DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “splicing gaps” (added to claim 6) is not found in the original specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim has been amended to state that the frosted layer and the light guide portion are integrally formed without any splicing gaps. However, the original specification has not stated how the frosted layer is formed without any splicing gaps. Therefore, it is considered to be new matter not supported by the original disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Closson, US 203323. Regarding claims 1 and 20, Closson discloses a creative ornament (finger ring) with an ornament shell (A) formed with a projection opening (b) with a lens (B) and a light inlet (e) opposite the opening (b). A pattern sheet (c, picture on transparent medium) located on the end-face of the lens (B) and between the projection opening (b) and the light inlet (e), so that the pattern on the pattern sheet is projected and enlarged through the lens (column 1, paragraph 3, “On looking through the eye-hole into the lens the picture will be seen as magnified.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
340
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Closson discloses an embodiment where the projection opening (b) with a lens (B) and a light inlet (e) opposite the opening (b) transversely disposed in the head of the ring, i.e, the light inlet is located on the side of the ring opposite to the projection opening (b) located on the opposite side of the ring (see text on the bottom of the first column and top of the second column).
“Sometimes I arrange the socket and lens transversely in the head of the ring, in which ease the eye and light apertures would be in the sides of the head.”
In this embodiment, an external light source (ambient light from light bulbs or the sun) is directed at the light inlet, allowing the light to pass through the pattern sheet and the lens in sequence to form a projection onto an outside object, i.e., the eye of the viewer.
Regarding claim 2, Closson discloses a convex lens with a cylindrical light guide portion extending from the convex surface of the lens (B).
Regarding claim 3, Closson has a light guide portion (B) extending toward the pattern sheet (c).
Regarding claims 4-5, Closson discloses the external surface of the cylindrical light guide portion is provided with a light blocking layer, i.e., the inner cylindrical surface of the cylindrical bore that makes with the outer circumferential surface of the light guide portion. Closson inherently discloses a finger ring made of a light blocking material, i.e., metal alloy.
Regarding claim 7, the claim states that the lens is inserted into the projection opening by means of the light guide portion. This is a method step of assembling the creative ornament. The completed, final structure implied by this method step is that the lens is located within the projection opening with the convex lens at the end of the projection opening and the light guide portion extending down toward the light inlet, which is disclosed by Closson.
Regarding claim 8, Closson discloses the lens and light guide portion (B) being integrally formed, i.e., they are formed from one solid piece of transparent material.
Regarding claim 9, Closson discloses the pattern sheet (c) being located on the end face of the light guide portion (B).
Regarding claim 10, Closson discloses the light guide end surface and the pattern sheet (c) are parallel to one another and perpendicular to a central line of the light inlet (e).
PNG
media_image2.png
340
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Closson discloses the ornament shell as a finger ring, i.e., a decorative piece.
Regarding claim 17, Closson discloses a shank (A) as a connection part to connect the ornament shell to a user’s finger.
Regarding claim 18, the claim states that the creative ornament can be a creative bracelet, a creative necklace and so on. “and so on” is understood to me that the creative ornament can be a piece of jewelry as alluded to in the claim and the specification. Closson discloses a finger ring, which is a piece of jewelry; and therefore, meets the broad limitation “and so on” of the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Closson discloses a creative ornament (finger ring) with an ornament shell (A) formed with a projection opening (b) with a lens (B) and a light inlet (e) opposite the opening (b). A pattern sheet (c, picture on transparent medium) located on the end-face of the light guide end-face of the lens (B) and between the projection opening (b) and the light inlet (e), so that the pattern on the pattern sheet is projected and enlarged through the lens (column 1, paragraph 3, “On looking through the eye-hole into the lens the picture will be seen as magnified.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
340
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Closson discloses an embodiment where the projection opening (b) with a lens (B) and a light inlet (e) opposite the opening (b) transversely disposed in the head of the ring, i.e, the light inlet is located on the side of the ring opposite to the projection opening (b) located on the opposite side of the ring (see text on the bottom of the first column and top of the second column).
“Sometimes I arrange the socket and lens transversely in the head of the ring, in which ease the eye and light apertures would be in the sides of the head.”
In this embodiment, an external light source (ambient light from light bulbs or the sun) is directed at the light inlet, allowing the light to pass through the pattern sheet and the lens in sequence to form a projection onto an outside object, i.e., the eye of the viewer.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Closson, US 203323 in view of Miyazaki, US 2014/0160571 A1. Closson fails to disclose providing a light blocking layer on the external surface of the light guide portion. However, Miyazaki discloses applying a black coating material applied to the circumferential edge (31) of the lens barrel of the lens (1) to suppress internal reflection of light incident on the convex surface of the lens to improve the optical performance of the lens. Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply a black coating material to Closson’s external surface of the light guide portion of the lens.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Closson, US 203323. Regarding claim 11, Closson discloses that the picture (c, pattern sheet) is “applied to the lower or plane end of the lens” (column 1, paragraph 2). And, that “a cap or guard, d” is “fit into the socket” (column 1, paragraph 3).
The claim states that the pattern sheet is non-removably fixed on the light guide end surface. Closson fixes the picture on the light guide end surface and isn’t clear as to whether or not the picture is permanently fixed on the light guide end surface. However, to permanently secure the cap or guard to the socket in order to fix the picture to the light guide end surface would be within a person’s ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would use an interference fit, threads or adhesive between the cap (d) and the end of the socket to permanently secure the picture to the light guide end surface. This would be done to permanently secure the picture in the finger ring to prevent the cap and picture from falling off the finger ring, i.e., to prevent loss of the cherished picture. Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to permanently secure Closson’s cap to the socket to prevent loss of the picture.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Closson, US 203323 in view of Guerrero, US 4416074. Closson discloses a picture/photo mounted on the light guideend surface. The claim requires that the pattern sheet is film, which is not found in Closson. However, Guerrero discloses a pattern film sheet (26) located between a projection opening with a lens (20) and a light inlet (at 36) on a finger ring; so that, the pattern on the pattern sheet is projected and enlarged through the lens (20).
PNG
media_image3.png
468
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Guerrero discloses that it is old and well known to use a finger ring device for viewing frames of a film material as compared to Closson’s finger ring device for viewing a photograph. The pattern sheets from both Closson (photograph on paper) and Guerrero (image on film) are equivalent materials that provide images to be viewed using the finger ring viewing device. Either material works equally as well as the other in providing images to be seen in the finger ring viewing device. Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use Closson’s finger ring device to view images on film.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Closson, US 203323 in view of Buck, US 2021/0137227. Closson discloses a photograph as the pattern sheet that is viewed through the lens. The claims require that the pattern sheet is of a color with portions that prevent light from passing through the pattern sheet and portions/designs of cut out of the opaque pattern sheet. Closson fails to disclose an opaque sheet with cutouts for allowing light to pass through the cutouts. However, Buck discloses a pattern sheet (28) that is opaque with apertures to allow light to pass therethrough in order to view the pattern through the stone/lens (18). In paragraph [0029], Buck discloses: “The removable slide 28 is transparent or translucent, or includes apertures to allow light to pass therethrough. The removable slide 28 provides the variability in the appearance of the visual effect produced by the ring when the light source 24 is illuminated.”
The pattern sheets from both Closson (photograph on paper) and Buck (cutouts in a colored opaque sheet) are equivalent materials that provide images/patterns to be viewed using the finger ring viewing device. Either material works equally as well as the other in providing images to be seen in the finger ring viewing device. Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use Closson’s finger ring device to view images on an opaque, colored patterned sheet with cutouts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection based on the second embodiment of the previously applied reference to Closson (see the additional discussion added to the rejection for claims 1, 19 and 20).
The applicant argues, page 6 of the response, that Closson fails to disclose the opening and the lens being arranged opposite to each other to form a projection path. The applicant is arguing a limitation that is not found in claims 1, 19 and 20. The claims state “a projection opening and a light inlet, the projection opening and the light inlet being arranged opposite to each other…the projection opening being provided with a lens”. They do not state that the opening and lens are arranged opposite each other as argued. The claims state that the light inlet is opposite to the projection opening and that the projection opening is provided with a lens. Therefore, the argument fails to be directed to the claimed subject matter.
The applicant argues, page 6 of the response, that Closson “has no design for directing an external light source, no projection path for light to pass through the pattern sheet and lens to an external object”. However, as discussed above with the second embodiment discussed in Closson. Closson does disclose the opening, lens and pattern sheet in an orientation ninety or so degrees to that shown in the first embodiment in figure 1, i.e., the light inlet is located on a side of the head of the ring opposite to a projection opening on the opposed side of the head of the ring with a lens located therebetween to form a path for light to travel through the light inlet (e), through the lens (B) and out through the aperture (b) onto a viewer’s eye, i.e., outside object, as claimed. Therefore, Closson’s second embodiment reads on the newly claimed creative ornament.
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 JACK W LAVINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 9-4pm (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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
JACK W. LAVINDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JACK W LAVINDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677