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 .
Response to Pre-amendment
2. The present office action is made in response to the Pre-amendment filed on 06/28/2024. It is noted that in the Pre-amendment, applicant has made changes to the specification and the claims. There was not any change being made to the abstract and the drawings.
A) Regarding to the specification, applicant has submitted a substitute specification with its marked-up copy showing the changes to the specification, and a statement that the substitute specification does not contain any new matter; and
B) Regarding to the claims, applicant has amended claims 1-11. There was not any claim being added/canceled into/from the application. The pending claims are claims 1-11.
Election/Restrictions
3. In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant on 04/01/2026, applicant’s made an election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 05/12/2026.
4. As a result of applicant’s election, claims 1-7 and 10-11 are examined in the present office action, and claims 8-9 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected invention(s).
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
Priority
5. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The listing of references in the specification, see specification in page 14, is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
7. The drawings contain four sheets of figures 1-5 were received on 06/28/2024. These drawings are objected by the examiner for the following reasons.
8. 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:
First, the distances “d1” and “d2” as mentioned in the specification in page 13; and
Second, the numerical reference “72” as mentioned in the specification in page 17.
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 the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
9. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “26” has been used to designate both “a shield insert” of a radiation protection unit (22), see figs. 1-2, and an optical layer attached to cover disk (62), see fig. 5. 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 the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
10. The substitute specification filed on 06/28/2024 has been entered.
11. The lengthy specification which was amended by the Pre-amendment of 06/28/2024 has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
12. The specification is objected to because it does not have a Summary of the Invention. Appropriate correction is required.
13. The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Interpretation
14. 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.
15. 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, 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.
16. 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 limitations are “one sensor unit” and “one shield unit” as recited in present claim 1.
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
17. Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
It is noted that all features recited in claim 11 are recited in its base claim 1 on lines 1 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
18. 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.
19. Claims 1-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a1) the claim is indefinite due to the use of phrase thereof “in particular” on lines 1, 2 and 9.
Applicant should note that the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
a2) the feature thereof “the glare protection filter” (line 4 and line 8) lacks a proper antecedent basis. Applicant should note that the base claim 1 recites “at least one optical glare protection filter” on line 2, thus which one is considered as “the glare protection filter” on line 4 and line 8?
b) 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 the similar reasons as set forth in element a) above.
c) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by the feature thereof “the at least one … aluminum alloy” (lines 2-3). Applicant should note that the term(s) “and/or” is understood as –and-- thus what kind of material consists of both aluminum and aluminum alloy does the at last one radiation wall have?
d) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
d1) the similar reason as set forth in element a2) above; and
d2) the feature thereof “the shield unit” (line 4) lacks a proper antecedent basis. Applicant should note that the base claim 1 recites “at least one shield unit” on line 2, thus which one is considered as “the shield unit” in the claim on line 4?
e) Each of claims 5-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the similar reasons as set forth in element a2) and/or d2) above.
f) Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because the feature thereof “the shield insert” (line 2) lacks a proper antecedent basis. Applicant should note that claim 5, not claim 1, recites a shield insert.
g) Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because the feature thereof “the face” (line 4) lacks a proper antecedent basis.
h) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
20. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
21. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
It is noted that all features recited in claim 11 are recited in its base claim 1, thus the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the base claim 1 upon which it depends
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 10-11, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US Publication No. 2019/0298574, submitted by applicant) in view of Georg (Germany reference No. DE 10 2011 114 108 A1).
Seo et al discloses a laser protection device (100).
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 11, the protection device as described in paragraphs [0029]-[0046] and shown in figs. 1-6 comprises the following features:
a1) at least one optical glare protection filter (120);
a2) a frame having a nose cutout, see figs. 1-6;
a3) at least one sensor unit configured for a detection of a working state and for actuating, as a function thereof, a transmittance of the at least one optical glare filter, see paragraphs [0044]-[0045];
a4) at least one shield unit (200) configured to protect a face of a user, see paragraphs [0029]-[0030], for example, wherein the at least one optical glare protection filter (120) is fixed accommodated; and
a5) at least one radiation protection unit (140) extending around the optical glare protection filter (120).
The only feature missing from the laser protection device disclosed by Seo et al is that while Seo et al discloses that the radiation protection unit (140) is made by plastics, see paragraph [0037], Seo et al does not positively disclose that the radiation protection unit consists of a laser absorbing material. However, an element made by plastic material having a light/laser absorbing characteristic is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the protecting device provided by Georg, see paragraph [0002] and the English translation in page . Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the laser protection device provided by Seo et al by using plastic material having ability of light/laser absorbing feature as suggested by Georg for the purpose of increasing the ability of protection a user from harmful light.
b) Regarding present claims 2 and 4, the radiation protection unit (140) comprises at least a radiation protection wall (141) which extends around the optical glare protection filter (120) wherein the radiation protection wall (141) projects at least substantially perpendicularly to a main extension plane of the optical glare protection filter (120) into an interior space of the shield unit (200).
c) Regarding present claims 5-6, the radiation protection unit (140) comprises at least one shield insert (110) which is able to make by light-absorbing material as that of the radiation protection unit (140) based on the teaching provided by Georg, wherein the at least one shield insert (170) is arranged in a mouth region of a user behind the shield unit (200).
d) Regarding present claim 7, the radiation protection unit (140) different from the shield unit (200).
e) Regarding present claim 10, the radiation protection unit (140) comprises at least one face stop which an end position thereof configured to contact the face of the user, see paragraphs [0030], [0040], for example.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
25. 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.
26. Claim 3, as best as understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al in view of Georg as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Righi et al (WO 2023/047271 A1).
It is noted that the combined product provided by Seo et al and Georg does not disclose that the material of the radiation protection unit is aluminum as claimed in present claim 3. However, the use of different materials for making a support for an optical element wherein the materials are selected from plastic or metal including aluminum alloy is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the optical device provided by Righi et al, see paragraphs [0035]-[0036] which discloses the material of a frame supporting optical element(s) is made by plastics or metal including aluminum alloy. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined product provided by Seo et al and Georg by using aluminum alloy instead of plastic to make the radiation protection unit (140) to meet a particular application.
Conclusion
27. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
28. The US Publication No. 2015/0359679 is cited as of interest in that it discloses a laser protection device comprises a device having at least one optical glare protection filter and a radiation protection unit extending around the glare protection filter.
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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 B. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights