DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed October 22, 2025 in which claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 11-26 are presented for examination and claims 3, 6-7, and 9-10 are canceled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s First Argument: In the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 22, 2025, certain elements were interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Examiner’s Response: In view of current amendments to the claims, the interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) has been updated (see below).
Applicant’s Second Argument: Rejection of claims 8 and 11-13 under 35 USC 112(b) based on “at least one anchoring element” limitations should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Upon further review of the claims, it appears that the rejection of claims 8-13 under 35 USC 112(b) as detailed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 22, 2025 was improper and that the limitations as presented in those claims were not indefinite. Examiner respectfully apologizes for the confusion and suggests that claims 8 and 11-13 be amended to recite the various “at least one anchoring element” limitations as they appeared in the set of claims presented July 2, 2024. As such, claims 8 and 11-13 are objected to for minor informalities (see below) regarding the various “at least one anchoring element” limitations, with Examiner now interpreting these limitations as they were recited in the set of claims filed July 2, 2024. It is further respectfully noted however that in view of current amendments to claim 1, claims 8 and 11-13 are now rejected under 35 USC 112(b) based on indefiniteness resulting from those amendments (see below).
Applicant’s Third Argument: Rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 over US Pub No. 2009/0222979 Wang and/or US Pub No. 2023/0142275 Aranibar Campo et al. should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “oval projection” as recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation that the upper and lower compression inducing rim-fasteners are connected with the peripheral edge to urge the peripheral edge of the goggles in “complete engagement” with a surface of the channel as recited in currently amended claim 1 (see claim 1, line 11). No new matter should be added.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, (in particular “securing means” as recited in claim 23) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one anchoring element” in claims 1-2, “lower compression inducing element” in claim 2, “the upper and lower compression inducing element” in claim 5, and “mounting element” in claims 8 and 13. It is further respectfully noted that recitations of the “anchoring element” in claims 8, 11, and 13 do not invoke 35 USC 112(f) due to the additional recitation of sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each curved portion" of the nose bridge portion on line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 22-24 recite the limitation “to prevent infiltration of a surrounding fluid across said peripheral edge of the goggles to the eyes or nostrils of a wearer of said goggles.” However, to prevent possible rejection under 35 USC 101 for impermissibly reciting human anatomy, it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite language such as “configured to,” “adapted to,” or “when worn.” For example, “to prevent infiltration of a surrounding fluid across said peripheral edge of the goggles to the eyes or nostrils of a wearer of said goggles, when worn.”
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation “the anchoring element.” However, as detailed in Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s First Argument (see above) it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite “one of the at least one anchoring elements.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites the limitation “the anchoring element.” However, as detailed in Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s First Argument (see above) it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite “the one anchoring element.”
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites the limitation “an additional anchoring element of the at least one anchoring element protruding…” However, as detailed in Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s First Argument (see above) it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite “an additional anchoring element of the at least one anchoring elements protrudes…”
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 25 recites the limitation “the anchoring element.” However, upon information and belief, this limitation should be amended to recite “the at least one anchoring element.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 11-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein said goggles is divided into two symmetric lens portions each of which has an oval projection when viewed frontwardly” (lines 6-8). Although the specification likewise recites a similar phrase regarding the oval projections (see pages 5-6 of the specification) such that the limitation in claim 1 regarding the oval projections does not constitute new matter, the specification nevertheless provides no additional information as to the configuration(s) and/or characteristic(s) of the oval projections. Because the specification provides no additional information regarding the oval projections other than this general statement regarding the presence of the oval projections (and, upon information and belief, the drawings do not depict the oval projections), there is insufficient information about the oval projections to reasonably convey possession of the invention. As such, the specification lacks proper written description support under 35 USC 112(a) for the oval projections.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “upper and lower compression inducing rim-fasteners that are interconnected and that interact with said peripheral element to urge the peripheral edge of said goggles in complete engagement with a surface of said channel” (lines 9-12). This limitation constitutes new matter because the disclosure as originally filed on July 2, 2024 does not appear to provide support for the peripheral edge of the goggles and the surface of the channel being in “complete engagement.” Applicant is respectfully invited to rebut this rejection by stipulating on the record and with specificity which portion(s) of the disclosure, if any, as originally filed provide support for the claimed “complete engagement.”
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 11-26 are 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 1 recites the limitation “said lower rim-fastener” (line 20). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited “lower compression inducing rim-fastener” (lines 9, 12, 16, and 17-18) or some other rim-fastener. For purposes of examination, the limitation on line 20 will be interpreted as reciting “said lower compression inducing rim-fastener.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “upper and lower compression inducing rim-fasteners that are interconnected and that interact with said peripheral element to urge the peripheral edge of said goggles in complete engagement with a surface of said channel” (lines 9-12). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the phrase “complete engagement” requires.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the lower compression inducing element” (lines 2-3). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited “lower compression inducing rim-fastener” (claim 1, lines 9, 12, 16, and 17-18) or some other element. For purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 2 will be interpreted as reciting “the lower compression inducing rim-fastener.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the upper and lower the upper and lower compression inducing element” (lines 2-3). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited “upper and lower compression inducing rim-fasteners” (claim 1, line 9) or some other element. For purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 5 will be interpreted as reciting “the upper and lower compression inducing rim-fasteners.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the lower rim-fastener” (lines 2-3 and 4). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited “lower compression inducing rim-fastener” (lines 9, 12, 16, and 17-18) or some other rim-fastener. For purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 8 will be interpreted as reciting “the lower compression inducing rim-fastener.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the lower rim-fastener” (line 2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited “lower compression inducing rim-fastener” (lines 9, 12, 16, and 17-18) or some other rim-fastener. For purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 11 will be interpreted as reciting “the lower compression inducing rim-fastener.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the upper rim-fastener” (line 2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited “upper … compression inducing rim-fastener” (claim 1, line 9) or some other rim-fastener. For purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 12 will be interpreted as reciting “the upper compression inducing rim-fastener.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the upper rim-fastener” (line 4). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited “upper … compression inducing rim-fastener” (claim 1, line 9) or some other rim-fastener. For purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 13 will be interpreted as reciting “the upper compression inducing rim-fastener.”
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the lower rim-fastener” (line 4). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited “lower compression inducing rim-fastener” (claim 1, lines 9, 12, 16, and 17-18) or some other rim-fastener. For purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 25 will be interpreted as reciting “the lower compression inducing rim-fastener.”
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the body member engaging surface” (lines 2-3). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear to which, if any, previously-recited limitation it refers.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 11-26 are rejected, insofar as definite and as best understood by the Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 4,279,040 Garofalo in view of USPN 10,627,648 Quintana, and in further view of WO 95/25491 Piller (all references to the Description of Piller are to the 6-page, English-Language translation of Piller appended to the copy of Piller provided with this office action).
To claim 1, Garofolo discloses a coupling arrangement for goggles (see Figures 1-3; col. 1, line 6 – col. 2, line 27), comprising:
a) a body member (13) configured with a central opening that is bounded by a peripheral element (113) which is configured with a nose bridge portion and a continuous channel (see Figures 1 and 3; col. 2, lines 10-20);
b) monolithic goggles (2) (col. 1, lines 6-7; i.e., single glass pane type) having a nose bridge portion and a peripheral edge (3) of a same shape as the shape of said peripheral element and that is receivable in said channel to occlude said central opening (see especially Figure 3), wherein said goggles is divided into two symmetric lens portions (see Figures 1-3; col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 9);
c) upper and lower compression inducing rim-fasteners (6) that are interconnected and that interact with said peripheral element to urge the peripheral edge of said goggles in complete engagement with a surface of said channel (see Figures 1-3; col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20), wherein said lower compression inducing rim-fastener is configured with a nose bridge portion (9) that is alignable with the nose bridge portion of said goggles and with the nose bridge portion of said body member (see Figures 1-3; col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20); and
d) at least one anchoring element (4) protruding from a centerline of said goggles and is coupled with said lower compression inducing rim-fastener and applies a clamping force onto said lower compression inducing rim-fastener (see Figures 1-3; col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20; functional; in a fully-assembled configuration of the goggles as depicted in Figure 1 of Garofalo, all elements of the goggles are considered to be “coupled” to all other elements of the goggles),
wherein the applied clamping force is transmitted to each curved portion of the nose bridge portion of said lower compression inducing rim-fastener to resist lateral movement of said goggles at the nose bridge portion of said goggles and to prevent infiltration of a surrounding fluid across said peripheral edge of the goggles to the eyes or nostrils of a wearer of said goggles (see Figures 1-3; col. 2, lines 10-27; functional), when worn.
Garofalo does not disclose goggles further comprising oval projections when viewed frontwardly.
However, Quintana teaches goggles comprising oval projections when viewed frontwardly (see Figures 12-13; col. 9, lines 41-46).
Garofalo and Quintana teach analogous inventions in the field of goggles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monolithic goggles of Garofalo to include oval projections as taught by Quintana because Quintana teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for integrating corrective lens elements into the goggles (Abstract).
As detailed above, it is respectfully asserted that Garofalo discloses goggles that are monolithic goggles (col. 1, lines 6-7; i.e., single glass pane type). However, in the interest of promoting compact prosecution, to the extent to which Garofalo does not disclose monolithic goggles, to which Examiner does not concede, it is respectfully noted that Piller teaches a coupling arrangement for goggles (see Figures 1-6; Description lines 105-145) comprising monolithic goggles (1) configured to couple to upper and lower compression inducing rim-fasteners (2) (see especially Figure 1; Description lines 105-116), similar to the coupling arrangement for goggles disclosed by Garofalo.
The modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana, as detailed above) and Piller teach analogous inventions in the field of goggles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the goggles of the modified invention of Garofalo to be monolithic goggles as taught by Piller because Piller teaches that this configuration is known in the art. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the monolithic goggles configuration of Piller would provide a wide viewing range for the wearer.
It is respectfully noted that the limitations “applies a clamping force onto said lower compression inducing rim-fastener” and “wherein the applied clamping force is transmitted to each curved portion of the nose bridge portion of said lower compression inducing rim-fastener to resist lateral movement of said goggles at the nose bridge portion of said goggles and to prevent infiltration of a surrounding fluid across said peripheral edge of the goggles to the eyes or nostrils of a wearer of said goggles” are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) teaches a coupling arrangement for goggles as claimed, there would be a reasonable expectation for the coupling arrangement for goggles of the modified invention of Garofalo to perform such function.
To claim 2, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein the at least one anchoring element is coupled with the lower compression inducing rim-fastener in such a way that a posteroanterior directed clamping force is applied (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo; functional).
To claim 4, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein the upper and lower compression inducing rim-fasteners releasably interact with the peripheral element (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 5, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement where the upper and lower compression inducing rim-fasteners irreleasably interact with the peripheral element (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo; intended use).
To claim 8, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement one of the at least one anchoring elements coupled with the lower compression inducing rim-fastener is releasably introduced through an aperture (209 of Garofalo) formed in a mounting element of the lower compression inducing rim-fastener (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 11, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein the one anchoring element coupled with the lower compression inducing rim-fastener protrudes perpendicularly from the centerline of the goggles (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 12, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein the goggles are additionally coupled with the upper compression inducing rim-fastener (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 13, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein an additional anchoring element of the at least one anchoring elements protruding from the centerline of the goggles is releasably introduced through an aperture (108 of Garofalo) formed in a mounting element of the upper compression inducing rim-fastener (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 14, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein the central opening of the body member is completely bounded by the peripheral element (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 15, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein the body member is sealingly engageable with the face of the wearer (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 16, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein the body member is made of elastomeric material (col. 2, line 10 of Garofalo).
To claim 17, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein the body member is made of hard plastic material with an elastomeric backing that is sealingly engageable with the face of the wearer (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 18, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein the peripheral element of the body member is configured with an inner surface that is sealingly engageable with the face of the wearer, an outer surface and a base that extends from the inner surface to the outer surface to define the channel (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 19, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein the upper and lower wherein the upper and lower at least one compression inducing rim-fasteners have a body member engaging surface that defines an engagement cavity within which is receivable the peripheral element base and are configured to urge the peripheral edge of the goggles in engagement with the base (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 20, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein the peripheral edge of the goggles is frictionally receivable within the channel (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 21, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches an eyewear assembly comprising the coupling arrangement according to claim 1 (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 22, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches an eyewear assembly wherein the body member comprises a mask appendage (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 23, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches an eyewear assembly further comprising securing means (10 of Garofalo) for securement to the head of the wearer (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 24, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches an eyewear assembly wherein the goggles are detachable from the body member and are replaceable with another type of goggles (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo; intended use).
To claim 25, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement further comprising a support element extending rearwardly from the body member nose bridge portion that provides increased structural strength at a connection between the at least one anchoring element and the mounting element of the lower compression rim-fastener (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
To claim 26, the modified invention of Garofalo (i.e., Garofalo in view of Quintana and Piller, as detailed above) further teaches a coupling arrangement wherein a lower face of the support element is formed with a vertical slit within which a terminal end of the body member engaging surface at the body member nose bridge portion is introducible (see Figures 1-3 and col. 1, line 34 – col. 2, line 20 of Garofalo).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/F Griffin Hall/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732