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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, applicant claims “… wavelength range whose lower wavelength value is 640 nm, 600 nm, or 550 nm and whose upper wavelength value is 780 nm or 800 nm…”, which is unclear. It is not clear which range of the multiple ranges of values the applicant wishes to claim. Applicant should clearly define where the range of wavelengths begins and/or ends. This language should be amended to follow U.S. patent law standards. Please see MPEP 2173.05(c) I.
With respect to claim 2, applicant claims “substantially fully”, which is unclear. One would understand “fully” to mean all or 100% and one would understand “substantially” to be close to all or at least 80%. Therefore, it is not clear if all red light (see the rejection of claim 1 above) needs to be completely reflected or not.
For the purposes of this claim the office will interpret the claim such that “substantially fully” means 80% or more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orzi et al. (USPAT 5731898).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Orzi discloses a visual protection device for persons and in particular task forces (Col. 10 lines 54-67), having at least one viewing lens (Col. 10 lines 54-67, visor for helmet, sunglasses, goggles, spectacles are given as uses), characterized in that wherein the viewing lens is designed to reflect and/or absorb light with wavelengths in a wavelength range whose lower wavelength value is 640 nm, 600 nm, 560 nm, or 550 nm and whose upper wavelength value is 780 nm or 800 nm (Fig. 4, where 60 is the reflectance plot and shows greater reflection starting at approximately 580 nm).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Orzi discloses characterized in that, wherein the viewing lens is designed to reflect and/or absorb light with wavelengths of up to 780 nm or 800 nm more strongly than light of at least one other color (Fig. 4 where 60 shows 620 nm to be reflected more than at least blue wavelengths).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Orzi discloses wherein the visual protection device is a face mask, wherein at least a portion of a viewing window of the face mask is formed by the viewing lens (Col. 10 lines 54-67, visor for helmet).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Orzi discloses wherein the visual protection device consists of protective goggles with at least one viewing pane wherein the viewing pane is formed at least partly by a viewing lens (Col. 10 lines 54-67, goggles).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Orzi discloses characterized in that wherein the protective goggles have a viewing pane holder, wherein the at least one viewing pane and the viewing pane holder are integrally formed, and wherein only the at least one viewing pane or the at least one viewing pane and the viewing pane holder are designed as a viewing lens (Col. 10 lines 54-67, goggles, sunglasses or spectacles).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Orzi discloses wherein the viewing lens has a reflective and/or absorbent coating for reflecting and/or absorbing the light (Col. 2 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Orzi discloses wherein the viewing lens is, in at least some segments or entirely, shaped to be cylindrical or spherical (Col. 10 liens 54-67, optical lenses, contact lenses are all partially spherical and/or cylindrical).
Regarding claim 9, Orzi discloses a method for a visual protection for persons or by emergency personnel in service who are confronted with an injured or mutilated person, and in particular task forces, comprising a use of a visual protection device according to claim 1 ((Col. 10 lines 54-67)).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state that the interpretation of claim 2 in the prior office action was acceptable. However, they have not amended claim 2 to overcome the 112 rejection. The language of claim 2 remains unclear and the office merely stated an interpretation that allowed compact prosecution. Other possible interpretations of the claim remain, such as “substantially fully” meaning 100%. Applicant must amend the claim to remove this language.
Regarding applicant’s remarks on page 5, the applicant seeks to distinguish Orzi based on the reflectance range disclosed by Orzi. However, the applicant’s claim does not require the entire range of 550 nm to 800 nm, but merely wavelengths within said range. Further, red light begins at approximately 620 nm, which is disclosed by Orzi in Fig. 4. Similarly, claim 2 does not significant narrow the wavelength range in such a way as to limit the above interpretation.
Regarding claim 9, applicant’s definition of “task forces” in the specification is sufficiently broad such that anyone who may encounter an emergency is included. Further, the claim, as written, does not require “persons” to be confronted by injured people, but does require it of emergency personnel. Regardless of this, one would anticipate that wearers of the sunglasses of Orzi could be witnesses of such events.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights