This present invention relates to protective eyewear in the form of spectacles or glasses (having temples), which are readily receptive to multiple layers of clear transparent lens protectors, and more particularly, pertains to a method by which said lens protectors are held in place atop the main lens and subsequently removed.
Within many industries, such as the painting, drywall, and pest control, for example, workers are constantly subjected to constant fall-out or bounce-back of light weight particle of materials (ie. over-spray); or may just simply be down wind. Whether spraying paint, drywall texture or chemicals there is not only a need to protect the eyes, but furthermore the need to do so in a manner that allows for convenient, rapid vision restoration.
Having been a painting contractor myself, I have concluded that the industry has been resigned to suffer as a whole, in that there is inadequate eye protection available. Ordinary safety glasses quickly become covered in the paint or chemical being used, thereby decreasing vision. Any attempt to clean the main lens for continuous use is not only timely but often proves futile, in that the paint or chemical can quickly dry to or melt the main lens. Traditional protective eyewear is abandoned. Many workers are resigned to using no eye protection when doing such jobs, often resorting to the minimal protection of a billed cap.
Eye protection devices receptive to or containing multiple layer systems of protectors have been granted patents for the need to address many similar scenarios. Such as moto-sport racing or paint ball, as well as painting. As disclosed in such patents as U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,455,689, 4,716,601 and 5,592,698, these tear off lens (protection) systems incorporate the use of or on a goggle or helmet face shield. As well as discuss their attempts to rectify previous methods of attaching and releasing a plurality of transparent protectors, and the apparatus used to do so. However, inherent in these and many other prior works related to this invention is the presence of a tab or pulling device on the edge of each protector in order to facilitate its release. Despite the different means by which the protectors are held in place atop the main lens; whether it being a extruding post, or an adhesive (U.S. Pat. No. 6,536,045), and despite any differing attempts in positioning these tabs in prior art, an inherent drawback in these type of protectors [with tabs] is ones ability [while performing a task,] to simply grasp each successive tab in order to pull off the outermost transparent protector in a rapid, efficient, and precise manner.
This rationally used method of protector removal, consisting of a pulling or tearing motion, requires an outwardly (away from head) force being applied to the goggle and thereby necessitates the need for a strap or band to hold the goggles in place on the user's head; so as not to pull off the entire goggle, or the wearing of a large cumbersome helmet. Both are not very conducive to a hobby or working environment. Headbands or elastic straps can be very uncomfortable, as well as having to wear a helmet while working in order to achieve this means of vision restoration; and also regarded as a drawback in these previous works.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,563,065 adapted a lens protection system to glasses or spectacles, but have done so in a manner that requires the presence of “pulling” tabs in order to remove a protector; again thereby necessitating the presence of a head band or strap, and inherently the problematic, precise grasping of the tabs themselves. This invention clearly discusses and attempts to address the need to improve the overall efficiency of grasping an individual tab of the outermost protector.
Yet, within other versions of vision clearing devices, as discussed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,528,701 and 5,203,035, rather than a stack of protectors which are to be individually torn away or off, they utilize a long continuous thin layer of film that is to be scrolled across the main lens,-from its holding to its receiving spool or magazine,-as needed to restore a clear view; by manual yet slightly differing mechanical means. Regardless, not only do the presence of receiving or holding spools or magazines on the side of the device negate much peripheral vision, but an added drawback to both is the large, cumbersome, front heavy, nature of these versions making them awkward to use in a construction or painter's environment or in general, and thusly requiring a(n elastic) strap or band to hold on users head. Another drawback found in the latter (U.S. Pat. No. 5,203,035), despite its attempt to house the spools in a die cut paper card, becomes the accumulation of material or debris (paint for example) that builds up on the spooling mechanism; increasingly debilitating its ability to function, or scroll smoothly at all.
Accordingly, there is a need for a more efficient, reliable, lightweight and comfortable version of protective eyewear, that is not only receptive to multiple layers of lens protectors but whose design and make-up is more conducive to consistent performance in the construction or trade industries as well; specifically painting. As well as a need for a method of protector removal or vision restoration that does not require the presence of any tabs or pulling devices on the protectors, nor the need for any adhesives or any added moveable structures or spooling mechanisms that can all therefore dictate the need for a head band or strap (to be worn in order to hold the protective device on the user's head, due to the inherent outwardly force needed to remove a transparent lens protector utilizing the pulling or tearing of said tab, or as a result of the mere presence and added weight of any spooling mechanisms); nor for use upon a goggle or helmet. But rather, one in which the make-up and method of lens protector removal provides an overall improvement to the concept of vision restoration applied to safety glasses.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds