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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to Claims 4,6, in the submission filed 5/29/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
The amendments to the Specification and Abstract are acknowledged and accepted.
Claims filed on 10/21/2024 appear to be the same as previously filed claims on 5/29/2024 and which were amended in the preliminary amendment filed 5/29/2024 and hence are not being considered.
Pending Claims are 1-9.
Drawings
The drawings with 9 Sheets of Figs. 1-10 received on 10/21/2024 are acknowledged.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: label 2a,2b,2c in para 0008, (fig 9). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to these will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “and more enhance forces for holding the loupe bodies in the loupe holders”. This appears to be incorrect language. It is suggested to be replaced with -- and enhance forces for holding the loupe bodies in the loupe holders--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7,8, as best understood, 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.
Claims 7,8, recite “the bodies. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. From the specification it appears that the bodies are the loupe bodies. For the purpose of examination, the bodies are interpreted to be –the loupe bodies--.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1,2,4,7,8, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4,10, of copending Application No. 18/714197 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the applications are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Current #18/714205
Reference #18/714197
Claim 1: Binocular loupes for enlarging an observation target on hand to view, comprising: a pair of right-and-left loupe bodies provided with internal optical systems; a glasses frame adapted to hold carrier lenses for supporting the pair of loupe bodies in visual directions toward the observation target; and cylindrical loupe holders attached to the carrier lenses to receive the loupe bodies attachably/detachably with the pair of loupe bodies inserted from eyepiece sides of the loupe bodies, wherein the cylindrical loupe holders, and contact surfaces coming into intimate contact states with cylindrical inner surfaces of the loupe holders and eyepiece end side surfaces in the loupe bodies are formed of a plastic magnet molded by mixing magnetic powder into a plastic material, and the loupe bodies come into intimate contact states with the cylindrical inner surfaces of the loupe holders to lock by magnetic attraction forces in the contact surfaces in the cylindrical inner surfaces and the eyepiece end side surfaces.
Claim 1: Binocular loupes for medical practitioners, comprising: a pair of right-and-left loupe bodies provided with internal optical lens systems adapted to enlarge an observation target on hand; right-and-left carrier lenses adapted to support the pair of loupe bodies in visual directions toward the observation target; a glasses frame adapted to hold the carrier lenses; and a pair of cylindrical loupe holders adapted to attach the pair of loupe bodies respectively to the right-and-left carrier lenses attachably/detachably, wherein the cylindrical loupe holders and contact portions contacting cylindrical inner surfaces of the loupe holders in the loupe bodies are formed of a plastic magnet member formed by mixing or kneading a predetermined plastic material with predetermined magnetic powder, the pair of loupe bodies are respectively locked closely in states of being attracted in the cylindrical inner surfaces of the loupe holders by magnetic attraction forces with the contact portions of the loupe bodies in the pair of loupe holders,
and a lubricant is applied to contact surfaces hitting cylindrical front end surfaces of the loupe holders to come into contact and eyepiece end side surfaces of the loupe bodies to improve slidability therebetween.
Claim 2: wherein the loupe bodies are inserted into the loupe holders further through protrusion-provided rings including protrusion portions, the loupe holders include engagement portions of hook-shaped grooves to engage in the protrusion portions, and the loupe bodies are formed not to be removed from the loupe holders.
Claim 2: wherein the loupe bodies are inserted into the loupe holders further through rings having protrusion portions, the loupe holders include engagement portions of hook-shaped grooves to engage in the protrusion portions, and the loupe bodies are formed not to be removed from the loupe holders.
Claim 7: wherein in the loupe bodies, a plurality of types of bodies is beforehand prepared where magnifications by the optical systems and/or vision adjustment distances differ from one another, and one is selected from among the bodies and is attached to respective one of the loupe holders, or one of the loupe bodies allowed to be selected and set within magnifications in a predetermined range and/or vision adjustment distances is selected and attached to respective one of the loupe holders.
Claim 3: wherein in the loupe bodies, a plurality of kinds of loupe bodies is beforehand prepared where the loupe bodies are provided with zoom mechanisms capable of varying a focal distance continuously in a single magnification with different focal distances or in a predetermined range, and one is selected from among the bodies to attach to respective one of the loupe holders.
Claim 8: wherein in the loupe bodies, a plurality of types of bodies is beforehand prepared where magnifications by the optical systems differ from one another, one is selected from among the bodies and is attached to respective one of the loupe holders, and one of a plurality of beforehand prepared vision distance adjustment lenses is fitted into respective one of the eyepiece end side surfaces of the loupe bodies attachably/detachably.
Claim 4: wherein one of beforehand prepared vision adjustment lenses for far-sightedness and near-sightedness and astigmatism correction lenses is selected and fitted into respective one of the eyepiece end side surfaces of the loupe bodies attachably/detachably.
Claim 4: wherein at least each of the loupe holders and the loupe bodies is formed of an anisotropic magnetized material where a crystal molecular arrangement of the magnetic powder is oriented in a certain direction, and each of the loupe bodies is inserted into respective one of the loupe holders in a predetermined rotation direction.
Claim 10: wherein in order for each of the pair of loupe bodies to be inserted in a predetermined rotation direction with respect to the loupe holders, at least each of the loupe holders and loupe bodies is formed of an anisotropic magnetized material where a crystal molecular arrangement of the magnetic powder is oriented in a predetermined direction.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Examiner's Note
With respect to claim(s) 1,2,4,7,8, Examiner makes no prior art rejection. However, these claims are not allowable pursuant to the pending Double Patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach or suggest an optical assembly including the specific arrangement for
“wherein the cylindrical loupe holders, and contact surfaces coming into intimate contact states with cylindrical inner surfaces of the loupe holders and eyepiece end side surfaces in the loupe bodies are formed of a plastic magnet molded by mixing magnetic powder into a plastic material, and the loupe bodies come into intimate contact states with the cylindrical inner surfaces of the loupe holders to lock by magnetic attraction forces in the contact surfaces in the cylindrical inner surfaces and the eyepiece end side surfaces.” as set forth in the claimed combination(s).
With respect to claims 2,4,7,8, these claims depend on claim 1 and are allowable at least for the reasons stated supra.
Claims 3,5,6,9, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakamura et al (US 2015/0286076 A1) teaches (fig 16) a binocular loupe with a metal plate (33) arranged at the loupe unit side and a plastic magnet (34) with magnetized metal powder arranged at a focal point adjusting portion side.
Yonezawa et al (US 2018/0196282 A1) teaches (fig 7A,B) a binocular loupe (10) with a pair of left and right loupe bodies (2) with focus adjustment lenses (11), and holding rings (16) having magnetic bodies into which the focus adjustment lenses are fitted.
Hogan et al (US 2006/0268220 A1) teaches (fig 1) modular eyewear system (10) further includes magnetic mounting means (12, 13) for releasable magnetic mounting of an eyewear element (14).
Lindsey et al (US 2018/0284484 A1) teaches (fig 2) a binocular loupe assembly (100) with loupe anchor subassembly (102) with magnets (212) and a magnetic element (124).
However, Nakamura, Yonezawa, Hogan, Lindsey do not teach wherein the cylindrical loupe holders, and contact surfaces coming into intimate contact states with cylindrical inner surfaces of the loupe holders and eyepiece end side surfaces in the loupe bodies are formed of a plastic magnet molded by mixing magnetic powder into a plastic material, and the loupe bodies come into intimate contact states with the cylindrical inner surfaces of the loupe holders to lock by magnetic attraction forces in the contact surfaces in the cylindrical inner surfaces and the eyepiece end side surfaces
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 8/8/2026
Prosecution Insights