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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I) Applicants' arguments filed April 01, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant's Argues (Remarks pages 6-7) that claims 13-15 should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner's answer:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In light of the Alice (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014)), Benson (Gottschalk V. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)), FairWaming (FairWaming IP, LLC V. latric Systems, Inc. 2015 WL 3883958 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2015)), and Elec. Power Grp. (Elec. Power Grp., LLC V. Alstrom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 2016 WF 4073318, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) decisions, claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea in the form of "a method of determining transmittance of an optical article ", inter alia, which includes, at least in part, the recited method steps of:
capturing a first image data of a first portion of the gradient pattern on at least one surface of the optical article (data processing and not significantly more than the abstract idea. See Benson, Electric Power Group, and Flook);
irradiating at least the first portion of the gradient pattern of the optical article with actinic radiation (data processing and not significantly more than the abstract idea. See Benson, Electric Power Group, and Flook);
capturing a second image data of the first portion of the gradient pattern on at least one surface of the optical article (data processing and not significantly more than the abstract idea. See Benson, Electric Power Group, and Flook); and
calculating, with a processor, the transmittance of visible light through the gradient pattern of the optical article by comparing the first image data to the second image data.
Thus, individually, the recited method steps comprise a series mathematical/algorithmic and/or mathematical formula and/or data processing/analysis steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mathematical formula similar to those found to be non- patent eligible in, e.g., Alice, Benson, FairWarning, Electric Power Group, and Flook. As such, the description in claim 13 of method comprising step of a method of determining transmittance of an optical article is an abstract idea. Further, the recited method steps as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (step 2A YES).
Taken alone or as a combination, the above steps/elements do not amount to the claim as a whole that is to significantly more than the exception (abstract idea). The claim fails to provide an improvement to computer-related technology. The Court in Alice cautioned that merely limiting the use of abstract idea "to a particular technological environment" or implementing the abstract idea on a "wholly generic computer" is not sufficient as an additional feature to provide "practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract ideal] itself."
None of dependent claims adds an inventive concept to the abstract idea identified above. Rather, the claim only focuses on steps merely manipulating data using mathematical relationship/algorithms. The claim recites algorithms which are directed to the abstract idea within the meaning of Alice. The claim does not include any meaningful limits on the use of specific methodologies to improve technical field of determining transmittance of an optical article. None of the additional elements amounts to significantly more than the exception, e.g., image capture device, control unit, and processor (e.g., additional element) does not improve the step of determining transmittance of an optical article, therefore is abstract idea. The steps merely capturing a first image data of a first portion of the gradient pattern on at least one surface of the optical article with at least one image capture device before the gradient pattern is activated; irradiating at least the first portion of the gradient pattern of the optical article with actinic radiation from at least one source of actinic radiation to activate the gradient pattern in the at least one photochromic property; capturing a second image data of the first portion of the gradient pattern on at least one surface of the optical article with at least one image capture device after the gradient pattern has been activated; and calculating, with a processor, the transmittance of visible light through the gradient pattern of the optical article by comparing the first image data to the second image data are a result using a generic computer components or software recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount and do not add any meaningful limits on use of the generic computer function or software (see OA below). At Prong 2 there is no particular machine, no real-world transformation, and no context at all so there is no technological process being improved. There isn't even a field-of-use. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B is NO).
II) Applicant's arguments on the Prior Art Rejections:
a) Applicant argued pages 8-9 that the Koenig does not teach the feature "at least one image capture device configured to capture image data of the photochromic optical article" as recited in claim 1.
b) Applicant argued pages 9-10 that Backburn does not teach the feature "capturing first and second images of a first portion of the gradient pattern on the optical article before and after gradient pattern activation" and “calculating, with a processor, the transmittance of visible light through the gradient pattern of the optical article by comparing the first image data to the second image data” as recited in claim 13.
Examiner's answer:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Office Action has shown clearly that the asserted both of Dasgupta and Wang references teach or suggest "each and every element" of claimed invention (See OA, claims 1 and 13).
It is respectfully pointed out to applicant that, as stated in the previous Office action, Koenig disclose clearly the claimed language of the present invention recited as in claim 1 with feature "at least one image capture device configured to capture image data of the photochromic optical article" as required by the present claims (See below OA, claim 1) and Blackburn disclose clearly the claimed language of the present invention recited as in claim 13 with feature “capturing first and second images of a first portion of the gradient pattern on the optical article before and after gradient pattern activation" and “calculating, with a processor, the transmittance of visible light through the gradient pattern of the optical article by comparing the first image data to the second image data” as required by the present claims (See below OA, claim 13).
a) Such as, Koenig teaches clearly the claimed language of the present invention, in figures 1-5, that at least one image capture device (34 @ figures 1 and 5 and paragraph [0021]: e.g., The timing device 34 may be activated using a sensor) configured to capture image data of the photochromic optical article (84 @ figures 1 and 5). Therefore, Koenig’s limitation (paragraph [0028]: e.g., a uniform activation across the photochromic coating on the photochromic lens 84) met the limitation in the claimed language of the Present Invention (see paragraph [0002]: e.g., a characterization device for an optical article and, in particular, a characterization device for measuring a gradient on a photochromic lens).
b) Such as, Blackburn teaches clearly the claimed language of the present invention, in figures 1-8, that capturing a first image data (figures 3A and 4A and paragraph [0072]: e.g., the ocular surface 100 wherein no portion thereof is covered by a transparent article 250. With reference to FIGS. 1C, 3A and 4A, a first measurement of the intensity of electromagnetic radiation reflected from the ocular surface 100 is taken with the imaging device 400. The first measurement can be taken on a selected portion of the ocular surface 100. For example, the first measurement can be taken over a region 110 of the ocular surface 100) of a first portion of the gradient pattern (paragraph [0077]: e.g., this configuration also allows a user to map a gradient of transmittance in a transparent article 250 having a photochromic gradient. In this circumstance, the region 110 of a reference surface 80 (such as an ocular surface 100) can correspond in size with the desired area of the transparent article 250 to be measured) on at least one surface of the optical article (250 @ figures 3B and 4B) with at least one image capture device (400 @ figures 1A-1B and 2A-2B) before the gradient pattern is activated; irradiating at least the first portion of the gradient pattern of the optical article (250 @ figures 2A-2C, 3B, 4B) with actinic radiation from at least one source of actinic radiation (300 @ figures 2A-2B and paragraph [0073]: e.g., When the transparent article 250 is a photochromic ophthalmic device, the photochromic ophthalmic device may be activated or non-activated. The transparent article 250 can overlay all or a portion of the region 110. If the transparent article 250 is a photochromic ophthalmic device, the photochromic ophthalmic device can be exposed to actinic radiation for a period of time to achieve a desired level of activation) to activate the gradient pattern in the at least one photochromic property capturing a second image data (figures 3B and 4B) of the first portion of the gradient pattern (110 @ figures 3B and 4B) on at least one surface of the optical article (250 @ figures 3B and 4B) with at least one image capture device (400 @ figures 1A-1B and 2A-2B) after the gradient pattern has been activated (paragraph [0088]: e.g., if the transparent article 250 has photochromic properties, the first intensity measurement may be made with the transparent article 250 in place over the reference surface 80 in a first state. The first state can be a non-activated state. The second intensity measurement can be made with the imaging device 400 after the photochromic transparent article 250 is in a second state. The second state can be an activated state); and calculating, with a processor (figures 7-8 and paragraph [0082] e.g., a processor may be located in the imaging device 400, or an external processor may be used), the transmittance of visible light through the gradient pattern of the optical article by comparing the first image data to the second image data (figures 7-8 and paragraph [0082]: e.g., determining position by comparison of image data between the first and second measurements in embodiments wherein the shape of the reference surface 80 is otherwise uniform. Software stored in the memory of the imaging device 400, or in an external computing device, may be applied by a processor to automatically compare the images in order to determine the region of the reference surface 80 covered or overlaid by the transparent article 250). Therefore, Blackburn’s limitation met the limitation in the claimed language of the Present Invention
For the reasons set forth above the arguments, it is believed that the rejection of the claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 & 103 is proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 13 is rejected because it recites an abstract idea as indicated in bold and underlined below:
A method of determining transmittance of an optical article having at least one photochromic property applied in a gradient pattern on at least one surface of the optical article, the method comprising:
capturing a first image data of a first portion of the gradient pattern on at least one surface of the optical article with at least one image capture device before the gradient pattern is activated;
irradiating at least the first portion of the gradient pattern of the optical article with actinic radiation from at least one source of actinic radiation to activate the gradient pattern in the at least one photochromic property;
capturing a second image data of the first portion of the gradient pattern on at least one surface of the optical article with at least one image capture device after the gradient pattern has been activated; and
calculating, with a processor, the transmittance of visible light through the gradient pattern of the optical article by comparing the first image data to the second image data.
Step 1: Claim 13 is directed toward the abstract idea (bold and underlined above) falls in the category of mental processes.
Step 2a: While claim 13 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception, namely the abstract idea of: a method of determining transmittance of an optical article comprising: capturing a first image data of a first portion of the gradient pattern on at least one surface of the optical article; irradiating at least the first portion of the gradient pattern of the optical article with actinic radiation; capturing a second image data of the first portion of the gradient pattern on at least one surface of the optical article; and calculating the transmittance of visible light through the gradient pattern of the optical article by comparing the first image data to the second image data.
For the above stated reasons, the bold and underlined parts of claim 13 shown above have been considered as mental processes. Such limitations are considered to set forth the abstract idea, because the claims are directed toward an idea in and of itself.
The claims only recite and describe gathering and combining data by reciting steps of organizing information through mathematical relationships and/or algorithms. The gathering and combining steps merely employ mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information to generate additional information in the form of "capturing a first image data of a first portion of the gradient pattern on at least one surface of the optical article; irradiating at least the first portion of the gradient pattern of the optical article with actinic radiation; capturing a second image data of the first portion of the gradient pattern on at least one surface of the optical article; and calculating the transmittance of visible light through the gradient pattern of the optical article by comparing the first image data to the second image data".
This idea is similar to the basic concept of manipulating information using mathematical relationships found to be an abstract idea by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams).
The courts have indicated that comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene) and ideas in and of themselves (Bilski and Alice) are all examples of judicial exceptions, particularly abstract ideas.
The courts have indicated that, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be a judicial exception, particularly abstract ideas (Benson) as were an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams.
Thus, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons:
Step 2b: Claims recites additional elements that includes: "image capture device", "optical article", "control unit", and "processor", therefore the claims recite the abstract ideas. Viewing these limitations individually, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality and only perform generic functions of receiving, manipulating/calculating and transmitting information. Generic computers performing generic functions or components which are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Looking at the elements as combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
There is no particular machine (discounting the generic computer components) applying the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and there is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)).
The remaining consideration is whether the claim constitutes an improvement to a particular technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or whether it just generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field-of-use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim is generally in the field of estimating water turbidity using image data. However, no evidence is provided to show that a particular technological process is being improved.
The claim doesn't recite any details of what determining results are being considered, how evaluation results, and how initiating results are obtained or an indication of them, or what is being done with the results at the end.
The underlying process that is supposed to be improved is not stated in this claim. It is not clear what the purpose of the claim is what is expected to be achieved.
For reasons stated above, it has been determined that claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea/ judicial exception with additional generic computer elements, and the genomically recited additional computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea/judicial exception because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an “Inventive concept”) to the exception. The rationale detailed in the above paragraphs apply mutatis mutandis. Analyzing, calculating, evaluating, and initiating data are all well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Dependent claims 14-15 are dependent on their respective base claim 13, and include all the limitations of their respective base claims. Therefore, claims 14-15 recite the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in claims 14-15 are each functional generic/conventional processing steps performed by computer components comprise data gathering and processing steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mental process or mathematical formula are similar to those found to be non-patent eligible in, e.g., Alice Corp., FairWarning, and Parker V Flook. Claims 14-15 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claims 14-15 are rejected under 101 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koenig, II (US 2018/0299345).
Regarding claim 1; Koenig, II discloses an apparatus and method (10 @ figures 1-5) configured for determining transmittance of a photochromic optical article (84 @ figures 1 and 5) comprising at least one photochromic material (paragraphs [0002] and [0016]), the apparatus comprising:
a housing (12 @ figures 1 and 5) defining an interior (14 @ figure 5) configured to receive the optical article (84 @ figure 5), the housing (12 @ figures 1 and 5) comprising a holding member (60, 62 @ figure 1) to hold the optical article (84 @ figures 1 and 5) at a predetermined position;
at least one source of actinic radiation (32a, 32b @ figures 1 and 5) configured to radiate actinic radiation into the interior (14 @ figure 5) of the housing (12 @ figures 1 and 5) and activate at least one photochromic material (paragraph [0002]: e.g., a photochromic material changes color when irradiated with ultra-violet (UV) radiation and then returns to its original color when the irradiation ceases and [0016]:e.g., the term "photochromic lens" means a lens having a photochromic coating) in the photochromic optical article (84 @ figures 1 and 5);
at least one image capture device (34 @ figures 1 and 5 and paragraph [0021]: e.g., The timing device 34 may be activated using a sensor) configured to capture image data of the photochromic optical article (84 @ figures 1 and 5);
at least one backlight (64 @ figure 5 and paragraph [0026]: e.g., the inspection light source 64 can be, for example, a fluorescent light source, such as a conventional fluorescent tube or a compact florescent lamp. Alternatively, the fluorescent light source 64 can include one or more light emitting diodes (LED). For example, one or more LED lighting strips or lighting bars) positioned beneath the holding member (60, 62 @ figures 1 and 5) to emit light towards the image capture device (34 @ figures 1 and 5) and through the optical article (84 @ figures 1 and 5); and
a controller (10 @ figures 1 and 5) operatively connected to the at least one image capture device (34 @ figures 1 and 5) and the at least one source of actinic radiation (32a, 32b @ figures 1 and 5), wherein the controller (10 @ figures 1 and 5) is configured to determine transmittance of visible light (paragraph [0026]: e.g., The inspection light source 64 can emit white light. By "white light" is meant light comprising a plurality of wavelengths of visible light) through the photochromic optical article (84 @ figures 1 and 5) using the image data captured by the image capture device (34 @ figures 1 and 5). See figures 1-5
Regarding claim 8; Koenig Il discloses the holding member (60, 62 @ figures 1 and 5) comprises a self-centering chuck (figures 1-4) configured to secure the optical article (84 @ figures 1 and 5).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Backburn et al (US 2021/0055217 hereinafter "Backburn").
Regarding claim 13; Backburn discloses a method of determining (figures 6-8) transmittance of an optical article (250 @ figures 2A-2, 3B, 4B) having at least one photochromic property applied in a gradient pattern (paragraph [0077]: e.g., map a gradient of transmittance in a transparent article 250 having a photochromic gradient) on at least one surface of the optical article (250 @ figures 3B and 4B), the method comprising:
capturing a first image data (figures 3A and 4A and paragraph [0072]: e.g., the ocular surface 100 wherein no portion thereof is covered by a transparent article 250. With reference to FIGS. 1C, 3A and 4A, a first measurement of the intensity of electromagnetic radiation reflected from the ocular surface 100 is taken with the imaging device 400. The first measurement can be taken on a selected portion of the ocular surface 100. For example, the first measurement can be taken over a region 110 of the ocular surface 100) of a first portion of the gradient pattern (paragraph [0077]) on at least one surface of the optical article (250 @ figures 3B and 4B) with at least one image capture device (400 @ figures 1A-1B and 2A-2B) before the gradient pattern is activated;
irradiating at least the first portion of the gradient pattern of the optical article (250 @ figures 2A-2C, 3B, 4B) with actinic radiation from at least one source of actinic radiation (300 @ figures 2A-2B and paragraph [0073]: e.g., When the transparent article 250 is a photochromic ophthalmic device, the photochromic ophthalmic device may be activated or non-activated. The transparent article 250 can overlay all or a portion of the region 110. If the transparent article 250 is a photochromic ophthalmic device, the photochromic ophthalmic device can be exposed to actinic radiation for a period of time to achieve a desired level of activation) to activate the gradient pattern in the at least one photochromic property capturing a second image data (figures 3B and 4B) of the first portion of the gradient pattern (110 @ figures 3B and 4B) on at least one surface of the optical article (250 @ figures 3B and 4B) with at least one image capture device (400 @ figures 1A-1B and 2A-2B) after the gradient pattern has been activated (paragraph [0088]: e.g., if the transparent article 250 has photochromic properties, the first intensity measurement may be made with the transparent article 250 in place over the reference surface 80 in a first state. The first state can be a non-activated state. The second intensity measurement can be made with the imaging device 400 after the photochromic transparent article 250 is in a second state. The second state can be an activated state); and
calculating, with a processor (figures 7-8 and paragraph [0082] e.g., A processor may be located in the imaging device 400, or an external processor may be used), the transmittance of visible light through the gradient pattern of the optical article by comparing the first image data to the second image data (figures 7-8 and paragraph [0082]: e.g., determining position by comparison of image data between the first and second measurements in embodiments wherein the shape of the reference surface 80 is otherwise uniform. Software stored in the memory of the imaging device 400, or in an external computing device, may be applied by a processor to automatically compare the images in order to determine the region of the reference surface 80 covered or overlaid by the transparent article 250). See figures 1-8
Regarding claim 15; Backburn discloses further comprising capturing a third image data using the image capture device (400 @ figures 1A-1B and 2A-2B) when a shutter mechanism (paragraph [0092]: e.g., intensity attributable to dark current at various temperatures can be determined by taking one or more measurements with the imaging device 400 while the shutter is closed) is closed on the image capture device (400 @ figures 1A-1B and 2A-2B).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig, II (US 2018/0299345) in view of Buazza et al (US Patent No. 5,989,462 hereinafter "Buazza").
Regarding claim 4; Koenig II discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for at least one ultraviolet filter positioned between the at least one source of actinic radiation and the holding member and in-line with the image capture device, the ultraviolet filter being reflective of at least a portion of wavelengths comprising the actinic radiation. However, Buazza teaches that it is known in the art to provide at least one ultraviolet filter (54,56 @ figures 2-3 or 750 @ figure 13) positioned between the at least one source of actinic radiation (40 @ figures 2-3 and 13) and the holding member (16 @ figures 2-3 70 @ figure 13) and in-line with the image capture device (700 @ figure 13), the ultraviolet filter (750 @ figure 13) being reflective of at least a portion of wavelengths comprising the actinic radiation (UV light 40 @ figure 13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine apparatus of Koenig Il with limitation above as taught by Buazza for the purpose of improving ultraviolet lens curing apparatus.
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig, II (US 2018/0299345) in view of Carpenter (US 2022/0122485).
Regarding claim 5; Koenig II discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the holding member is positioned in a temperature-controlled box defined in the interior of the housing, the temperature-controlled box further comprising at least one temperature control component, wherein the at least one temperature control component is configured to maintain a predetermined temperature within the temperature-controlled box. However, Carpenter teaches that it is known in the art to provide the holding member (124 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0047]: e.g., the inspection platform 124 may be configured for supporting a plurality of optical articles 200) is positioned in a temperature- controlled box (140 @ figure 1) defined in the interior (106 @ figure 1) of the housing (112 @ figure 1), the temperature-controlled box (140 @ figure 1) further comprising at least one temperature control component (150 @ figure 1), wherein the at least one temperature control component (150 @ figure 1) is configured to maintain a predetermined temperature within the temperature-controlled box (140 @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine apparatus of Koenig Il with limitation above as taught by carpenter for the purpose of improving demonstrating thermally-reversible characteristics of optical articles having a photochromic material.
Regarding claim 6; Koenig Il discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a temperature controller operatively connected to the at least one temperature control component, wherein the temperature controller is configured to set the predetermined temperature within the temperature-controlled box and set a temperature output of the at least one temperature control component. However, Carpenter teaches that it is known in the art to provide a temperature controller (142 @ figure 1) operatively connected to the at least one temperature control component (150 @ figure 1), wherein the temperature controller (142 @ figure 1) is configured to set the predetermined temperature within the temperature-controlled box (140 @ figure 1) and set a temperature output of the at least one temperature control component (150 @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine apparatus of Koenig II with limitation above as taught by Carpenter for the purpose of improving demonstrating thermally-reversible characteristics of optical articles having a photochromic material.
Regarding claim 7; Koenig II discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the at least one temperature control component is configured to maintain a temperature in the range of - 20°C to 50°C in the temperature-controlled box. However, Carpenter teaches that it is known in the art to provide the at least one temperature control component (150 @ figure 1) is configured to maintain a temperature in the range of - 20°C to 50°C in the temperature-controlled box (140 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0056]: e.g., the at least one heating device 140 may be configured to maintain the interior 102 at a temperature in the range of 27° C. to 45° C., for example in the range of 27° C. to 37° C. In various examples or aspects, the at least one heating device 140 may be at least one of a conductive heating device, a convective heating device, or a radiative sensor heating device). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine apparatus of Koenig Il with limitation above as taught by Carpenter for the purpose of improving demonstrating thermally-reversible characteristics of optical articles having a photochromic material.
Regarding claim 9; Koenig Il discloses the holding member (60, 62 @ figures 1-4) is positioned in a drawer (figures 1-4) that is movable into and out of the temperature- controlled box (28 @ figure 2) defined in the interior (14 @ figure 5) of the housing (12 @ figures 1 and 5).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig, Il (US 2018/0299345) in view of Zezinka et al (US 2019/0291128 hereinafter "Zezinka").
Regarding claim 11; Koenig II discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the photochromic material in the photochromic optical article is present in a gradient pattern. However, Zezinka teaches that it is known in the art to provide the photochromic material in the photochromic optical article (10 @ figure 1) is present in a gradient pattern (paragraph [0054]: e.g., method and apparatus for preparing an optical article which, upon exposure to actinic radiation, has a pattern, such as a linearly gradient pattern, on a surface of the optical article). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine apparatus of Koenig II with limitation above as taught by Zezinka for the purpose of improved process control and precise, uniform thin film coatings for lenses.
Claims 2-3, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig, II (US 2018/0299345) in view of Blackburn et al (US 2021/0055217 hereinafter "Backburn").
Regarding claim 2; Koenig II discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the controller is configured to activate the at least one image capture device to capture at least one of a first image data prior to activation of the at least one photochromic material in the photochromic optical article, a second image data after the at least one photochromic material in the photochromic optical article is activated, and a third image data, by closing a shutter mechanism of the image capture device, either before or after the at least one photochromic material in the photochromic optical article has been activated. However, Backburn teaches that it is known in the art to provide the controller (figure 6 and paragraph [0082]: e.g., Software stored in the memory of the imaging device 400, or in an external computing device, may be applied by a processor to automatically compare the images in order to determine the region of the reference surface 80 covered or overlaid by the transparent article 250. A processor may be located in the imaging device 400, or an external processor may be used) is configured to activate the at least one image capture device (400 @ figures 1A-1B) to capture at least one of a first image data (shape of the reference surface 80 @ figures 1A-1B and paragraph [0070]: e.g., a first measurement of the intensity of electromagnetic radiation reflected or emitted from the surface 80 "without photochromic optical article" is taken with the imaging device 400) prior to activation of the at least one photochromic material in the photochromic optical article (250 @ figure 2C), a second image data (figures 2A-2B and paragraph [0071]: e.g., a transparent article 250 is disposed over, or covers, at least a portion of the reference surface 80. Examples of transparent articles 250 include any article with transparent properties at selected wavelength or range of wavelengths of light. These may include ophthalmic articles, elements and devices including photochromic ophthalmic devices display articles, elements and devices, windows, mirrors, and active and passive liquid crystal cell articles, elements and devices) after the at least one photochromic material (250 @ figure 2A-2B) in the photochromic optical article is activated, and a third image data, by closing a shutter mechanism of the image capture device (paragraph [0092]: e.g., intensity attributable to dark current at various temperatures can be determined by taking one or more measurements with the imaging device 400 while the shutter is closed), either before or after the at least one photochromic material in the photochromic optical article (250 @ figures 2A-2C) has been activated. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine apparatus of Koenig Il with limitation above as taught by Backburn for the purpose of automatically compare the images in order to determine the region of the ocular surface covered or overlaid by the transparent article.
Regarding claim 3; Koenig II discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the controller is configured to compare a first transmittance in a first portion in a first image data captured by the image capture device before the at least one photochromic material in the photochromic optical article has been activated to a second transmittance in the first portion in a second image data captured by the image capture device after the at least one photochromic material in the photochromic optical article has been activated. However, Backburn teaches that it is known in the art to provide the controller (figure 6 and paragraph [0082]: e.g., A processor may be located in the imaging device 400, or an external processor may be used) is configured to compare a first transmittance in a first portion in a first image data (80 @ figure 1A-1B) captured by the image capture device (400 @ figures 1A-1B) before the at least one photochromic material in the photochromic optical article (250 @figures 2A-2B) has been activated to a second transmittance in the first portion in a second image data (250, 80 @figures 2A-2C) captured by the image capture device (400 @figures 2A-2C) after the at least one photochromic material in the photochromic optical article (250 @ figures 2C) has been activated. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine apparatus of Koenig II with limitation above as taught by Backburn for the purpose of automatically compare the images in order to determine the region of the ocular surface covered or overlaid by the transparent article.
Regarding claim 10; Koenig II discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the at least one image capture device comprises at least one linear response camera. However, Backburn teaches that it is known in the art to provide the at least one image capture device (400 @ figure 1) comprises at least one linear response camera (400 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0064]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine apparatus of Koenig II with limitation above as taught by Backburn for the purpose of automatically compare the images in order to determine the region of the ocular surface covered or overlaid by the transparent article.
Regarding claim 12; Koenig II discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the controller is configured to measure and calculate transmittance of a plurality of sub-regions identified on the photochromic optical article. However, Backburn teaches that it is known in the art to provide the controller (paragraph [0082]: e.g., Software stored in the memory of the imaging device 400, or in an external computing device, may be applied by a processor to automatically compare the images in order to determine the region of the reference surface 80 covered or overlaid by the transparent article 250. A processor may be located in the imaging device 400, or an external processor may be used) is configured to measure and calculate transmittance of a plurality of sub-regions (110 @ figure 4C) identified on the photochromic optical article (200 @ figure 4C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine apparatus of Koenig Il with limitation above as taught by Blackburn for the purpose of automatically compare the images in order to determine the region of the ocular surface covered or overlaid by the transparent article.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backburn et al (US 2021/0055217 hereinafter "Backburn") in view of Carpenter (US 2022/0122485).
Regarding claim 14; Backburn discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for maintaining a temperature of a temperature-controlled box defined in the interior at a predetermined temperature using a temperature controller. However, Carpenter teaches that it is known in the art to provide maintaining a temperature of a temperature-controlled box (140 @ figure 1) defined in the interior (106 @ figure 1) of the housing (112 @ figure 1) at a predetermined temperature using a temperature controller (150 @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Backburn with limitation above as taught by Carpenter for the purpose of improving demonstrating thermally-reversible characteristics of optical articles having a photochromic material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Tsang et al (US 2011/0133672) discloses the housing comprises visible-light sources (10) arranged to generate visible light (11), UV-light sources (12) arranged to generate UV-light (13).
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 SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-2705789. 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.
/SN/
May 8, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights