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 February 4, 2026. Claim(s) ____ been amended. Claims 21-24 have been added. Claim(s) 16-17 and 19-20 have been cancelled. (Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained). (The previous provisional rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, in light of copending application_____, is maintained). Claims _____ are currently pending and have been examined. (Resultant of a restriction, claims ____ are non-elected and withdrawn from consideration at present). Claims ____ are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
No amendments were made in communication filed on February 4, 2026.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-16, filed February 4, 2026, have been fully considered.
112(a) Rejection: The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but found unpersuasive. The claim recites a means programmed for “automatically modifying” the size of the outlines. However, page 10 line 15 begins describing the Human machine interface wherein an optician adjusts the sizes of the outlines. As written, the automation of these adjustments (i.e. the stimulus for causing a change and reaction by the device according to the input) is not present within the disclosure. The 112(a) written description rejection is maintained.
103 Rejection: The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but found unpersuasive. Applicant presents on pages 13-14 that Suzuki does not propose to modify the outlines of Mizuno, but the theoretical contour of its respective lens L. However, the examiner was applying the teaching of adjusting alignment elements for the purpose of mounting (col. 3 line 64 – col. 4 line 10).
Col. 3 line 64-col. 4 line 10: …position input means for inputting an optical center position of the material lens relative to a geometrical center of said lens frame, and lens diameter/radius input means for inputting the diameter/radius of the material lens, said image display means displaying said lens image having the center thereof in said optical center position and also having said diameter/radius together with said lens frame image.
(24) With the first construction of the present invention, the image display means displays the lens frame configuration on its display screen, and also displays the lens image having the lens diameter of the material lens input by the lens diameter/radius input means such that the center thereof is located in the optical center position of the lens input by the position input means. The operator visually checks whether at least a part of the lens frame configuration expands outside the lens image...
So while not the exact same inputs, the teaching for displaying and adjusting alignment means on a display for an optical device are taught by Suzuki. The variables used for coaxial targeting outlines may differ, but the teaching for adjusting their relative positions and sizes for the purpose of alignment and ensuring proper mounting of a lens is taught by Suzuki and would bring improvements to Mizuno. The rejection is maintained.
Suzuki provides equations for both targeting/alignment circles 213 and 220 (disk external image 213 and lens image 220) wherein the radius is an input. Both are distinct from the lens frame outline (211). As such, Suzuki provides a teaching for both target/alignment circles having modifiable sizes.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for manually modifying the sizes” in claim 6
Page 7: In a first embodiment, the apparatus 1 comprises an HMI (Human-Machine Interface) enabling the optician to manually modify the sizes of the outlines 150, 151 displayed on the viewing screen 70.
Page 8: The optician then seeks in this step to place the two outlines 150, 151 on each side of a single circle of centering markings 110. At this step, in the first embodiment, the sizes of the two outlines can be manually modified by the optician in order to achieve this aim.
“means programmed for determining the shape” in claim 7
Specification is silent to the program
“means programmed for automatically modifying the size of the outlines” in claim 7
Specification is silent to the program
“blocking means” in claims 8 and 18-20
Page 7 and fig. 1: - blocking means 30 mounted on the chassis 10 and suitable for receiving the blocking accessory 200, and centering means 40 mounted on the chassis 10, which include a sighting objective thanks to which the optical frame of reference of the ophthalmic lens 100 can be viewed. This centering-blocking apparatus may have several shapes. For instance, the holder could be fixedly mounted on the chassis and the blocking means could include a movable arm that is manually maneuverable so that the optician can force the arm to deposit the blocking accessory on the lens. But in the shown embodiment, the blocking means 30 are fixedly mounted.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7 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(s) contains subject matter (processing program generator, tool path data generator interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as described above) 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 applicant has failed to describe the algorithm and adequate structure to functionally operate processing program generator and tool path data generator.
Claim limitations “means programmed for determining the shape of centering markings situated on the lens, and means programmed for automatically modifying the size of the outlines displayed on said screen ” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Means programmed for determining the shape of centering markings situated on the lens: Specification does not further define the “means.”
Means programmed for automatically modifying the size of the outlines displayed on said screen: Specification does not further define the “means.”
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 7 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.
Claim limitations “means programmed for determining the shape of centering markings situated on the lens, and means programmed for automatically modifying the size of the outlines displayed on said screen ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Means programmed for determining the shape of centering markings situated on the lens: Specification does not further define the “means.”
Means programmed for automatically modifying the size of the outlines displayed on said screen: Specification does not further define the “means.”
With regards to the means programmed for determining the shape of centering markings and means programmed for automatically modifying the size of the outlines, mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" or programming without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41, 86 USPQ2d at 1623. In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383-85, 91 USPQ2d 1481, 1491-93 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1366-67, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1756-57 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex parte Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d 1395, 1405-06 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2009).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 15-16, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US PG Pub No. 20010035937) in view of Suzuki (US Patent No. 5155940).
In regards to claim 1, Mizuno discloses
a centering apparatus including:
a chassis (apparatus main body 1, fig. 1-2),
a holder (at least lens table 5 and table support portion 6, fig. 1-2; [0054]) mounted on the chassis (apparatus main body 1, fig. 1-2), which is suitable for receiving an ophthalmic lens, and
[0054] Numeral 5 denotes a circular lens table of transparent acrylic material, which is set on a base 1a of the main body 1 by a table support portion 6. An index portion 12 on which a prescribed pattern is provided is formed on a center of the table 5. Provided on the index portion 12 in this embodiment are a plurality of dot indexes arranged into a grid shape, which are formed by etching an upper surface of the table 5…
centering means mounted on the chassis (apparatus main body 1, fig. 1-2), which include:
a camera (at least second camera 17b, fig. 2; [0057-0058], [0060-0061]) for acquiring images of the ophthalmic lens when received on the holder, and
[0057] … Meanwhile, a mirror 16 and a second CCD camera 17b for imaging an image reflected by the mirror 16 are disposed in the reflecting direction of the half mirror 15. This second camera 17b is disposed so as to be able to image the substantially entire screen plate 13 so that the overall image of the lens LE projected onto the screen plate 13 can be obtained.
[0058] FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating a controlling system of the apparatus... Meanwhile, an image signal from the second camera 17b is inputted to an image synthesizing circuit 35, and the circuit 35 combines the image of the lens LE with characters, marks and so on generated by a display circuit 36 connected to the control unit 30, and displays the same on the monitor 2.
[0061] … When the lens LE is mounted on the table 5, the position of the dot index image located immediately below the vicinity of the optical center of the lens LE remains the same irrespective of the presence or absence of the lens LE, but the coordinate positions of the dot index images located at portions which are not at the optical center are changed due to the prismatic action of the lens LE. Accordingly, to detect the position of the optical center, a change in the coordinate position of each dot index image with the lens LE mounted with respect to the coordinate position of each dot index image with the lens LE not mounted is examined, and a center position where the dot index images diverge from or converge toward is determined. Namely, the center position of this divergence or convergence can be detected as the position of the optical center. In the example shown in FIG. 4, for instance, when the lens LE is mounted, dot index images P.sub.1 with the lens LE not mounted converge (move) with a dot index image P.sub.0 as the center to become dot index images P.sub.2. Accordingly, the coordinate position of the dot index image P.sub.0 can be detected as the position of the optical center. Even if the optical center is located between dot indexes, it suffices if the optical center is determined by interpolating the center of movement on the basis of the moving directions of the dot index images and the amounts of their movement.
a screen (screen of color monitor 2, fig. 1, 3-12; [0053]) for displaying the images acquired by the camera and
[0053] … A color monitor 2 such as a liquid-crystal display and an upper switch panel 3 are provided on an upper front surface of the main body 1, and a lower switch panel 4 is provided on a lower front surface. Displayed on the monitor 2 are an image of a subject lens LE which is imaged by a second CCD camera 17b, various marks for alignment, a layout screen (including input items for layout), and the like (described later).
a centering target (at least cup 23a and cross mark 25, fig. 5-7; [0069], [0071], [0073], [0075], [0077-0078]) superimposed onto said images,
wherein said centering target comprises two coaxial and parallel outlines (see fig. 5 - ann. 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
350
1090
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Mizuno fails to explicitly disclose that the “size of at least one outline is modifiable” so that the distance between the outlines
Suzuki discloses a lens grinding machine is used for grinding an uncut lens (material lens) into a lens frame configuration can be obtained of a spectacle frame to which the lens is to be enframed. Before the uncut lens is ground by the lens grinding machine, the axis (or center axis) of a sucking disk or sucking device is brought into alignment with the optical center of the uncut lens and then the sucking disk is allowed to be sucked and attached to the uncut lens.
Suzuki teaches being able to adjust the outlines used in checking the lens’ alignment on the grinding machine:
Col. 3 line 64-col. 4 line 10: (23) A first construction of the present invention for achieving the first object is in an apparatus for judging whether an uncut lens should be machined or not…position input means for inputting an optical center position of the material lens relative to a geometrical center of said lens frame, and lens diameter/radius input means for inputting the diameter/radius of the material lens, said image display means displaying said lens image having the center thereof in said optical center position and also having said diameter/radius together with said lens frame image.
(24) With the first construction of the present invention, the image display means displays the lens frame configuration on its display screen, and also displays the lens image having the lens diameter of the material lens input by the lens diameter/radius input means such that the center thereof is located in the optical center position of the lens input by the position input means. The operator visually checks whether at least a part of the lens frame configuration expands outside the lens image...
Col. 6 lines 37-49:… in which said memory means is adapted to store the radius of a sucking rubber of said sucking disk at the time said material lens is sucked and attached as the external configuration of said sucking disk.
With the ninth construction of the present invention, the external configuration of the sucking disk is stored in the memory means as a radius value at the time the sucking disk is sucked and attached to the lens and the image displaying the external configuration of the sucking disk is image displayed as a circle having said radius.
Col. 12 line 60 – col. 13 line 12
…the arithmetic/judgment circuit 102 automatically checks whether the external configuration should be machined or not. In that case, the operator operates a lens diameter-key and the ten-key 317 to input the diameter of the uncut lens L into the arithmetic/judgment circuit 102 through the control circuit 105.
(51) The arithmetic/judgment circuit 102 calculates a radius RN of the lens L from such input lens diameter.div.2=R.sub.N and inputs this radius R.sub.N into the imaging circuit 104.
(52) The imaging circuit 104, as shown in FIG. 7A, image displays the lens image 220 on the image display portion 21 by a circle having the radius RN and drawn about a lens optical center O' (coincident to the sucking disk center) which is moved from the geometrical center O' of the lens frame image 211 by a decentering amount, that is, inwardly sided amount IN and upwardly sided amount UP.
PNG
media_image2.png
696
415
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mizuno and Suzuki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lens processing apparatus with displays, user interfaces, and targeting/alignment means on the screen.
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 Mizuno in order to provide a means for adjusting the outline of the digital representation of the blocking element, and digital representation of the lens alignment/radius element by inputting the radii into a control circuit through the user interface as taught by Suzuki, in order to insure proper alignment of the lens on the blocking element, preventing failure in the process and causing irreparable damage to the lens, making it unusable (Suzuki col. 1 lines 55-60).
In regards to claim 2, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said outlines comprises a solid line (see fig. 5- ann. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
350
1090
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each outline has a circular shape (see fig. 5 - ann. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
1090
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sizes of both outlines are modifiable (as taught by Suzuki allowing for radius input for both lens and blocking target values; see Col. 3 line 64-col. 4 line 10 Col. 6 lines 37-49, Col. 12 line 60 – col. 13 line 12).
In regards to claim 6, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 5, comprising means for manually modifying (user inputs the sizes into the interface, as taught by Suzuki; Col. 3 line 64-col. 4 line 10 Col. 6 lines 37-49, Col. 12 line 60 – col. 13 line 12).
the sizes of one of the outlines displayed on said screen (screen of color monitor 2, fig. 1, 3-12; [0053]).
In regards to claim 7, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 5, comprising means programmed for determining the shape of centering markings situated on the lens (, and
means programmed for automatically modifying the size of the outlines displayed on said screen (screen of color monitor 2, fig. 1, 3-12; [0053]) as a function of the shape of the centering markings.
Examiner’s Note:
As Mizuno as modified discloses that the targeting outlines have given shape and color depending upon alignment. As that would be a result of the configuration of the work station, a skilled artisan would recognize parameters set at the work station would dictate “the shape of centering markings.” Additionally, as the size of the markings change dependent upon the radius input via the interface, as taught by Suzuki, a skilled artisan would recognize the software results in automated modification of the size that appears on the screen, as the user cannot “directly” manipulate the pixelated appearance.
In regards to claim 8, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 1, comprising blocking means (cup attaching portion 7, fig. 1-2; [0055]) mounted on the chassis (apparatus main body 1, fig. 1-2), which are suitable for receiving a blocking accessory (attaching cup 19, fig. 1-2; [0055]) arranged to attach to the ophthalmic lens.
[0055] Numeral 7 denotes a lens attaching portion for attaching a cup 19, i.e., a processing jig, to the lens LE. The cup attaching portion 7 includes a shaft 7a which is rotated by a motor 31 and moved vertically by a motor 32, and an arm 7b fixed to the shaft 7a. The motors 31 and 32 are provided inside the main body 1. An attaching portion 7c for fitting a proximal portion of the cup 19 is provided on the underside of a distal end of the arm 7b. The cup 19 is attached in a predetermined direction in accordance with a positioning mark provided on an upper surface of the arm 7b. When the arm 7b is rotated to the position indicated by the dotted lines in FIG. 1 in conjunction with the rotation of the shaft 7a, the center of the cup 19 arrives at the reference axis L. It should be noted that a mechanism for moving the cup attaching portion 7 may be so arranged that the shaft 7a is moved horizontally (linearly) in stead of being rotated used in this embodiment. Further, the shaft 7a may project not from the lower side of the main body 1, but from the upper side thereof.
In regards to claim 9, Mizuno discloses
a method for centering an ophthalmic lens, comprising steps of:
positioning the ophthalmic lens on a holder (at least lens table 5 and table support portion 6, fig. 1-2; [0054]),
acquiring images of the ophthalmic lens received on the holder by means of a camera (at least second camera 17b, fig. 2; [0057-0058], [0060-0061]), and
displaying the images (on the screen of color monitor 2, fig. 1, 3-12; [0053]) acquired by the camera together with a centering target (at least cup 23a and cross mark 25, fig. 5-7; [0069], [0071], [0073], [0075], [0077-0078]) superimposed onto said images,
manually modifying the position of the ophthalmic lens on the holder
[0073] The alignment operation for attaching the cup 19 at the position of the optical center of the lens LE is performed as follows. Since a reference mark 22 serving as a target for positioning is displayed in red color at the center of the cup FIG. 23a on the screen, the operator moves the lens LE so that the center of the reference mark 22 and the center of the cross mark 25 are aligned,
wherein said centering target comprises two coaxial and parallel outlines (see fig. 5 - ann. 1).
Mizuno fails to explicitly disclose that “the size of at least one outline being modifiable, the distance between the outlines is adjusted before the step of manually modifying the position of the ophthalmic lens.”
Suzuki discloses a lens grinding machine is used for grinding an uncut lens (material lens) into a lens frame configuration can be obtained of a spectacle frame to which the lens is to be enframed. Before the uncut lens is ground by the lens grinding machine, the axis (or center axis) of a sucking disk or sucking device is brought into alignment with the optical center of the uncut lens and then the sucking disk is allowed to be sucked and attached to the uncut lens.
Suzuki teaches being able to adjust the outlines used in checking the lens’ alignment on the grinding machine:
Col. 3 line 64-col. 4 line 10: (23) A first construction of the present invention for achieving the first object is in an apparatus for judging whether an uncut lens should be machined or not…position input means for inputting an optical center position of the material lens relative to a geometrical center of said lens frame, and lens diameter/radius input means for inputting the diameter/radius of the material lens, said image display means displaying said lens image having the center thereof in said optical center position and also having said diameter/radius together with said lens frame image.
(24) With the first construction of the present invention, the image display means displays the lens frame configuration on its display screen, and also displays the lens image having the lens diameter of the material lens input by the lens diameter/radius input means such that the center thereof is located in the optical center position of the lens input by the position input means. The operator visually checks whether at least a part of the lens frame configuration expands outside the lens image...
Col. 6 lines 37-49:… in which said memory means is adapted to store the radius of a sucking rubber of said sucking disk at the time said material lens is sucked and attached as the external configuration of said sucking disk.
With the ninth construction of the present invention, the external configuration of the sucking disk is stored in the memory means as a radius value at the time the sucking disk is sucked and attached to the lens and the image displaying the external configuration of the sucking disk is image displayed as a circle having said radius.
Col. 12 line 60 – col. 13 line 12
…the arithmetic/judgment circuit 102 automatically checks whether the external configuration should be machined or not. In that case, the operator operates a lens diameter-key and the ten-key 317 to input the diameter of the uncut lens L into the arithmetic/judgment circuit 102 through the control circuit 105.
(51) The arithmetic/judgment circuit 102 calculates a radius RN of the lens L from such input lens diameter.div.2=R.sub.N and inputs this radius R.sub.N into the imaging circuit 104.
(52) The imaging circuit 104, as shown in FIG. 7A, image displays the lens image 220 on the image display portion 21 by a circle having the radius RN and drawn about a lens optical center O' (coincident to the sucking disk center) which is moved from the geometrical center O' of the lens frame image 211 by a decentering amount, that is, inwardly sided amount IN and upwardly sided amount UP.
Mizuno and Suzuki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lens processing apparatus with displays, user interfaces, and targeting/alignment means on the screen.
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 Mizuno in order to provide a means for adjusting the outline of the digital representation of the blocking element, and digital representation of the lens alignment/radius element by inputting the radii into a control circuit through the user interface as taught by Suzuki, in order to insure proper alignment of the lens on the blocking element, preventing failure in the process and causing irreparable damage to the lens, making it unusable (Suzuki col. 1 lines 55-60).
In regards to claim 10, Mizuno as modified discloses
the method according to claim 9, wherein the ophthalmic lens comprises centering markings
Examiner’s Note:Application fails to provide a formula for the “function of the geometry” in terms of how the markings relate to each other. The limitation is not considered indefinite, but simply broad, as the two markings having radii creates a ratio between value that serves as a relationship expressed as a function of their geometry.
In regards to claim 11, Mizuno as modified discloses
The method according to claim 10, wherein, the centering markings
But Mizuno fails to explicitly disclose “the distance between said two outlines is adjusted so as to be comprised between once and twice the pattern width, said width being radially measured relative to said point.”
This distance is understood as function of the width or thickness of the outlines. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.IV.A, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, as Mizuno discloses outlines, but is silent to the distance between each other as a function of their width proportions, it would have been obvious to adjust the distance between outlines of Mizuno as a proportional function, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the proportion of a component. A change in proportion generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to claim 12, Mizuno as modified discloses
the method according to claim 10, wherein, the centering markings comprising patterns distributed along concentric circles (see fig. 5 – ann. 4), each outline has a circular shape (see fig. 5 - ann. 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
350
1090
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 13, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 2, wherein each outline has a circular shape (see fig. 5 - ann. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
1090
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the sizes of both outlines are modifiable (as taught by Suzuki allowing for radius input for both lens and blocking target values; see Col. 3 line 64-col. 4 line 10 Col. 6 lines 37-49, Col. 12 line 60 – col. 13 line 12).
In regards to claim 18, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 2, comprising blocking means (cup attaching portion 7, fig. 1-2; [0055]) mounted on the chassis (apparatus main body 1, fig. 1-2), which are suitable for receiving a blocking accessory (attaching cup 19, fig. 1-2; [0055]) arranged to attach to the ophthalmic lens.
In regards to claim 21, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said outlines (see fig. 5 - ann. 1, concentric circles 23a and 25 ) are distinct from the contour of the ophthalmic lens (contour of lens is shown as line 20 in fig. 5, which is distinct from the outlines 23a and 25).
In regards to claim 22, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said outlines (see fig. 5 - ann. 1, concentric circles 23a and 25 ) are distinct from the contour of the ophthalmic lens (contour of lens is shown as line 20 in fig. 5, which is distinct from the outlines 23a and 25).
In regards to claim 22, Mizuno as modified discloses
the method according to claim 9, wherein said outlines (see fig. 5 - ann. 1, concentric circles 23a and 25 ) are distinct from the contour of the ophthalmic lens (contour of lens is shown as line 20 in fig. 5, which is distinct from the outlines 23a and 25).
In regards to claim 23, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the sizes of both outlines are modifiable (as taught by Suzuki allowing for radius input for both lens and blocking target values; see Col. 3 line 64-col. 4 line 10 Col. 6 lines 37-49, Col. 12 line 60 – col. 13 line 12).
In regards to claim 24, Mizuno as modified discloses
the method according to claim 22, wherein the sizes of both outlines are modifiable (as taught by Suzuki allowing for radius input for both lens and blocking target values; see Col. 3 line 64-col. 4 line 10 Col. 6 lines 37-49, Col. 12 line 60 – col. 13 line 12).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Suzuki, and further in view of Yanagi et al. (US PG Pub No. 20080231794)
In regards to claim 4, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to disclose explicitly that “each outline has a square shape.”
Yanagi discloses a jig mounting apparatus with a detection optical system that detects reference marker of an eyeglass lens. The apparatus is configured so as to determine an mounting point based on the reference marker detected by the detection optical system and position the mounting center of jig, which is used in processing the eyeglass lens. Yanagi teaches using square shapes for the alignment of lens while processing the lens for manufacturing ([0266-0268]):
[0266] When the operation control circuit 100 receives the image signal from the CCD 115, it starts the judgment processing of the existence of lens shown in FIG. 54, performs clipping of an area for the judgment of the existence of lens in step S1, and moves to step S12.
[0267] Specifically, the operation control circuit 100 sets the clip area (processing area) 952 shown in the rectangular frame in FIG. 50, and moves to step S12. The clip area 952 is set in a square shape on an approximately central portion of the ring-shaped frame 571 (see FIG. 30).
[0268] In step S12, the operation control circuit 100 counts pixels which has a brightness value in the clip area 952 is the threshold value or less, and moves to step S13.
Yanagi and Mizuno are analogous to the claimed invention as they disclose a lens processing apparatus with alignment adjustment means and a display screen, and camera for capturing and digitizing images for use during the process.
Therefore, it 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 to modify the targeting outlines of Mizuno with regards to a desired shape (in this case, a square shape) in adapting the targeting outlines on a screen display for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04_IV_B)
In regards to claim 14, Mizuno as modified discloses
the centering apparatus according to claim 2, but fails to disclose explicitly that “each outline has a square shape.”
Yanagi discloses a jig mounting apparatus with a detection optical system that detects reference marker of an eyeglass lens. The apparatus is configured so as to determine an mounting point based on the reference marker detected by the detection optical system and position the mounting center of jig, which is used in processing the eyeglass lens. Yanagi teaches using square shapes for the alignment of lens while processing the lens for manufacturing ([0266-0268]):
Yanagi and Mizuno are analogous to the claimed invention as they disclose a lens processing apparatus with alignment adjustment means and a display screen, and camera for capturing and digitizing images for use during the process.
Therefore, it 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 to modify the targeting outlines of Mizuno with regards to a desired shape (in this case, a square shape) in adapting the targeting outlines on a screen display for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04_IV_B)
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 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 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
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights