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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1, claims 1-6, 11 and 13-16 in the reply filed on March 19, 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 5-10, 12 and 17-20 are considered withdrawn and claims 1-6, 11 and 13-16 are examined below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Hinge for a Head-Mountable Electronic Device”.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for “the projection is configured to translate relative to the spring”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “the cam is configured to translate relative to the projection”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The specification does not support the projection on the cam moving relative to the cam. On the other hand, the specification clearly discloses the projection on the cam translates/slides on the spring. Particularly, paragraph [0072] in describing figures 7A-7C recites (emphasis added by examiner):
As the hinge system 200 continues to rotate, the cam 220 can also translate along arrow A2 as illustrated in FIG. 7C. In one example, the projection 222 of the cam 220 translates or slides relative to the leaf spring 210 when the securement arm 104 connected to the cam 220 is rotated/splayed such that the moment arm defined between the anchor point of the leaf spring 210 (anchored to the viewing frame) and the contact point defined between the protrusion 222 engaging the leaf spring 210 changes. ... The hinge system 200 can further include a translation mechanism enabling the projection 222 of the cam 220 to slide along the leaf spring 210.
The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “the [[cam]] projection is configured to translate relative to the spring
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 1-6 and 11 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 1 “wherein the hinge is configured to apply a force of the proximal portion against a head between 50 Nmm and 90 Nmm within the splay range of motion” renders the claim vague and indefinite. Particularly, the boundaries of the functional language of “apply a force … within the splay range of motion” is unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what structural elements causes the force within the splay range of motion. Since the recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e. the viewing frame, the window, the waveguide, the arms and the hinge do not inherently “apply force.” So it is unclear whether the applied force function requires some other structure or is simply a result of the arrangement of components. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. It has been held “when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear” Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see MPEP 2173.05(g). In light of the specification, for example figures 7A-7C and 12-13 leaf spring 210, 710 & 810, it is clear that the applied force is a result of further structure, i.e. a spring. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “wherein the hinge comprises a first spring [[is]] configured to apply a force of the proximal portion against a head between 50 Nmm and 90 Nmm within the splay range of motion.” Further for consistency the examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “[[a]] the first spring engagesfirst spring” in claim 6; and “wherein the first spring has an adjustable preload” in claim 11.
Claims 2-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 2 “the tip hinge 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” renders the claim vague and indefinite. The issue is substantially the same as the issue with claim 1 set forth above. Using similar reasoning the examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “the tip hinge comprises a 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.”
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 2 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 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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lazarus US Patent 3,874,775.
Regarding claim 13 Lazurus discloses a wearable device (title e.g. figure 1), comprising: a frame (e.g. portion of 10 adjacent to but not including 13); and a securement arm (e.g. 15 and portion of 10 in front of 15 including 13) extending from the frame, the securement arm comprising: a distal portion (e.g. 15); a proximal portion coupled to the frame (e.g. portion of 10 in front of 15 including 13), the proximal portion disposed between the distal portion and the frame (e.g. see figure 3); and a tip hinge (e.g. 14) rotatably connecting the proximal portion to the distal portion (e.g. see figure 3); wherein: the distal portion is rotatable outward from a default position of the distal portion relative to the proximal portion (e.g. see figure 7); the tip hinge comprises a spring (e.g. 17) configured to bias the distal portion toward the default position when the distal portion 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).
Regarding claim 14 Lazurus discloses the wearable device of claim 13, as set forth above. Lazurus further discloses 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”).
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0131913 in view of Aoyama foreign patent document JPH03122611A.
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), as required by claim 1; Kim further discloses
Kim does not disclose the proximal portion having a splay range of motion up to 20 degrees1 outward from a default position and relative to the viewing frame; and wherein 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 Kim 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 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 suggests2 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 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 embodiment of wearable electronic device 100 as modified by Aoyama discloses the head-mountable electronic device of claim 1 including the splay range of motion that can be relabeled as a first splay range of motion and the force that can be relabeled as a first force, as set forth above.
Kim embodiment of wearable electronic device 100 does not disclose wherein: each securement arm of the pair of securement arms further comprises: a tip hinge; and a distal portion connected to the proximal portion at the tip hinge; and the distal portion includes a second splay range of motion up to 25 degrees outward beyond a default position of the distal portion relative to the proximal portion; and the tip hinge comprises a second spring 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; and the distal portion is configured to apply the second force within the second splay range.
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), as required by claim 2, 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 as modified by Aoyama 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 teach the distal portion includes a second splay range of motion up to 25 degrees outward beyond a default position of the distal portion relative to the proximal portion; and the tip hinge comprises a second spring 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; and the distal portion is configured to apply the second force within the second splay range.
Regarding having the hinge allow for splaying and inclusion of a spring for urge the hinged elements from a splayed position to a default position – this is duplication of hinge elements of claim 1. As set forth above, Aoyama teaches a similar device with the missing features of having the hinge allow for splaying and inclusion of a spring for urge the hinged elements from a splayed position to a default position for the purpose of having a temple that can be elastically expanded with a simple and durable structure. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977); and further it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP 2144.04. 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 as modified by Aoyama and Kim the combination of Kim embodiment of wearable electronic device 300 to have a tip hinge have a spring that allows the distal portion to be splayed and urges the distal portion back to a default position as taught by Aoyama for the purpose of having the hinged elements be capable of being elastically expanded with a simple and durable structure.
Regarding the ranges – 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 second splay range of motion up to 25 degrees outward beyond a default position of the distal portion relative to the proximal portion; and the 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; and the second splay range of motion is between 5 degrees and 20 degrees, as 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 embodiment of wearable electronic device 100 as modified by Aoyama and Kim the combination of Kim embodiment of wearable electronic device 300 has a head mounted electronic device with a spring biased hinge between the frame and the proximal portion of the temple and a second spring biased hinge between the proximal portion of the temple and distal portion of the temple that allows the each of the hinged elements to be respectively over-rotated and the springs urging the hinged elements back to a default/open position, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the second splay range of motion up to 25 degrees outward beyond a default position of the distal portion relative to the proximal portion; and the second force of the distal portion against the head between 20 Nmm and 45 Nmm within the second splay range of motion; and/or the first splay range of motion is between 4 degrees and 15 degrees, and the second splay range of motion is between 5 degrees and 20 degrees for the purpose of allowing for different head sizes and maintaining sufficient force to keep the device from moving without being so tight as to cause discomfort. 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 as modified by Aoyama and Kim the combination of Kim embodiment of wearable electronic device 300 to have the second splay range of motion up to 25 degrees outward beyond a default position of the distal portion relative to the proximal portion; and the second force of the distal portion against the head between 20 Nmm and 45 Nmm within the second splay range of motion; and/or the first splay range of motion is between 4 degrees and 15 degrees, and the second splay range of motion is between 5 degrees and 20 degrees for the purpose of allowing for different head sizes and maintaining 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 embodiment of wearable electronic device 100 as modified by Aoyama and Kim the combination of Kim embodiment of wearable electronic device 300 disclose 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 structure taught by Aoyama, given the leaf spring structure used would provide a substantially constant force inherently.
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Kim as modified by Aoyama discloses the head-mountable electronic device of claim 1 including the first spring, as set forth above. Kim does not disclose 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 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 Aoyama discloses the head-mountable electronic device of claim 5 including the first spring, as set forth above. Kim does not disclose 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 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 in view of Aoyama foreign patent document JPH03122611A and in further view of Lazarus US Patent 3,874,775.
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Kim as modified by Aoyama discloses the head-mountable electronic device of claim 1, as set forth above. Kim 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 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarus US Patent 3,874,775 in view of Halpin et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0246059.
Regarding claim 15 Lazurus discloses the wearable device of claim 14, as set forth above. Lazurus further discloses wherein: the securement arm further comprises access to the screw (e.g. 13) adjacent to the spring (see figure 3).
Lazurus does not disclose 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 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 Lazarus US Patent 3,874,775 with evidence of certain facts provided by Skov et al. US Patent 3,409,746.
Regarding claim 16 Lazurus discloses the wearable device of claim 13, as set forth above. Lazurus further discloses a screw (e.g. 20) having a projection (e.g. narrow tip end 21) configured to engage the spring (column 4 line 66-column 5 line 3 “narrow tip end 21 engageable with bent leaf spring end 17”), the projection having a length (see figure 2); and the preload of the spring is based on the haw far the screw is screwed in/out (column 5 lines 19-24 “insert an Allen wrench 23 into the socket 22 of each stud 20 and to adjust the studs”).
Lazurus does not disclose replacing the adjustment screw with an interchangeable block with a fixed length.
Lazurus discloses the claimed invention except that it has the length of the element pressing against (i.e. biasing) the spring be an adjustable screw instead of using one of an interchangeable blocks of set lengths pressing against (i.e. biasing) the spring. Skov (column 10 lines 1-10) provides evidence that replacing an adjustment screw with an equivalent structure of a block of a set size and is known in the art and would be suitable for the intended purpose of biasing the spring. One would be motivated to use a fixed size block since it would not loosen (e.g. adjustable screws can loosen due to vibration). Therefore, because these two spring biasing means are art-recognized equivalents and would be suitable for the intended purpose of setting the bias the spring at a desired level before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute an interchangeable blocks of set lengths for the adjustable screw for the purpose of avoiding the loosening of the screw, see MPEP 2144.06 and 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Markovitz et al. US Patent 5,631,718; in regards to eyewear with two hinges along a temple, see figure 3.
Kawamoto US Patent 6,019,467; in regards to eyewear with a hyperextendable hinge that uses a leaf spring, see figures 1 & 4A-5B.
Chow US Patent 6,048,062; in regards to eyewear with two hinges along a temple, see figure 1.
Takeda et al. US Patent 6,336,250; in regards to eyewear with a hyperextendable hinge that uses a leaf spring, see figure 7.
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 April 5, 2026
1 The phrase “range of motion up to 20 degrees” is interpreted to mean no more than 20 degrees (i.e. ≤20°). This is consistent with depenent claim 3 that limits same range to “between 4 degrees and 15 degrees”.
2 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