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
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: applicant recites “…a polishing pad provided with a flocking polishing sheet…”. Due to previously established antecedence, applicant may consider the following alternative language: “…in the step of preparing [[a]]the polishing pad, [[a]]said polishing pad provided with [[a]]said flocking polishing sheet…” 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 3 and 5 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.
The limitation “relatively moved so that the abrasive grains swing in a direction parallel to the polishing surface and a direction intersecting with the polishing surface” in claim 3 is indefinite as it is unclear how the abrasive grains could swing in a direction intersecting the polishing surface, especially while at the same time swinging parallel to the polishing surface. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation “relatively moved so that the abrasive grains swing in a direction parallel to the polishing surface and a direction intersecting with the polishing surface” will be treated under broadest reasonable interpretation.
The term “20 degrees” in claim 5 is indefinite as it is unclear which units are being measured. The specification does not disclose any units of temperature, thus the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution, the term “20 degrees” will be treated under broadest reasonable interpretation.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manning et al (U.S. patent no. 8968435-B2, hereinafter “Manning”) in view of Lihu et al (CN App no. 109015204-A, hereinafter “Lihu”).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Manning discloses a method for polishing and manufacturing a spectacle lens (Col. 20 lines 20-39 describe a polishing and manufacturing method of a spectacle lens, see Table 3) comprising:
a step of preparing a polishing pad provided with abrasive grains (Col. 2 lines 47-61 describe a method 100, shown in Fig 1, where an abrasive slurry is applied to a backing and then cured and later shaped to form a lens polishing pad, then col. 14 lines 24-37 explain that suitable backing materials include cloth and also treated versions of cloth) on a polishing surface that comes into contact with a surface to be polished of a resin spectacle lens (the polishing surface defined as the side of the pad with the cured abrasive product is what comes into contact with a surface to be polished of a resin lens as described in the process of col. 20 lines 20-39); and a step of polishing the surface to be polished by bringing the surface to be polished into contact with the polishing surface by applying pressure and relatively moving the polishing pad and the spectacle lens (one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to polish a spectacle lens, a polishing surface is brought into contact with a surface to be polished while applying pressure and relatively moving the polishing pad and lens, Table 3 explains that the pressure was set to 18 psi) while supplying a coolant to the polishing surface (Col. 20 lines 20-39 explain that a coolant fluid of distilled water was applied over the inventive embodiment’s polishing surface during polishing). Manning fails to disclose a polishing pad provided with a flocking polishing sheet having a flocking part with abrasive grains that are attached to a surface of the flocking part.
Lihu is also concerned with lens polishing methods and teaches a method for polishing and manufacturing a spectacle lens (Page 4 [2] describes a method for polishing a resin spectacle lens) comprising:
a step of preparing a polishing pad provided with a flocking polishing sheet (flocking polishing sheet defined as synthetic fiber flocking cloth as seen on pg 4 [2]) having a flocking part (the flocking part defined as the flocked fibers on synthetic fiber flocking cloth which are inherent in flocked fabric). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the cloth backing of Manning’s polishing pad with the flocked cloth of Lihu, consistent with Manning’s suitable backing materials including treated versions of cloth col. 14 lines 24-37. With Manning being modified by Lihu, the final claim limitations are met: a step of preparing a polishing pad provided with a flocking polishing sheet having a flocking part and abrasive grains that are attached to a surface of the flocking part (the cured abrasive slurry of Manning provides the flocking part of Lihu with abrasive grains that are attached to a surface of the flocking part) on a polishing surface that comes into contact with a surface to be polished of a resin spectacle lens (see above mapping and col. 20 lines 20-39).
Regarding claim 4, Manning, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Manning, as modified, also discloses in the polishing step, a slurry containing abrasive grains is not supplied to the polishing surface (the abstract of Manning states “wherein the coated abrasive product is capable of polishing an optical component, including ophthalmic lenses without the need to apply an abrasive slurry”).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manning, as modified, further in view of Tenko et al (WO 2020054823-A1, hereinafter “Tenko”).
Regarding claim 2, Manning, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. However, Manning fails to disclose in the step of preparing the polishing pad, the polishing pad provided with the flocking polishing sheet is prepared on a base material containing an elastic material.
Tenko is also concerned with polishing pads and teaches a polishing pad provided with a polishing surface supported by a base material containing an elastic material (the abstract describes the polishing pad (10) comprises a layered body that comprises: a polishing layer (1) having a polishing surface (10a) and a support layer (2) made from an elastic body and supporting the polishing layer pg 1 [57]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the elastic base material of Tenko into the polishing pad of Manning, as modified, in order to allow for elastic deformation of the polishing pad so that it properly conforms to the curved surface of the lens for improved polishing (pg 1 [3-5]). With Tenko modifying Manning, the claim limitation is met: in the step of preparing the polishing pad, the polishing pad provided with the flocking polishing sheet is prepared on a base material containing an elastic material.
Regarding claim 3, Manning, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Manning, as modified, also discloses in the polishing step, the polishing pad and the spectacle lens are relatively moved so that the abrasive grains swing in a direction parallel to the polishing surface and a direction intersecting with the polishing surface (examiner notes: the abrasive grains swinging in a direction intersecting with the polishing surface was interpreted as intersecting the elastic pad as it compresses; thus the limitation is met as the grains would swing parallel to the polishing surface as the pad/lens are rotated and the grains would swing in a direction intersecting with the polishing surface as the base compresses against the lens and the grains would, at least partially, break the plane of the polishing surface).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manning, as modified above, further in view of Hirako et al (U.S. PGPUB no. 20210348028-A1, hereinafter “Hirako”).
Regarding claim 5, Manning, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. However, Manning, as modified, does not disclose in the polishing step, a temperature of the coolant is controlled to be 20 degrees or lower.
Hirako is also concerned with lens polishing and teaches in the polishing step, a temperature of the coolant is controlled to be 20 degrees or lower ([0094] explains the polishing conditions of a polishing experiment where the temperature of the coolant water temperature was controlled to be 20° Celsius). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art in the skill to have modified the coolant temperature of Manning to be 20° Celsius as Hirako teaches in order to keep the workpiece and polishing pad sufficiently cooled.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manning, as modified above, further in view of Miyazaki (U.S. PGPUB no. 20130130599-A1, hereinafter “Miyazaki”).
Regarding claim 6, Manning, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. However, Manning, as modified, fails to disclose in the step of preparing the polishing pad, a polishing pad provided with a flocking polishing sheet having abrasive grains having an average grain diameter of 0.5 µm or more and 5 µm or less is prepared.
Miyazaki is also concerned with polishing methods of plastic lens and teaches abrasive grains having an average grain diameter of 0.5 µm or more and 5 µm or less is prepared ([0037] explains the abrasive grains are composed of a grain having a mean grain size exceeding 0.5µm and less than 8µm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the grain size of Manning’s abrasive grains to the size of Miyazaki’s grains in order to achieve the desired degree of polishing ([0027] of Miyazaki explains that adjusting grain size impacts the amount of material being removed, with larger grain size performing relatively rough polishing and smaller grain size being used to perform relatively fine polishing). With Manning being modified by Miyazaki the claim limitation is met: in the step of preparing the polishing pad, a polishing pad provided with a flocking polishing sheet having abrasive grains having an average grain diameter of 0.5 µm or more and 5 µm or less is prepared.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, 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.
/JOHN MICHAEL LARSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723