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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 6, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation “said distal end” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In an effort to promote compact prosecution, he examiner has interpreted “said distal end” as “a distal end”.
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 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morrison (U.S. Patent Number 5,694,194).
With regard to independent claim 13, Morrison teaches a frame for eyeglasses (Figure 2, element 12) with nose pads (Figure 2, element 19), which comprises frame portions adapted to accommodate a pair of lenses (Figure 2, element 14), wherein each frame portion adapted to accommodate a respective lens is provided with a seat (Figure 2, element 20) which is adapted to accommodate a nose pad (Figure 2, wherein element 20 accommodates element 19).
With regard to dependent claim 14, Morrison teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 13, and further teaches such a frame wherein said seat is adapted to accommodate a distal end portion of said nose pad so that said distal end portion is level with a frame part that surrounds said seat (Figure 2, wherein element 20 is adapted to accommodate the distal end of element 28 which is level with element 12).
With regard to dependent claim 19, Morrison teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 14, and further teaches such a frame wherein said distal end portion of said nose pad, adapted to be accommodated in said seat of the frame, is shaped so as to be complementary to said seat (Figure 2, wherein element 19 follows the contour of, i.e., compliments, element 20).
With regard to dependent claim 20, Morrison teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 13, and further teaches such a frame wherein said nose pad has a rod-like (Figure 3, element 26), curved shape that substantially reproduces a curvature of the frame portion that accommodates the lens (Figure 2, wherein elements 19 and 26 follow the contour of, i.e., reproduces a curvature of the frame, element 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (U.S. Patent Number 5,694,194), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Fujimoto (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0114407).
With regard to dependent claim 18, although Morrison teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 13, wherein Morrison further teaches the nose pads are adjustable (column 5, lines 6-8). It should also be noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of an alternative design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). However, Morrison fails to explicitly teach wherein said nose pad is made of intrinsically elastic metallic material. In a related endeavor, Fujimoto teaches a frame for eyeglasses (Figure 2) comprising a pair of lenses and a nose pad (Figure 2, element 3) wherein the nose pad is constructed of an elastic material (page 2, paragraph [0022]), 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 eyeglass frame, as taught by Morrison, with the elastic material, as taught by Fujimoto, to provide user comfort.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (U.S. Patent Number 5,694,194), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lin (U.S. Patent Number 6,283,592).
With regard to dependent claim 21, although Morrison teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 13, Morrison fails to explicitly teach such a frame wherein the [a] distal end portion of said nose pad, adapted to be accommodated in said seat, is soldered in said seat of the frame. In a related endeavor, Lin teaches a frame for eyeglasses (Figure 1, element 1) comprising a nose pad (Figure 1, element 2) wherein the nose pad is welded to the eyeglass frame (column 1, line 22), 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 eyeglass frame, as taught by Morrison, by soldering the nose pad to the eyeglass frame, as taught by Lin, as is commonly known in the art as a method of attaching a nose pad to an eyeglass frame.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (U.S. Patent Number 5,694,194), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Torres (U.S. Patent Number 9,939,656).
With regard to dependent claim 22, although Morrison teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 13, Morrison fails to explicitly teach such a frame further comprising a covering made of plastic material or rubber, which is adapted to be fitted on said nose pad in order to improve user comfort. In a related endeavor, Torres teaches a frame for eyeglass (Figure 1A) comprising a nose pad (Figure 6, element 72) further comprising a covering made of plastic material or rubber, which is adapted to be fitted on said nose pad in order to improve user comfort (column 5, lines 15-25), 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 eyeglass frame, as taught by Morrison, with the soft slip-on cover for the nose pad, as taught by Torres, to offer comfort for the wearer.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (U.S. Patent Number 5,694,194), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gros (FR 872,209).
With regard to dependent claim 23, although Morrison teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 13, Morrison fails to explicitly teach such a frame wherein the nose pads coupled in said respective seats of said frame are substantially hidden behind a thickness of the frame, when the frame is viewed from the front. In a related endeavor, Gros teaches a frame for eyeglass (Figure 2, element 7) comprising a seat (Figure 2, element 9) wherein the seat accommodates a nose pad (Figure 2, element 5) wherein the nose pads coupled in said respective seats of said frame are substantially hidden behind a thickness of the frame, when the frame is viewed from the front (Figure 2, wherein element 9 is positioned on the eye side of element 7), 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 eyeglass frame, as taught by Morrison, with mounting seats accommodating nose pads hidden from view, as taught by Gros, for aesthetic purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 and 24 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.
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 the prior art teaches a frame for eyeglasses with nose pads, which comprises frame portions adapted to accommodate a pair of lenses, wherein each frame portion adapted to accommodate a respective lens is provided with a seat which is adapted to accommodate a nose pad, the prior art fails to teach such a frame: wherein said seat of said frame has a thickness that decreases from a bottom upward, i.e., toward a bridge of the frame, as claimed in dependent claim 15; or wherein said seat is constituted by a frame portion that is thinner than a remaining part of the frame, as claimed in dependent claim 16.
With regard to dependent claims 17 and 24, claims 17 and 24 are allowable as they depend, directly or indirectly, from dependent claims 15 and 16, respectively and therefore inherit all of the limitations of the claim from which they depend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gaspari (U.S. Patent Number 1,444,067) and Beattey (U.S. Patent Number 1,537,733) both teach frames for eyeglasses.
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
30 June 2026
Prosecution Insights