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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 9 has more than one figure. Applicant should show how the components are interconnected by using a bracket or label them as separate figures. 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 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) 2, 4-5, 7-13, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Langenwater et al. (2019/0113773).
Regarding claim 2, Langenwater discloses a goggle (figs 1-25), comprising:
a goggle lens (member 102) including a pair of first engagement elements (members 184) disposed on a front surface of the goggle lens;
a goggle frame (member 104) configured to selectively receive the goggle lens; and
a pair of latches (members 186) disposed on the goggle frame, wherein each of the latches is configured to releasably engage a respective one of the first engagement elements disposed on the front surface of the goggle lens to secure the goggle lens to the goggle frame (para 0046 to 0052).
Regarding claim 4, Langenwater discloses each of the latches is configured to move between a closed position in which each of the latches engages the respective one of the first engagement elements and an open position in which each of the latches is disengaged from the respective one of the first engagement elements and the goggle lens is removable from the goggle frame (para 0046 to 0052).
Regarding claim 5, Langenwater discloses the goggle lens comprises one or more second engagement elements (member 150) and the goggle frame comprises one or more third engagement elements (member 160), wherein the one or more third engagement elements are configured to engage the one or more second engagement elements to couple the goggle lens to the goggle frame (para 0043).
Regarding claim 7, Langenwater discloses each of the one or more second engagement elements comprises a protrusion (i.e. extension, member 150) extending from the goggle lens, and wherein each of the one or more third engagement elements comprises an engagement pocket (i.e. pocket, member 160) configured to receive the protrusion (para 0043).
Regarding claim 8, Langenwater discloses the goggle frame comprises a top engagement pocket disposed on a top portion of the goggle frame configured to receive a top portion of the goggle lens (figs 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, Langenwater discloses the pair of latches includes a right latch disposed on a right portion of the goggle frame and a left latch disposed on a left portion of the goggle frame (fig 10, para 0046 to 0052).
Regarding claim 10, Langenwater discloses the pair of first engagement elements includes a right-side first engagement element disposed on a right side of the front surface of the goggle lens and a left-side first engagement element disposed on a left side of the front surface of the goggle lens, and wherein the right latch is configured to releasably engage the right-side first engagement element and the left latch is configured to releasably engage the left-side first engagement element (fig 10, para 0046 to 0052).
Regarding claim 11, Langenwater discloses each respective latch of the pair of latches is configured to sandwich a respective portion of the goggle lens between the respective latch and the goggle frame when the respective latch is in a closed position (fig 10, para 0046 to 0052).
Regarding claim 12, Langenwater discloses a pair of locking members each configured to releasably lock a respective one of the latches in a closed position (members 212 and 216, para 0055).
Regarding claim 13, Langenwater discloses a goggle (figs 1-25), comprising:
a goggle lens (member 102) comprising one or more first engagement elements (member 150);
a goggle frame comprising one or more second engagement elements (member 160) configured to engage the one or more first engagement elements to couple the goggle lens to the goggle frame, wherein the goggle frame further comprises a third engagement element (member 154) disposed on a top portion of the goggle frame configured to receive a top portion of the goggle lens; and
a pair of latches (member 186) each disposed on the goggle frame and configured to releasably engage a front surface of the goggle lens to secure the goggle lens to the goggle frame.
Regarding claim 17, Langenwater discloses when each latch of the pair of latches is in a closed position, each of the one or more first engagement elements and each of the one or more second engagement elements are sandwiched between a respective one of the latches and the goggle frame (fig 10).
Regarding claim 18, Langenwater discloses a pair of locking members each configured to releasably lock a respective one of the latches in a closed position (fig 10, para 0046 to 0052).
Regarding claim 19, Langenwater discloses each locking member comprises a snap (members 212 and 216, para 0055).
Regarding claim 20, Langenwater discloses when each of the latches is in an open position, the goggle frame is configured to receive the goggle lens (fig 10).
Regarding claim 21, Langenwater discloses each latch of the pair of latches is configured to move between an open position and a closed position, wherein when each latch is in the closed position, a first one of the latches is configured to sandwich a right portion of the goggle lens between the first one of the latches and the goggle frame and a second one of the latches is configured to sandwich a left portion of the goggle lens between the second one of the latches and the goggle frame (fig 10, para 0046 to 0052).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 7. Langenwalter et al. (2019/0113773) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of O'Malley (20117/0143546).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Langenwalter discloses the pair of first engagement elements comprises a first aperture on the right portion of the goggle lens and a second aperture on the left portion of the goggle lens (para 0043, the recesses and pins can be reversed).
O'Malley teaches the apertures extending through the lens frame (fig 3, members 330 and 328).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the structure of Langenwalter, by using the through hole, as taught by O'Malley, in order to snap the pin easier. Thus, applicant does not provide any criticality or unexpected results why the recesses must be extending through the frame, and therefore the court held that the particular placement of a structure was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant's specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device." Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984).
Regarding claim 15, the modified goggle Langenwater-O’Malley discloses the one or more second engagement elements comprise a pair of protrusions configured to be received within the first aperture and the second aperture (Langenwater, figs 4-5).
Regarding claim 16, the modified goggle Langenwater-O’Malley discloses when each latch of the pair of latches is in a closed position, each latch is configured to engage a respective one of the pair of protrusions (Langenwater, figs 4-5 and 10).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,399,982. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim essentially the same elements such as a goggle comprising a frame, lens, a pair of latches, a protrusion, and a aperture or pocket wherein the protrusion extending from the front surface of the lens, and wherein the latches configured to releasably the lens to the frame.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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, KHOA D. HUYNH can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732