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 .
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: “retraction mechanism” and “pump mechanism” in claim 1; and “mounting mechanism” in claim 5.
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 § 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(s) 1, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberman (US 6,881,273) in view of Burwell (US 5,083,661).
Oberman discloses an eyewear cleaning device comprising a storage housing (10) having a housing cover (12) and a side flange, the side flange having an aperture (opening in housing near 14); a cleaning cloth (16) having a stop plug (18) and a retraction cord (14) at a distal end; a spool of the storage housing upon which the retraction cord is coiled; a retraction mechanism (col. 4, lines 15-20) for biasing the spool to retract the retraction cord so that the cleaning cloth is biased towards a retracted position so that the cleaning cloth pay be pulled out to an extended position for use; an enclosure tank (30) that holds a cleaning fluid (col. 5,lines 10-20); and a pump mechanism (44) for pumping the cleaning fluid from the enclosure tank into the storage housing to moisten the cleaning cloth (col. 5, lines 40-45). Oberman does not disclose the cleaning cloth having the stop plug at a proximal end wherein the cleaning cloth is retracted into the storage housing until the stop plug abuts the aperture in the side flange of the storage housing. Burwell teaches an eyewear cleaning device comprising a storage housing (116) a cleaning cloth (110) and a stop mechanism (26); wherein the is retracted into the storage housing (Fig. 5) until the stop plug abuts the aperture (Fig. 7) in the storage housing so that the cleaning cloth may be pulled to an extended position (Fig. 5-7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the cleaning cloth of Oberman be retracted into the housing as taught by Burwell when not in use to allow for storage and minimize damage to the cleaning cloth.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Oberman and Burwell disclose the stop plug includes a pull tab (26) that may be gripped to pull the cleaning cloth out of the storage housing (Burwell; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Oberman and Burwell disclose the pump mechanism (44) is in the form of a button that pumps the cleaning fluid from the fluid reservoir and through an opening in the enclosure tank to moisten the cleaning cloth within the storage housing (Oberman; col. 5, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 5, Oberman further discloses a mounting mechanism (22) for mounting the device to an object or an article of wear (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberman (US 6,881,273) in view of Burwell (US 5,083,661) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Kroupa (US 9,788,640).
The combination of Oberman and Burwell disclose the claimed invention except for the retraction mechanism comprises a spindle, wherein the spool rotates around the spindle, a spring within the spool and surrounding the spindle, a gasket formed around the spindle for retaining the spool in place, and a pivot arm formed between the spindle and the gasket wherein the pivot arm stops the spool from retracting. Kroupa teaches a retraction mechanism comprising a spindle (112), wherein the spool rotates around the spindle, a spring (118) within the spool and surrounding the spindle, a gasket (116) formed around the spindle for retaining the spool in place, and a pivot arm (128) formed between the spindle and the gasket wherein the pivot arm stops the spool from retracting (Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 5-30). At the time of the effective filing date, it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the retraction mechanism of Oberman by substituting the retraction mechanism as taught by Kroupa to provide the same retraction function since substitution of parts which provide the same function, in this case that of automatic retraction, would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL RUNNING STEITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm EST.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
7/27/2026
Prosecution Insights