DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddad (US 5601222) in view of Xiao (CN 107510185).
Haddad discloses a bracelet (10) for a portable object (12) comprising a first strand (14) and a second strand (16), each of the strands comprising a first end able to be attached to a case of the portable object (see Figs. 1-5), wherein the first strand (11) comprises a first optical device (22); except does not expressly disclose the second optical device or the shape of the devices including relative diameters as claimed.
However, Xiao teaches providing a wrist strap assembly with two optical devices (2) as claimed.
Because Haddad and Xiao both teach optical devices for wrist strap assemblies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the pair of optical devices taught by Xiao for the single optical device taught by Haddad to achieve the predictable result of providing a magnifying device wearable on a user’s wrist.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the optical devices of whatever relative sizes including one having a larger diameter than the other were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
When viewed in combination, Haddad as modified above results in a device wherein the first strap comprises a first optical device with a first diameter; the second strand comprises a second optical device with a second diameter, smaller than the first diameter of the first optical device; the first optical device and the second optical device being configured so that the superposition of the first optical device and the second optical device, by the superposition of the first strand and the second strand, forms a microscope having an eyepiece constituted by the first optical device and an objective constituted by the second optical device.
Haddad as modified above results in a device wherein the first optical device is a first optical lens (first 2 of Xiao); the second optical device is a second optical lens (other 2 of Xiao).
Regarding claim 4, Haddad as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the particular materials of construction of the optical devices as claimed.
However, Haddad itself teaches the use of polymer material for a wrist strap embedded optical device (col. 3, ll. 15-27) as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use polymer material for the optical devices as taught by Haddad, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Haddad as modified above results in a device wherein the first optical device is integrated, at least partially, into the thickness of the first strand, preferably completely into the thickness of the first strand (see Haddad Fig. 2; Xiao Fig. 1); the second optical device is integrated, at least partially, into the thickness of the second strand, preferably completely into the thickness of the second strand (see Haddad Fig. 2; Xiao Fig. 1); the bracelet comprises at least one spacer (Haddad 44) capable of ensuring a spacing between the first optical device and the second optical device when the first strand and the second strand of the bracelet are superimposed (functional recitation); the bracelet comprises a loop (Haddad 44), said at least one spacer being formed by said loop (see Haddad Figs. 3, 4); the bracelet comprises two spacers (Haddad 44s, Figs. 3, 4); the bracelet comprises a first loop (Haddad 44) and a second loop (Haddad 44) forming said two spacers, the first loop and the second loop having dimensions capable of ensuring spacing between the first optical device and the second optical device when the first strand and the second strand are superimposed (functional recitation); the two loops (Haddad 44s) are adjustable in position so as to cover the first optical device or the second optical device to form an element for protecting the optical devices (unattached, slidable loops); the bracelet comprises means for ensuring concentric superposition of the first optical device and the second optical device (flexibility shown in Haddad device, see Figs. 2, 4); the bracelet comprises coupling means (38, 40) capable of holding in position the first strand and the second strand superimposed (functional recitation); the bracelet is made of synthetic material or natural material (inherent, all materials are either natural or synthetic); and a timepiece comprising a case (Haddad 12) incorporating a watch movement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
February 24, 2026