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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on April 23, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202320958051 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 22, 2025 and February 26, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0070197).
With regard to independent claim 1, Chang teaches an eyewear system (page 1, paragraph [0003] and Figure 7, element 1) comprising: at least a base (Figure 7, element 12) and a plurality of lens inserts (Figure 7, element 2, left and right occurrences); said base including two lens rims (see annotated Figure 7 below); and said plurality of lens inserts each dimensioned and configured to be releasably mounted within corresponding ones of said plurality of lens rims (page 2, paragraphs [0032] and [0033] and page 3, paragraph [0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
852
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to dependent claim 2, Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein said base further comprises at least one retention pocket (see annotated Figure 7 above); each of said lens inserts further comprising at least one retention tab protruding therefrom (see annotated Figure 7 above).
With regard to dependent claim 3, Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein said base is formed with a recess in a rear face of said base (see annotated Figure 7 above).
With regard to dependent claim 4, Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein said recess at least partially encircles said lens rims (see annotated Figure 7 above, wherein the recess encircles each lens rim).
With regard to dependent claim 5, Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 4, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein each of said plurality of lens inserts are dimensioned and configured to align with a corresponding portion of said recess (page 2, paragraph [0032] and page 3, paragraph [0036], wherein the lens is fitted into the lens rim, i.e., the retention tab fits into the retention pocket).
With regard to dependent claim 6, Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein said base is comprises of a front face, a sidewall at least partially encircling said front face, and an open rear face (see annotated Figure 7 above).
With regard to dependent claim 7, Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 6, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein said sidewall extends rearwardly from said front face and at least partially defines a recess (see annotated Figure 7 above).
With regard to dependent claim 8, Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein each of said lens inserts further comprises a lens held within a subframe (Figure 7, wherein lens (2) is held within element 31 (subframe)).
With regard to dependent claim 9, Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein each of said lens inserts further comprises a subframe encircling a lens (Figure 7, wherein the subframe (element 31) encircles the lens (element 2)).
With regard to independent claim 11, Chang teaches an eyewear system base (page 1, paragraph [0003] and Figure 7, element 1) comprising: a front surface and a sidewall at least partially encircling said front surface (see annotated Figure 7 above); said sidewall protruding rearward from said front surface and at least partially defining at least one recess in a rear face of the eyewear system base (see annotated Figure 7); said recess being dimensioned and configured to accommodate a plurality of lens inserts (page 2, paragraphs [0032] and [0033] and page 3, paragraph [0036]).
With regard to dependent claim 12, Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 11, and further teaches such an eyewear system further comprising a plurality of retention pockets formed within said recess (see annotated Figure 7 above, left and right occurrences), said plurality of retention pockets dimensioned and configured to receive at least one retention tab protruding from said lens insert (see annotated Figure 7, wherein the retention tabs are received in the recess).
With regard to dependent claim 13, Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 11, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein the base further includes a plurality of lens rims (see annotated Figure 7 above); wherein said recess encircles each of said plurality of lens rims (see annotated Figure 7 above, wherein the recess encircles the lens rims).
With regard to independent claim 14, Chang teaches an eyewear system lens insert (page 1, paragraph [0003] and Figure 7, element 1) comprising: a lens (Figure 7, element 2) at least partially encircled by a subframe (Figure 7, element 31 encircles element 2); said subframe being dimensioned and configured to be mounted on a base (Figure 7, element 31 is mounted to element 12); at least one retention tab protruding from said subframe (see annotated Figure 7 above).
With regard to dependent claim 15, Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 14, and further teaches such an eyewear system wherein said lens is held within said subframe (page 2, paragraph [0032] and page 3, paragraph [0036]).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0070197), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of McCulloch et al (U.S. Patent Number 3,060,803).
With regard to dependent claim 10, although Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, Chang fails to teach such an eyewear system base wherein each of said lens inserts further comprises a nose pad. In a related endeavor, McCulloch et al teaches an eyewear system (column 1, lines 10-12 and Figures 1 and 5) comprising lens inserts (Figure 5, element 7) further comprising nose pads (Figure 5, element 21), 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 eyewear system, as taught by Chang, with the nose pad, as taught by McCulloch et al, to provide proper support of the eyewear system for the wearer.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0070197), as applied to claim 14 above.
With regard to dependent claim 16, although Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 14, Chang fails to teach such an eyewear system wherein said subframe is formed unitarily with said lens. However, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together 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 eyewear system lens insert, as taught by Chang, to be constructed as a single unit without undue experimentation and reducing the number of produced parts.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0070197), as applied to claim 14 above, in view of McCulloch et al (U.S. Patent Number 3,060,803).
With regard to dependent claim 17, although Chang teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 14, Chang fails to teach such an eyewear system lens insert wherein each of said lens inserts further comprises a nose pad. In a related endeavor, McCulloch et al teaches an eyewear system base (column 1, lines 10-12 and Figures 1 and 5, element 11) comprising lens inserts (Figure 5, element 7) further comprising nose pads (Figure 5, element 21), 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 eyewear system, as taught by Chang, with the nose pad, as taught by McCulloch et al, to provide proper support of the eyewear system for the wearer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Santinelli (U.S. Patent Number 11,526,026), Cheong (U.S. Patent Number 6,592,220), Jackson (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0109370), Chen (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0146240), Wilson et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0235269) and Shiue (U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0128426).
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
08 July 2026
Prosecution Insights