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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 2/2/2026 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 14, 17, 19-20, 24-26, 28-30, 32-35 are pending and rejected herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
1. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 14, 17, 19-20, 24-26, 28-30, 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 14, 17, 19-20, 24-26, 28-30, 32-35 are directed to customizing a headwear product based on facial images, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 14, 17, 19-20, 24-26, 28-29, and 35 recite a method and at least one step. Claims 30, 32-34 recite a system comprising a storage device, a controller, and a manufacturing device. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 30, the claim sets forth an environment in which headwear is customized for a consumer, in the following limitations:
provide instructions to the user to align the image of the user to the targeting box
determine facial feature data of the user from the facial image data;
determine dimensions of the facial interfacing structure from the facial feature data to minimize light leak of the facial interfacing structure when worn by the user; and
fabricates the customized facial interface based on the stored design.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to customize a design of a product based on determined facial feature data. This arrangement amounts to a sales activity or behavior. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 30 does recite additional elements:
a storage device storing facial image data of a user;
wherein the facial image data of the user is collected via a camera of a mobile device, the mobile device executing an application configured to: generate an interface on the mobile device to display an image of the user from the camera, display a targeting box on the interface displaying the image of the user;
a controller coupled to the storage device, the controller operable to:
store a design of the customized facial interfacing structure including the determined dimensions in the storage device; and
a manufacturing device coupled to the controller that
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“a storage device”, “a controller”, “a manufacturing device”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (data collection, storing). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 218 and 224-227 indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Further, unlike the claims in Diamond v. Diehr, the present claim does not set forth a particular manufacturing process or environment, but instead recites a general manufacturing device operation at a high level of generality.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Storing data (i.e., storing and retrieving information in memory) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 1 and 24 are covered by the scope of claim 30 and are ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2, 4-5, 8-11, 14, 17, 19-20, 25-26, 28-29, 32-35
The dependent claims serve merely embellish the abstract idea of customizing a headwear product based on facial images and set forth the additional limitations similar to the additional limitations in claim 30, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 30.
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.
2. Claims 1-2, 9, 24-26, 30, 34, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin et al. (US 20200026079 A1, hereinafter Franklin) in view of Ito (US 20230033535 A1) and Kiritz et al. (US 20200159040 A1, hereinafter Kiritz).
Regarding Claim 1
Franklin discloses a method of collecting data for customizing a facial interfacing structure for a head-mounted display interface, the method comprising:
correlating facial image data to a user; (Franklin: ¶38)
determining facial feature data from the facial image data (Franklin: ¶40)
determining dimensions of the facial interfacing structure to determine points of engagement of the face of the user with the facial interfacing structure from the facial feature data (Franklin: ¶40-41)
storing a design of a customized facial interfacing structure including the determined dimensions (Franklin: ¶41-42)
Franklin does not disclose, but Ito teaches in similar environment:
collecting facial image data of a user via a camera of a mobile device, the mobile device executing an application configured to: generate an interface on the mobile device to display an image of the user from the camera, display a targeting box on the interface displaying the image of the user; and provide instructions to the user to align the image of the user to the targeting box (Ito: see at least fig. 5, ¶114-116, 220-221)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Franklin, with the features of Ito, since such a modification would have provided a technology for easily and accurately obtaining information of the face color of the user without requiring a specially-controlled lighting environment or special photographic equipment (see at least ¶5 of Ito).
Franklin further does not explicitly disclose that the determining of dimension is performed “to minimize light leak of the facial interfacing structure when worn by the user”. However, Kiritz teaches that it is known to include conforming a head-mounted display interface to a user’s face to minimize light leakage (see at least ¶44) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Franklin, with the features of Kiritz, since such a modification would have prevented external light from breaking the immersion of a VR experience.
Regarding Claims 2, 26
Franklin further discloses:
wherein the head-mounted display interface is part of a virtual reality system, an augmented reality system, or a modified reality system (Franklin: ¶20)
Regarding Claim 9
Franklin further discloses:
wherein the facial feature data includes forehead curvature, head width, cheek bones, Rhinion profile, and nose width. (Franklin: ¶40)
Regarding Claim 24
Franklin discloses a method of manufacturing a customized facial interfacing structure for a head-mounted display interface, the method comprising:
correlating facial image data to a user (Franklin: ¶38)
determining facial feature data from the facial image data; (Franklin: ¶40)
determining dimensions of the facial interfacing structure from the facial feature data via a processor (Franklin: ¶41)
storing a design of a customized facial interfacing structure including the determined dimensions in a storage device; (Franklin: ¶41-42)
fabricating the customized facial interface structure via a manufacturing system based on the stored design (Franklin: ¶42)
Franklin does not explicitly disclose that the determining of dimension is performed “to minimize light leak of the facial interfacing structure when worn by the user”. However, Kiritz teaches that it is known to include conforming a head-mounted display interface to a user’s face to minimize light leakage (see at least ¶44) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Franklin, with the features of Kiritz, since such a modification would have prevented external light from breaking the immersion of a VR experience.
Regarding Claim 30
Claim 30 is substantially similar in scope to claim 24 and is rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 25, 34
Franklin further discloses:
wherein the manufacturing system includes at least one of a tooling machine, a molding machine, or a 3D printer. (Franklin: ¶28: 3D printer)
Regarding Claim 35
Franklin further discloses:
wherein the points of engagement include a Rhinion profile derived from the facial features. (Franklin: see at least ¶40-41: nose shape)
3. Claims 4-5, 10-11, 14, 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz, as applied above, and further in view of Fonte et al. (US 20160062151 A1, hereinafter Fonte).
Regarding Claims 4-5, 28-29
Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz does not explicitly disclose, but Fonte teaches in a similar environment:
displaying a feature selection interface on a display for user input, wherein the design includes the user input (Fonte: ¶250)
wherein the user input is one of a selection of a customized head-mounted display interface including the customized facial interfacing structure; a color, an identifier, a pattern, or a style of the facial interfacing structure; or a cushioning material for the facial interfacing structure. (Fonte: ¶250, fig. 11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz, with the features of Fonte, since such a modification would have provided allow greater and more personalized customization of lenses and frames, more accurate modeling and preview, more automated or assisted eyewear selection and customization, more detailed measurements, and methods to produce customized eyewear efficiently and economically to fulfill users' orders. (Fonte: ¶20)
Regarding Claim 8
Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz does not explicitly disclose, but Fonte teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the determination of the dimensions of the feature selection interface includes evaluating demographic data, ethnicity, and use of headwear by the user (Fonte: ¶126, 189)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz, with the features of Fonte, since such a modification would have provided allow greater and more personalized customization of lenses and frames, more accurate modeling and preview, more automated or assisted eyewear selection and customization, more detailed measurements, and methods to produce customized eyewear efficiently and economically to fulfill users' orders. (Fonte: ¶20)
Regarding Claim 10-11
Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz does not explicitly disclose, but Fonte teaches in a similar environment:
wherein determining facial feature data includes detecting one or more facial features of the user in the facial image data and a predetermined reference feature having a known dimension in the facial image data (Fonte: ¶121-123)
wherein determining facial feature data includes processing image pixel data from the facial image data to measure an aspect of the one or more facial features detected based on the predetermined reference feature. (Fonte: ¶121-123)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz, with the features of Fonte, since such a modification would have provided allow greater and more personalized customization of lenses and frames, more accurate modeling and preview, more automated or assisted eyewear selection and customization, more detailed measurements, and methods to produce customized eyewear efficiently and economically to fulfill users' orders. (Fonte: ¶20)
Regarding Claim 14
Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz does not explicitly disclose, but Fonte teaches in a similar environment:
wherein determining dimensions of the facial interfacing structure includes selecting a facial interface size from a group of predetermined facial interface sizes based on a comparison between the facial feature data and a data record relating sizing information of the group of standard facial interface sizes and the facial feature data (Fonte: ¶204)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz, with the features of Fonte, since such a modification would have provided allow greater and more personalized customization of lenses and frames, more accurate modeling and preview, more automated or assisted eyewear selection and customization, more detailed measurements, and methods to produce customized eyewear efficiently and economically to fulfill users' orders. (Fonte: ¶20)
Regarding Claim 17
Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz does not explicitly disclose, but Fonte teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the dimensions of the facial interfacing structure are determined to minimize gaps between the face of the user and of the facial interfacing structure. (Fonte: ¶212)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz, with the features of Fonte, since such a modification would have provided allow greater and more personalized customization of lenses and frames, more accurate modeling and preview, more automated or assisted eyewear selection and customization, more detailed measurements, and methods to produce customized eyewear efficiently and economically to fulfill users' orders. (Fonte: ¶20)
Regarding Claim 19
Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz does not explicitly disclose, but Fonte teaches in a similar environment:
training a machine learning model to output a correlation between at least one facial feature and dimensions of the facial interfacing structure, wherein the determining dimensions of the facial interfacing structure includes the output of the trained machine learning model executed by a processor. (Fonte: ¶52-53; ¶135-136; ¶190-191)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz, with the features of Fonte, since such a modification would have provided allow greater and more personalized customization of lenses and frames, more accurate modeling and preview, more automated or assisted eyewear selection and customization, more detailed measurements, and methods to produce customized eyewear efficiently and economically to fulfill users' orders. (Fonte: ¶20)
Regarding Claim 20
Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz does not explicitly disclose, but Fonte teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the training includes providing the machine learning model a training data set based on the outputs of favorable operational results of facial interfacing structures, user facial feature inputs, and subjective data collected from users. (Fonte: ¶52-53; ¶135-136; ¶190-191)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz, with the features of Fonte, since such a modification would have allowed greater and more personalized customization of lenses and frames, more accurate modeling and preview, more automated or assisted eyewear selection and customization, more detailed measurements, and methods to produce customized eyewear efficiently and economically to fulfill users' orders. (Fonte: ¶20)
4. Claims 32, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz, as applied above, and further in view of Bassett et al. (US 11069153, hereinafter Bassett).
Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz does not explicitly disclose, but Bassett teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the manufacturing device is a tooling machine (Bassett: see at least col. 3: 54-62: computer numeric control machine)
wherein the manufacturing device is a molding machine (Bassett: see at least col. 3: 54-62)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Franklin in view of Ito and Kiritz, with the features of Bassett, since such a modification would have provided a way to deform and modify any eyewear model in a way that not only results in a style-preserving resizing of any dimension of the frame, but also in a manifold shape and in the form of a digital model that can be used for manufacturing. (Bassett: see at least col. 6: 32-36)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant initially asserts that the claims do not recite a commercial interaction, as “[n]othing in claim 30 or any of the other claims recites a commercial interaction or any commercial related element. Customizing a design for a certain person for purposes of optimal fit is not solely commercial.” However, the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the specification makes clear the commercial intent of the claimed customization. Paragraph [0165] recites that (emphasis added) “[t]he system may be implemented, for example, to permit automated purchase of head mounted display interfaces where the process may include automatic sizing processes described in more detail herein. For example, a customer may order a head mounted display online after running a facial selection process that automatically identifies a suitable head mounted display size by image analysis of the customer's facial features.” While the claims do not explicitly recite the purchasing procedure, they do set forth the online facial selection process, which the specification indicates precedes a purchase. Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the customization recited in the claims, and described in the specification, in indeed a commercial interaction. That customizing a design is not solely commercial in all scenarios does not preclude the claimed customization process from having a commercial context.
Applicant further asserts that “[a]s noted in paragraphs 7, 32, and 108 of the printed publication, customizing a fit for headwear may provide comfort or enhance viewing of AR and VR content by reducing light leak and thus is a technical advantage that is exclusive from any commercial purpose.” However, any purported technical advantage provided by the claimed process would not render the claims eligible under Step 2A, Prong One, but would instead be a consideration under Prong Two, and Step 2B.
Applicant further asserts that “MPEP 2106(a)(4)(II) that relates to certain aspects of organizing human activity explains that the commercial activity must be "fundamental." The fact that customization "may" have some commercial applications as explained in the cited paragraph 165 of the specification in the Final Office Action does not make the claim ineligible as it is not fundamental to the claimed elements.” Such a statement is factually incorrect, as the MPEP does not state that a commercial activity must be “fundamental”. Such a requirement only applies to the subgrouping of “fundamental economic principles or practices”, which the Examiner has not asserted that the claims fall under.
Applicant further asserts that: “above, providing modifications that make an interface optimally fit for either comfort or light leak are technical improvements to an interface. While such technical improvements may have commercial value, this does not alone make a claim ineligible.” In response, the Examiner notes that no assertion has been made that commercial value “alone” makes the claims ineligible.
Applicant finally asserts, with regard to step 2A, Prong One:
If a claim were ineligible because the elements have some commercial value, there would be few if any eligible claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 because any improvement may have some commercial potential. The test for commercial interaction is not whether the elements have commercial value, but whether they are directed toward "agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations" as explained in MPEP 2106(a)(2)(II). The examples in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II(B) all relate to financial transactions such as advertising, marketing or sales. Customizing a design to individual facial features does not fall under any of these examples or categories as they are directed toward improvement of an interface product, not selling or making an agreement for such a product. The Final Office Action has not cited any case law, rule or MPEP regulation that holds that a possible commercial application of an improvement makes it a commercial interaction. As explained above, the claims are directed toward a technical improvement to customize a headwear interface, that happens to also have a commercial advantage. As such, the claims are not directed toward an ineligible concept under step 2A, prong one.
As noted above, the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, and the specification makes clear the commercial intent of the claimed customization. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the specification is that the claims include a commercial context of the custom design process being part of a purchase process by a customer. Further, even if the commercial context of the specification were ignored entirely, the claimed abstract idea could be considered a combination of managing personal behavior (providing instructions) and mental process (determinations). Under such a consideration, the claims would still be considered to recite an abstract idea under step 2A, Prong One
Applicant further asserts that even if the claims are considered to be directed to an abstract idea, the claims amount to the practical application of the abstract idea under Prong Two of step 2A. Applicant argues that:
Further, claim 1 is directed toward a method of designing a customized head-mounted display interface. Claim 24 is directed toward a method of designing and manufacturing a customized head-mounted display interface, and claim 30 is directed toward a design and manufacturing system that manufactures a customized head-mounted display interface. To the extent that these claims recite abstract ideas, such ideas are incorporated into a practical application under Step 2A, prong two. As explained above, the claims have a practical advantage of producing a head-mounted display interface that is customized in relation to the interface between the facial surface and the facial interface structure that reduces light leaks. The Final Office Action asserts that the claims do not recite a particular machine or improvement to technology. However, the claims specifically recite a head-mounted display interface, which is a particular technology. The improved head- mounted display interface to reduce light leaks is a practical application of the alleged abstract ideas. The use of a facial scan to determine design adjustments to eliminate light leak. This has the advantages of enhancing the VR experience and user comfort. The claims are thus directly analogous to Diehr, which recited a rubber press machine (manufacturing system) that was altered by the abstract concept but produced an improved product. The Final Office Action asserts that the claims only specify determinations made as part of the abstract design process. However, this is not an accurate characterization of the claims. The claims recite determining "points of engagement of the face of the user with the facial interfacing structure from the facial feature data to minimize light leak of the facial interfacing structure when worn by the user" and altering the design of the facial interfacing structure relating to the points of engagement. These are not general recitations, but are specific to features of the facial interfacing structure.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike in Diehr, the claims do not recite the specific manner of fabricating the head-mounted display interface to achieve the purported advantage/technical improvement of minimizing light leak. The claims do not set forth the specific operations to control any particular manufacturing components. Instead, the claims only specify determinations that are made as part of the abstract design process of the head-mounted display, and generally recite fabricating a portion of the head-mounted display. The Examiner asserts that an intended benefit (of minimizing light leak), without specifying particular operations performed with technology to achieve such a benefit does not amount to an improvement to technology or technical field.
Applicant further asserts:
Further, contrary to the assertion of the Final Office Action, the term "manufacturing device" comprising one of three specific manufacturing device in claim 30 or manufacturing system in claim 24 is not recited at a level of generality. The specification includes ample detailed descriptions of manufacturing devices and systems such as in paragraphs 225-227 of the printed publication. The claims are an improvement of technology in design and manufacturing and as such are eligible under step 2A, prong two.
Even if the term "manufacturing system or device" is not a particular machine, claim 25 recites that the manufacturing system includes at least one of a tooling machine, a molding machine, or a 3D printer. Claim 25 therefore is separately eligible as it recites a particular machine and is a practical application. The Final Office Action has asserted that the fact that the claim recites three types of manufacturing machines proves the generality of the fabrication step. There is nothing that indicates that any of the recited manufacturing systems, namely a tooling machine, a molding machine, or a 3D printer are too generic. A 3D printer is a well-known specific manufacturing system. Further, a tooling machine is extensively described in paragraphs 225-226 of the printed publication. A molding machine is extensively described in paragraph 227 of the printed publication. Applicant has added new claims 32-34 that each limit the manufacturing device in claim 31 to a respective tooling machine, molding machine and 3D printer. None of these claims are generic as each are directed to one specific machine. As such, these claims are eligible as they recite a specific machine and therefore are a practical application.
That the claimed operations are applied to (applicant-admitted) known devices, operating in their expected manner is indicative of a general application of the recited abstract idea to technology, and is not indicative of an inventive step. Such an application amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which has repeatedly been indicated as not rendering a claimed invention eligible.
For the above reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the claims are held to be ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Franklin in view of Kiritz does not disclose the limitations newly-added to independent claims 1, 24, and 30. In response, the Examiner directs applicant to the rejection above, where Ito is now cited as teaching these features.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 35 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Franklin does not disclose the claimed “Rhinion profile”. However, a “Rhinion profile” is not explicitly limited by the specification such that it is differentiated from the “nose shape” determined by, and utilized in Franklin (see at least ¶41) to ensure a proper fit. The Examiner asserts that defining/modeling a nose’s shape would include defining/modeling the rhinion portion of the nose. Additionally, the Examiner notes that Franklin is not cited as disclosing “minimizing light leak”, but instead Kiritz is cited as teaching such a feature. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688