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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzue (WO2014073465A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzue (WO2014073465A1) discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a management program of an eyeglasses lens machining apparatus including a controller configured to control the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus (“The client device 32 includes a computer that controls and manages the operation of each processing machine 10 in the system while following the management and control by the server device 31. Specifically, the client device 32 receives information related to the job managed by the server device 31 from the server device 31 and notifies the processing device 10 that executes the job (ie, eyeglass lens processing). Thus, the job processing operation in the processing machine 10 is controlled.”) [Suzue Translation; page 6, first paragraph], the management program comprising instructions which, when executed by the controller, cause the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus to perform:
a check operation implementation step of causing the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus to implement a check operation for checking a malfunction state of an operation of the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus (checking “the error between the actual size of the spectacle lens after the target lens processing and the desired size falls within an allowable range”, wherein when the actual size falls outside an allowable range indicates a malfunction state) [Suzue Translation; page 14, first paragraph];
a self-restoration step of updating a calibration state of the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus related to the malfunction state, to self-restore the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus from the malfunction state (“the processing parameter correction is performed at the time of processing the target lens shape by the processing machine 10, that is, performed at the operation stage of the processing machine 10,” where the processing parameter correction is considered updating a calibration state, wherein the correction is related to the malfunction state) [Suzue Translation; page 4, second paragraph]; and
a determination step of determining whether to shift to the self-restoration step, based on a result of the check operation (after determining whether the size falls within an allowable range or not, the device of Suzue decides/determines whether to perform a correction operation or simply process another workpiece with the current settings) [Suzue Translation; page 14, first paragraph].
Regarding claim 7, Suzue discloses the storage medium according to claim 1,
wherein the check operation implemented in the check operation implementation step (checking “the error between the actual size of the spectacle lens after the target lens processing and the desired size falls within an allowable range”, wherein when the actual size falls outside an allowable range indicates a malfunction state) [Suzue Translation; page 14, first paragraph] includes at least one of a check operation for a malfunction in a direction along lens holding shafts that interpose and hold an eyeglasses lens, a check operation for a malfunction in a direction orthogonal to the lens holding shafts, and a check operation for a malfunction in a direction where the lens holding shafts are rotated (While Suzue does not disclose identifying which of these scenarios is occurring, the “check operation implementation step,” which notices abnormalities in the actual size/shape versus the target size/shape of the workpiece, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the device of Suzue would recognize at least one of these malfunctions as it would substantially affect the size/shape of the workpiece if there was a “malufunction,” meaning that these devices acted outside of the way they were meant to. For example, a speedometer would recognize a tire going flat despite not measuring the tire or signaling that the reason for a speed decrease was the tire going flat.).
Regarding claim 8, Suzue discloses an eyeglasses lens machining apparatus comprising a controller (“computer”) configured to execute the management program stored in the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1 (“The client device 32 includes a computer that controls and manages the operation of each processing machine 10 in the system while following the management and control by the server device 31. Specifically, the client device 32 receives information related to the job managed by the server device 31 from the server device 31 and notifies the processing device 10 that executes the job (ie, eyeglass lens processing). Thus, the job processing operation in the processing machine 10 is controlled.”) [Suzue Translation; page 6, first paragraph].
Regarding claim 9, Suzue discloses a method of managing an eyeglasses lens machining apparatus including a controller configured to perform the method comprising:
a check operation implementation step of causing the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus to implement a check operation for checking a malfunction state of an operation of the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus (checking “the error between the actual size of the spectacle lens after the target lens processing and the desired size falls within an allowable range”, wherein when the actual size falls outside an allowable range indicates a malfunction state) [Suzue Translation; page 14, first paragraph];
a self-restoration step of updating a calibration state of the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus related to the malfunction state, to self-restore the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus from the malfunction state (“the processing parameter correction is performed at the time of processing the target lens shape by the processing machine 10, that is, performed at the operation stage of the processing machine 10,” where the processing parameter correction is considered updating a calibration state, wherein the correction is related to the malfunction state) [Suzue Translation; page 4, second paragraph]; and
a determination step of determining whether to shift to the self-restoration step, based on a result of the check operation (after determining whether the size falls within an allowable range or not, the device of Suzue decides/determines whether to perform a correction operation or simply process another workpiece with the current settings) [Suzue Translation; page 14, first paragraph].
Regarding claim 15, Suzue discloses the method according to claim 9,
wherein the check operation implemented in the check operation implementation step (checking “the error between the actual size of the spectacle lens after the target lens processing and the desired size falls within an allowable range”, wherein when the actual size falls outside an allowable range indicates a malfunction state) [Suzue Translation; page 14, first paragraph] includes at least one of a check operation for a malfunction in a direction along lens holding shafts that interpose and hold an eyeglasses lens, a check operation for a malfunction in a direction orthogonal to the lens holding shafts, and a check operation for a malfunction in a direction where the lens holding shafts are rotated (While Suzue does not disclose identifying which of these scenarios is occurring, the “check operation implementation step,” which notices abnormalities in the actual size/shape versus the target size/shape of the workpiece, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the device of Suzue would recognize at least one of these malfunctions as it would substantially affect the size/shape of the workpiece if there was a “malufunction,” meaning that these devices acted outside of the way they were meant to. For example, a speedometer would recognize a tire going flat despite not measuring the tire or signaling that the reason for a speed decrease was the tire going flat.).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzue (WO2014073465A1) in view of Samukawa (WO-2014/091884A1).
Regarding claim 2, Suzue discloses the storage medium according to claim 1,
but fails to disclose wherein the management program comprises instructions which cause the controller to further perform:
a measures output step of outputting information related to measures against an operation failure of a component in the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus;
and
wherein, in the determination step (to determine whether to make a correction or not), it is determined whether to shift to the measures output step or shift to the self-restoration step, based on the result of the check operation.
However, Samukawa (WO-2014/091884A1) teaches a measures output step of outputting information related to measures (shape measurement from the shape measurement apparatus 20) against an operation failure of a component (used to determine whether a component needs replacement due to a failure in the operation that results in an undesired shape/size) (“In the replacement time detection step (S206), when it is determined by the shape comparison and determination unit 43 that the processing tool 11 needs to be replaced, information output indicating that the replacement time of the processing tool 11 has come is performed. The process for the information output is performed by the information output unit 44 of the server device 40 in response to the notification from the shape comparison / determination unit 43. The information output unit 44 uses, for example, one or more of an image display unit (not shown) of the server device 40, an image display unit (not shown) of the client device 30, an information output unit (not shown) of the processing machine 10, etc.”) [Samukawa Translation; Page 16, Last Paragraph]. Since Samukawa is pertinent to lens processing machines, it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify the determination step of Suzue in order to determine whether to shift to the measures output step, which signals tool replacement based on the size/shape of the workpiece (“In the replacement time detection step (S206), when it is determined by the shape comparison and determination unit 43 that the processing tool 11 needs to be replaced, information output indicating that the replacement time of the processing tool 11 has come is performed. The process for the information output is performed by the information output unit 44 of the server device 40 in response to the notification from the shape comparison / determination unit 43. The information output unit 44 uses, for example, one or more of an image display unit (not shown) of the server device 40, an image display unit (not shown) of the client device 30, an information output unit (not shown) of the processing machine 10, etc.”) [Samukawa Translation; Page 16, Last Paragraph], to the self-restoration step, which calibrates the process parameters based on the size/shape of the workpiece (after determining whether the size falls within an allowable range or not, the device of Suzue decides/determines whether to perform a correction operation or simply process another workpiece with the current settings) [Suzue Translation; page 14, first paragraph].
Regarding claim 3, Suzue, as modified by Samukawa, discloses the storage medium according to claim 2,
wherein the management program comprises instructions which cause the controller to further perform:
a failure check step of checking whether or not the operation failure of the component occurs in the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus (checking for processing tool failure, which is then followed by the output step which outputs that the tool has failed), based on the result of the check operation (“In the replacement time detection step (S206), when it is determined by the shape comparison and determination unit 43 that the processing tool 11 needs to be replaced, information output indicating that the replacement time of the processing tool 11 has come is performed. The process for the information output is performed by the information output unit 44 of the server device 40 in response to the notification from the shape comparison / determination unit 43. The information output unit 44 uses, for example, one or more of an image display unit (not shown) of the server device 40, an image display unit (not shown) of the client device 30, an information output unit (not shown) of the processing machine 10, etc.”) [Samukawa Translation; Page 16, Last Paragraph], and
wherein, in the determination step, it is determined to shift to the measures output step (whereby the information outputs indicating that the tool needs to be replaced), in a case where it is confirmed that the operation failure of the component occurs in the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus in the failure check step (“In the replacement time detection step (S206), when it is determined by the shape comparison and determination unit 43 that the processing tool 11 needs to be replaced, information output indicating that the replacement time of the processing tool 11 has come is performed. The process for the information output is performed by the information output unit 44 of the server device 40 in response to the notification from the shape comparison / determination unit 43. The information output unit 44 uses, for example, one or more of an image display unit (not shown) of the server device 40, an image display unit (not shown) of the client device 30, an information output unit (not shown) of the processing machine 10, etc.”) [Samukawa Translation; Page 16, Last Paragraph].
Regarding claim 4, Suzue discloses the storage medium according to claim 3,
wherein the management program comprises instructions which cause the controller to further perform:
a calibration check step of checking the calibration state of the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus related to the malfunction state, in a case where it is confirmed that no failure of the component occurs in the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus in the failure check step (“the processing parameter correction is performed at the time of processing the target lens shape by the processing machine 10, that is, performed at the operation stage of the processing machine 10,” where the processing parameter correction is considered updating a calibration state, wherein the correction is related to the malfunction state) [Suzue Translation; page 4, second paragraph], and
wherein, in the determination step, it is determined that a shift to the self-restoration step is unnecessary, in a case where it is confirmed that the calibration state is normal in the calibration check step (if the actual and the target lens shape are equivalent, then no correction is needed) (“the processing parameter correction is performed at the time of processing the target lens shape by the processing machine 10, that is, performed at the operation stage of the processing machine 10,” where the processing parameter correction is considered updating a calibration state, wherein the correction is related to the malfunction state) [Suzue Translation; page 4, second paragraph].
Regarding claim 5, Suzue discloses the storage medium according to claim 4,
wherein the determination step includes a restoration information output step of outputting information related to the self-restoration (outputs the correction values) (“At this time, the processing machine 10 is also notified of the “parameter correction value”. Therefore, in the processing machine 10, when executing the target lens processing job, the function as the correction unit 12 receives the notified “parameter correction value”, and sets the processing amount reflecting the received “parameter correction value”. decide. That is, based on the received “parameter correction value”, the machining parameter specified by various information from the client device 32, specifically, the tool diameter (offset amount) of the machining tool, is divided by the “parameter correction value”. Only correction is made (S109a, S109b, S109c).”) [Suzue Translation; ], in a case where it is confirmed that the calibration state is faulty in the calibration check step (when it compares the target value to the actual value and determines that a calibration is needed) (“the processing parameter correction is performed at the time of processing the target lens shape by the processing machine 10, that is, performed at the operation stage of the processing machine 10,” where the processing parameter correction is considered updating a calibration state, wherein the correction is related to the malfunction state) [Suzue Translation; page 4, second paragraph].
Regarding claim 10, Suzue discloses the method according to claim 9, but fails to disclose a measures output step of outputting information related to measures against an operation failure of a component in the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus;
and
wherein, in the determination step (to determine whether to make a correction or not), it is determined whether to shift to the measures output step or shift to the self-restoration step, based on the result of the check operation.
However, Samukawa (WO-2014/091884A1) teaches a measures output step of outputting information related to measures (shape measurement from the shape measurement apparatus 20) against an operation failure of a component (used to determine whether a component needs replacement due to a failure in the operation that results in an undesired shape/size) (“In the replacement time detection step (S206), when it is determined by the shape comparison and determination unit 43 that the processing tool 11 needs to be replaced, information output indicating that the replacement time of the processing tool 11 has come is performed. The process for the information output is performed by the information output unit 44 of the server device 40 in response to the notification from the shape comparison / determination unit 43. The information output unit 44 uses, for example, one or more of an image display unit (not shown) of the server device 40, an image display unit (not shown) of the client device 30, an information output unit (not shown) of the processing machine 10, etc.”) [Samukawa Translation; Page 16, Last Paragraph]. Since Samukawa is pertinent to lens processing machines, it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify the determination step of Suzue in order to determine whether to shift to the measures output step, which signals tool replacement based on the size/shape of the workpiece (“In the replacement time detection step (S206), when it is determined by the shape comparison and determination unit 43 that the processing tool 11 needs to be replaced, information output indicating that the replacement time of the processing tool 11 has come is performed. The process for the information output is performed by the information output unit 44 of the server device 40 in response to the notification from the shape comparison / determination unit 43. The information output unit 44 uses, for example, one or more of an image display unit (not shown) of the server device 40, an image display unit (not shown) of the client device 30, an information output unit (not shown) of the processing machine 10, etc.”) [Samukawa Translation; Page 16, Last Paragraph], to the self-restoration step, which calibrates the process parameters based on the size/shape of the workpiece (after determining whether the size falls within an allowable range or not, the device of Suzue decides/determines whether to perform a correction operation or simply process another workpiece with the current settings) [Suzue Translation; page 14, first paragraph].
Regarding claim 11, Suzue discloses the method according to claim 10, the method further comprising:
a failure check step of checking whether or not the operation failure of the component occurs in the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus (checking for processing tool failure, which is then followed by the output step which outputs that the tool has failed), based on the result of the check operation (“In the replacement time detection step (S206), when it is determined by the shape comparison and determination unit 43 that the processing tool 11 needs to be replaced, information output indicating that the replacement time of the processing tool 11 has come is performed. The process for the information output is performed by the information output unit 44 of the server device 40 in response to the notification from the shape comparison / determination unit 43. The information output unit 44 uses, for example, one or more of an image display unit (not shown) of the server device 40, an image display unit (not shown) of the client device 30, an information output unit (not shown) of the processing machine 10, etc.”) [Samukawa Translation; Page 16, Last Paragraph], and
wherein, in the determination step, it is determined to shift to the measures output step (whereby the information outputs indicating that the tool needs to be replaced), in a case where it is confirmed that the operation failure of the component occurs in the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus in the failure check step (“In the replacement time detection step (S206), when it is determined by the shape comparison and determination unit 43 that the processing tool 11 needs to be replaced, information output indicating that the replacement time of the processing tool 11 has come is performed. The process for the information output is performed by the information output unit 44 of the server device 40 in response to the notification from the shape comparison / determination unit 43. The information output unit 44 uses, for example, one or more of an image display unit (not shown) of the server device 40, an image display unit (not shown) of the client device 30, an information output unit (not shown) of the processing machine 10, etc.”) [Samukawa Translation; Page 16, Last Paragraph].
Regarding claim 12, Suzue discloses the method according to claim 11, the method further comprising:
a calibration check step of checking the calibration state of the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus related to the malfunction state, in a case where it is confirmed that no failure of the component occurs in the eyeglasses lens machining apparatus in the failure check step (“the processing parameter correction is performed at the time of processing the target lens shape by the processing machine 10, that is, performed at the operation stage of the processing machine 10,” where the processing parameter correction is considered updating a calibration state, wherein the correction is related to the malfunction state) [Suzue Translation; page 4, second paragraph], and
wherein, in the determination step, it is determined that a shift to the self-restoration step is unnecessary, in a case where it is confirmed that the calibration state is normal in the calibration check step (if the actual and the target lens shape are equivalent, then no correction is needed) (“the processing parameter correction is performed at the time of processing the target lens shape by the processing machine 10, that is, performed at the operation stage of the processing machine 10,” where the processing parameter correction is considered updating a calibration state, wherein the correction is related to the malfunction state) [Suzue Translation; page 4, second paragraph].
Regarding claim 13, Suzue discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein the determination step includes a restoration information output step of outputting information related to the self-restoration (outputs the correction values) (“At this time, the processing machine 10 is also notified of the “parameter correction value”. Therefore, in the processing machine 10, when executing the target lens processing job, the function as the correction unit 12 receives the notified “parameter correction value”, and sets the processing amount reflecting the received “parameter correction value”. decide. That is, based on the received “parameter correction value”, the machining parameter specified by various information from the client device 32, specifically, the tool diameter (offset amount) of the machining tool, is divided by the “parameter correction value”. Only correction is made (S109a, S109b, S109c).”) [Suzue Translation; ], in a case where it is confirmed that the calibration state is faulty in the calibration check step (when it compares the target value to the actual value and determines that a calibration is needed) (“the processing parameter correction is performed at the time of processing the target lens shape by the processing machine 10, that is, performed at the operation stage of the processing machine 10,” where the processing parameter correction is considered updating a calibration state, wherein the correction is related to the malfunction state) [Suzue Translation; page 4, second paragraph].
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzue (WO2014073465A1) in view of Samukawa (WO-2014/091884A1), and further in view of Okada (US-2002/0026262).
Regarding claim 6, Suzue discloses the storage medium according to claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the information related to the self-restoration output (outputting the correction value) in the restoration information output step includes information for inquiring of an operator whether or not to update the calibration state, and
wherein, in the determination step, it is determined to shift to the self-restoration step, in a case where the operator gives permission to update the calibration state.
However, Okada (US-2002/0026262) teaches inquiring of an operator whether or not to update settings and a case where the operator gives permission to update the calibration state (“The operator can confirm again the particulars of settings in this picture, and if any wrong setting is selected, he can avoid a wrong grinding operation by pressing a stop key 6h at the start of the machining work and thus avoid wasting glass lens.”) [Okada; paragraph 0310]. Since Okada is in the same field of endeavor as Suzue, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzue for inquiring of an operator whether or not to update the calibration state, and wherein, in the determination step, it is determined to shift to the self-restoration step, in a case where the operator gives permission to update the calibration state, as claimed, in order to prevent a wrong grinding operation by verifying the changing of settings in a calibration state with the operator, as taught by Okada.
Regarding claim 14, Suzue discloses the method according to claim 13,
wherein the information related to the self-restoration output (outputting the correction value) in the restoration information output step includes information for inquiring of an operator whether or not to update the calibration state, and
wherein, in the determination step, it is determined to shift to the self-restoration step, in a case where the operator gives permission to update the calibration state.
However, Okada (US-2002/0026262) teaches inquiring of an operator whether or not to update settings and a case where the operator gives permission to update the calibration state (“The operator can confirm again the particulars of settings in this picture, and if any wrong setting is selected, he can avoid a wrong grinding operation by pressing a stop key 6h at the start of the machining work and thus avoid wasting glass lens.”) [Okada; paragraph 0310]. Since Okada is in the same field of endeavor as Suzue, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzue for inquiring of an operator whether or not to update the calibration state, and wherein, in the determination step, it is determined to shift to the self-restoration step, in a case where the operator gives permission to update the calibration state, as claimed, in order to prevent a wrong grinding operation by verifying the changing of settings in a calibration state with the operator, as taught by Okada.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-4711035, US-20110201255 [0147], US-20110076923, FR2910647A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723