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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed July 7, 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 112 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. The m rejections under 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed July 7, 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections based on Lazarus and/or Kim have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hempel. Further, for clarity, regarding the last paragraph on page 15 – the examiner was not suggesting that the tip hinge is a duplication of the first hinge – the examiner was suggesting that the feature of adding a spring to a hinge was duplicating a known technique (i.e. using a biasing spring) to improve similar devices (i.e. hinges) in the same way to yield predictable results (i.e. allowing for hyperextension without damage and urging to a default position to secure a device to a wear’s head).
Regarding applicant’s request for rejoining withdrawn claims – given the rejections below the request is considered premature.
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.
Claims 6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6 “the leaf spring” has antecedent issues. It is unclear if the first spring is meant (assumed), or the second spring is meant, or a new/different element is being introduced. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “the first
Regarding claim 13 “a proximal portion hingedly coupled to the frame, the proximal portion disposed between the distal portion and the frame; and a tip hinge rotatably connecting the proximal portion to the distal portion” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if the “proximal portion hingedly coupled to the frame” is part of the tip hinge, e.g. a pin in a hinge or a connecting piece between a double hinge such as seen in figures 8A & 8B; or if there is a second unclaimed hinge, e.g. as seen in figures 3-4 (assumed). For purposes of examination the examiner will use “a proximal portion hingedly coupled to the frame by a first hinge, the proximal portion disposed between the distal portion and the frame; and a tip hinge rotatably connecting the proximal portion to the distal portion”.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 13 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hempel US Patent 2,094,236.
Regarding claim 13 Hempel discloses a wearable device (title e.g. figure 1), comprising: a frame (e.g. nose piece and lens rims 21); and a securement arm (e.g. rigid templets 20 & arm/extension 23) extending from the frame (e.g. see figure 1), the securement arm comprising: a distal portion (e.g. 23); a proximal portion (e.g. 20) hingedly coupled to the frame by a first hinge (e.g. connected by hinge 22), the proximal portion disposed between the distal portion and the frame (e.g. see figure 1); and a tip hinge (e.g. construction 24) rotatably connecting the proximal portion to the distal portion (inter alia column 2lines 58-59 “23 may be hinged to the templet by means of a construction 24” e.g. see figure 1); wherein: the distal portion is rotatable outward from a default position of the distal portion relative to the proximal portion (inter alia column 3 lines 3-18 particularly “arm 23 at all times is urged in the direction of the arrow 34”); the tip hinge comprises a spring (e.g. spring 30) configured to bias the distal portion toward the default position when the distal portion is rotated outward from the default position (inter alia column 3 lines 3-18); and the spring includes an adjustable preload (inter alia column 3 lines 23-24 “Means may be arranged or used if desired for regulating the tension of the spring”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0131913, of record, in view of Hempel US Patent 2,094,236 and in further view of Aoyama foreign patent document JPH03122611A, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Kim discloses a head-mountable electronic device (title e.g. figures 2-3 wearable electronic device 100), comprising: a viewing frame (e.g. frame 101); a window secured to the viewing frame (e.g. lens 135); a waveguide (e.g. display module 133) configured to direct light displayed at the window (inter alia paragraph [0044] “image output from the display module 133 may be formed on the lens 135”); and a pair of securement arms (e.g. second frame 113 on left and right) extending distally from the viewing frame (see figures 2-3), each securement arm of the pair of securement arms comprising: a hinge (e.g. first hinge 115); and a proximal portion connected to the viewing frame at the hinge (see figure 2).
Kim embodiment of wearable electronic device 100 does not disclose the hinge comprises a first spring configured to apply a force of the proximal portion against a head between 50 Nmm and 90 Nmm within the splay range of motion; a tip hinge comprising a second spring; and a distal portion connected to the proximal portion at the tip hinge, the distal portion having a second splay range of motion outward.
Kim further teaches another similar embodiment (see figure 7 wearable electronic device 300) including a frame (e.g. front frame 331) a pair of securement arms (e.g. combination of side frames 333 & second frames 305) connected by a hinge (e.g. hinge 335) to the frame (e.g. 331); and further comprises each securement arm of the pair of securement arms further comprises: a tip hinge (e.g. first hinges 309); and a distal portion (e.g. 305) connected to the proximal portion (e.g. 333) at the tip hinge (e.g. see figure 7) for the purpose of improving storability and portability of the wearable electronic device (paragraph [0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the head-mountable electronic device as disclosed by the combination of Kim embodiment of wearable electronic device 100 to have the temple have a tip hinge as taught by embodiment of wearable electronic device 300 for the purpose of improving storability and portability of the wearable electronic device.
Kim embodiment of wearable electronic device 300 does not disclose the hinge comprises a first spring configured to apply a force of the proximal portion against a head between 50 Nmm and 90 Nmm within the splay range of motion; the tip hinge comprising a second spring; and the distal portion having a second splay range of motion outward.
Hempel teaches a similar wearable device (as set forth above e.g. see figures 1-3) including a frame (e.g. 21) connected by a hinge (e.g. 22) to a proximal portion of a securement arm (e.g. 20) and a distal portion (e.g. 23) connected to the proximal portion (e.g. 20) by a tip hinge (e.g. 24); and further discloses the tip hinge comprising a second spring (e.g. 30); and the distal portion having a second splay range of motion outward (inter alia column 3 lines 3-18 particularly “arm 23 at all times is urged in the direction of the arrow 34”) for the purpose of having the distal portion being resiliently articulated so as to insure a proper holding position at the back of the head of the wearer while preventing any disagreeable pressure (column 1 line 50-column 2 line 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the head-mountable electronic device as disclosed by Kim to have a second spring; and the distal portion having a second splay range of motion outward as taught by Hempel for the purpose of having the distal portion being resiliently articulated so as to insure a proper holding position at the back of the head of the wearer while preventing any disagreeable pressure.
Hemple does not disclose the hinge comprises a first spring configured to apply a force of the proximal portion against a head between 50 Nmm and 90 Nmm within the splay range of motion.
Aoyama teaches a similar head-mountable device (title e.g. figure 1) including a frame (e.g. front frame 1) a pair of securement arms (e.g. temples 2) and hinges (e.g. hinges 3) connecting the viewing frame (e.g. 1) to the securement arms (e.g. 2); and further teaches having a splay range of motion (e.g. see figure 1) outward from a default position (e.g. solid line position in figure 1) and relative to the viewing frame (e.g. see figure 1); and wherein the hinge comprises a first spring (e.g. leaf spring 32b) configured to apply a force of the proximal portion against a head within the splay range of motion (inter alia page 6 lines 10-13 “earpiece temple 2 fixed to this male butterfly piece 31 will be elastically restored to its original position, that is, to the position indicated by the solid line in Figure 1”) for the purpose of having a temple that can be elastically expanded with a simple and durable structure (inter alia abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the head-mountable electronic device as disclosed by the combination of Kim and Hempel to have a hinge with a spring that allows the temples to be splayed and urges the temples back to a default position as taught by Aoyama for the purpose of having a temple that can be elastically expanded with a simple and durable structure.
Aoyama is silent on the range of splaying angle and range of torque (aka moment of force) from the spring urging the temples to the default/open position. Specifically, Aoyama does not teach the splay range of motion up to 20 degrees and the force is between 50 Nmm and 90 Nmm. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Kim as modified by Hempel and Aoyama has a head mounted electronic device with a spring biased hinge that allows the temples to be over-rotated and the spring urging the temples to a default/open position, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the splay range of motion up to 20 degrees for the purpose of allowing for different head sizes and the force is between 50 Nmm and 90 Nmm for the purpose of maintaining sufficient force to keep the device from moving without being so tight as to cause discomfort. Further, Aoyama figure 1 suggests1 the range of splaying is ≤20°. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the head-mountable electronic device as disclosed by the combination of Kim as modified by Hempel and Aoyama to have the splay range of motion up to 20 degrees, as reasonably suggested by Aoyama figure 1, and that the force is between 50 Nmm and 90 Nmm for the purpose of allowing for different head sizes and to maintain sufficient force to keep the device from moving without being so tight as to cause discomfort and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 2-3 the combination of Kim as modified by Hempel and Aoyama discloses the head-mountable electronic device of claim 1, as set forth above. Kim and Aoyama do not disclose or teach wherein the distal portion is configured to apply the second force within the second splay range, as required by claim 3.
Hempel further teaches the distal portion is configured to apply the second force within the second splay range (inter alia column 3 lines 3-18 particularly “arm 23 at all times is urged in the direction of the arrow 34”) for the purpose of having the distal portion being resiliently articulated so as to insure a proper holding position at the back of the head of the wearer while preventing any disagreeable pressure (column 1 line 50-column 2 line 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the head-mountable electronic device as disclosed by Kim to have a second spring; and the distal portion having a second splay range of motion outward as taught by Hempel for the purpose of having the distal portion being resiliently articulated so as to insure a proper holding position at the back of the head of the wearer while preventing any disagreeable pressure.
Kim, Hempel and Aoyama are silent on the range of second splaying angle and range of torque (aka moment of force) from the second spring. Specifically, Kim, Hempel and Aoyama do not disclose or teach the second splay range of motion is up to 25 degrees outward beyond a default position of the distal portion relative to the proximal portion; the force is a first force; and the second spring is configured to apply a second force of the distal portion against the head between 20 Nmm and 45 Nmm within the second splay range of motion; as required by claim 2; or the first splay range of motion is between 4 degrees and 15 degrees; the proximal portion is configured to apply the first force within the first splay range; the second splay range of motion is between 5 degrees and 20 degrees; as further required by claim 3.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Kim as modified by Hempel and Aoyama has a head mounted electronic device with a spring biased hinge that allows the temples to be over-rotated and the spring urging the temples to a default/open position, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the splay range of motion up to 20 degrees for the purpose of allowing for different head sizes and the force is between 50 Nmm and 90 Nmm for the purpose of maintaining sufficient force to keep the device from moving without being so tight as to cause discomfort (as at least noted in Hempel column 1 line 50-column 2 line 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the head-mountable electronic device as disclosed by the combination of Kim as modified by Hempel and Aoyama to have the second splay range of motion is up to 25 degrees outward beyond a default position of the distal portion relative to the proximal portion; the force is a first force; and the second spring is configured to apply a second force of the distal portion against the head between 20 Nmm and 45 Nmm within the second splay range of motion and/or or the first splay range of motion is between 4 degrees and 15 degrees; the proximal portion is configured to apply the first force within the first splay range; the second splay range of motion is between 5 degrees and 20 degrees for the purpose of allowing for different head sizes and to maintain sufficient force to keep the device from moving without being so tight as to cause discomfort and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Kim as modified by Hempel and Aoyama discloses the head-mountable electronic device of claim 3, as set forth above. Regarding the limitations of the first force varies less than 5 percent within the first splay range of motion; and the second force varies less than 5 percent within the second splay range – this would be inherent for the spring structures taught by Aoyama and Hempel, given the leaf spring structure and helical tortional spring structures used would provide a substantially constant force inherently.
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Kim as modified by Hempel and Aoyama discloses the head-mountable electronic device of claim 1 including the first spring, as set forth above. Kim and Hempel do not disclose or teach the hinge comprises: a cam; and the first spring engaging the cam.
Aoyama further teaches the hinge (e.g. 3) comprises: a cam (e.g. male butterfly piece 31); and the first spring (e.g. 32b) engaging the cam (page 4 lines 3-4 “male butterfly piece 31 can come into contact with the leaf spring 32b” see figure 3) for the purpose of realizing a spring hinge (page 4 lines 5-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the hinge in the head-mountable electronic device as disclosed by the combination of Kim as modified by Hempel and Aoyama to have a cam wherein the first spring engages the cam as further taught by Aoyama for the purpose of realizing a spring hinge.
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Kim as modified by Hempel and Aoyama discloses the head-mountable electronic device of claim 5 including the first spring, as set forth above. Kim and Hempel do not disclose or teach the cam comprises a projection engaging the first spring; and the projection is configured to translate relative to the first spring.
Aoyama further teaches the cam (e.g. 31) comprises a projection (e.g. contact claw 31b) engaging the first spring (e.g. page 4 lines 3-4 “the contact claw 31b of the male butterfly piece 31 can come into contact with the leaf spring 32b”); and the projection (e.g. 31b) is configured to translate relative to the first spring (e.g. page 5 lines 16-17 “the leaf spring 32b, which extends along the movement trajectory of the contact claw 31b” see figures 4-6) for the purpose of causing the leaf spring to bend inward thereby generating the force to elastically restored to its original position (page 6 lines 7-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cam in the head-mountable electronic device as disclosed by the combination of Kim as modified by Hempel and Aoyama to have a projection engaging the first spring; and the projection is configured to slide along the first spring as further taught by Aoyama for the purpose of causing the leaf spring to bend inward thereby generating the force to elastically restored to its original position.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0131913, of record, in view of Hempel US Patent 2,094,236 and Aoyama foreign patent document JPH03122611A, of record. and in further view of Lazarus US Patent 3,874,775, of record.
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Kim as modified by Hempel and Aoyama discloses the head-mountable electronic device of claim 1, as set forth above. Kim, Hempel and Aoyama do not disclose or teach the first spring having an adjustable preload.
Lazarus teaches a similar a similar head-mountable device (title e.g. figure 1) including a frame (e.g. frontal lens support 10) a pair of securement arms (e.g. temples 15), hinges (e.g. figure 3 hinge member 14) connecting the viewing frame (e.g. 10) to the securement arms (e.g. 15) and including a first spring (e.g. leaf spring member 16); and further teaches the first spring (e.g. 16) having an adjustable preload (e.g. via threaded stud 20 through aperture 13) for the purpose of adjusting and setting the temples angle and to adjust the pressures of the temples against the head (abstract). Further it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954), see MPEP 2144.04.V. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cam in the head-mountable electronic device as disclosed by the combination of Kim as modified by Hempel and Aoyama to have the first spring having an adjustable preload as taught by Lazurus for the purpose of adjusting and setting the temples angle and to adjust the pressures of the temples against the head and since making something adjustable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempel US Patent 2,094,236 in view of Lazarus US Patent 3,874,775, of record.
Regarding claim 14 Hemel discloses the wearable device of claim 13, as set forth above. Hempel is silent as to the means regulating for the tension of the spring. Specifically Hempel does not disclose the tip hinge comprises a screw disposed within the securement arm, the screw engaging the spring; and a rotation of the screw adjusts the preload of the spring.
Lazarus discloses a similar wearable device (title e.g. figure 1), comprising: a frame (e.g. frontal lens support 10); and a securement arm (e.g. temples 15) , and a hinge (e.g. hinge 14) wherein the hinge is capable of being rotated outward from a default position of the distal portion relative to the proximal portion (e.g. see figure 7); the hinge comprises a spring (e.g. spring 17) configured to bias the securement arm toward the default position when the securement arm is rotated outward from the default position (e.g. see figure 7); and the spring includes an adjustable preload (e.g. combination of 20 & 13); and further teaches wherein: the tip hinge comprises a screw (e.g. 20) disposed within the securement arm (e.g. in 13), the screw engaging the spring (column 4 lines 66-68 “a narrow tip end 21 engageable with bent leaf spring end 17”); and a rotation of the screw (e.g. via Allen wrench 23) adjusts the preload of the spring (column 5 lines 24-31 “adjust the pressure of the temple against the head”) for the purpose of having each temple be suitably adjusted and remain as set (inter alia column 5 lines 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the head-mountable electronic device as disclosed by Hempel to have the tip hinge comprises a screw disposed within the securement arm, the screw engaging the spring; and a rotation of the screw adjusts the preload of the spring as taught by Lazarus for the purpose of having each temple be suitably adjusted and remain as set.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempel US Patent 2,094,236 in view of Lazarus US Patent 3,874,775, of record, and in further view of Halpin et al. 2016/0246059, of record.
Regarding claim 15 the combination of Hempel as modified by Lazurus discloses the wearable device of claim 14, as set forth above. Hempel is silent as to the means for regulating the tension of the spring. Specifically, Hempel does not disclose the securement arm further comprises a removably attachable cover adjacent to the spring; and removing the cover provides user access to the screw.
Lazurus further teaches wherein: the securement arm further comprises access to the screw (e.g. 13) adjacent to the spring (see figure 3) for the purpose of allowing for adjusting the pressure from the temples against the user's head (inter alia column 5 lines 15-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the head-mountable electronic device as disclosed by the combination of Hempel as modified by Lazurus to have the user access to the screw as further taught by Lazarus for the purpose of allowing for adjusting the pressure from the temples against the user's head.
Lazurus does not teach a removably attachable cover wherein removing the cover provides user access to the screw.
Halpin teaches a similar wearable device (title e.g. figure 21 electronic eyewear viewing system/device 220) including a frame (e.g. 207), temples (e.g. 206), and an adjustment screw (e.g. adjustment screw 201); and further teaches a removably attachable cover (e.g. concealment cover 208) wherein removing the cover provides user access to the screw (paragraph [0186] “for adjusting … cover 208 can be removed, and the thumbwheel 201a of IPD adjustment screw 201 can be rotated clockwise or counterclockwise”) for the purpose of protecting the assembly from unwanted movement and debris (paragraph [0225]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the screw in the wearable device as disclosed by the combination of Hempel as modified by Lazurus to have a removably attachable cover wherein removing the cover provides user access to the screw as taught by Halpin for the purpose of protecting the assembly from unwanted movement and debris.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempel US Patent 2,094,236 in view of Skov et al. US Patent 3,409,746, of record.
Regarding claim 16 Hempel discloses the wearable device of claim 13, as set forth above. Hempel is silent as to the means for regulating the tension of the spring. Specifically Hempel does not disclose the securement arm comprises an interchangeable block having a projection configured to engage the spring, the projection having a length; and the preload of the spring is based on the length. Skov teaches a means for regulating the tension of the spring comprising an interchangeable block having a projection configured to engage the spring, the projection having a length; and the preload of the spring is based on the length (column 10 lines 1-10) for the purpose of adjusting the pressure by interchanging blocks without needing correcting adjustments (column 10 lines 6-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the screw in the wearable device as disclosed by Hempel to have an interchangeable block having a projection configured to engage the spring, the projection having a length; and the preload of the spring as taught by Skov for the purpose of adjusting the pressure by interchanging blocks without needing correcting adjustments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 17, 2026
1 It has been held the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979); and “the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2125.
Prosecution Insights