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 .
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 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.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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.
Claim 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the instant claims require a deformable rigid bar. The scope of the claim is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e. as to whether the bar should be deformable or rigid. Since the recitation “deformable rigid” effectively contradicts each other, neither functionality is afforded any patentable weight and the recitation is understood merely as a bar. The dependent claims do not remedy this deficiency and therefore inherit them.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheldon (US 20190243157 A1, of record) in view of Bailey (US 20170045758 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1 and 13, directed to combination and subcombination, Sheldon discloses a flexible eyewear assembly comprising:
first and second rigid frame portions, each having a respective opening therein (Fig. 3, 12a, 12b);
and a flexible component (14) comprising:
first and second lens retainers (30a, 30b) configured to engage the first and second rigid frame portions along an inner edge thereof adjacent the respective opening, and sized to retain first and second lenses therein (¶6); and
a flexible bridge portion (32) connecting the first lens retainer to the second lens retainer, the flexible bridge portion adapted to connect the first and second rigid frame portions when the first and second lens retainers are engaged with the respective rigid frame portions (Fig. 2).
Sheldon does not explicitly show a deformable rigid bar extending between the first and second rigid frame portions, or the deformable rigid bar embedded therein the flexible bridge portion.
Bailey drawn to eyeglass accessories explicitly shows a deformable rigid bar (1F) extending between the first and second rigid frame portions (Fig. 1A), or the deformable rigid bar embedded therein the flexible bridge portion (Fig. 1A, ¶27, where the deformable rigid bar 1F is received by the flexible bridge 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the deformable rid
Regarding claim 2, the modified Sheldon discloses the flexible eyewear assembly of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the flexible component is overmolded to the first and second rigid frame portions (Sheldon, Claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Sheldon discloses the flexible eyewear assembly of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the flexible bridge portion surrounds a portion of each of the first and second rigid frame portions (Sheldon, Claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Sheldon discloses the flexible eyewear assembly of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the first and second lens retainers of the flexible component has an outer slot adapted to engage with the corresponding one of the first and second frame portions, and an inner groove adapted to retain the corresponding one of the first and second lenses therein (Sheldon, Claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Sheldon discloses the flexible eyewear assembly of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the flexible component further comprises first and second flaps extending over a portion of a rear surface of respective one of the first and second rigid frame portions opposite the flexible bridge portion (Sheldon, Claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Sheldon discloses the flexible eyewear assembly of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the flexible component is a separate component attached to the first and second rigid frame portions during assembly (Sheldon, Claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Sheldon discloses the flexible eyewear assembly of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the flexible bridge portion comprises a pair of slits to permit the flexible bridge portion to surround a portion of each of the first and second rigid frame portions (Sheldon, Claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Sheldon discloses the flexible eyewear assembly of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising first and second nose pieces coupled to respective ones of the first and second rigid frame portions (Sheldon, Claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Sheldon discloses the flexible eyewear assembly of claim 8, and further discloses further comprising first and second nose pads coupled to respective ones of the first and second nose pieces (Sheldon, Claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Sheldon discloses the flexible eyewear assembly of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising first and second arms coupled to respective ones of the first and second rigid frame portions (Sheldon, Claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Sheldon discloses the flexible eyewear assembly of claim 10, and further discloses further comprising first and second hinges connecting the first and second arms to the respective ones of the first and second rigid frame portions (Sheldon, Claim 11).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Sheldon discloses the flexible eyewear assembly of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the first and second rigid frame portions comprises a slit therein positioned in an area away from the flexible bridge portion when assembled (Sheldon, Claim 12).
Regarding claim 14-19, the instant claims recite essentially the same limitations as those addressed above and are rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and generally discloses eyewear comprising flexible assemblies or connections thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on 5712701284. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights