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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 15, 2024 has been 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the main portion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In an effort to provide compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted “a perimeter of the main portion of the lens” to mean “a perimeter of the rigid lens”.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8 and 11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (U.S. Patent Number 4,998,815).
With regard to independent claim 1, Lin teaches an article of eyewear (Figure 1, and column 1, lines 6-9), comprising: a frameless, rigid lens configured to cover both eyes of a wearer when worn (Figure 1, element 1), the lens having a generally cylindrical curvature in a side-to-side direction (Figure 1), such that lateral ends of the lens are rearward of a central nose bridge (Figure 3); and a pair of temples (Figures 1 and 3, element 3, left and right occurrences), each temple including a mounting portion (Figures 1 and 3, element 2, left and right occurrences) configured to releasably mate with the lens (column 2, lines 22-31) and a temple arm pivotably coupled to the mounting portion (Figure 1, wherein the temple arm (3) rotates about screw depicted in Figures 1 and 3, but not labeled, see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
659
901
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to dependent claim 6, Lin teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with regard to independent claim 1, and further teaches such eyewear wherein the mounting portion of each temple has a channel configured to receive an edge of the lens (see annotated Figure 1, element 22 above).
With regard to dependent claim 7, Lin teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with regard to independent claim 1, and further teaches such eyewear wherein the mounting portion of each temple has a recess configured to receive a tab of the lens ( Figure 1, element 22, wherein element 22 receives tabs 12 and 13).
With regard to dependent claim 8, Lin teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with regard to independent claim 1, and further teaches such eyewear wherein the mounting portion of each temple has a recess configured to receive a hook portion of the lens ( Figure 1, element 22, wherein element 22 receives hooked shaped tabs 12 and 13).
With regard to dependent claim 11, Lin teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with regard to independent claim 1, and further teaches such eyewear wherein the lens includes a pair of mounting areas (Figure 1, elements 11, 12 and 13, left and right occurrences), each of which includes a hook portion configured to mate with the mounting portion of a corresponding one of the temples (Figure 1, elements 12 and 13 form hook shaped portions that mount with element 22).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tackles (U.S. Patent Number 5,387,949).
With regard to independent claim 19, Tackles teaches a method for replacing temples of an article of eyewear (column 1, lines 6-9), the method comprising: urging a first temple (Figure 1, elements 15 and 20) having a first mounting portion fixed to a lens (Figure 1, element 15) and a first arm pivotably coupled to the first mounting portion (Figure 1, element 20 which pivots at element 25), such that the first mounting portion rotates relative to the lens and releases a hook of the lens (Figure 2, wherein elements 35 and 36 form a hook) from an engagement surface of the first mounting portion (column 5, line 65-column 6, line 12, wherein element 15 is angled and pivoted downward, i.e., rotates, wherein the process is reversed to remove the first temple); disengaging the first temple from the lens (column 5, line 65-column 6, line 12); engaging a second temple with the lens (Figure 1, elements 15 and 20), wherein the second temple includes a second mounting portion and a second arm (column 5, line 65-column 6, line 12 and Figure 1, elements 15 and 20, respectively), by inserting the hook of the lens into an opening of the second mounting portion (Figure 2, elements 35 and 36 and column 5, line 65-column 6, line 12); and urging the second mounting portion until the hook of the lens snaps into place relative to the engagement surface of the second mounting portion (column 5, line 65-column 6, line 12).
With regard to dependent claim 20, Tackles teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with regard to independent claim 19, and further teaches such a method wherein the first mounting portion rotates relative to the lens by passing through a traverse plane (column 5, line 65-column 6, line 12, wherein the element 15 rotates with respect within a vertical plane).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Patent Number 4,998,815), hereafter Lin ‘815, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (U.S. Patent Number 7,484,843), hereafter Lin ‘843.
With regard to dependent claim 2, although Lin ‘815 teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with regard to independent claim 1, Lin ‘815 fails to teach such eyewear further comprising a nose pad coupled to the nose bridge of the lens by one or more pegs unitary with and protruding rearward from the lens. In a related endeavor, Lin ‘843 teaches an article of eyewear (Figure 5), comprising a frameless, rigid lens configured to cover both eyes of a wearer when worn (Figure 5, , element 2), a pair of temples (Figure 5) and further comprising a nose pad coupled to the nose bridge of the lens (Figure 5, element 3) by one or more pegs unitary with and protruding rearward from the lens (Figure 5, elements 22), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the eyewear, as taught by Lin ‘815, with the nose pad, as taught by Lin ‘843, to provide a nose bridge structure that can fit any eyeglass nose bridge structure (column 2, lines 21-27).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Patent Number 4,998,815), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blackstone (U.S. Patent Number 5,000,558).
With regard to dependent claim 3, although Lin teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with regard to independent claim 1, Lin fails to teach such eyewear wherein the lens includes a main portion oriented up-and-down and a top flange angled rearward from a top side of the main portion. In a related endeavor, Blackstone teaches an article of eyewear (Figure 1), comprising a frameless, rigid lens configured to cover both eyes of a wearer when worn (Figure 1, , element 12), a pair of temples (Figure 1, element 16) wherein the lens includes a main portion oriented up-and-down (Figure 1, element 12) and a top flange angled rearward from a top side of the main portion (Figure 1, element 12A), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the eyewear, as taught by Lin, with the top flange, as taught by Blackstone, to protect the eye from foreign material, light and glare (column 6, lines 27-30).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Patent Number 4,998,815), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0046929).
With regard to dependent claim 4, although Lin teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with regard to independent claim 1, Lin fails to teach such eyewear wherein the nose bridge and the lens are formed as a single piece, and the nose bridge protrudes in a forward direction. In a related endeavor, Wu teaches an article of eyewear (Figure 3), comprising a frameless, rigid lens configured to cover both eyes of a wearer when worn (Figure 3), a pair of temples (Figure 3) wherein the nose bridge (Figure 3, element 14) and the lens (Figure 3, elements 10 and 12) are formed as a single piece (page 1, paragraph [0015], lines 1-4), and the nose bridge protrudes in a forward direction (page 1, paragraph [0015], lines 5-8), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the eyewear, as taught by Lin, with the protruding nose bridge, as taught by Wu, to form a nose pad without any additional processes being necessary and for cost reduction (page 1, paragraph [0017], lines 5-9).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weymouth, Jr. et al (U.S. Patent Number 4,964,714) in view of Grendol et al (U.S. Patent Number 4,425,669).
With regard to independent claim 13, although Weymouth, Jr. et al et al teaches an article of eyewear (column 1, lines 8-11 and Figures 1 and 2), comprising: a rigid lens configured to cover both eyes of a wearer when worn (Figure 1, element 12), the lens having a central nose bridge (Figure 1, element 14) and a permanent curvature from side to side (Figure 1); the lens including a main body (Figure 1, element 12), a top fairing extending rearward from an upper edge of the main body (Figure 1, element 18), and a lower flange extending rearward from a lower edge of the main body (Figure 1, element 24); and a pair of temples (Figure 1, elements 10), each temple including a mounting portion configured to releasably mate with the lens and a temple arm pivotably coupled to the mounting portion (Figure 1, elements 32); a vertical cross section taken in an area between the nose bridge and a lateral end of the lens has a generally rectilinear C-shaped profile (Figure 1, wherein upper flange extends in a horizontal rearward direction, the main lens extends in a vertical direction and the lower flange extends in a horizontal reward direction), Weymouth, Jr. et al fails to teach such eyewear wherein a vertical cross section taken at the nose bridge of the lens has a generally rectilinear S-shaped profile. In a related endeavor, Grendol et al teaches an article of eyewear (column 1, lines 6-8 and Figures 1 and 2), comprising: a rigid lens configured to cover both eyes of a wearer when worn (Figure 1, element 12), the lens having a central nose bridge (Figures 1 and 6, element 26, wherein the nose bridge extends in a horizontal direction) and a permanent curvature from side to side (Figure 4); the lens including a main body (Figure 1, element 12), a top fairing extending rearward from an upper edge of the main body (Figure 1, element 24); and a pair of temples (Figure 1, elements 14), each temple including a mounting portion configured to releasably mate with the lens (column 3, line 65-column 4, line 2) and a temple arm pivotably coupled to the mounting portion (column 3, lines 20-24), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the eyewear, as taught by Weymouth, Jr. et al, with the nose bridge, as taught by Grendol et al, to achieve an S-shaped profile at a vertical cross section taken at the nose bridge of the lens and provide comfort for the wearer (column 2, lines 41-43).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weymouth, Jr. et al (U.S. Patent Number 4,964,714) in view of Grendol et al (U.S. Patent Number 4,425,669), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lin (U.S. Patent Number 7,484,843).
With regard to dependent claim 14, although Weymouth, Jr. et al in view of Grendol et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with regard to independent claim 13, both fail to teach such eyewear further comprising a nose pad coupled to the nose bridge of the lens by one or more pegs unitary with and protruding rearward from the lens. In a related endeavor, Lin teaches an article of eyewear (Figure 5), comprising a frameless, rigid lens configured to cover both eyes of a wearer when worn (Figure 5, , element 2), a pair of temples (Figure 5) and further comprising a nose pad coupled to the nose bridge of the lens (Figure 5, element 3) by one or more pegs unitary with and protruding rearward from the lens (Figure 5, elements 22), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the eyewear, as taught by Weymouth, Jr. et al in view of Grendol et al, with the nose pad, as taught by Lin, to provide a nose bridge structure that can fit any eyeglass nose bridge structure (column 2, lines 21-27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 12 and 15-18 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.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper.
With regard to dependent claims 4, 9, 10 and 12, although the prior art teaches an article of eyewear, comprising: a frameless, rigid lens configured to cover both eyes of a wearer when worn, the lens having a generally cylindrical curvature in a side-to-side direction, such that lateral ends of the lens are rearward of a central nose bridge; and a pair of temples, each temple including a mounting portion configured to releasably mate with the lens and a temple arm pivotably coupled to the mounting portion, the prior art fails to teach such eyewear wherein: the lens includes side and bottom flange portions that angle rearward from a perimeter of the main portion of the lens, as claimed in dependent claim 4; the mounting portion of each temple has a recess configured to receive a hook portion of the lens and further includes a medial window adjacent the recess, wherein the window is configured to provide space for the hook to be selectively dislodged by a user, as claimed in dependent claim 9; wherein the lens has an S- shaped cross section at the nose bridge and a C-shaped cross section at a position between the nose bridge and one of the lateral ends, as claimed in dependent claim 10; or wherein the lens includes a pair of mounting areas, each of which includes a hook portion configured to mate with the mounting portion of a corresponding one of the temples wherein the mounting area further comprises one or more tabs configured to mate with corresponding recesses or channels in the mounting portion of the temple, as claimed in dependent claim 12.
With regard to dependent claim 15, although the prior art teaches an article of eyewear, comprising: a rigid lens configured to cover both eyes of a wearer when worn, the lens having a central nose bridge and a permanent curvature from side to side; the lens including a main body, a top fairing extending rearward from an upper edge of the main body, and a lower flange extending rearward from a lower edge of the main body; and a pair of temples, each temple including a mounting portion configured to releasably mate with the lens and a temple arm pivotably coupled to the mounting portion; wherein a first vertical cross section taken at the nose bridge of the lens has a generally rectilinear S-shaped profile, and a second vertical cross section taken in an area between the nose bridge and a lateral end of the lens has a generally rectilinear C-shaped profile, the prior art fails to teach such eyewear wherein each of the mounting portions includes a channel and a recess, each upper lateral portion of the lens includes at least one tab received by the channel and a hook received by the recess in a snap-fit, as claimed in dependent claim 15.
With regard to dependent claims 16-18, claims 16-18 are allowable as they depend, directly or indirectly, from dependent claim 15 and therefore inherit all of the limitations of the claim from which they depend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wiedner (U.S. Patent Number 5,357,292), Khalifa (U.S. Patent Number 5,539,561), Chen (U.S. Patent Number 6,742,891), Blanchette et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0141146), Yeh (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0156009), Curci et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0270476) and Seeto (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0261313) all teach eyewear comprising a unitary lens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL J COLLINS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2325. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/DARRYL J COLLINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
13 January 2026