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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on September 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugihara et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0042544).
With regard to independent claim 1, Sugihara et al teaches an electronic device (page 1, paragraphs [0005]-[0014] and Figures 1 and 2B), comprising: a frame (page 5, paragraph [0110] and Figure 2B); a window secured to the frame (page 5, paragraph [0112], wherein the frame may or may not have a lens and broadly, without a lens, the frame forms a window); a waveguide configured to direct light displayed at the window (Figure 1, element 50); and a securement arm (Figure 1, element 10) including an electronic port electrically coupled to the waveguide (Figure 2B, elements CP1 and CF1), the electronic port comprising: a through-hole defined by an inner surface of the securement arm (see annotated Figure 2B below); a first electrical contact defining the inner surface (Figure 2B, element TP1); and a second electrical contact defining the inner surface (Figure 2B, element TP2).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0042544).
With regard to dependent claim 8, although Sugihara et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, further including such an electronic device wherein the securement arm comprises: a proximal end secured to the frame (see annotated Figure 2B above); and a distal end opposite the proximal end (see annotated Figure 2B above), Sugihara et al fails to teach such an electronic device wherein the electronic port is disposed at the distal end, but does teach the electronic port as being disposed on the proximal end. It should be noted that it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 67), 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 move the electronic port from a proximal end to a distal end as a design alternative.
With regard to dependent claim 9, although Sugihara et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 8, Sugihara et al fails to teach such an electronic device wherein the electronic port is configured to be positioned behind the ear of a user when the user dons the electronic device. However, it should be noted, as outlined above, that providing the electronic port on the distal end of the securement arm is an obvious variant of the electronic device as taught by Sugihara et al, wherein placement of the electronic port at the distal end would provide the electronic port to be positioned behind the ear of a user in a worn position, i.e., at the temple’s end.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 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 Sugihara et al teaches an electronic device (page 1, paragraphs [0005]-[0014] and Figures 1 and 2B), comprising: a frame (page 5, paragraph [0110] and Figure 2B); a window secured to the frame (page 5, paragraph [0112], wherein the frame may or may not have a lens and broadly, without a lens, the frame forms a window); a waveguide configured to direct light displayed at the window (Figure 1, element 50); and a securement arm (Figure 1, element 10) including an electronic port electrically coupled to the waveguide (Figure 2B, elements CP1 and CF1), the electronic port comprising: a through-hole defined by an inner surface of the securement arm (see annotated Figure 2B below); a first electrical contact defining the inner surface (Figure 2B, element TP1); and a second electrical contact defining the inner surface (Figure 2B, element TP2), and further teaches wherein: the securement arm includes a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface; the securement arm includes a thickness defined between the first surface and the second surface, Sugihara et al fails to teach such an electronic device wherein the through-hole extends entirely through the thickness of the securement arm, as claimed in dependent claim 2.
Again, Sugihara et al teaches al of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, but fails to teach such an electronic device further comprising: a third electrical contact defining the inner surface; a first insulating portion defining the inner surface between the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact; and a second insulating portion defining the inner surface between the second electrical contact and the third electrical contact, as claimed in dependent claim 4; or wherein the first electrical contact comprises an expandable ring having a first terminal end and a second terminal end opposite the first terminal end, as claimed in dependent claim 6.
With regard to dependent claims 3, 5 and 7, claims 3, 5 and 7 are allowable as they depend, directly or indirectly, from dependent claims 2, 4 and 6, 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. Kanuganti et al (WO 2019/108980 A1), Klosinski , Jr. et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0255029), El-Ghoroury et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0108697) and Ronzani et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2002/0163486) all teach electronic devices comprising a securement arm having an electronic port.
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
23 September 2026
Prosecution Insights