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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges preliminary amendment to the claims filed on 6/18/2023. They have been entered and considered.
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.
Claims 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aikawa (USPGPUB 20150286070) “Aikawa”, in view of Fayolle et al. (USPGPUB 20170322430) “Fayolle”.
Regarding claim 1, Aikawa discloses an automatic method for diagnosing the mismatch of an item with respect to a morphological characteristic of a user of this item, this method comprising:
producing an initial item (2) shaped, depending on a predetermined morphological characteristic (physical features of 3) of a user (3) of this item, to obtain a predetermined relationship between this initial item (2) and the user (3) having this morphological characteristic (physical features of 3), this predetermined relationship corresponding to an expected value (“calibration coefficient”) of a physical quantity (“line of sight”) that depends both on a characteristic of the item (2) and on the morphological characteristic of the user (physical features of 3),
acquiring and processing these measurements by means of an automatic diagnostic module (18), to obtain a measured value of the physical quantity (“measured line of sight”),
verifying, by means of the diagnostic module (18), that the measured value (“measured line of sight”) meets a predetermined set of conditions, this set of conditions being parametrized by the expected value (“calibration coefficient”) of the physical quantity (line of sight”),
when the set of conditions (“calibration coefficient”) is not met, transmitting, by means of the diagnostic module (18), a signal ([0013]) indicating mismatch of the initial item (2) with respect to the morphological characteristic of the user (3), and
when the set of conditions is met, inhibiting, by means of the diagnostic module (18), transmission of this signal indicating mismatch of the initial item (2) with respect to the morphological characteristic of the user (3),
wherein the method comprises permanently integrating, into the produced initial item (2), allowing measurement of the physical quantity (“line of sight”) that varies as a function both of the characteristic of the initial item (2) and of the morphological characteristic of the user (3).
Aikawa does not disclose using at least one sensor and performing measurements by means of the sensor.
Fayolle teaches using at least one sensor ([0198]) and performing measurements by means of the sensor ([0198]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Fayolle’s sensor to perform measurements in Aikawa’s method to ensure better fitting glasses.
Regarding claim 2, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the method in claim 1. Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose:
transmitting the measured value (Aikawa; “measured line of sight”) that triggered transmission of the mismatch signal ([0013]), then
acquiring the measured value transmitted by an automatic device (16) for producing a new item (S23), then
producing, by means of this automatic device (16), the new item shaped (S24), this time, depending on the acquired measured value ([0309]), to obtain the predetermined relationship between this new item and the user (3) when this new item (S24) is used by the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Aikawa’s acquired measured values and new item in Aikawa and Fayolle’s method, providing an easier and faster way to produce customized glasses tailored to a user’s morphological characteristics.
Regarding claim 3, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the method in claim 1. Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose:
detecting a period of use (Fayolle; [0197]) and, alternately, a period of absence of use ([0197]), a period of use being a period during which the initial item (Aikawa; 2) is worn continuously by the user and a period of absence of use being a period during which the initial item is not worn by the user (3), and
in response to detection of a period of absence of use, performance of measurements by the sensor is inhibited throughout this period of absence of use or the verification, by the diagnostic module (18), that the measured value (“measured line of sight”) meets a predetermined set of conditions is carried out taking into account only measurements taken by the sensor outside of this period of absence of use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to only consider Aikawa’s measured values while Aikawa and Fayolle’s initial item is in use and disregarding any measured values while not in use, preventing incorrect measurements and improving accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the method in claim 1.
Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose wherein measurement is performed, by the sensor (Fayolle; [0198]), repeatedly at a regular interval for a time longer than 48 hours and the duration of this regular interval is shorter than five minutes (Aikawa; 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Aikawa’s continuous measurements in Aikawa and Fayolle’s method to provide more accurate dimensions for manufacturing custom glasses.
Regarding claim 5, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose an automatic system for diagnosing the mismatch of an item with respect to a morphological characteristic of a user of this item, this system comprising:
an initial item (Aikawa; 2) shaped, depending on a predetermined morphological characteristic (physical features of 3) of a user (3) of this item, to obtain a predetermined relationship between this initial item (2) and the user (3) having this morphological characteristic, this predetermined relationship corresponding to an expected value (“calibration coefficient”) of a physical quantity (“line of sight”) that depends both on a characteristic of the item (2) and on the morphological characteristic of the user (3),
a sensor able to perform measurements (Fayolle; [0198]),
an automatic diagnostic module (Aikawa; 18) configured to:
acquire and process the sensor measurements to obtain a measured value of the physical quantity (S121),
verify that the measured value meets a predetermined set of conditions (S122), this set of conditions being parametrized by the expected value (“calibration coefficient”) of the physical quantity,
when the set of conditions is not met (S122), transmit a signal ([0013]) indicating mismatch of the initial item (2) with respect to the morphological characteristic of the user (3), and
when the set of conditions is met (S122), inhibit transmission of this signal ([0013]) indicating mismatch of the initial item (2) with respect to the morphological characteristic of the user (3), wherein the sensor (Foyelle; [0198]) is integrated, permanently, into the produced initial item (S124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Fayolle’s sensor measurements in Aikawa’s method for diagnosing the mismatch of an item to ensure items produced will be a better fit for a user.
Regarding claim 6, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the system of claim 5.
Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose:
the diagnostic module (Aikawa; 18) is configured to transmit the measured value (Aikawa; “measured line of sight”) that triggered transmission of the mismatch signal ([0013]), and
the system comprises an automatic device (16) for producing a new item (S124), this device being able:
to acquire the measured value (Aikawa; “measured line of sight”) transmitted by the diagnostic module (18), then
to produce the new item (S124) shaped, this time, depending on the acquired measured value (“measured line of sight”), to obtain the predetermined relationship between this new item and the user (3) when this new item is used by the user (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Aikawa’s measurement transmission and new item production in Aikawa and Fayolle’s system to diagnose mismatched parts, to ensure any new item produced will be a better fit for the user.
Regarding claim 7, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the system of claim 5.
Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose wherein the characteristic of the item is chosen from the group consisting of:
the dimensions (Fayolle;150) of the item, and
the material (Fayolle; [0097]) from which the item is produced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Fayolle’s item dimensions and material in Aikawa and Fayolle’s system, ensuring the item produced is more durable and sized appropriately to the user.
Regarding claim 8, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the system of claim 5.
Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the physical quantity (Aikawa; “line of sight”) is the relative position or the relative orientation of the item (2) with respect to a part of the body of the user (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Aikawa’s physical quantity in Aikawa and Fayolle’s system to assess the relative position of Aikawa’s item with respect to a part of the user’s body, ensuring an optimal fit of produced item.
Regarding claim 9, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the system of claim 8.
Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose:
the initial item (Aikawa; 2) and the new item (S124) are pairs of glasses (Fayolle; 400) comprising lenses (420) intended to be positioned in front of a respective eye (eye of 3) of the user (3), and
the physical quantity is chosen from the group consisting of the following physical quantities:
a physical quantity representative of the position of the optical center (Fayolle; [0025]) of the user's eye with respect to an edge of the lens located in front of this eye when the user is wearing this pair of glasses,
a physical quantity representative of the distance between the eye and the lens (Fayolle; [0025]) located in front of this eye when the user is wearing this pair of glasses
a physical quantity representative of pantoscopic angle (Fayolle; [0025]) when the user is wearing this pair of glasses,
a physical quantity representative of face-form angle (Fayolle; [0025]) when the user is wearing this pair of glasses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Fayolle’s physical quantity measurements in Aikawa and Fayolle’s system to ensure the best fit of glasses for a user.
Regarding claim 10, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the system of claim 9.
Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose:
the diagnostic module (Aikawa; 18) is configured to transmit the measured value (“measured line of sight”) that triggered transmission of the mismatch signal ([0013]),
the system comprises an automatic device for producing a new item (S124), this device being able to:
acquire the measured value (“measured line of sight”) transmitted by the diagnostic module (18), then
to produce the new item (S124) shaped, this time, depending on the acquired measured value (S121), to obtain the predetermined relationship between this new item and the user (3) when this new item is used by the user; and
the automatic device is able, in response to acquisition of the measured value, to:
produce a new lens for a pair of glasses (S124) depending on the acquired measured value (S121), and/or
produce a new frame (S124) for a pair of glasses depending on the acquired measured value (S121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Aikawa’s device for producing a new item in Aikawa and Fayolle’s system, making producing custom glasses based on user measurements quicker and easier.
Regarding claim 11, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the system of claim 5.
Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the set of conditions (Aikawa; S122) comprises at least one condition that compares, with a predetermined threshold (S122), the difference between the measured value (“measured line of sight”) and the expected value (“calibration coefficient”) of the physical quantity (“line of sight”), this condition being met only if the difference is less than this predetermined threshold ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Aikawa’s set of conditions to compare with Aikawa’s pretedermined threshold in Aikawa and Fayolle’s system, ensuring the items produced are sized appropriately to the user, making it more efficient to produce custom-sized glasses.
Regarding claim 12, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the system of claim 1. Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the characteristic of the item is chosen from the group consisting of:
the dimensions (Fayolle;150) of the item, and
the material (Fayolle; [0097]) from which the item is produced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Fayolle’s item dimensions and material in Aikawa and Fayolle’s system, ensuring the item produced is more durable and sized appropriately to the user.
Regarding claim 13, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the system of claim 1. Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the physical quantity (Aikawa; “line of sight”) is the relative position or the relative orientation of the item (2) with respect to a part of the body of the user (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Aikawa’s physical quantity in Aikawa and Fayolle’s system to assess the relative position of Aikawa’s item with respect to a part of the user’s body, ensuring an optimal fit of produced item.
Regarding claim 14, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the system of claim 13. Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose wherein:
the initial item and the new item are pairs of glasses comprising lenses intended to be positioned in front of a respective eye of the user, and
the physical quantity is chosen from the group consisting of the following physical quantities:
a physical quantity representative of the position of the optical center (Fayolle; [0025]) of the user's eye with respect to an edge of the lens located in front of this eye when the user is wearing this pair of glasses,
a physical quantity representative of the distance between the eye and the lens (Fayolle; [0025]) located in front of this eye when the user is wearing this pair of glasses,
a physical quantity representative of pantoscopic angle (Fayolle; [0025]) when the user is wearing this pair of glasses,
a physical quantity representative of face-form angle (Fayolle; [0025]) when the user is wearing this pair of glasses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Fayolle’s physical quantity measurements in Aikawa and Fayolle’s system to ensure the best fit of glasses for a user.
Regarding claim 15, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the system of claim 14. Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose wherein: the method comprises:
transmitting the measured value (Aikawa; “measured line of sight”) that triggered transmission of the mismatch signal ([0013]), then
acquiring the measured value transmitted by an automatic device (16) for producing a new item (S23), then
producing, by means of this automatic device (16), the new item shaped (S24), this time, depending on the acquired measured value ([0309]), to obtain the predetermined relationship between this new item and the user (3) when this new item (S24) is used by the user, and
the automatic device (16) is able, in response to acquisition of the measured value ([0309]), to:
produce a new lens for a pair of glasses (S124) depending on the acquired measured value (S121), and/or
produce a new frame (S124) for a pair of glasses depending on the acquired measured value (S121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Aikawa’s device for producing a new item in Aikawa and Fayolle’s system, making producing custom glasses, with custom lenses and frame, based on user measurements quicker and easier.
Regarding claim 16, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose the system of claim 1. Additionally, Aikawa and Fayolle disclose wherein the set of conditions (S122) comprises at least one condition that compares, with a predetermined threshold, the difference between the measured value (“measured line of sight”) and the expected value (“calibration coefficient”) of the physical quantity (“line of sight”), this condition being met only if the difference is less than this predetermined threshold ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Aikawa’s set of conditions to compare with Aikawa’s pretedermined threshold in Aikawa and Fayolle’s system, ensuring the items produced are sized appropriately to the user, making it more efficient to produce custom-sized glasses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6528. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855