obvious to further modify the second lens to include a ballistic material in order to provide improved resistance to scratching or damage (para 0318).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius and Ryden, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Level et al. (US 9,398,981). The modified device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking the first and second TCL powered through a connection to a helmet rail.
The device of Level et al teaches,
With respect to claim 16, wherein the first TCL and second TCL are powered (column 3, liens 35-40) through connection to a powered helmet rail (38, Figure 1; column 5, lines 55-60) configured to power a plurality of devices (Column 1, lines 64-67).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to power the first and second TCL through a powered helmet rail as taught by Lebel et al. in order to provide an alternative powering means that also provides improved protection for the user’s head.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius and Ryden, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jannard (US 7,740,353). The modified device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a display device.
The device of Jannard teaches, a display device (Column 1, lines 65-57) configured to project an image to a user's eye.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the display device to allow for image projection as taught by Jannard in order to provide improved visual information for the user during use.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius (US 8,566,962), Ryden (US 5,319,397) and Pengyu (CN 204314562).
With respect to claim 22,
The device of Cornelius teaches,
An eye protection device comprising: a lens (300, figure 3)
a first transparent conductive layer (TCL) (302) front surface of the lens and covering a first heating area on the lens (column 8, lines 5-10);
a second TCL(304, 306) coupled to the front surface of the lens (Figure 3) and covering a second heating area on the lens (Figure 3), the second TCL (306) and second heating area being spaced from the first TCL and first heating area (302);
a first bus bar (308) extending along a portion of a periphery of the lens (Figure 3) and electrically connected to the first TCL(column 10, lines 30-35);
a second bus bar (316) extending along another portion of the periphery of the lens and electrically connected to the second TCL (column 10, lines 30-35); and a third bus bar (320) extending along another portion of the periphery of the lens opposite the first and second bus bar and between the first TCL and the second TCL (Figure 3), the third bus bar being electrically connected to the first TCL and second TCL (Column 10, lines 45-47), wherein the first bus bar and second bus bar are spaced from one another (Figure 3).
The device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention including the first and second TCL positioned in a series (Figure 3) but is lacking where the first and second TCL are electrically connected to each other.
The device of Ryden teaches,
wherein the first TCL and second TCL (Column 3, lines 12-15) are electrically connected to one another in series (Figure 2, Column 3, Lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the series configuration taught by Ryden in order to provide heating when non conductive parts are present.
The modified device of Cornelius fails to disclose a concave and convex surface of the lens;
The modified device of Cornelius substantially discloses the claimed invention but is silent with respect to convex and concave lenses having a TCL layer on a convex surface.
The device of Pengyu teaches,
wherein the lens (2) includes a concave rear surface (Figure 2, inner side) and a convex front surface (outer side), and wherein the first and second TCL ( 3) are mounted on the convex front surface of the lens covering a first heating area on the lens. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the convex/concave lens having the first and second TCL on the convex surface as taught by Pengyu in order to provide anti fogging on the outer surfaces of the lens where fog is most likely to occur.
With respect to claim 23, An eye protection device comprising:
a lens (300)
a first transparent conductive layer (TCL) (302) coupled to the surface of the lens and covering a first heating area on the lens (Figure 3);
a second TCL (306) coupled to the surface of the lens and covering a second heating area on the lens (Figure 3), the second TCL and second heating area being spaced from the first TCL and first heating area (Figure 3);
a first bus bar (308) extending along a portion of a periphery of the lens (Figure 3) and electrically connected to the first TCL(column 10, lines 30-35);
a second bus bar (306) extending along another portion of the periphery of the lens (Figure 3) and electrically connected to the second TCL (column 10, lines 30-35);
a third bus bar (320) extending along another portion of the periphery of the lens opposite the first and second bus bar and between the first TCL and the second TCL (Figure 3), the third bus bar being electrically connected to the first TCL and second TCL (column 10, lines 30-35); wherein the first bus bar and second bus bar are spaced from one another (Figure 3),
The device of Ryden teaches,
wherein the first TCL and second TCL (Column 3, lines 12-15) are electrically connected to one another in series (Figure 2, Column 3, Lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the series configuration taught by Ryden in order to provide heating when nonconductive parts are present.
The modified device of Cornelius fails to disclose a concave and convex surface of the lens having a TCL layer on the concave surface of the lens.
The device of Pengyu teaches a lens (2) including a concave rear surface and a convex front surface (Figure 2) ; wherein the lens (2) includes a concave rear surface (Figure 2, inner side) and a convex front surface (outer side), and wherein the first and second TCL ( 3) are mounted on the concave rear surface (figure 2) of the lens covering first and second heating area. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the convex/concave lens having the first and second TCL on the concave surface as taught by Pengyu in order to provide anti fogging on the outer surfaces of the lens where fog is most likely to occur.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732