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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on November 25, 2024 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because too many words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 4b includes lead lines without any reference numbers.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element (241) Figure 9.
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.
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, 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:
a) interaction elements adapted to guide… in 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 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 1-13 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “a first face…intended to be applied…to a frame” which appears to be subjective (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Is this an opinionated intent? Is this meant to be “configured to” type language? Other? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim to essentially read-out the intent.
As to claim 1, the claim (lines 2, 3) recites “substantially flat” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not provide an objective measure of how far to deviate from flat to satisfy “substantially flat”. Examiner will understand that so long as the art teaches the faces, such faces are necessarily flat.
As to claim 1, the claim (line 6) recites “substantially perpendicular” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not provide an objective measure of how far to deviate from perpendicular to satisfy “substantially perpendicular”. Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the cantilevered portions extend from the face, such features are considered substantially perpendicular.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “a support body intended to be applied…” which appears to be subjective (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Is this an opinionated intent? Is this meant to be “configured to” type language? Other? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim to essentially read-out the intent.
As to claim 1, the claim (line 15-16) recites “substantially parallel” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not provide an objective measure of how far to deviate from parallel to satisfy “substantially parallel.” Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the slotted hole and third through hole have axes, such limitations are met.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “at least one housing chamber open toward the outside…” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The outside of what? Examiner will understand that so long as the art has a housing chamber, such limitations are met.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “perpendicular to it” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP2173.05(e)). What is “it”?
Claims 2-11 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “to slide in them” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is them?
As to claim 6, the claim recites “free gap between them” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is them?
As to claim 7, the claim recites “substantially parallel” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not provide an objective measure of how far to deviate from parallel to satisfy “substantially parallel.” For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand claim such that so long as the walls protrude along a direction, such limitations will be met.
As to claim 10, the claim recites “said first angular delay is substantially equal to said second angular delay” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not provide an objective measure of how far the delays deviate to satisfy “substantially equal”. So long as the prior art teaches first and second delays, such limitation will be considered met.
As to claim 12, the claim recites “according to the present invention” which is relative/subjective (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The metes and bounds are unclear since what constitutes the present invention appears entirely subjective. Examiner will read-out the limitation.
As to claim 13, the claim is a non-compliant dependent claim depending on claims 5 to 8 and 12, but not in the alternative (MPEPE 608.01(n)). Furthermore, claim 13 recites “made according to claims 5 to 8” which is unclear because claims 5 to 8 are not method claims (MPEP 2173.05(p)). For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand claim 13 to depend from claim 12 only.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “are of the ‘smart’ type” which appears subjective (MPEP 2173.05(b)). As an initial point, the word smart is in quotes, thus is it actually considered smart? Furthermore, what is or is not smart isn’t defined by the specification or claims and thus what constitutes the glasses being smart is unclear. Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the glasses are electronic, such glasses are “smart.”
As to claim 13, the claim recites “between them” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is them?
As to claim 13, the claim recites “said opening” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Claim 12 does not have any openings.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “said support plate” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Claim 12 does not have any support plates.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “the gap” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Claim 12 does not have any gap.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “said rest portions” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Claim 12 does not have rest portions.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1),(a2) as being anticipated by Blum et al. (US 2022/0057657 - Blum).
As to claim 12, Blum teaches glasses (Blum Fig. 1) comprising
a front adapted to carry two lenses (Blum Fig. 1 - 103) and two temples (Blum Fig. 1 - 101, 102), said temples adapted to allow a user to wear glasses (Blum Fig. 1);
two hinge assemblies for glasses according to the present invention (Blum Fig. 1 - 103; Figs. 2A, B; Fig. 3 - 305, 304, 306; para. [0099]), each of which couples a respective temple to said front (Blum Fig. 1 - 103; Figs. 2A, B; Fig. 3 - 305, 304, 306; para. [0099]).
As to claim 13 (as understood), Blum teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Blum further teaches the glasses are of the smart type (Blum para. [0004]), the glasses hinge assembly comprising an electrical cable (Blum Fig. 3 - 302, 303; para. [0098]) adapted to electrically connect electrical and/or electronic devices between them that are installed in the front and the temples (Blum Fig. 3 - 302, 303, 307; para. [0098]), said electrical cable coming from the front of the glasses crossing said opening of said support plate and the gap between the rest portions reaching the respective temple (Blum Fig. 4 - 305, 34, 303, 302, 307).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1),(a2) as being anticipated by Ryner et al. (US 2021/0255481 - Ryner).
As to claim 12, Ryner teaches glasses (Ryner Fig. 2C) comprising
a front adapted to carry two lenses (Ryner Fig. 2C - 105, 180A, 180B, 110A, 110B) and two temples (Ryner Fig. 2C - 125A, 125B), said temples adapted to allow a user to wear glasses (Ryner Fig. 2C);
two hinge assemblies for glasses according to the present invention (Ryner Fig. 2C - 126A, 126B), each of which couples a respective temple to said front (Ryner Fig. 2C - 126A, 126B).
As to claim 13 (as understood), Ryner teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Ryner further teaches the glasses are the smart type (Ryner Fig. 16), the glasses hinge assembly comprise an electrical cable (Ryner Fig. 10 - 1022) adapted to electrically connect electrical and/or electronic devices between them that are installed in the front and the temples (Ryner Fig. 10 - 1022; para. [0082]), said electrical cable coming from the front of the glasses crossing said opening of said support plate and the gap between the rest portions reaching the respective temple (Ryner Fig. 10 - 110A, 125A, 1022).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
1108
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Willson (US 452,008).
As to claim 12, Willson teaches glasses (Willson Figs. 1-8) comprising
a front adapted to carry two lenses (Willson Fig. 1 - A, B) and two temples (Willson Fig. 4 - G; page 1:lines75-80), said temples adapted to allow a user to wear glasses (Willson Figs. 1-8);
two hinge assemblies for glasses according to the present invention (Willson Fig. 1 - f, d, C, c, e; Fig. 4 - G, g), each of which couples a respective temple to said front (Willson Fig. 1 - f, d, C, c, e; Fig. 4 - G, g).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, although the prior art of Blum teaches glasses with hinges for electronic cables as discussed above, the prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of claim 1, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper, including the claimed details of the cantilever portions, support body, first, second, third, and fourth arm elements, and their respective through holes, and the elastic elements.
Claims 2-11 are allowable as per their dependency on claim 1.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Patent Documents - the following documents are cited for showing various hinges for glasses (smart or otherwise) having related features to Applicant’s claimed and disclosed invention including springs, arms, interaction elements, temples, and electronics.
Jing et al. (US 12,585,126; 2024/0012258); Blum et al. (US 12,436,411); Muramatsu et al. (US 12,210,222; 2022/0357598); Hicks et al. (US 11,513,366; 2021/0240007); Ryner et al. (US 11,880,093); Dal Pont (US 11,662,605; 2021/0263335); Montalban (US 10,795,179; 2019/0162983); Kacavenda (US 10,459,246; 2019/0033616); Zatta (US 9,823,489; 2016/0041405); Wei (US 5,739,891); Kallman et al. (US 5,835,185); Piard (US 4,974,289); Okner (US 3,671,111); Chen et al. (US 2026/0126670); Dal Pont (US 2025/0347930).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 September 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights