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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “bridge potion” as opposed to “bridge portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “the primary plane” as opposed to “a primary plane”. There is no prior mention of the primary plane in the claim or preceding claim. Appropriate correction is required to prevent antecedent basis issues.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “said tabs” where the element was previously recited as “tab portion(s)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “the shape of said distal” where there was no prior mention of the shape of the tab portions, specifically the distal end/portion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-8 and 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble recites “the pair of safety goggles” instead of “pair of safety glasses” as presented in the preceding claims. 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifergan (USP No. 7,175,275) in view of Chang (USPG Pub No. 2003/0123023).
Regarding claim 1, Ifergan discloses a pair of safety glasses (see Figs. 1, 2, Col. 1, Line 36, Col. 3, Lines 34-42 – the auxiliary outer lens (16) is presented as an external non-prescription lens element providing additional coverage and/or protection), comprising: a frame portion (12) comprising a bridge potion (22) (see Figs. 1, 2, Col. 2, Lines 8-16, 52-54); and a metal (48) securely embedded in said bridge portion (22) (Col. 3, Lines 63-67; wherein said metal (48) is configured generally in a wide shape (see Fig. 9). Ifergan discloses the claimed invention but does not specify a metal clip in a wide “U” shape. In the same field of endeavor, Chang discloses a metal clip (50) in a wide “U” shape (see Figs. 4-7, Paragraph 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide glasses of Ifergan with a metal clip in a wide “U” shape of Chang for the purpose of providing an improved linking device for eyewear (Paragraphs 6, 7). The magnetic button (48) of Ifergan and the linking device (50) of Chang are both securing mechanisms with metal components for securing eyewear elements to one another. The magnetic button (48) of Ifergan is further shown to have a cross-sectional “T” shape as is illustrated in Fig. 9. Thus, providing a “U” shaped metal clip is a modification that would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Additionally, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 2, Ifergan and Chang teach the glasses set forth above for claim 1, Chang further discloses wherein the metal clip (50) comprises a main body portion (51) and two tab portions extending out at a right angle as compared with the primary plane of said main body portion (51) (see Figs. 4-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the glasses of Ifergan with the teachings of Chang for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifergan (USP No. 7,175,275) in view of Chang (USPG Pub No. 2003/0123023) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Damin (USPG Pub No. 2019/0310491).
Regarding claim 3, Ifergan and Chang disclose the claimed invention, except for wherein a distal end of each tab portion is serrated. In the same field of endeavor, Damin discloses wherein a distal end of each tab portion is serrated (12) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide glasses of Ifergan and Chang with wherein a distal end of each tab portion is serrated of Damin for the purpose of providing bearing against the corresponding contact surface (Paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 4, Ifergan, Chang and Damin teach the glasses set forth above for claim 3, Damin further discloses wherein said serration (12) extends along a portion of each lateral side of each of said tabs (10) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the glasses of Ifergan and Chang with the teachings of Damin for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Ifergan, Chang and Damin teach the glasses set forth above for claim 3, Damin further discloses wherein said bridge portion includes two openings corresponding to the shape of said distal end of each of said tab portions (10a, 10b) (see Figs. 1, 2, 13, Paragraphs 33, 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the glasses of Ifergan and Chang with the teachings of Damin for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Ifergan and Chang teach the glasses set forth above for claim 1, Chang further discloses wherein a distal portion of each side of said metal clip (see Figs. 4-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the glasses of Ifergan with the teachings of Chang for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Ifergan and Chang disclose the claimed invention, except for is serrated. In the same field of endeavor, Damin discloses is serrated (12) (see Fig. 2, Paragraphs 32, 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide glasses of Ifergan and Chang with is serrated of Damin for the purpose of providing bearing against the corresponding contact surface (Paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 9, Ifergan, Chang and Damin teach the glasses set forth above for claim 8, Chang further discloses of said metal clip (see Figs. 4-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the glasses of Ifergan and Damin with the teachings of Chang for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1. In addition, Damin further discloses wherein said serration (12) extends along a portion of each lateral side of each of said distal portions of each side (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the glasses of Ifergan and Chang with the teachings of Damin for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Ifergan, Chang and Damin teach the glasses set forth above for claims 4 and 9, Damin further discloses wherein said portion of each lateral side is between of each lateral side (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the glasses of Ifergan and Chang with the teachings of Damin for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claims 3 and 8. Ifergan, Chang and Damin disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify between 30 and 60%. The limbs (10a, 10b) extend slightly at a 90° angle from the common base (11) of the central bridge (7) then extend in longitudinal directions (see Figs. 2, 4 and Paragraphs 30-32 of Damin). The serrated profile (12) is configured to cover a portion of each limb instead of the limb entirely. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and size of a component. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide glasses of Ifergan, Chang and Damin with between 30 and 60% for the purpose of providing bearing against the corresponding contact surface (Paragraph 34 of Damin). This modification is absent of a new and unexpected result.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Ifergan, Chang and Damin teach the glasses set forth above for claims 5 and 10, Damin further discloses wherein said portion of each lateral side is (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the glasses of Ifergan and Chang with the teachings of Damin for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claims 3 and 8. Ifergan, Chang and Damin disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify 50%. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and size of a component. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide glasses of Ifergan, Chang and Damin with 50% for the purpose of providing bearing against the corresponding contact surface (Paragraph 34 of Damin). This modification is absent of a new and unexpected result.
Regarding claim 12, Ifergan, Chang and Damin teach the glasses set forth above for claim 8, Chang further discloses of said metal clip (see Figs. 4-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the glasses of Ifergan and Damin with the teachings of Chang for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 8. In addition, Damin further discloses wherein said bridge portion includes two openings corresponding to the shape of said distal portions of each side (10a, 10b) (see Figs. 1, 2, 13, Paragraphs 33, 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the glasses of Ifergan and Chang with the teachings of Damin for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Prior Art Citations
Lee et al. (USPG Pub No. 2005/0099592 – Figs. 1, 2) and Quinones et al. (WO 2008/103386 A1) are each being cited herein to show a pair of safety glasses relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights