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 Objections
Claims 6 and 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 6, line 2, “die” is not the correct word in the used context, therefore it is suggested to change “die” to - -the- -. In claim 8, line 3, “(5)” is the incorrect reference numeral used, therefore it suggested to change “(5)” to - -(6)- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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. In claim 2, line 20, it is unclear as to what is meant by “turning machine machines for machining.” In claim 15, lines 2-4, it is unclear as to how “the machining apparatuses (1, 1a, 1b, 1c) in terms of the container buffer store (20) and the container transport device (30) are of identical configuration.” In other words, it is unclear as to how the container buffer store and the container transport device are identical to one another. Appropriate correction is required.
The terms “preferably” and “particularly preferably exactly” in claim 1, lines 5-6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “preferably” and “particularly preferably exactly” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 recites “preferably at least two, and particularly preferably exactly two, optical lenses and/or lens blanks” which is indefinite because it is unclear as to whether two optical lenses and/or lens blanks is a required limitation or merely a preference in terms of the quantity of optical lenses and/or lens blanks.
The terms “preferably,” “furthermore preferably,” and “particularly preferably” in claim 1, lines 18-19 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 recites “preferably at least two, furthermore preferably three, and particularly preferably four, parking spaces for in each case container” which is indefinite because it is unclear as to the actual required number of parking spaces.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the parking space" in lines 21-22 and 26-27 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the work handling station" in line 24 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “first group comprising preparatory devices’”, and the claim also recites “specifically, unpacking devices….; cleaning devices…; block-mounting devices….; laminating devices….; marking devices….;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a second group comprising mechanical machining apparatuses”, and the claim also recites “specifically, milling machines….; turning machine machines…; grinding machines….; polishing machines….; circumferential machining apparatuses….;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “third group comprising surface treatment machines”, and the claim also recites “specifically, coating devices….; temperature-control devices…;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “fourth group comprising post-machining apparatuses”, and the claim also recites “specifically, measuring devices….; film removal devices…; unblocking devices….; cleaning devices….; packing devices….;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the machining apparatuses (1, 1a, 1b, 1c) " in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed on the attached PTO-892 are cited to show devices for machining optical lens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMIE E COZART whose telephone number is (571)272-4528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/JERMIE E COZART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
January 9, 2026