DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
While there is an attorney listed, there is no power of attorney on file.
Status of Claims
As per the submission to the Office filed on 04/27/2026, the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1, 4, 8-9 were amended, Claim 2 was canceled. Claims 1, 3-10 are presented for examination.
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 8 is 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.
For claim 8, the limitation “whichever one of the respective pairs of points of the first sleeve end (31) and the second sleeve end (32)” in line 6 is unclear as the limitation following after “whichever” is not positively recited.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HAEMMERLE (FR 2465408 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, HAEMMERLE discloses a pair of goggles (fig. 1) intended to be fitted to a head of an equine (title and abstract), the pair of goggles comprising a set of straps (5-9) and two shields (fig. 3, [0003] and claim 5 as blinders are attached both the left and right shells 1 and 2), each shield comprising a sleeve (sleeve of blinder in fig. 3) which extends between a first sleeve end (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) and a second sleeve end (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3), the first sleeve end being provided with a first hole (hole of first sleeve end) and the second sleeve end being provided with a second hole (hole of second sleeve end), characterized in that the second sleeve end is provided with a collar (1) fitted to a rim (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) of the second hole (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3, [0003]-[0004] and claim 5 as the blinders are attached to the surface of 1), and the collar and the sleeve form a first angle which lies between 90° and 120° (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3, [0003]-[0004] and claim 5 as the angle from the wider end towards the rim presents a slight slope from vertical as you reach a top end of the lens and therefore does form an angle of at least past 90°, also [0003] states “The device can be the host structure for fixing blinders of different sizes and adjustable ones that limit the field of vision.” wherein the adjustability will allow for the collar and the sleeve to form a first angle which lies between 90° and 120°).
PNG
media_image1.png
273
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, HAEMMERLE discloses the pair of goggles according to claim 1, characterized in that the collar extends between a topside (topside of 1) and an underside (underside of 1) which is equipped with a crown ([0004] as the lower face will receive a foam crown).
Regarding claim 4, HAEMMERLE discloses the pair of goggles according to claim 3, characterized in that the collar is provided with a plurality of channels (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 2 and [0004] as it discloses the collar to comprise of holes for riveting, and so teaches a plurality of channels) extending between the topside and the underside of the collar (fig. 2 and [0004]).
PNG
media_image2.png
354
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, HAEMMERLE discloses the pair of goggles according to claim 3, characterized in that the channels are radially interposed between the crown and the rim around a general extension axis of the sleeve (figs. 1 and 3 and see examiner’s illustration of fig. 2 and [0004] as the channels will be between the crown, which will be under the channels, and the rim, which will be above the channels).
Regarding claim 8, HAEMMERLE discloses the pair of goggles according to claim 1, characterized in that the sleeve extends between at least one pair of distant points (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) and one pair of near points (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3), the pair of distant points being that of the respective pairs of points of the first sleeve end and the second sleeve end for which a first distance between a first distant point and a second distant point is greatest (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3), the second pair of near points being whichever one of the respective pairs of points of the first sleeve end and the second sleeve end for which a second distance between a first near point and a second near point is smallest (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3), a ratio of the first distance to the second distance (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) is between 8 and 16 ([0003] “The device can be the host structure for fixing blinders of different sizes and adjustable ones that limit the field of vision.” as the device can be of any size, and so would teach wherein the ratio of the first distance to the second distance is between 8 and 16).
PNG
media_image3.png
273
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, HAEMMERLE discloses the pair of goggles according to claim 1, characterized in that the two shields comprises at least two longitudinal bosses (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 as the bosses are the curved portions) which extend between the first sleeve end and an outer collar edge (outer collar edge of 1 in fig. 2; see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3, [0003]-[0004] and claim 5 as the sleeve will be attached to the collar and so will have two longitudinal bosses which extend between the first sleeve end and an outer collar edge) and which jointly border an inflection line (fig, 2 and see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3, [0003]-[0004] and claim 5 as the sleeve will be attached to the collar and so will jointly border an inflection line) which also extends between the first sleeve end and an outer collar edge (fig, 2 and see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3, [0003]-[0004] and claim 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
273
429
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAEMMERLE as applied to claims 1, 3 and 5 above, and further in view of Troppman (US 1168581 A).
Regarding claim 6, HAEMMERLE teaches the pair of goggles according to claim 5, but is silent wherein the pair of goggles are characterized in that the collar comprises two tabs which are diametrically opposed to each other with respect to the general extension axis.
Troppman teaches wherein the pair of goggles (fig. 1) are characterized in that the collar (7) comprises two tabs (8 and 10) which are diametrically opposed to each other with respect to the general extension axis (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pair of goggles of HAEMMERLE to include two tabs which are diametrically opposed to each other with respect to the general extension axis as taught by Troppman in order to securely hold the eye cups together (figs. 1-2 and page 1, lines 65-70 of Troppman) and further securing the goggles to the head (page 1, lines 71-75 of Troppman).
Regarding claim 7, HAEMMERLE as modified by Troppman teaches the pair of goggles according to claim 6, and Troppman further teaches characterized in that a first tab (10) is arranged in a first plane (fig. 2) and a second tab (8) is arranged in a second plane (fig. 2), which form a second angle (fig. 2) between them.
However, HAEMMERLE as modified by Troppman does not explicitly state the second angle which is between 70° and 120°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second angle of HAEMMERLE as modified by Troppman to be between 70° and 120° in order to properly fit the various shaped heads as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAEMMERLE as applied to claims 1, 3 and 5 above, and further in view of PETERSON (US 1677566 A).
Regarding claim 10, HAEMMERLE teaches the pair of goggles according to claim 1, characterized with a corrective lens ([0003]).
However, HAEMMERLE is silent in that the first hole is provided with the corrective lens.
PETERSON teaches wherein the first hole (opening of 35) is provided with the corrective lens (36, fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the corrective lens of HAEMMERLE to be wherein the first hole is provided with the corrective lens as taught by PETERSON in order to easily clean the lens as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “HAEMMERLE discloses a pair of blinders (referred to as "shells" or "goggles") intended to be fitted on the head of an equine. Each blinder comprises a sleeve that is configured to rest directly against the horse's head at its open end. HAEMMERLE does not disclose, describe, or suggest any collar; that is, any distinct structural element surrounding or equipping the periphery of the sleeve at its second end. In HAEMMERLE, the sleeve end itself contacts the horse's head directly, without any intermediate collar structure interposed between the sleeve and the animal's head.
The Office Action's mapping of HAEMMERLE onto claim 1 relies on annotated illustrations of Figure 3 of HAEMMERLE, in which the Office Action identifies a "rim" and a "collar." However, a review of the disclosure of HAEMMERLE as a whole reveals no structure that corresponds to a collar as claimed and as described in the present application. HAEMMERLE's own claim 5 describes blinders that are "attached to the surface of [the collar 1]," where the collar referred to is the headpiece worn by the horse - not any structural element of the goggle shield itself. The structure that the Office Action annotates as a "collar" in the Office Action's illustration of Figure 3 is, at most, a portion of the sleeve end of the blinder, not a distinct collar fitted to a rim of a hole.”.
The examiner respectively disagrees. HAEMMERLE does disclose a collar (1) as depicted in fig. 1 and 2, wherein shell (1) of HAEMMERLE functions as the collar as the shell (1) of HAEMMERLE extends outward and has a round flange, and so is considered a collar.
Applicant further argues “It is well established that patent drawings that are not explicitly stated to be drawn to scale cannot be relied upon to disclose specific dimensions, proportions, or angular relationships. Arguments based on measurements or inferred geometrical relationships derived solely from figures, without explicit textual support, are of limited evidentiary value and do not constitute a clear and unambiguous disclosure of specific dimensional features. HAEMMERLE contains no statement that its figures are drawn to scale and no textual disclosure of any specific angular value between any structural component of the goggle and the sleeve. Accordingly, no specific angular value can be read into HAEMMERLE from its drawings alone.”.
The examiner respectively disagrees. Please see rejection above as examiner’s illustration of fig. 3, [0003]-[0004] and claim 5 of HAEMMERLE teaches wherein the angle from the wider end towards the rim presents a slight slope from vertical as you reach a top end of the lens and therefore does form an angle of at least past 90°, also [0003] of HAEMMERLE states “The device can be the host structure for fixing blinders of different sizes and adjustable ones that limit the field of vision.” wherein the adjustability will allow for the collar and the sleeve to form a first angle which lies between 90° and 120°.
Applicant further argues “With respect to claim 7 specifically, the Office Action acknowledges that HAEMMERLE as modified by Troppman does not explicitly state that the second angle between the tabs lies between 70° and 120°. The Office Action relies on In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, for the proposition that determining an optimum range through routine experimentation involves only routine skill. However, In re Aller applies where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a specific range of a parameter that is already present in the prior art. Here, there is no teaching in the combined prior art of tabs arranged on a collar, which is itself absent from the prior art, let alone any angular relationship between such tabs. In re Aller is therefore inapplicable.”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
All other claims with arguments are similarly unpersuasive as they relate to claim 1 and the art used for those claims were used for other features that are not claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights