DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office action in response to the amendment filed 06/08/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending;
Claims 1-10 are currently amended;
Claims 1-10 are rejected herein.
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 .
Response to Arguments
The Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.130(a), filed 06/08/2026, declaring that Veharvim was a disclosure "by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A), is accepted by the Examiner. Therefore, Veharvim is not considered as prior art to the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), since it falls within the exception of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A).
Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-10 of the present application under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) in view of Veharvim, as presented in the Office action mailed 03/16/2026, are hereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature "the first elastic cushion and the second elastic cushion abut against each other at least at a position of the solid portion" (claim 2, lines 2 and 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature "a fixing piece configured to connect the first elastic cushion to the first arm or configured to fixedly connect the second elastic cushion to the second arm " (claim 9, lines 2-4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. All claimed alternatives must be shown in the drawings. In particular, the drawings fail to show a fixing plate configured to fixedly connect the second elastic cushion (5) to the second arm (2).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature "a clip fixedly connected to the first arm or the second arm" (claim 10, lines 1 and 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. All claimed alternatives must be shown in the drawings. In particular, the drawings fail to show a clip fixedly connected to the first arm (1).
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 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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "eyeglasses" in line 11 is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "eyeglasses" in line 11 and the limitation "eyeglasses" in line 1 refer to the same eyeglasses or different eyeglasses. Similar rejection applies to the limitation "eyeglasses" in claim 1 (line 14). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations "the extension portion cooperates with the second elastic cushion to define a clamping space disposed therebetween, and the extension portion is configured to deform when eyeglasses are inserted into the clamping space" in lines 9-12 are indefinite. Firstly, as best understood, the extension portion (426) abuts against the second elastic cushion (5) when there are no eyeglasses placed therebetween. A clamping space between the extension portion and the second elastic cushion is formed by placement of eyeglasses between the extension portion and the second elastic cushion and subsequent deformation of the extension portion. Does claim 1 directed to the vehicle-mounted holder with eyeglasses placed between the extension portion and the second elastic cushion, as shown in Figure 9, since the formation of the "clamping space" requires the eyeglasses? Secondly, as previously mentioned, the placement of the eyeglasses causes the extension portion to deform and subsequently forming a clamping space between the extension portion and the second elastic cushion, with the eyeglasses being merely positioned within the clamping space. It is not clear as to how "eyeglasses are inserted into the clamping space" as claimed. Similar rejection applies to the limitations "configured to guide eyeglasses into the clamping space" in claim 1 (lines 13 and 14). Thirdly, the limitations "when eyeglasses are inserted into the clamping space" in lines 11 and 12 positively recite the "eyeglasses" as a required structure within the scope of claim 1, since the term "when" in the instant case introduces a positive recitation of the "eyeglasses" thereafter. However, the preamble of claim 1 recites "[a] vehicle-mounted holder for eyeglasses" in line 1, where the "eyeglasses" are functionally recited as a functional element that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 1. As such, the positive recitation of the "eyeglasses" in the body of claim 1, following the functional recitation of the "eyeglasses" in the preamble of claim 1, renders the scope of claim 1 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether claim 1 is directed to a combination of the "vehicle-mounted holder" and the "eyeglasses" or directed to a subcombination of the "vehicle-mounted holder" adapted to be used with the "eyeglasses." Applicant is advised to clearly claim the combination in the preamble or properly place the "eyeglasses" in intended use consistently throughout the claim. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitation of the "eyeglasses" in the body of claim 1 and the positive recitation of the "clamping space" (e.g., in lines 11 and 12) whose formation requires the "eyeglasses," claim 1 is considered as being directed to a combination of the "vehicle-mounted holder" and the "eyeglasses." Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the vehicle-mounted eyeglasses holder" (lines 12 and 13) in the claim. Also, it is not clear as to whether the limitation "the vehicle-mounted eyeglasses holder" in lines 12 and 13 and the limitation "the vehicle-mounted holder for eyeglasses" in line 1 refer to the same holders or different holders. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the outer guide" (line 14) in the claim. Also, it is not clear as to whether the limitation "the outer guide having an inclined surface" in lines 14 and 15 and the limitation "an outer guide inclined surface" in line 13 refer to the same inclined surfaces or different inclined surfaces. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 PM).
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights