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 statements (IDS) submitted on June 6, 2024, November 15, 2024, march 10, 2025 and June 20, 2025 have been considered by the examiner. It should be noted that citation 240 appearing on the IDS filed June 6, 2024, has been lined through as the examiner was unable to locate a copy of the foreign reference.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 2 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 2 recites the limitation “the guides” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the first guide” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the second guide” in line 4. 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, 9, 10-12, 22-26, 36-38 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waters (U.S. Patent Number 6,406,144).
With regard to independent claim 1, Waters teaches an eyewear system comprising eyeglasses (Figure 1, elements 14 and 16) and a case (Figure 1, element 12), the eyeglasses comprising a first lens (Figure 1, element 14), a second lens (Figure 1, element 16), and a bendable bridge disposed between the first lens and second lens (column 10, lines 35-37 and Figure 10, element 184), the bendable bridge comprising a spring providing a spring force when the bridge is bent from a rest position (Figure 2, elements 112 and 114), the eyeglasses being adapted to move from a wearable configuration in which the bendable bridge is in a rest position and the first lens and second lens are in a first state, not moved towards one another (Figure 10) to a stored configuration in which the first and second lenses are moved towards one another (Figure 5), the bendable bridge being bent from its rest position in the stored configuration, the case comprising an actuator (Figure 10, element 184) extending through a groove in a top portion (Figure 10, element 190), the actuator coupled to a clasp configured to receive the bendable bridge (Figure 10, element 48), the clasp positioned between the top portion and a bottom portion (Figure 10), wherein the clasp is configured to receive the bendable bridge, and wherein the actuator is configured to transition the eyeglasses between the rest configuration and the stored configuration when moved between a distal position and a proximal position of the groove (column 10, lines 18-22).
With regard to dependent claim 9, Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein a width of the case is less than about 55 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the width is approximately three-fourths of an inch, i.e., 19.05 mm).
With regard to dependent claim 10, Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein the case comprises an internal storage area between the top portion and the bottom portion for receiving the eyeglasses (Figure 1, element 12).
With regard to independent claim 22, Waters teaches an eyewear system comprising eyeglasses (Figure 1, elements 14 and 16) and a case (Figure 1, element 12), the eyeglasses comprising a first lens (Figure 1, element 14), a second lens (Figure 1, element 16), and a bendable bridge disposed between the first lens and second lens (column 10, lines 35-37 and Figure 10, element 184), the bendable bridge comprising a spring providing a spring force when the bridge is bent from a rest position (Figure 2, elements 112 and 114), the eyeglasses being adapted to move from a wearable configuration in which the bendable bridge is in a rest position and the first lens and second lens are in a first state, not moved towards one another (Figure 10) to a stored configuration in which the first and second lenses are moved to at least partially overlap one another (Figure 5), the bendable bridge being bent from its rest position in the stored configuration, the case comprising an actuator (Figure 10, element 184) extending through a groove in a top portion (Figure 10, element 190), the actuator coupled to a clasp configured to receive the bendable bridge (Figure 10, element 48), the clasp positioned between the top portion and a bottom portion (Figure 10), wherein the clasp is configured to receive the bendable bridge, and wherein the actuator is configured to transition the eyeglasses between the rest configuration and the stored configuration when moved between a distal position and a proximal position of the groove (column 10, lines 18-22).
With regard to dependent claim 23, Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein the length of the case is less than or equal to about 100 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the length is approximately two and a half inched, i.e., 63.5 mm).
With regard to dependent claim 24, Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein the length of the case is less than or equal to about 95 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the length is approximately two and a half inched, i.e., 63.5 mm).
With regard to dependent claim 25, Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein the length of the case is less than or equal to about 90 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the length is approximately two and a half inched, i.e., 63.5 mm).
With regard to dependent claim 26, Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein the length of the case is less than or equal to about 80 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the length is approximately two and a half inched, i.e., 63.5 mm).
With regard to independent claim 36, Waters teaches an eyewear system comprising eyeglasses (Figure 1, elements 14 and 16) and a case (Figure 1, element 12), the eyeglasses comprising a first lens (Figure 1, element 14), a second lens (Figure 1, element 16), and a bendable bridge disposed between the first lens and second lens (column 10, lines 35-37 and Figure 10, element 184), the bendable bridge comprising a spring providing a spring force when the bridge is bent from a rest position (Figure 2, elements 112 and 114), the eyeglasses being adapted to move from a wearable configuration in which the bendable bridge is in a rest position and the first lens and second lens are in a first state, not moved towards one another (Figure 10) to a stored configuration in which the first and second lenses are moved to at least partially overlap one another (Figure 5), the case being configured to bend bendable bridge from its rest position in the stored configuration (Figure 5), the case comprising an actuator (Figure 10, element 184) extending through a groove in a top portion (Figure 10, element 190), the actuator coupled to a clasp configured to receive the bendable bridge (Figure 10, element 48), the clasp positioned between the top portion and a bottom portion (Figure 10), wherein the clasp is configured to receive the bendable bridge, and wherein the actuator is configured to transition the eyeglasses between the rest configuration and the stored configuration when moved between a distal position and a proximal position of the groove (column 10, lines 18-22).
With regard to dependent claim 37, Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 36, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein the case comprises a key ring (column 8, lines 49-56).
With regard to dependent claim 38, Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 36, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein the first lens and the second lens are configured to at least partially overlap one another in the stored configuration (Figure 5).
With regard to dependent claim 41, Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein the first lens and the second lens are configured to at least partially overlap one another in the stored configuration (Figure 5).
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waters (U.S. Patent Number 6,406,144), as applied to claim 1 above.
With regard to dependent claim 11 although Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, Waters fails to explicitly teach such an eyewear system wherein [an] internal storage area has a volume of less than about 9 ml. Waters does teach a compact system of sufficient size to accommodate the eyewear (column 2, lines 4-7; column 3, lines 44-50; and column 8, lines 26-44), 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 system, as taught by Waters, to have an internal storage area having a specified volume, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
With regard to dependent claim 12 although Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, Waters fails to explicitly teach such an eyewear system wherein [an] internal storage area has a surface area of about 2700-2900 mm2. Waters does teach a compact system of sufficient size to accommodate the eyewear (column 2, lines 4-7; column 3, lines 44-50; and column 8, lines 26-44), 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 system, as taught by Waters, to have an internal storage area having a specified area, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Claims 27-31 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waters (U.S. Patent Number 6,406,144), as applied to claim 22 above.
With regard to dependent claim 27 although Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 22, Waters fails to explicitly teach such an eyewear system wherein the length of the case is about 70-100 mm. Waters does teach an eyewear system comprising eyeglasses and a case wherein the case has a length of about 63.5 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the length is approximately two and a half inched, i.e., 63.5 mm), 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 system, as taught by Waters, to have a length of about 70-100 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
With regard to dependent claim 28 although Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 22, Waters fails to explicitly teach such an eyewear system wherein the thickness of the case is less than about 5 mm. Waters does teach an eyewear system comprising eyeglasses and a case wherein the case has a depth of about 12.7 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the depth is approximately one half of an inch, i.e., 12.7 mm), 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 system, as taught by Waters, to have a thickness of less than about 5 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
With regard to dependent claim 29 although Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 22, Waters fails to explicitly teach such an eyewear system wherein the thickness of the case is less than about 4.8 mm. Waters does teach an eyewear system comprising eyeglasses and a case wherein the case has a depth of about 12.7 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the depth is approximately one half of an inch, i.e., 12.7 mm), 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 system, as taught by Waters, to have a thickness of less than about 4.8 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
With regard to dependent claim 30 although Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 22, Waters fails to explicitly teach such an eyewear system wherein the thickness of the case is about 4.5 mm. Waters does teach an eyewear system comprising eyeglasses and a case wherein the case has a depth of about 12.7 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the depth is approximately one half of an inch, i.e., 12.7 mm), 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 system, as taught by Waters, to have a thickness of about 4.55 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
With regard to dependent claim 31 although Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 22, Waters fails to explicitly teach such an eyewear system wherein the width of the case is about 40-60 mm. Waters does teach an eyewear system comprising eyeglasses and a case wherein the case has a width of about 19.05 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the width is approximately three-fourths of an inch, i.e., 19.05 mm), 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 system, as taught by Waters, to have a width of about 40-60 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
With regard to dependent claim 33 although Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 22, Waters fails to explicitly teach such an eyewear system wherein the width of the case is greater than about 40 mm. Waters does teach an eyewear system comprising eyeglasses and a case wherein the case has a width of about 19.05 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the width is approximately three-fourths of an inch, i.e., 19.05 mm), 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 system, as taught by Waters, to have a width greater than about 40 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
With regard to dependent claim 34 although Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 22, Waters fails to explicitly teach such an eyewear system wherein the width of the case is greater than about 50 mm. Waters does teach an eyewear system comprising eyeglasses and a case wherein the case has a width of about 19.05 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the width is approximately three-fourths of an inch, i.e., 19.05 mm), 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 system, as taught by Waters, to have a width greater than about 50 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
With regard to dependent claim 35 although Waters teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 22, Waters fails to explicitly teach such an eyewear system wherein the width of the case is about 50-60 mm. Waters does teach an eyewear system comprising eyeglasses and a case wherein the case has a width of about 19.05 mm (column 8, lines 40-42, wherein the width is approximately three-fourths of an inch, i.e., 19.05 mm), 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 system, as taught by Waters, to have a width of about 50-60 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Claims 39, 40 and 42-44 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.
Claims 19, 20 and 45-48 are allowed.
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 2, 39, 40 and 42, although the prior art teaches an eyewear system comprising eyeglasses and a case, the eyeglasses comprising a first lens, a second lens, and a bendable bridge disposed between the first lens and second lens, the bendable bridge comprising a spring providing a spring force when the bridge is bent from a rest position, the eyeglasses being adapted to move from a wearable configuration in which the bendable bridge is in a rest position and the first lens and second lens are in a first state, not moved towards one another to a stored configuration in which the first and second lenses are moved towards one another, the bendable bridge being bent from its rest position in the stored configuration, the case comprising an actuator extending through a groove in a top portion, the actuator coupled to a clasp configured to receive the bendable bridge, the clasp positioned between the top portion and a bottom portion, wherein the clasp is configured to receive the bendable bridge, and wherein the actuator is configured to transition the eyeglasses between the rest configuration and the stored configuration when moved between a distal position and a proximal position of the groove, the prior art fails to teach such an eyewear system: wherein [the] guides comprise a guide having a first bearing surface positioned on a first side of the opening, [a] first guide adapted to engage a first side of the eyeglasses and a second bearing surface positioned on a second side of the opening, [a] second guide adapted to engage a second side of the eyeglasses during transition of the eyeglasses into the case, s claimed in dependent claim 2; wherein the bottom portion further comprises a first detent aligned with a distal most positioned of the groove, and a second detent aligned with a proximal most position of the groove, wherein the first detent and the second detent are configured to releasably receive the clasp, as claimed in dependent claim 39; wherein the case further comprising an opening to an interior of the case, wherein the clasp is configured to receive the bendable bridge when the eyeglasses are positioned adjacent to the opening, as claimed in dependent claim 40; or wherein the case further comprising an opening adjacent to a distal end of the groove, the opening configured to guide the eyeglasses into the stored configuration when the clasp is retracted proximally along the groove, as claimed in dependent claim 42.
With regard to dependent claims 43 and 44, claims 43 and 44 are allowable as they depend, directly or indirectly, from dependent claim 42 and therefore inherit all of the limitations of the claim from which they depend.
With regard to independent claim 45, although the prior art teaches a method of storing eyeglasses in a case, the eyeglasses comprising a first lens, a second lens, and a bendable bridge disposed between the first lens and second lens, the bendable bridge comprising a spring providing a spring force when the bridge is bent from a rest position, the prior art fails to teach such a method wherein the method comprises: positioning the bendable bridge adjacent to an opening to an interior of the case; engaging the bendable bridge with a clasp coupled to an actuator extending from the interior of the case through a groove in a top portion of the case; moving the actuator proximally along the groove to draw the eyeglasses into the interior of the case; bending the first lens towards the second lens with a guide positioned at the opening of the case as the actuator is moved proximally along the groove positioning the eyeglasses within the interior of the case when the actuator is in a proximal position of the groove.
With regard to dependent claims 19, 20 and 46-48, claims 19, 20 and 46-48 are allowable as they depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 45 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. Radzwill (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0231970) and Holmes et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0032652) both teach an eyewear system comprising a case.
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
26 February 2026