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 .
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on November 7, 2025, claims 1 and 3-6 have been amended, and claims 2 and 7 have been canceled. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-6 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on November 7, 2025, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated August 11, 2025, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in each of Fig. 5, 6A, and 6B, the brackets referring to an overall structure and/or assembly of parts should each have a corresponding reference character. For example, in Fig. 5, reference character “10” could be associated with the bracket and used to refer to the overall combined goggle structure.
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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because at line 2, “said coupling seats” should read “said corresponding plurality of coupling seats”.
Claim 6 is objected to because at line 2, “lends” should read “lens”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0088521 to Shiue (hereinafter “Shiue”), in view of US 2016/0327810 to Cross (hereinafter, “Cross”), and in view of USPN 6,138,286 to Robrahn et al. (hereinafter, “Robrahn”).
Regarding claim 1, Shiue teaches swimming goggles (See Shiue, Fig. 2A; swimming goggle mask (10); abstract), comprising: at least one lens (See Shiue, Fig. 2A; lenses (13)); a support frame for said at least one lens, the support frame comprising at least one annular frame element congruent with a perimeter of said at least one lens (See Shiue, Figs. 2A-2B; frame formed from elements (121) each corresponding with a perimeter of a respective lens (13); Examiner notes that the term "congruent" is very broad and merely means "corresponding; congruous" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); a gasket configured to rest on a swimmer's face, the gasket comprising at least one annular gasket portion congruent with a perimeter of said at least one annular frame element, said at least one annular gasket portion having a shaped perimeter edge engaged in a fluid-tight manner with said at least one annular frame element (See Shiue, Figs. 2A-2B; water sealing skirt (14) having gasket portion (142) is configured to rest on a hypothetical swimmer’s face; water sealing skirt (14) includes annular gasket portions (141) congruent with respective perimeters of respective annular elements (121); each portion (142) includes shaped perimeter edge engageable in sealing manner with respective element (121); Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein said at least one lens comprising a reinforcement frame forming a periphery, the reinforcement frame equipped with fluid-tight clamping means for securing said at least one lens against said shaped perimeter edge of said at least one annular gasket portion (See Shiue, Fig. 2A; each lens (13) includes a respective frame (122) forming a periphery and having teeth for engaging corresponding recesses on elements (121) and securing the lens against water sealing skirt (14) when assembled, i.e., Fig. 2B), wherein said fluid-tight clamping means comprises at least a plurality of teeth engaged in a corresponding plurality of coupling seats provided in said at least one annular frame element (See Shiue, Fig. 2A; each respective frame (122) has teeth for engaging corresponding recesses on elements (121) and securing the respective lens against water sealing skirt (14) when assembled, i.e., Fig. 2B).
That said, although Shiue contemplates forming one or more parts of the lens and frame as single piece (See Shiue, [0025]), Shiue is silent to the lens and the reinforcement frame being formed as a single piece and the reinforcement frame forming a periphery of the single piece.
However, Cross, in a related swimming goggle art, is directed to a lens that is interchangeably removable form a frame (See Cross, Figs. 1-8; abstract). More specifically, Cross teaches the lens and the reinforcement frame being formed as a single piece and the reinforcement frame forming a periphery of the single piece (See Cross, Figs. 6-8; lens (1, 101) and lens frame (110) having toothed mating assembly extended therefrom can be formed integrally as a single piece; frame (110) forms a periphery of the single piece; [0050]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the lens and lens frame of Shiue to be a single, integral piece as disclosed by Cross for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, reducing a number of individual pieces required to be manufactured and assembled, and further since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B). Furthermore, as a result of the above modification, the modified swimming goggles of Shiue (i.e., Shiue in view of Cross, as discussed above) would further teach wherein said at least one lens is monolithically molded with said reinforcement frame and said fluid-tight clamping means (See Shiue, Fig. 2A; as discussed in the modification above, each lens (13) and frame (122) having teeth, i.e., the fluid-tight clamping means, would be integrally formed as a single piece, i.e., monolithic; Examiner notes that being “molded” is a product-by-process limitation; the resulting structure of the prior art, i.e., the lens, reinforcement frame, and fluid-tight clamping means being a monolithic, single piece, meets the structural requirements of the claim limitation).
That said, the modified swimming goggles of Shiue (i.e., Shiue in view of Cross, as discussed above) is silent to the lens and frame being formed of polycarbonate.
However, Robrahn, in a related swimming goggle art, is directed to a goggle having a replaceable plastic lens mounted in a flexible frame (See Robrahn, Figs. 1 and 3; abstract). More specifically, Robrahn teaches the lens and frame being formed of polycarbonate (See Robrahn, Figs. 1 and 3; lens (24) includes integral mounting teeth (102, 104) about a periphery frame, the entire structure being formed of polycarbonate; Col. 4, lines 45-51).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the integrally formed lens, frame, and teeth of the modified swimming goggles of Shiue from the polycarbonate material disclosed by Robrahn in order to form the entire lens structure from a hard, durable material that offers impact resistance while maintaining sufficient optical qualities (See Robrahn, Col. 6, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 3, the modified swimming goggles of Shiue (i.e., Shiue in view of Cross and Robrahn, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein said plurality of teeth is configured to reversibly engage said corresponding plurality of coupling seats from a front of said at least one annular frame element through elastic deformation (See Shiue, Fig. 2A; each lens (13) includes a respective frame (122) having teeth for engaging corresponding recesses on elements (121) and securing the lens against water sealing skirt (14) when assembled, i.e., Fig. 2B; teeth are capable of engaging the element (121) from a front of the frame and being reversibly disassembled).
Regarding claim 4, the modified swimming goggles of Shiue (i.e., Shiue in view of Cross and Robrahn, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein said reinforcement frame is formed as a peripheral thickening of said at least one lens (See Shiue, Figs. 2A-2C; frames (122) form thicker peripherals around respective lenses (13) in the modified swimming goggles as discussed above).
Regarding claim 5, the modified swimming goggles of Shiue (i.e., Shiue in view of Cross and Robrahn, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein said coupling seats are formed as blind recesses distributed along an internal annular surface of said annular frame element congruent with the perimeter of said at least one lens (See Shiue, Fig. 2A: recess distributed around internal annular surface of each frame element (121) are blind recesses and congruent with perimeter surface of respective lenses (13) when assembled).
Regarding claim 6, the modified swimming goggles of Shiue (i.e., Shiue in view of Cross, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the at least one lends comprises two lenses (See Shiue, Figs. 2A-2B; two lenses (13)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s apparent argument that the projections of Robrahn do not serve any function in relation to the fluid-tight peripheral sealing of the lens and does not teach a fluid-tight seal, Examiner notes that Robrahn is not relied upon for teaching a fluid-tight seal in the previous or current grounds of rejection. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, Shiue, not Robrahn, is relied upon for teaching a reinforcement frame equipped with fluid-tight clamping means, i.e., teeth, for forming a fluid-tight seal with a gasket. Robrahn is only relied upon for teaching the overall lens structure being formed from polycarbonate in the current grounds of rejection. Examiner further notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., reinforcement of the fluid-tight seal; the possibility of replacing the lens; and an expanded field of vision) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732