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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2025 and 04/20/2026 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities containing apparent inadvertent typographical errors:
In ¶0027, examiner suggests “unthreaded shaft [[44a]] 44b”
In ¶0028, examiner suggests “deformable rigid bar [[15]] 36”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "44b" (in Fig. 4).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: "15" (in ¶0028).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “52a” (in Fig. 10) has been used to designate both the first lens passage and the second lens passage.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 1-20 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 independent claim 1, the limitation “the first mounting portion” in the fifth line raises clarity issues. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will assume “the first flexible mounting portion”. Claims 2-10 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the first and second mounting members” in the first and second lines raises clarity issues. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will assume “the first and second rigid mounting members”. Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and therefore inherits the same issues.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations “the first and second passages” in the second line and “the corresponding passages in lenses” in the third line raises clarity issues. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will assume claim 7 is dependent on claim 2 and “[[the]] a corresponding lens passage”. Claims 8-9 are dependent on claim 7 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the corresponding passages in the lenses” in the second line raises clarity issues. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will assume “the corresponding lens passage”.
Regarding independent claim 11, the limitation “the first mounting portion” in the tenth line raises clarity issues. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will assume “the first flexible mounting portion”. Claims 12-20 are dependent on claim 11 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations “the first and second passages” in the second line and “the passages in the lenses” in the third line raises clarity issues. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will assume claim 17 is dependent on claim 12 and “[[the]] a corresponding lens passage[[s]]
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the corresponding passages in the lenses” in the second line raises clarity issues. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will assume “the corresponding lens passage”.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheldon et al. (US 20190243158 A1), hereinafter Sheldon, in view of Allen (US 20160077356 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sheldon discloses a flexible bridge assembly (14; Fig. 1; ¶0022) for a rimless eyewear (10; Fig. 1; ¶0022), the flexible bridge assembly (14) comprising:
a body (14; ¶0023) comprising a first flexible mounting portion (30a; Figs. 2-3; ¶0023) and a second flexible mounting portion (30b; Figs. 2-3; ¶0023), each extending from opposite ends of a flexible central portion (32; Figs. 2-3; ¶0023);
a first rigid mounting member (40a; Figs. 4-5; ¶0024-¶0025) embedded in the first mounting portion (30a) and configured to enable securing of the flexible bridge assembly (14) to a first lens (12a) of the rimless eyewear (10) (Figs. 4-5; ¶0024-¶0025); and
a second rigid mounting member (40b; Figs. 4-5; ¶0024-¶0025) embedded in the second flexible mounting portion (30b) and configured to enable securing of the flexible bridge assembly (14) to a second lens (12b) of the rimless eyewear (10) (Figs. 4-5; ¶0024-¶0025).
Sheldon does not disclose a deformable rigid bar extending between the first and second mounting members and configured to be embedded within the flexible central portion.
However, Allen teaches a similar flexible bridge assembly (216b; Fig. 2; ¶0019) for an eyewear (200; Fig. 2) comprising a deformable rigid bar (202; Fig. 2; ¶0019) extending between the first and second mounting members (sides of 204; Fig. 2; ¶0019) configured to be embedded within a flexible central portion (center of 204; Fig. 2; ¶0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sheldon to incorporate the deformable rigid bar of Allen for the purpose of allowing the eyewear to be flexed about its bridge without permanently changing the shape of the eyewear (¶0019 of Allen).
Regarding independent claim 11, Sheldon discloses a rimless eyewear (10; Fig. 1; ¶0022) comprising:
first and second lenses (12a, 12b; Fig. 1; ¶0022);
first and second arm mounting components (16a, 16b; Fig. 1; ¶0022) coupled to a first end of a respective one of the first and second lenses (12a, 12b) (Fig. 1; ¶0022);
first and second arms (18a, 18b; Fig. 1; ¶0022) coupled to the first and second arm mounting components (16a, 16b) (Fig. 1; ¶0022);
a flexible bridge assembly (14; Fig. 1; ¶0022) coupled to the first and second lenses (12a, 12b) (Fig. 1; ¶0022), the flexible bridge assembly (14) comprising:
a body (14; ¶0023) comprising a first flexible mounting portion (30a; Figs. 2-3; ¶0023) and a second flexible mounting portion (30b; Figs. 2-3; ¶0023), each extending from opposite ends of a flexible central portion (32; Figs. 2-3; ¶0023);
a first rigid mounting member (40a; Figs. 4-5; ¶0024-¶0025) embedded in the first mounting portion (30a) and configured to enable securing of the flexible bridge assembly (14) to a first lens (12a) of the rimless eyewear (10) (Figs. 4-5; ¶0024-¶0025);
a second rigid mounting member (40b; Figs. 4-5; ¶0024-¶0025) embedded in the second flexible mounting portion (30b) and configured to enable securing of the flexible bridge assembly (14) to a second lens (12b) of the rimless eyewear (10) (Figs. 4-5; ¶0024-¶0025);
and first and second nose pieces (20a, 20b; Fig. 1; ¶0022) extending from or coupled to the flexible bridge assembly (14) (Fig. 1; ¶0022).
Sheldon does not disclose a deformable rigid bar extending between the first and second mounting members and configured to be embedded within the flexible central portion.
However, Allen teaches a similar flexible bridge assembly (216b; Fig. 2; ¶0019) for an eyewear (200; Fig. 2) comprising a deformable rigid bar (202; Fig. 2; ¶0019) extending between the first and second mounting members (sides of 204; Fig. 2; ¶0019) configured to be embedded within a flexible central portion (center of 204; Fig. 2; ¶0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sheldon to incorporate the deformable rigid bar of Allen for the purpose of allowing the eyewear to be flexed about its bridge without permanently changing the shape of the eyewear (¶0019 of Allen).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Sheldon in view of Allen discloses the flexible bridge assembly of claim 1 and the rimless eyewear of claim 11, as set forth above. Sheldon further discloses the first flexible mounting portion (30a) and the first rigid mounting member (40a) comprise a first passage (50a; Fig. 5; ¶0028) to enable the flexible bridge assembly (14) to be secured to the first lens (12a) using a first fastener (34a; Fig. 5; ¶0028), and the second flexible mounting portion (30b) and the second rigid mounting member (40b) comprise a second passage (50b; Fig. 5; ¶0028) to enable the flexible bridge assembly (14) to be secured to the second lens (12b) using a second fastener (34b; Fig. 5; ¶0028).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Sheldon in view of Allen discloses the flexible bridge assembly of claim 1 and the rimless eyewear of claim 11, including the deformable rigid bar, as set forth above. Sheldon further discloses the body (14) is overmolded over the first and second rigid mounting members (40a, 40b) (¶0028).
Regarding the deformable rigid bar, there are only two possibilities – that the body is overmolded over the deformable rigid bar or that it is not. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body overmolded over the deformable rigid bar for the purpose of ensuring the deformable rigid bar is well-secured and since there are only two possible solutions and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding claim 14, Sheldon in view of Allen discloses the rimless eyewear of claim 13, as set forth above. Sheldon further discloses wherein the body (14) is overmolded over the first and second rigid mounting members (40a, 40b) prior to coupling the flexible bridge assembly (14) to the first and second lenses (12a, 12b)1.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Sheldon in view of Allen discloses the flexible bridge assembly of claim 3 and the rimless eyewear of claim 13, as set forth above. Sheldon further discloses the first and second rigid mounting members (40a, 40b) each comprise at least one hole (42; Fig. 5; ¶0029) for receiving material applied in overmolding the body (14) (¶0029).
Regarding claim 5, Sheldon in view of Allen discloses the flexible bridge assembly of claim 1, as set forth above. Sheldon further discloses first and second nose pieces (20a, 20b; Fig. 1; ¶0022), wherein the first nose piece (20a) is integral with the first rigid mounting member (40a) and the second nose piece (20b) is integral with the second rigid mounting member (40b), the nose pieces extending from the first and first flexible mounting portions (30a, 30b) of the body (14) (Fig. 1; ¶0031).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Sheldon in view of Allen discloses the flexible bridge assembly of claim 1 and the rimless eyewear of claim 11, as set forth above. Sheldon further discloses the first and first flexible mounting portions (30a, 30b) of the body (14) are countersunk to accommodate fasteners (34a, 34b; Fig. 5; ¶0028) for securing the flexible bridge assembly (14) to the lenses (12a, 12b) (Fig. 5; ¶0028).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Sheldon in view of Allen discloses the flexible bridge assembly of claim 1 and the rimless eyewear of claim 11, as set forth above. Sheldon further discloses the first and second rigid mounting members (40a, 40b) each comprise a tab (60a, 60b; Fig. 9; ¶0032) surrounding the first and second passages (50a, 50b), the tabs (60a, 60b) being configured to be inserted into portions of the corresponding passages (52a, 52b) in lenses (12a, 12b) of the eyewear (Fig. 5; ¶0032).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Sheldon in view of Allen discloses the flexible bridge assembly of claim 7 and the rimless eyewear of claim 17, as set forth above. Sheldon further discloses the tabs (60a, 60b) comprise slits (62a, 62b; Fig. 9; ¶0032) to provide resiliency during insertion (Fig. 9; ¶0032).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Sheldon in view of Allen discloses the flexible bridge assembly of claim 7 and the rimless eyewear of claim 17, as set forth above. Sheldon further discloses the tabs (60a, 60b) include an oblong shape that corresponds to an oblong shape of the portion of the corresponding passages (52a, 52b) in the lenses (12a, 12b) of the eyewear (Fig. 9; ¶0032).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Sheldon in view of Allen discloses the flexible bridge assembly of claim 1 and the rimless eyewear of claim 11, as set forth above. Sheldon further discloses the first and first flexible mounting portions (30a, 30b) of the body (14) are configured to define/provide notches aligned with surfaces of the first and second rigid mounting members (40a, 40b) to engage with edges and faces of the lenses (12a, 12b) (Fig. 5; ¶0027-¶0028).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DiChiara (US 5801806 A) discloses a similar eyewear comprising a flexible bridge assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 30, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 This limitation is drawn to a product by process and it fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim. Citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” See MPEP § 2113.
Prosecution Insights