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 .
Examiner Note: the term in the preamble is not given patentable weight, the preamble recitation “impact-resistant” merely states an intended use or desired characteristics, it doesn’t impart additional structural limitations. A preamble is not limiting where “the body of the claim sets out a structurally complete inventions and the preamble is only a statement of intended use or purpose.” MPEP 2111.02.
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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the second linear direction is a horizontal direction perpendicular to the center line, and the second linear direction is a vertical direction parallel to the center line.” It is unclear how the same second linear direction can be both a horizontal direction perpendicular to the center line and a vertical direction parallel to the center line. The two recitations define the same direction using mutually inconsistent orientations. It appears “the second linear direction” was intended to recite “the third linear direction”.
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) 1-7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jannard US Patent No. 4,867,550.
Regarding claim 1, Jannard teaches impact-resistant eyeglasses (see at least Fig. 2 and 6, col. 3 lines 25-31: eye glass 10), comprising:
a attaching unit, comprising at least one attaching portion extending a predetermined length along a first linear direction (as shown in Figs. 2 and 6, col. 7 lines 23-36: eyeglass 10 include stems or arms 24 and 66); and
a lens unit (at least Figs. 2, 5, 6: lens 11), comprising at least one assembling portion (frame 20) and at least one impact-resistant lens, fixed to the assembling portion (as shown in Figs. 2 and 6, col. 3 lines 25-31: lens 11 is mounted in a frame 20) and symmetrically assembled with the attaching unit to a center line through the assembling unit (see Figs. 1 and 2: right and left 11a and 11b, are joined through bridge portion 13, thereby attaching structures of the eyeglass 10 symmetrically relative to the center line),
wherein each of the at least one impact-resistant lens comprises at least one curved area extending along second and third linear directions respectively (see Figs. 3 and 15: lens 11 having horizontal curvature R1 and vertical curvature R2), the curved area is bent with different curvatures along the second and third linear directions (see also Col. 3 lines 50-57, R1 and R2 are different),
the curvature of the curved area along the second linear direction falls within 6~7 curves (Form col. 4 lines 7-12: R1 = 2.75 to 3.5 inches i.e., 69.85 mm to 88.90 mm, and according to para 0014 the present application, Curve is calculated C = 523/R, then in the present case, C = 523/69.85 (7.487) to 523/88.90 (5.883) = Horizontal curvature CH = 5.883 ≤ CH ≤ 7.487, which overlaps with claimed range 6~7), and the curvature of the curved area along the third linear direction falls within 3~3.8 curves (col. 4 lines 13-18: teaches For example, R2 is generally within the range of from about 110% to about 400% R1 and, preferably, R2 is within about 150%-300% R1, which implies if R2 = 200%*R1 = 200%*3.25 = 6.50 inches = 165.1 mm, Curve is calculated C = 523/R, C = 523/165.1 = 3.167, and 200%*2.75 = 5.5 inches = 139.7 mm, Curve = C= 523/R, C = 523/139.7 = 3.74 = Vertical curvature CV = 3.167 ≤ CV ≤ 3.74, which falls withing the claimed range 3~3.8 curves). Jannard’s preferred horizontal radius corresponds to approximately 5.883-7.487 curves, which overlaps the claimed horizontal range 6~7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a horizontal curvature within the overlapping range taught by Jannard because selection of a workable value within a disclosed range would have constituted routine optimization of a known result-effective variable, and that horizontal radius may be varied to obtain the desired wear comfort. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Jannard teaches the impact-resistant eyeglasses according to claim 1, wherein the second linear direction is a horizontal direction perpendicular to the center line, and the second linear direction is a vertical direction parallel to the center line (as shown in Fig. 2: center line is a line that symmetrically divided left and right lens, and second linear direction i.e., horizontal axis which runs from left to right of lens 11 is perpendicular to the center line, and the third linear direction is a vertical direction that runs from top to bottom of the lens 11, and it parallel to the center line).
Regarding claim 3, Jannard teaches the impact-resistant eyeglasses according to claim 1, wherein the curved area comprises a first extending section and a second extending section adjacent to outside of the first extending section (Figs. 1-3; col. 5 lines 49-65: teaches first and second eye panes 11a and 11b positioned directly in front of the wearer’s respective eyes and distal portions 11a’ and 11b’ outwardly from the eye panes along the horizontal arc of lens 11), the first extending section is adapted to block an impact from a front direction of the impact-resistant lens, and the second extending section is adapted to block another impact from one of inner and outer directions of the impact-resistant lens (as shown in Fig. 1-3: eye panes 11a and 11b are positioned directly in front of wearer’s eye and are capable of intercepting an impact approaching form the front, and distal portions 11a’ and 11b’ positioned laterally along the curve lens and traverse the wearer’s peripheral field vision, and capable of intercepting an impact approaching from an outer lateral direction).
Regarding claim 4, Jannard teaches the impact-resistant eyeglasses according to claim 1, wherein the at least one impact-resistant lens is a toric lens (Figs. 2, 15 and 16 and col. 3 lines 25-31 and 40-57: teaches lens 11 curved along two substantially perpendicular axes to produce a generally toroidal configuration including a horizontal curvature having R1 and vertical curvature having R2, i.e., lens having different curvatures along two perpendicular direction is a toric lens).
Regarding claim 5, Jannard teaches the impact-resistant eyeglasses according to claim 1, wherein the lens unit comprises two impact-resistant lenses (see Figs. 1-2: left and right lenses 11a and 11b).
Regarding claim 6, Jannard teaches the impact-resistant eyeglasses according to claim 1, wherein the at least one assembling portion comprises a connecting unit connecting the attaching unit to the lens unit (Figs. 2, 6, 6a and 7 and col. 7 lines 3-36: teaches top frame 20 that receives and retains lens 11 by means of slot 23, tangs 60 and recesses 61, and the top frame 20 further includes end terminals 24 and 25 having trunnions 28 or tongues 28a that engage bearings 69 in the flanges 70 or stems 26 and 27).
Regarding claim 7, Jannard teaches the impact-resistant eyeglasses according to claim 1, wherein the at least one assembling portion comprises two temples (as shown in Figs. 2 and 6, col. 7 lines 23-36: eyeglass 10 include stems or arms 24 and 66).
Regarding claim 9, Jannard teaches the impact-resistant eyeglasses according to claim 1, further comprising a nose pad unit assembled with the lens unit (see Figs. 2: nose piece 30).
Regarding claim 10, Jannard teaches an impact-resistant lens (see at least Fig. 2 and 6, col. 3 lines 25-31: eye glass 10, with lens 11), comprising: at least one curved area, extending along first and second linear directions respectively (see Figs. 3 and 15: lens 11 having horizontal curvature R1 and vertical curvature R2) and bent with different curvatures along the first and second linear directions (see also Col. 3 lines 50-57, R1 and R2 are different);
wherein the curved area comprises a first extending section and a second extending section adjacent to outside of the first extending section (Figs. 1-3; col. 5 lines 49-65: teaches first and second eye panes 11a and 11b positioned directly in front of the wearer’s respective eyes and distal portions 11a’ and 11b’ outwardly from the eye panes along the horizontal arc of lens 11), the first extending section is adapted to block an impact from a front direction of the impact-resistant lens, the second extending section is adapted to block another impact from one of inner and outer directions of the impact-resistant lens (as shown in Fig. 1-3: eye panes 11a and 11b are positioned directly in front of wearer’s eye and are capable of intercepting an impact approaching form the front, and distal portions 11a’ and 11b’ positioned laterally along the curve lens and traverse the wearer’s peripheral field vision, and capable of intercepting an impact approaching from an outer lateral direction),
the curvature of the curved area along the first linear direction falls within 6~7 curves (Form col. 4 lines 7-12: R1 = 2.75 to 3.5 inches i.e., 69.85 mm to 88.90 mm, and according to para 0014 the present application, Curve is calculated C = 523/R, then in the present case, C = 523/69.85 (7.487) to 523/88.90 (5.883) = Horizontal curvature CH = 5.883 ≤ CH ≤ 7.487, which overlaps with claimed range 6~7), and the curvature of the curved area along the second linear direction falls within 3~3.8 curves (col. 4 lines 13-18: teaches For example, R2 is generally within the range of from about 110% to about 400% R1 and, preferably, R2 is within about 150%-300% R1, which implies if R2 = 200%*R1 = 200%*3.25 = 6.50 inches = 165.1 mm, Curve is calculated C = 523/R, C = 523/165.1 = 3.167, and 200%*2.75 = 5.5 inches = 139.7 mm, Curve = C= 523/R, C = 523/139.7 = 3.74 = Vertical curvature CV = 3.167 ≤ CV ≤ 3.74, which falls withing the claimed range 3~3.8 curves). Jannard’s preferred horizontal radius corresponds to approximately 5.883-7.487 curves, which overlaps the claimed horizontal range 6~7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a horizontal curvature within the overlapping range taught by Jannard because selection of a workable value within a disclosed range would have constituted routine optimization of a known result-effective variable, and that horizontal radius may be varied to obtain the desired wear comfort. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Jannard teaches the impact-resistant lens according to claim 10, and Jannard further teaches wherein the first linear direction is a horizontal direction, the second linear direction is a vertical direction (as shown in Fig. 2: center line is a line that symmetrically divided left and right lens, and second linear direction i.e., horizontal axis which runs from left to right of lens 11 is perpendicular to the center line, and the third linear direction is a vertical direction that runs from top to bottom of the lens 11, and it parallel to the center line).
Regarding claim 12, Jannard teaches the impact-resistant lens according to claim 10, and Jannard further teaches wherein the impact-resistant lens is a toric lens (Figs. 2, 15 and 16 and col. 3 lines 25-31 and 40-57: teaches lens 11 curved along two substantially perpendicular axes to produce a generally toroidal configuration including a horizontal curvature having R1 and vertical curvature having R2, i.e., lens having different curvatures along two perpendicular direction is a toric lens).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jannard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kahaney US Patent No. 4,976,531.
Regarding claim 8, Jannard teaches the impact-resistant eyeglasses according to claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the at least one assembling portion comprises a strap.
In the same field of endeavor, Kahaney teaches strap 10 attached to temple member 16 (see Fig. 1 and col. 1 lines 15-20). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Jannard’s temple member with Kahaney’s retainer strap to hold the eyewear to the head of the user while engaging in active movement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EPHREM ZERU MEBRAHTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8386. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am -6 pm (M-F).
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights