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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, after “user,” and before “wherein”, “,” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has stated that new claim 31 “includes the limitations of allowable claim 212, intervening claim 18, claim 19, and independent claim 16” (see Applicant’s Remarks, page 9, fifth paragraph, filed August 7, 2026). The examiner respectfully disagrees. After care consideration, new claim 31, includes the limitations of independent claim 16 and dependent claims 18 and 19, but lacks the limitations of claim 21.
With regard to Applicant’s argument that Komaki et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0060252) fails to teach “a flexible cable configured to be incorporated within said front, in order to carry data signals and/or power to said temples, wherein said flexible cable is extended at least up to said nose pads and/or to at least on rim region of said front, said flexible cable forming at least one active region at said nose pads and/or said rim which is adapted to act as a capacitive sensor in order to detect gestures on the part of a user”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Komaki et al teaches a data processor (page 2, paragraph [0003] and Figure 3, element 11) connected to the nose pad electrodes (Figure 3, elements 151a, 151b, 152a and 152b) and the sensor electrodes (page 4, paragraph [0056], lines 3-6) via a small flat cable (page 4, paragraph [0056], lines 11-13) that is passed through the eyewear frame (Figure 3, elements 101 and 102) such that a flexible cable is configured to be incorporated within said front (page 4, paragraph [0056], lines 4-6 and 11-13), in order to carry data signals and/or power (wherein receiving and transmitting data to and from the sensor electrodes and nose pad electrodes is an inherent feature of a data processor), wherein the flexible cable is extended at least up to said nose pads and/or to at least on rim region of said front (page 4, paragraph [0056], wherein the very-small flat cable extends from the data processor, to the frames 101 and 102 and/or to the nose pad electrodes, i.e., up to the nose pads) said flexible cable forming at least one active region at said nose pads and/or said rim (page 4, paragraph [0056], wherein the cable extends to sensor electrodes 141 to 144 and 141* to 144* forming an active region at the rim of the frames and wherein the cable extends from the data processor to nose pad electrodes forming an active region at the nose pads), which is adapted to act as a capacitive sensor in order to detect gestures on the part of a user (page 3, paragraph [0047]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komaki et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0060252).
With regard to independent claim 16, Komaki et al teaches electronic eyeglasses (Figure 3, element 100), comprising a front with nose pads (Figure 3, elements 150L and 150R) and a pair of temples (Figure 3, elements 106 and 107) respectively connected to the front with hinges (Figure 3, elements 104 and 105 and page 2, paragraph [0029]) and further comprising a flexible cable configured to be incorporated within said front (page 4, paragraph [0056], wherein “a very-small flat cable (not shown) is passed through the frames”), in order to carry data signals and/or power to said temples (page 4, paragraph [0056]), wherein said flexible cable is extended at least to said nose pads and/or to at least one rim region of said front (page 4, paragraph [0056]), said flexible cable forming at least one active region at said nose pads and/or said rim which is adapted to act as a capacitive sensor in order to detect gestures on the part of a user (page 3, paragraph [0047] and Figure 3, elements 140-144).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0060252) as applied to claim 16 above.
With regard to dependent claim 17, although Komaki et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, Komaki et al fails to teach such electronic eyeglasses wherein said capacitive sensor is integrated within said flexible cable. However, it should be noted that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces involves only routine skill in the art (Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)), 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 electronic eyeglasses, as taught by Komaki et al, to incorporate the sensor within the cable to create a single component.
With regard to dependent claim 22, although Komaki et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, wherein Komaki et al teaches such electronic eyeglasses further comprising an additional capacitive sensor (Figure 3, elements 140-144, i.e., multiple sensors) Komaki et al fails to teach such electronic eyeglasses wherein the additional capacitive sensor is adapted to be inserted in at least one of said temples in order to detect gestures on the part of the user. It should be noted that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70), 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 electronic eyeglasses, as taught by Komaki et al, by rearranging the sensor located on the front of the electronic eyeglass frame, to a different part of the frame, i.e., the temple, to sense gestures from a different vantage point.
Claims 18, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0060252) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Peloux et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0210236).
With regard to dependent claim 18, although Komaki et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, Komaki et al fails to teach such electronic eyeglasses wherein said flexible cable has, at ends thereof, a pair of plates adapted to support at least one ambient light sensor. In a related endeavor, Peloux et al teaches electronic eyeglasses (Figure 1) comprising a flexible cable embedded within the eyeglass frame (see annotated Figure 1 below) supporting at least one ambient light sensor (Figure 1, element 8 and page 2, paragraph [0043]), 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 electronic eyeglasses, as taught by Komaki et al, with the light sensor for electronic eyeglasses, as taught by Peloux et al, to switch the electronic eyeglasses from an active to inactive state (page 3, paragraph [0049]).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to dependent claim 23, although Komaki et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, Komaki et al fails to teach such electronic eyeglasses further comprising at least one additional sensor, which is accommodated within at least one of said temples and is adapted to detect whether said eyeglasses are being worn or not by said user. In a related endeavor, Peloux et al teaches electronic eyeglasses (Figure 1) comprising a flexible cable embedded within the eyeglass frame (see annotated Figure 1 above) further comprising at least one additional sensor, which is accommodated within at least one of said temples and is adapted to detect whether said eyeglasses are being worn or not by said user (page 6, paragraph [0114] and Figure 1, element 11), 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 electronic eyeglasses, as taught by Komaki et al, with active/inactive sensor, as taught by Peloux et al, to reduce power consumption when not is use (page 6, paragraph [0114]).
With regard to dependent claim 25, although Komaki et al in view of Peloux et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 23, both fail to teach such electronic eyeglasses wherein said at least one additional sensor adapted to detect whether said eyeglasses are being worn or not by said user is an adherence sensor arranged in the nose pads of said eyeglasses. However, it should be noted that an adherence sensor is a functional equivalent to the sensor as taught by Peloux et al, 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 electronic eyeglasses, as taught by Komaki et al, in view of Peloux et al, with an adherence sensor as it would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to select any of these known equivalents to sense a worn status.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0060252) in view of Peloux et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0210236) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Li et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0134213).
With regard to dependent claim 24, although Komaki et al in view of Peloux et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 23, both fail to teach such electronic eyeglasses wherein said at least one additional sensor accommodated within at least one of said temples in order to detect whether said eyeglasses are being worn or not by said user is of the capacitive or inertial or ambient type. In a related endeavor, Li et al teaches electronic eyeglasses (Figure 3, element 200) comprising a wearing detection device within the temples (Figure 6, element 31, wherein element 31 resides in element 103 comprised of elements 11 and 12), wherein the wearing detection device is one of a capacitive or inertial or ambient type (page 3, paragraph [0056]), 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 electronic eyeglasses, as taught by Komaki et al in view of Peloux et al, with a capacitive sensor as it would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to select any of these known equivalents to sense a worn status.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0060252) in view of Peloux et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0210236) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sales et al (U.S. Patent Number 9,910,298).
With regard to dependent claim 26, although Komaki et al in view of Peloux et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, both fail to teach such electronic eyeglasses wherein said hinge comprises, in an internal position, adapted to be directed toward said user, at least one LED in order to provide feedback to said user. In a related endeavor, Sales et al teaches electronic glasses (column 1, lines 37-38 and Figure 7C) wherein a hinge comprises, in an internal position, adapted to be directed toward said user, at least one LED in order to provide feedback to said user (Figure 7C, element 326 and column 10, lines 22-24), 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 electronic eyeglasses, as taught by Komaki et al in view of Peloux et al, with a LED, as taught by Sales et al, to provide output to the wearer (column 9, lines 1-6).
With regard to dependent claim 27, Komaki et al in view of Peloux et al, further in view of Sales et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 26, wherein Sales et al further teaches wherein said hinge comprises additional sensors adapted to measure data useful for the user and to be visualized by means of said LED (column 6, line 60-column 7, line 19).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0060252) in view of Peloux et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0210236) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zhong et al (U.S. Patent Number 10,750,302).
With regard to dependent claim 28, although Komaki et al in view of Peloux et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, both fail to teach such electronic eyeglasses wherein said flexible cable is overmolded by injection [molding] within said front, in a rearward position so as to be directed toward said user, integrated within said front. In a related endeavor, Zhong et al teaches electronic glasses (Figure 4) having a flexible cable (Figure 4, element 410) that is overmolded by injection [molding] within said front, in a rearward position so as to be directed toward said user, integrated within said front (Figure 4, element 410 and column 11, line 67-column 12, line 3), 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 electronic eyeglasses, as taught by Komaki et al in view of Peloux et al, with the overmolded flexible cable, as taught by Zhong et al, to secure the flexible cable (column 12, lines 1-3, wherein the cable is maintained within the frame).
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0060252) in view of Peloux et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0210236) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Blum et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0002160).
With regard to dependent claim 29, although Komaki et al in view of Peloux et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, both fail to teach such electronic eyeglasses further comprising a reset sensor integrated within at least one of said temples. In a related endeavor, Blum et al teaches electronic glasses (Figure 1) comprising a reset sensor (page 4, paragraph [0055] and page 16, paragraph [0149], lines 6-8, wherein a touch button has been interpreted as a sensor), 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 electronic eyeglasses, as taught by Komaki et al in view of Peloux et al, with reset sensor, as taught by Blum et al, to provide the wearer with a fresh display.
With regard to dependent claim 30, although Komaki et al in view of Peloux et al, further in view of Blum et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 29, all fail to explicitly teach wherein the reset sensor comprises a Hall sensor adapted to detect [a] presence of [a] magnetic field. It should be noted that it is inherent of a Hall effect sensor to detect a magnetic field wherein a Hall effect sensor is defined as a solid state device that detects the presence, strength or proximity of a magnetic field. It should also be noted that one of routine skill in the art, without undue experimentation, would find providing a Hall effect sensor as a reset sensor obvious since Hall effect sensors are utilized in touch sensors, 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 reset sensor, as taught by Komaki et al in view of Peloux et al, further in view of Blum et, with a Hall effect sensor to provide a known input mechanism for reset.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21 are 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.
Claims 31 and 32 are allowed.
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.
Although Komaki et al teaches electronic eyeglasses (Figure 3, element 100), comprising a front with nose pads (Figure 3, elements 150L and 150R) and a pair of temples (Figure 3, elements 106 and 107) respectively connected to the front with hinges (Figure 3, elements 104 and 105 and page 2, paragraph [0029]) and further comprising a flexible cable configured to be incorporated within said front (page 4, paragraph [0056], wherein “a very-small flat cable (not shown) is passed through the frames”), in order to carry data signals and/or power to said temples (page 4, paragraph [0056]), wherein said flexible cable is extended at least to said nose pads and/or to at least one rim region of said front (page 4, paragraph [0056]), said flexible cable forming at least one active region at said nose pads and/or said rim which is adapted to act as a capacitive sensor in order to detect gestures on the part of a user (page 3, paragraph [0047] and Figure 3, elements 140-144), Komaki et al fails to teach such electronic eyeglasses: further comprising a locking element adapted to be inserted in holes formed in the front, in order to couple at a rearward region of the front with said plates, as claimed in dependent claim 19 or independent claim 31; or wherein said flexible cable which is extended at least to the nose pads and/or at least to the rim region of said front is monolithic and bonded with adhesive at the ends, as claimed in dependent claim 21 or independent claim 32.
With regard to dependent claim 20, claim 20 is allowable as it depends, directly or indirectly, from dependent claim 19 and therefore inherits all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends.
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
02 September 2026
Prosecution Insights