DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In remark, page 1, Applicant argues: Beliveau fails to disclose "wherein said first prosthetic layer at least partially obscures a field of view of a left eye or a right eye of the user".
Beliveau or Cronk discloses a similar structure/apparatus/device as claimed in applicant’s claim 1 invention. Two similar structures/devices must yield the same result. Therefore, the apparatus/device/structure of Beliveau inherently yields the same result as that of Applicant’s claim 1 device that is “partially obscures a field of view of a left eye or a right eye of the user”.
If applicant think that Beliveau’s device does not result in partially obscures a field of view, then application’s claim 1 doesn’t work either or Applicant’s claim 1 device must be missing a distinguishing feature that differentiates from Beliveau and Cronk’s device. Or applicant’s claim 1 attempts to define the subject matter in terms of the result to be achieved (i.e., partially obscures a field of view of a left eye or a right eye of the user), but in so doing merely states the underlying problem, without indicating the technical features necessary for achieving this result.
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, 2 and 4 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beliveau (US 20120036608 A1 of record).
Regarding claim 1, Beliveau discloses , in figure 12, a nasal prosthetic or the like comprising: a first prosthetic layer (figure 12) having a first thickness, a front side, and a back side; and
an adhesive layer (adhesive strip 1215) disposed on the back side of the first prosthetic layer; wherein the nasal prosthetic is configured to be worn against a nasal bridge of a user with the back side of the nasal prosthetic facing the nasal bridge of the user (Abstract, Summary, “…covers the bridge and sides of a user's nose”, par.[0034]).
wherein when the nasal prosthetic is worn, the adhesive layer secures the first prosthetic layer to the nasal prosthetic; and wherein the first prosthetic layer at least partially obscures a field of view of a left eye or a right eye of the user (Beliveau discloses the same structure of claim 1 application; therefore, Beliveau device eventually yields the same result that is partially obscures a field of view of a left eye or a right eye of the user (if applicant think that Beliveau’s structure device will not yield the same result, then application’s claim 1 must be missing a critical features).
Regarding claim 2, Beliveau discloses the nasal prosthetic of claim 1. Beliveau further discloses wherein the first prosthetic layer extends along a dorsum nasi of the user when the nasal prosthetic is worn (see figure 9).
Regarding claim 4, Beliveau discloses the nasal prosthetic of claim 1. Beliveau further discloses wherein the second prosthetic layer (i.e., layer 120 or 130)(figure 1) extends along the nasal bridge when the nasal prosthetic is worn, such that the first prosthetic layer (i.e., 110)(figure 1) is between the nasal bridge and the second prosthetic layer (i.e., layer 120 or 130)(figure 1).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cronk et al. (US 20010032645 A1 hereinafter Cronk or record).
Regarding claim 1, Cronk discloses, in figure 12, nasal prosthetic (100) or the like comprising: a first prosthetic layer (layer 30)(figures 2 and 3) having a first thickness, a front side, and a back side; and
an adhesive layer (layer 32) disposed on the back side of the first prosthetic layer; wherein the nasal prosthetic is configured to be worn against a nasal bridge of a user with the back side of the nasal prosthetic facing the nasal bridge of the user (“ … to comfortably fit across a bridge of a nose”, par.[0021], [0047]).
wherein when the nasal prosthetic is worn, the adhesive layer secures the first prosthetic layer to the nasal prosthetic; and wherein the first prosthetic layer at least partially obscures a field of view of a left eye or a right eye of the user (inherent from Cronk device since both Cronk and Claim 1 invention disclose similar device).
Regarding claim 3, Cronk discloses the nasal prosthetic of claim 1. Cronk further discloses a second prosthetic layer (i.e., layer 60 or 40)(figure 3) disposed against the first prosthetic layer (30)(figure 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2343. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/TUYEN TRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872