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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 3/11/2025 and 5/19/2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8-12, 15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (US 2014/0375947 A1).
In regard to claims 1 and 11, Park et al discloses an electronic eyewear device, and method of using (page 4, section [0056], Figures 17 & 18, “300”, re: HMD), comprising: a frame (page 4, section [0057], Figure 17, re: frame holding optical system “101”); a temple (page 4, sections [0058]-[0059], Figures 19 & 20, “302”); a hinge coupling the temple to the frame (page 4, section [0057], Figure 18, “310a,b”); and a shape memory actuator (page 4, section [0059], Figures 19 & 20, “360, 362,” re: various shape memory metals; note: all shape memory metals are alloys rather than pure elements) configured to bias the temple inward with respect to the frame (page 4, sections [0060]-[0062], Figures 19 & 20, “360, 362, 366, 368, 370”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Park et al discloses wherein the SMA actuator is coupled to the frame and to the temple (page 4, sections [0057]-[0058], Figure 18, “310a,b, 302a,b” & Figures 19 & 20, “360, 362, 366, 368, 370”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Park et al discloses wherein the SMA actuator is a rotary actuator (page 4, sections [0059]-[0061], Figures 19 & 20, “368”).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Park et al discloses wherein the hinge is free to move about a vertical axis in response to externally applied forces (page 4, section [0057], Figure 18, “31a,b”).
Regarding claim 9, Park et al discloses wherein the hinge comprises a mechanical stop configured to prevent hyperextension of the hinge (Figure 18, re: frame around hinge would provide mechanical stop).
Regarding claim 10, Park et al discloses wherein the mechanical stop is configured to prevent the SMA actuator from being damaged (Figure 18, re: frame around hinge would provide mechanical stop, Figure 19, re: frame mechanical stop would prevent end “322” from hyperextension and damage of actuator).
In regard to claim 11, Park et al discloses a method of using an electronic eyewear device comprising a frame, a temple, a hinge coupling the temple to the frame, and a shape memory alloy (SMA) actuator configured to bias the temple inward with respect to the frame: controlling the SMA actuator; and the SMA actuator biasing the temple inward with respect to the frame.
Regarding claim 19, Park et al discloses wherein the hinge comprises a mechanical stop to prevent hyperextension of the hinge (Figure 18, re: frame around hinge would provide mechanical stop) and prevent the SMA actuator from being damaged (Figure 19, re: frame mechanical stop would prevent end “322” from hyperextension and damage of actuator).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 20: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing program code as claimed, specifically wherein when executed, is operative to cause a processor of an eyewear device comprising a frame, a temple, a hinge coupling the temple to the frame, and a shape memory alloy (SMA) actuator configured to bias the temple inward with respect to the frame, to perform the steps of: controlling the SMA actuator; and the SMA actuator biasing the temple inward with respect to the frame.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 3: an electronic eyewear device as claimed, specifically wherein the SMA actuator comprises a SMA wire.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 4: an electronic eyewear device as claimed, specifically wherein the SMA actuator comprises multiple SMA wires.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 6 and 7: an electronic eyewear device as claimed, specifically wherein the frame comprises an electronic component configured to control the SMA actuator.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 13: a method as claimed, specifically wherein the SMA actuator comprises a SMA wire.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 14: a method as claimed, specifically wherein the SMA actuator comprises multiple SMA wires.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 16 and 17: a method as claimed, specifically wherein the frame comprises an electronic component controlling the actuator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aschwanden et al (US 12,320,968 B2) is being cited herein to show an electronic eyewear device comprising a shape memory alloy actuator but was not used in any rejections above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 September 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights