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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on December 15, 2025. Claim(s) 1, 27, and 30 have been amended. No claims have been added. Claims 2-4, 8, 15, 17-25, and 34-35 have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. Claims 1, 5-7, 9-14, 16, 26-33 and 36-38 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 27, and 30 filed on December 15, 2025.
The applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 27 and 30 are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims presented in previous action, which indicated claim 1 obvious in view of Tanaka (US PG PUB No. 20140228995), and claims 27 and 30 as obvious in view of Schneider (US PG Pub No. 20150053530) and Mandler (US PG Pub No. 20160250690).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed December 15, 2025 with respect to the rejections of claims being unsustainable due to amendments to the claims have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and its dependents have been considered, and are found persuasive. The amended claim requires that the handling apparatus be configured to transport the spectacle lenses between the transport system and at least one of the several processing stations, and it has to be configured to transfer the lenses directly between two the several processing stations. The prior art’s handling apparatus is capable of transferring between its respective transport system and a processing station, however there requires an intermediate step and transfer process in order to move a lens between processing stations. As such, the limitation is not found anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art. As submitted, claim 1 and its dependents are allowable.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 27, 30, and their respective dependents have been considered. Resultant of the amendments, the claims require a “common casing surrounding the processing stations and the transport system,” which Tanaka and Schneider are silent to. However, upon further search and consideration, Kuebler is found to teach a frame that surrounds a lens processing apparatus, including its processing and transport systems. Therefore, a new grounds of rejection applying Kuebler to address the deficiencies of Tanaka and Schneider is set forth in this action.
The rejection of claims 37-38 have also been updated, as Kuebler is considered a stronger reference than Mandler for teaching a “casing surrounding”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 27-33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Schneider (US PG Pub No. 20150053530) and Kuebler (US PG Pub No. 20060009126).
In regards to claim 27, Tanaka discloses
a processing system (eyeglass lens processing system 1000, fig. 1-5; [0036]) configured to process spectacle lenses (eyeglass lens LE, [0036]) comprising:
several processing stations (processing devices 10, fig. 1-5, [0011-0013]), [0074]), and
a transport system (at least conveyor line 102, transport tray TR, fig. 1, 3-5; [0075-0076]) configured to transport the spectacle lenses (eyeglass lens LE, [0036]) and/or transport containers (transport tray TR, fig. 1, 3-5; [0075-0076]) for the spectacle lenses within the processing system (eyeglass lens processing system 1000, fig. 1-5; [0036]),
wherein the processing system is capable of processing different spectacle lenses simultaneously in different processing stations,
and wherein the processing system has a handling apparatus for the spectacle lenses which is assigned to a plurality of the several processing stations ([0082], see explanation in rejection of claim 1).
Tanaka fails to explicitly disclose that the several processing stations are configured to perform different processing operations, and operations comprising different types (processing devices 10, fig. 1-5; [0011-1013], [0074]) such as “ a milling station, a turning station and a polishing station.”
However, Tanaka does disclose:
[0010] a plurality of processing devices including first and second processing devices, each of the first and second processing devices including a lens processing unit configured to process an eyeglass lens and a processing control unit configured to control the lens processing unit;
[0013] wherein one of the first and second processing devices performs a second process on the eyeglass lens based on the second processing information.
There is an understanding that multiple processes may need to occur during manufacturing of a lens.
Schneider discloses:
[0064] The system 1 has several separate processing apparatus 3 for independent processing/machining of lenses 2. For example, the system 1 can have especially at least one processing apparatus 3A for blocking (temporary connection to a holder) of lenses 2, a processing apparatus 3B for intermediate storage of lenses 2 (preferably for cooling after blocking), a processing apparatus 3C for forming, especially cutting or milling of lenses 2, a processing apparatus 3D for polishing of lenses 2, a processing apparatus 3E for testing or measuring of lenses 2, a processing apparatus 3F for marking of lenses 2 and/or a processing apparatus 3G for coating of lenses 2 (indicated in FIG. 5).
Schneider and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, apparatuses for machining optical lens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka further with the teachings of Schneider and added a subsequent processing station for at least one of forming, milling, polishing, and/or marking lenses in order to consolidate work and expedite lens production.
Tanaka fails to explicitly disclose “a common casing surrounding the processing stations and the transport system for the processing stations.”
Kuebler discloses a method and an apparatus for producing optical glasses. The glasses are polished and marked, following a shaping process. The polishing and marking steps are carried out in a common processing cell which comprises a polishing station, a washing station, and a marking station. Kuebler’s process also houses the conveyor (transport system) and handling device that moves the lens from processing stations to the conveyor (see fig. 3 and fig. 4).
Kuebler and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, apparatuses for machining optical lens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka further with the teachings of Kuebler and provide a common casing surrounding the processing stations given it would yield predicable results, providing an enclosure for the processing station while the different operations are executed without interference.
In regards to claim 28, Tanaka as modified discloses
the processing system according to claim 27, wherein the processing system (eyeglass lens processing system 1000, fig. 1-5; [0036]) has several independent handling apparatuses (plurality of robots 400, fig. 3-5), which are arranged above the transport system (at least conveyor line 102, transport tray TR, fig. 1, 3-5; [0075-0076]; see fig. 4).
In regards to claim 29, Tanaka as modified discloses
the processing system according to claim 27, wherein the handling apparatus (robot 400, fig. 3-5; [0081-0082]) is configured to transfer spectacle lenses (eyeglass lens LE, [0036]) between two processing stations (processing devices 10, fig. 1-5; [0074]; as one robot is assigned to a RCL unit with two processing devices 10, it would be capable of transferring between the two).
In regards to claim 30, Tanaka discloses
a processing system (eyeglass lens processing system 1000, fig. 1-5; [0036]) configured to process spectacle lenses (eyeglass lens LE, [0036]) comprising: several processing stations (processing devices 10, fig. 1-5, [0011-0013]), [0074]) comprising at least two processing stations of different type ([0011-0013]),
a transport system (at least conveyor line 102, transport tray TR, fig. 1, 3-5; [0075-0076]) configured to transport the spectacle lenses (eyeglass lens LE, [0036]) and/or transport containers (transport tray TR, fig. 1, 3-5; [0075-0076]) for the spectacle lenses within the processing system (eyeglass lens processing system 1000, fig. 1-5; [0036]), and
wherein the transport system has transport sections (at least the railing/support structure of the conveyor and belt structure of the conveyor) and/or transport devices which run parallel to one another and are directly adjacent (see conveyor structure in fig. 4),
and wherein the processing system has a handling apparatus for the spectacle lenses which is assigned to a plurality of the several processing stations ([0082], see explanation in rejection of claim 1).
Tanaka fails to explicitly disclose that the several processing stations are configured to perform different processing operations, and operations comprising different types (processing devices 10, fig. 1-5; [0011-1013], [0074]).
However, Tanaka does disclose:
[0010] a plurality of processing devices including first and second processing devices, each of the first and second processing devices including a lens processing unit configured to process an eyeglass lens and a processing control unit configured to control the lens processing unit;
[0013] wherein one of the first and second processing devices performs a second process on the eyeglass lens based on the second processing information.
There is an understanding that multiple processes may need to occur during manufacturing of a lens.
Schneider discloses:
[0064] The system 1 has several separate processing apparatus 3 for independent processing/machining of lenses 2. For example, the system 1 can have especially at least one processing apparatus 3A for blocking (temporary connection to a holder) of lenses 2, a processing apparatus 3B for intermediate storage of lenses 2 (preferably for cooling after blocking), a processing apparatus 3C for forming, especially cutting or milling of lenses 2, a processing apparatus 3D for polishing of lenses 2, a processing apparatus 3E for testing or measuring of lenses 2, a processing apparatus 3F for marking of lenses 2 and/or a processing apparatus 3G for coating of lenses 2 (indicated in FIG. 5).
Schneider and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, apparatuses for machining optical lens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka further with the teachings of Schneider and added a subsequent processing station for at least one of forming, milling, polishing, and/or marking lenses in order to consolidate work and expedite lens production.
Tanaka fails to explicitly disclose “a common casing surrounding the processing stations and the transport system for the processing stations.”
Kuebler discloses a method and an apparatus for producing optical glasses. The glasses are polished and marked, following a shaping process. The polishing and marking steps are carried out in a common processing cell which comprises a polishing station, a washing station, and a marking station. Kuebler’s process also houses the conveyor (transport system) and handling device that moves the lens from processing stations to the conveyor (see fig. 3 and fig. 4).
Kuebler and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, apparatuses for machining optical lens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka further with the teachings of Kuebler and provide a common casing surrounding the processing stations given it would yield predicable results, providing an enclosure for the processing station while the different operations are executed without interference.
In regards to claim 31, Tanaka as modified discloses
the processing system according to claim 30, wherein the transport sections and/or transport devices of the transport system have opposite transport directions (the conveyor is linear, therein possesses opposite transport directions, see fig. 4 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 32, Tanaka as modified discloses
the processing system according to claim 30, wherein an entrance and an exit of the transport system are arranged directly adjacent to each other and/or on the same side of the processing system (see fig. 4 – ann. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
483
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 33, Tanaka as modified discloses
the processing system according to claim 30, wherein the processing stations are at least partially arranged laterally on sides facing away from each other, of the transport system (see fig. 4 – ann. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
589
819
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 34, Tanaka as modified discloses
the processing system according to claim 30, wherein the processing system has a handling apparatus which is configured to transfer spectacle lenses between the transport system and two processing stations.
In regards to claim 36, Tanaka as modified discloses
the processing system according to claim 30, but fails to disclose that “wherein the processing system is assembled from two functional separate parts, wherein each of the parts form a ready-assembled unit with a transport device, one or more processing stations, one or more handling apparatuses and an integrated control system for the processing stations, the transport system and the handling apparatuses.”
However, Tanaka discloses:
[0075] For example, the transportation robot 500 may include a plurality of remote conveyer line units (hereinafter, RCL units) 100 that has at least one belt type conveyer line 102 to transport a tray TR containing the lens LE to the device. Each of the RCL units has a base, and at least one processing device 10 is disposed on the base to correspond to the conveyer line 102.
Tanaka discloses the capacity of having a modular arrangement of the RCL units. As such, Tanaka would be capable of having at least two units including respective conveyors, handling robots, and processing stations.
14. Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US PG Pub No. 20150053530) in view of Kuebler (US PG Pub No. 20060009126).
In regards to claim 37, Schneider discloses
a processing system (system 1, fig.1-9) configured to process spectacle lenses (lenses 2, fig. 1-8) comprising: several processing stations (¶[0064]), the several different processing stations comprising a milling station, a turning station and a polishing station (processing apparatus 3C and 3D for forming, [0064]: especially cutting or milling of lenses 2; processing apparatus 3D, [0064]: for polishing of lenses 2), with
a transport system (transfer system 4, fig. 1, 3-8) configured to transport the spectacle lenses (lenses 2, fig. 1-8) and/or transport containers (carriers 5, fig. 1-8) for the spectacle lenses (lenses 2, fig. 1-8) within the processing system (system 1, fig.1-9), and
a common casing surrounding the processing stations and the transport system,
wherein the processing system (system 1, fig.1-9) is configured to process different spectacle lenses (lenses 2, fig. 1-8) simultaneously (¶0157]) in different processing stations (processing apparatus 3, ¶[0064]) selected from the group consisting of the milling station, the turning station and the polishing station,
wherein the processing system has an integrated control system configured to control the processing stations and the transport system ([0006]).
[0006]…The processing apparatus and the transfer system with conveyor apparatus are controlled by a central computer or controller.
wherein the processing system is configured to process more than 60 spectacle lenses per hour, the processing of each spectacle lens comprising at least the steps of milling, turning and polishing.
Schneider fails to explicitly disclose “a common casing surrounding” the processing stations (processing apparatus 3, ¶[0064]) and the transport system (transfer system 4, fig. 1, 3-8).
Kuebler discloses a method and an apparatus for producing optical glasses. The glasses are polished and marked, following a shaping process. The polishing and marking steps are carried out in a common processing cell which comprises a polishing station, a washing station, and a marking station. Kuebler’s process also houses the conveyor (transport system) and handling device that moves the lens from processing stations to the conveyor (see fig. 3 and fig. 4).
Kuebler and Schneider are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, apparatuses for machining optical lens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schendier further with the teachings of Kuebler and provide a common casing surrounding the processing stations given it would yield predicable results, providing an enclosure for the processing station while the different operations are executed without interference.
Scheider fails to disclose the footprint being “at most 20 m2.”
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical.
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, the footprint of the lens processing device would need to be able to fit within the enclosure/environment it’s being used in, addressing design needs.
While Schneider fails to disclose the system being configured to process more than “60 spectacle lenses per hour, the processing of each lens comprising at least steps of milling, turning and polishing,” these limitations appear to be intended use limitations, directed towards the method/process of using the device. Schneider, by possessing the claimed structure, would be capable of being used in the intended manner.
Pursuant of MPEP 2114.I, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g).) the examiner has concluded that certain claimed limitations are functional and therefore are an inherent characteristic of the prior art (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the immediate case, the prior art structure is considered to inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus
In regards to claim 38, Schneider as modified discloses
the processing system according to claim 37, wherein the transport system (transfer system 4, fig. 1, 3-8) has transport sections (transport tracks T, T2, T3; fig. 1, 3-8) and/or transport devices which run parallel to one another (see fig. 6) and are directly adjacent,
wherein the transport sections (transport tracks T, T2, T3; fig. 1, 3-8) and/or transport devices of the transport system (transfer system 4, fig. 1, 3-8) have opposite transport directions (see annotated fig. 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
499
946
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein an entrance and an exit of the transport system (transfer system 4, fig. 1, 3-8) are arranged directly adjacent to each other and/or on the same side ([0068) of the processing system (system 1, fig.1-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,5-7,9-14,16,26 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, Tanaka and Schneider, considered the closet art of record, when evaluated as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the complete combination of the recited elements as presented within the claim. So while the transport system, handling apparatus, and processing stations were found obvious in view of the prior art, what the prior art failed to disclose or render obvious was the requirement that the handling apparatus be configured to transport the spectacle lenses between the transport system and at least one of the several processing stations, and it has to be configured to transfer the lenses directly between two the several processing stations.
The prior art’s handling apparatus is capable of transferring between its respective transport system and a processing station, however there requires an intermediate step and transfer process in order to move a lens between processing stations. As such, the limitation is not found anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art. As submitted, claim 1 and its dependents are allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723