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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 2, 2025 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 9 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 9 recites the limitation “the free ends of the temples” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 4, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bystritsky (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0029457).
With regard to independent claim 1, Bystritsky teaches a coupling unit for eyeglass frames for coupling the eyeglass frame front to the temple (page 1, paragraph [0002] and Figure 1), where the coupling unit comprises a subunit of the eyeglass frame front (Figure 1, element 2) and a subunit of the temple (Figure 1, element 4), and where the subunit of the eyeglass frame front comprises two pins Figure 1, element 14), and the subunit of the temple comprises two sockets in which the said pins are fitted pivotally (Figure 1, element 6), and where placed between the said sockets is a resilient element of the subunit of the temple which protrudes beyond the said sockets (Figure 1, element 2), and placed between the said pins of the subunit of the eyeglass frame front is a guiding element for the said resilient element of the subunit of the temple (Figure 1, elements 15 and 16), characterized in that the subunit of the eyeglass frame front features an opening (Figure 1, element 8) to accommodate the resilient element of the subunit of the temple (Figure 1, wherein element 15 is received in element 8) whenever the temple is pivoted away by any angle larger than 90° with respect to the subunit of the eyeglass frame front (page 1, paragraph [0018]).
With regard to dependent claim 2, Bystritsky teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a coupling unit characterized in that the subunit of the eyeglass frame front constitutes an integral part of the eyeglass frame front (Figure 1, wherein element 2 is integral with element 1).
With regard to dependent claim 4, Bystritsky teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a coupling unit characterized in that the subunit of the temple constitutes an integral part of the said temple (Figure 1, wherein elements 15 and 16 are integral with element 4).
With regard to dependent claim 5, Bystritsky teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a coupling unit characterized in that the resilient element of the subunit of the temple (Figure 1, elements 15 and 16) features a profiled socket (page 3, paragraph [0047], lines 22-26 and Figure 1, element 17) to accommodate the ends of the guiding element of the subunit of the eyeglass frame front (Figure 1, wherein element 17 accommodates element 2).
With regard to dependent claim 7, Bystritsky teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches an eyeglass frame (Figure 1) comprising an eyeglass frame front (Figure 1, element 1), two temples (Figure 1, element 4, and Figure 5, left and right occurrences), and two coupling units (Figure 1, elements 2, 3 and 4; and Figure 5, left and right occurrences) according to claim 1 to connect the front of the eyeglass frame to the temples.
With regard to dependent claim 8, Bystritsky teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 7, and further teaches such an eyeglass frame characterized in that the eyeglass frame front and the temples are made of metal (page 4, paragraph [0072]).
With regard to dependent claim 9, Bystritsky teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 7, and further teaches such an eyeglass frame characterized in that [the] free ends of the temples feature flexible elements (page 3, paragraph [0047] and Figure 1, elements 13.1 and 13.3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 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.
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. Although the prior art teaches a coupling unit for eyeglass frames for coupling the eyeglass frame front to the temple, where the coupling unit comprises a subunit of the eyeglass frame front and a subunit of the temple, and where the subunit of the eyeglass frame front comprises two pins, and the subunit of the temple comprises two sockets in which the said pins are fitted pivotally, and where placed between the said sockets is a resilient element of the subunit of the temple which protrudes beyond the said sockets, and placed between the said pins of the subunit of the eyeglass frame front is a guiding element for the said resilient element of the subunit of the temple, characterized in that the subunit of the eyeglass frame front features an opening to accommodate the resilient element of the subunit of the temple whenever the temple is pivoted away by any angle larger than 90° with respect to the subunit of the eyeglass frame front, the prior art fails to teach such a coupling unit for eyeglass frames characterized in that fixed to the guiding element of the subunit of the eyeglass frame front is an additional guiding element in the form of a cap with rounded working ends, as claimed in dependent claim 3.
With regard to dependent claim 6, claim 6 is allowable as it depends, directly or indirectly, from dependent claim 3 and therefore inherits all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carpenter et al (U.S> Patent Number 9,069,190), Proksch (U.S. Patent Number 7,543,931), Ricart Gisbert (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0353923), Habermann (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0121062) and Ku (U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0094093) all teach coupling units for eyeglass frames.
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
17 February 2026