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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, sixth paragraph, line 1-3, filed August 27, 2026, with respect to independent claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed August 27, 2026, with respect to claims 3-9, 13 and 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to dependent claim 3, although Applicant has attempted to clarify the positioning of the atomization water tank, claim 3 fails to positively recite the limitations thereof in a clear and concise manner. The examiner has interpreted the atomization tank as not being “arrange on a side toward and extending direction of a free end of the temple” but arranged to “extend rearwardly from the glasses frame in a direction of a free end of the temple” or “extended rearwardly from the glasses frame in a direction toward a wearer of the atomization glasses”. The examiner respectfully requests clarification as to the atomization tank placement.
With regard to independent claim 13, Applicant has incorrectly indicated that new claims 13 and 14 include “all limitations of original claims 5 and 6”. New claim 13 only includes the limitations of claims 1-4 and fails to include the limitations of original claim 5.
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 3-9 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 3 requires the atomization water tank to be “arranged on the glasses frame body on a side toward an extending direction of a free end of the temple”, wherein claim 1 requires the atomization water tank to “located between the left lens and the right lens”. Claim 3 appears to contradict the positioning as outlined in claim 1 and therefore it is unclear how the atomization tank can be in both positions. Please see comments/suggested wording above.
With regard to dependent claims 4-9, claims 4-9 are rejected as they depend, directly or indirectly, from dependent claim 3 and therefore inherit all of the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertera (U.S. Patent Number 5,368,582).
With regard to independent claim 13, although Bertera teaches atomization glasses (column 2, lines 13-15 and Figure 1), comprising a glasses frame (Figure 1, element 20), comprising a glasses frame body (Figure 1, element 20), and a left temple and a right temple that are respectively arranged on two ends of the glasses frame body (see annotated Figure 1 below); a left lens (see annotated Figure 1 below), a right lens (see annotated Figure 1 below), and an atomization water tank (Figure 1, element 12) that are respectively arranged on the glasses frame (Figure 1), wherein the left lens, the right lens, and the atomization water tank are respectively arranged on the glasses frame body (Figure 1), the atomization water tank is located between the left lens and the right lens (Figure 1, wherein tank (12) is located between the left and right lenses) and on a side of the glasses frame body in an extending direction of a free end of the temple (Figure 1, wherein the atomization tanks extends in a rearward direction toward the free end of the temple), an accommodating cavity is provided in the atomization water tank (this is an inherent feature of the tank if it is to hold a liquid), an atomization hole is provided on at least one side of the atomization water tank, the atomization hole is in communication with the accommodating cavity, an atomization sheet is arranged at the atomization hole (column 5, lines 43-54 and Figure 3), a power supply assembly is arranged on the glasses frame (Figure 1, elements 16 and 28), and the atomization sheet is electrically connected to the power supply assembly (column 6, lines 7-29), Bertera fails to explicitly teach wherein the power supply assembly comprises a first circuit board, a second circuit board is arranged in the atomization water tank, the atomization sheet is electrically connected to the second circuit board, and the first circuit board is connected to the second circuit board when the atomization water tank is arranged on the glasses frame body, however, Bertera does teach atomization glasses wherein the power supply comprises a control circuit (column 2, lines 47-50 and 60-63), 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 atomization glasses, as taught by Bertera, to include multiple circuit boards, as required, to provide a workable and functional unit.
.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertera (U.S. Patent Number 5,368,582) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Urbach et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0219404).
With regard to dependent claim 14, although Bertera teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 13, Bertera fails to teach such atomization glasses wherein a water level measuring element is further arranged on the atomization water tank, the water level measuring element is configured to measure an amount of solution in the atomization water tank, and the water level measuring element is connected to the first circuit board or the second circuit board. In a related endeavor, glasses, Urbach et al teaches eyewear (Figure 1, element 110) comprising a liquid supplying system (Figure 14A, element 1404) further comprising sensors to monitor and detect water levels within a water tank (page 24, paragraph [0259]) 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 glasses, as taught by Bertera, with the water level detection, as taught by Urbach et al, to control the operation of the atomizer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 are allowed.
Claims 3-9 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.
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 independent claim 1, the reasons for allowance are as set forth in the Office action mailed May 29, 2026 and Applicant’s Remarks (page 7, sixth paragraph, line 1-3), filed August 27, 2026.
With regard to dependent claims 2, 11 and 12, claims 2, 11 and 12 are allowable as they depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1 and therefore inherit all of the limitations of the claim from which they depend.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
15 September 2026
Prosecution Insights