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 .
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/1/2024 and 3/10/2026 were filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 10 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, “the groove” should read “the at least one groove” to remain consistent in terminology
Claim 3, “the groove” should read “the at least one groove” to remain consistent in terminology
Claim 4, line 2, “the groove” should read “the at least one groove” to remain consistent in terminology
Claim 4, line 4, “the groove” should read “the at least one groove” to remain consistent in terminology
Claim 6, “the groove” should read “the at least one groove” to remain consistent in terminology
Claim 10, “the groove” should read “the at least one groove” to remain consistent in terminology
Claim 14, line 6, “a spectacle lens” should read “[[a]] the spectacle lens” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 14, line 8, “a polishing agent” should read “[[a]] the polishing agent” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 14, line 9, “an optical surface” should read “[[an]] the optical surface” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 14, “the grooves” should read “the at least one groove [[the grooves]]” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 10, “a polishing agent supply unit” “to supply the groove”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure is provided as a pump and a tank.
Claim 10, “a lens support unit for supporting”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure is provided as a chuck as shown in instant fig. 11.
Claims 10-12, “a drive unit to apply a relative motion”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure for the “drive unit” is not provided.
Claim 12, “a control unit for controlling”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure for the “control unit” is not provided.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the disclosure fails to provide written description in the form of corresponding structure for the “drive unit” and the “control unit”, which invoke 35 USC 112(f), as mentioned above. Claims 11-13 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
6. 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.
Regarding claims 10-13, claim limitations “drive unit to apply a relative motion” and “control unit for controlling” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As noted above, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 11-13 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-3, 5-9 and 11-13 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrases "preferably” and “preferred" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations following the phrases will be interpreted as not being required by the claim language.
Regarding claim 3, the phrases "preferably” and “preferred" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations following the phrases will be interpreted as not being required by the claim language.
Regarding claim 5, the phrases "preferably” and “preferred" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations following the phrases will be interpreted as not being required by the claim language.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations following the phrase will be interpreted as not being required by the claim language.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations following the phrase will be interpreted as not being required by the claim language.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations following the phrase will be interpreted as not being required by the claim language.
Regarding claim 8, the language recites the terms “the polishing film”, “the base portion”, and “the holder portion”. However, these terms lack proper antecedent basis because these terms have not been introduced in this sequence of claims. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “[[the]] a polishing film”, “[[the]] a base portion”, and “[[the]] a holder portion”.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations following the phrase will be interpreted as not being required by the claim language.
Regarding claim 9, the language recites the term “the base portion”. However, the term “the base portion” lacks proper antecedent basis because this term has not been introduced in this sequence of claims. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “[[the]] a base portion”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations following the phrase will be interpreted as not being required by the claim language.
Regarding claim 12, the phrases "preferably” and “like” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations following the phrases will be interpreted as not being required by the claim language.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations following the phrase will be interpreted as not being required by the claim language.
Regarding claim 13, the language recites the terms “the port” and “the gasket”. However, these terms lack proper antecedent basis because these terms have not been introduced in this sequence of claims. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “[[the]] a port” and “[[the]] a gasket”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 1-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (EP 1652619), hereinafter Schneider, in view of Xin et al. (CN 110732933), hereinafter Xin.
Regarding claim 1, Schneider teaches a polishing tool (100) (fig. 7) for polishing a spectacle lens (L) (fig. 7, lens 10) in a surface machining process (fig. 7), comprising a tool body (110) (fig. 7, including drive shaft 3) for being rotatably supported about a rotational axis (RA1) (fig. 7, center axis M, first paragraph on page 9 of the attached translation),
wherein the tool body (110) comprises a polishing surface (130) (fig. 7, of polishing pad 9) being outwardly exposed at a first axial end (101) of the tool body (110) (see annotated fig. 7 below), the polishing surface (130) being axially bulged convexly or concavely with respect to the rotational axis (RA1) for polishing an optical surface (L1, L2) of the spectacle lens (L) (fig. 7),
PNG
media_image1.png
781
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the tool body (110) comprises a channel (140) (fig. 7, polishing agent line 15) extending axially through the tool body (110) (fig. 7) from an inlet (142) (location indicated by element 15 in fig. 7 is interpreted as the inlet of the channel), which is provided at a second axial end (102) being opposite to the first axial end (101) with respect to the rotational axis (RA1) (see annotated fig. 7 above), to an outlet (141) (recess 5.3 in fig. 7), which is provided at the first axial end (101) (fig. 7), to supply the polishing surface (130) with a polishing agent (second to last paragraph on page 10 of the attached translation).
Schneider also teaches a stiffening element with a plurality of slots/grooves 2.4 (fig. 9). Schneider teaches the stiffening element is integrated into the polishing pad and in the annular membrane (second to last paragraph on page 9 of the attached translation). Schneider also teaches the slots ensure or support the transport of the polishing agent from the centric feed via the polishing agent line (last paragraph on page 5 of the attached translation).
Schneider does not explicitly teach
wherein the polishing surface (130) comprises at least one groove (150) that extends radially away from the outlet (141) to the perimeter of the polishing surface (130) to distribute the polishing agent across the polishing surface (130).
Specifically, Schneider does not provide details of the location of the slots and does not explicitly teach the polishing surface comprises the grooves/slots.
However, Xin teaches a polishing solution supply and recovery polishing tool head device, wherein a polishing head (fig. 9) includes a polishing pad 7, wherein the polishing head includes a central supply channel for a polishing agent (fig. 9), wherein the pad includes grooves on the polishing surface (grooves 72 and 73), wherein the polishing liquid is conveyed to the polishing pad through the polishing pad radial groove 72 and polishing pad annular groove 73 then flows to the polishing liquid recycling cavity 8 (last paragraph on page 5 of the attached translation). Overall, Xin teaches
wherein the polishing surface (130) (of pad 7, fig. 8) comprises at least one groove (150) (grooves 72 and 73, fig. 8) that extends radially away from the outlet (141) (hole 71 of pad 7, fig. 8) to the perimeter of the polishing surface (130) (fig. 8) to distribute the polishing agent across the polishing surface (130) (last paragraph on page 5 of the attached translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Xin to provide wherein the polishing surface (130) comprises at least one groove (150) that extends radially away from the outlet (141) to the perimeter of the polishing surface (130) to distribute the polishing agent across the polishing surface (130).
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the groove structure design of the polishing pad of Xin into the polishing pad of Schneider. Doing so would provide an explicit groove structure in the polishing pad, wherein Schneider does not provide specific details. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the device to function as intended and provide polishing liquid to the polishing surface in order to promote quality of the workpiece and prevent damage of the workpiece and tool.
Regarding claim 2, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schneider, as modified, teaches wherein the groove (150) extends radially along a main extension direction (fig. 8 of Xin, wherein the groove structure of Xin was incorporated into Schneider. See above rejection of claim 1 for more details), preferably in a linear, straight, curved and/or arcuate manner, more preferred in a wave or zigzag manner (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details).
Regarding claim 3, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schneider, as modified, teaches wherein the groove (150) comprises different sections (fig. 8 of Xin, wherein the groove structure of Xin was incorporated into Schneider. See above rejection of claim 1 for more details), preferably straight, angled, arcuate and/or curved sections (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details), wherein adjoining sections extend circumferentially in opposite directions (fig. 8 of Xin, wherein the groove structure includes adjoining sections that extend circumferentially in opposite directions), wherein preferably the adjoining sections are connected to each other by an arcuate portion that more preferred forms a gradual transition between the respective adjoining sections (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details).
Regarding claim 4, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1.
As such, Schneider, as modified, and the instant claimed invention both provide a polishing pad with a groove structure on the polishing surface, wherein the only difference between Schneider, as modified, and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Schneider, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the groove (150) has a width (W) ranging from 0.1mm to 1.0mm, or from 0.2mm to 0.8mm, or from 0.4mm to 0.6mm, or of 0.5mm, and/or
wherein the groove (150) has a depth (T) ranging from 0.1mm to 1.0mm, or from 0.2mm to 0.8mm, or from 0.4mm to 0.6mm, or of 0.5mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schneider, as modified, to include wherein the groove (150) has a width (W) ranging from 0.1mm to 1.0mm, or from 0.2mm to 0.8mm, or from 0.4mm to 0.6mm, or of 0.5mm, and/or wherein the groove (150) has a depth (T) ranging from 0.1mm to 1.0mm, or from 0.2mm to 0.8mm, or from 0.4mm to 0.6mm, or of 0.5mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Schneider, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed groove width and groove depth since the polishing pad would continue to be capable of polishing and supplying polishing liquid to the workpiece. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schneider, as modified, teaches comprising a plurality of the said grooves (150) (fig. 8 of Xin, wherein the groove structure of Xin was incorporated into Schneider. See above rejection of claim 1 for more details), wherein the grooves (150) are preferably radially diverging and/or preferably distributed, more preferred evenly distributed about the outlet (141) or the rotational axis (RA1), wherein the grooves (150) preferably have the same or at least partially a different shape and/or cross-section (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details).
Regarding claim 6, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schneider, as modified, teaches wherein the tool body (110) comprises a polishing film (113) forming the first axial end (101) of the tool body (110) (fig. 7 of Schneider, wherein the polishing pad 9 is interpreted as the polishing film forming the first axial end of the tool body, wherein the polishing pad 9 of Schneider was modified to incorporate the groove structure of Xin. See above rejection of claim 1 for more details), wherein the polishing film (113) comprises the outlet (141) and the groove (150) (fig. 8 of Xin, wherein the pad of Schneider was modified to incorporate the groove structure of Xin. See above rejection of claim 1 for more details), and wherein preferably the polishing film (113) has a thickness ranging from 0.5mm to 2.5mm, or from 0.8mm to 2.0mm, or of 1.3mm (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details).
Regarding claim 7, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schneider, as modified, teaches wherein the tool body (110) comprises a base portion (111) for rotatably supporting the polishing tool (100) (fig. 7 of Schneider, rotatably mounted drive shaft 3 is interpreted as the base portion), wherein the base portion (111) preferably comprises the inlet (142) (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details), and
wherein preferably the tool body (110) further comprises a holder portion (112) being sandwiched between the polishing film (113) and the base portion (111) (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details), wherein preferably the holder portion (112) is deformable for adapting to the optical surface (L1, L2) of the spectacle lens (L) (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details).
Regarding claim 8, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schneider, as modified, teaches wherein the channel (140) extends along the rotational axis (RA1) of the polishing tool (100) (fig. 7 of Schneider, channel 15 and rotational axis M) and preferably, if present, penetrating the polishing film (113), the base portion (111) and the holder portion (112), respectively (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details).
Regarding claim 9, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schneider, as modified, teaches wherein the tool body (110), preferably the base portion (111) if present (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details), comprises a port (143) for fluidly connecting the channel (140) with a polishing agent supply unit (240) (fig. 7 of Schneider, wherein area indicated by element 15 is interpreted as a port of the tool body, wherein the interpreted port of the tool body is capable of fluidly connecting the channel 15 with a polishing agent supply unit),
wherein preferably the port (143) comprises a gasket (144) for radially sealing against the polishing agent supply unit (240) to prevent the polishing agent from leakage and to enable only the polishing agent entering the channel (140) via the inlet (142) (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details).
Regarding claim 14, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schneider, as modified, teaches
a process of polishing an optical surface (L1, L2) of a spectacle lens (L) (fig. 7 of Schneider) comprising:
- providing a system (200) for surface processing having a polishing tool (100) according to claim 1 (fig. 7 of Schneider, as modified. See above rejection of claim 1 for more details),
- seating a spectacle lens (L) (fig. 7 of Schneider, lens 10) in a lens support unit (220) of the system (200) (structure 12 of fig. 7 of Schneider),
- relatively rotating the polishing tool (100) with respect to the spectacle lens (L) (fig. 7, center axis M, first paragraph on page 9 of the attached translation of Schneider),
- delivering a polishing agent through the channel (140) (channel 15 of Schneider fig. 7) to the polishing surface (130) facing an optical surface (L1, L2) of the spectacle lens (L) to be polished (fig. 7 of Schneider, as modified), so that the polishing agent is delivered through the grooves (150) (as incorporated from Xin, see rejection of claim 1 above for more details) radially outwards from the outlet (141) to distribute the polishing agent across the polishing surface (130) for polishing the optical surface (L1, L2) (as incorporated from Xin, see rejection of claim 1 above for more details).
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (EP 1652619), hereinafter Schneider, in view of Xin et al. (CN 110732933), hereinafter Xin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Drain et al. (US PGPUB 20070155286), hereinafter Drain, and further in view of Geist et al. (US PGPUB 20210016410), hereinafter Geist.
Regarding claim 10, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schneider, as modified, teaches
a system (200) for polishing of at least one optical surface (L1, L2) of a spectacle lens (L) (fig. 7 of Schneider), comprising
- a surface processing unit (210) for processing the optical surface (L1, L2) of the spectacle lens (L) (fig. 7 of Schneider), wherein the surface processing unit (210) comprises
- the polishing tool (100) according to claim 1 (fig. 7 of Schneider, as modified by Xin. See above rejection of claim 1 for more details), and
- a lens support unit (220) for supporting the spectacle lens (L) during the polishing process (This element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the corresponding structure and equivalents thereof, as detailed above. structure 12 of Schneider fig. 7 is interpreted as the lens support unit for supporting the lens during the polishing process).
Schneider, as modified, does not explicitly teach
- a polishing agent supply unit (240) being fluidly connected to the channel (140) via the inlet (142) of the polishing tool (100) to supply the groove (150) or grooves (150) of the polishing surface (130) with a polishing agent via the channel (140) and the outlet (141), and
- a drive unit to apply a relative motion between the polishing tool (100) and the lens support unit (220) at least by rotating the polishing tool (100) about the rotational axis (RA1) to allow polishing of the optical surface (L1, L2).
However, Drain teaches a polishing machine for a lens 4 (fig. 6), which includes a polishing agent supply unit (240) (This element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the corresponding structure and equivalents thereof, as detailed above. Drain teaches polishing fluid pump 82 and tank 7 in fig. 12) being fluidly connected to the channel (140) via the inlet (142) (the pump of Drain is fluidly connected to distributor 27 and connecting channel via an inlet of the channel) to supply a polishing agent via the channel (140) and the outlet (141) (fig. 12 of Drain).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schneider, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Drain to provide a polishing agent supply unit (240) being fluidly connected to the channel (140) via the inlet (142) of the polishing tool (100) to supply the groove (150) or grooves (150) of the polishing surface (130) with a polishing agent via the channel (140) and the outlet (141). Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the polishing agent supply unit (of Drain, including pump and tank) being fluidly connected to the channel via the inlet and the port of the polishing tool of Schneider to supply the groove or grooves of the polishing surface (of Schneider, as modified) with a polishing agent via the channel and the outlet (of Schneider, as modified). Doing so would allow the device to function as intended wherein Schneider, as modified, teaches a channel to receive the polishing agent but no polishing agent supply unit. Additionally, doing so would promote quality of the workpiece and prevent damage to the workpiece by supplying the polishing agent to the workpiece during processing.
Schneider, as modified, does not explicitly teach a drive unit to apply a relative motion between the polishing tool (100) and the lens support unit (220) at least by rotating the polishing tool (100) about the rotational axis (RA1) to allow polishing of the optical surface (L1, L2).
However, Geist teaches a polishing tool and device for polishing a lens (fig. 3a), which includes a drive unit (This element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the corresponding structure and equivalents thereof, as detailed above. Geist teaches the tool is rotatably mounted about a central axis A1 (fig. 2), wherein the tool spindle 2 is rotatably driven around the drive axis A1 by means of an electric motor [0054]) to apply a relative motion between the polishing tool (100) and the lens support unit (220) [0141 of Geist] at least by rotating the polishing tool (100) about the rotational axis (RA1) to allow polishing of the optical surface (L1, L2) [0054 of Geist].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schneider, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Geist to provide a drive unit to apply a relative motion between the polishing tool (100) and the lens support unit (220) at least by rotating the polishing tool (100) about the rotational axis (RA1) to allow polishing of the optical surface (L1, L2).
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the drive unit (electric motor) of Geist to drive the tool of Schneider’s fig. 7 (as modified) about the rotational axis M to apply a relative motion between the polishing tool and the lens support unit to allow polishing of the optical surface. Doing so would allow the device of Schneider, as modified, to function as intended wherein Schneider, as modified, teaches the drive shaft 3 (of Schneider) is rotatably supported about axis M but does not teach explicit drive means. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to polish the workpiece as intended.
Regarding claim 11, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Schneider, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the relative motion further comprises tilting, pivoting and/or linearly moving the polishing tool (100) relatively to the lens support unit (220) to apply the relative motion, and/or wherein the drive unit is preferably adapted to rotate the lens support unit (220) about a second rotational axis (RA2) to apply the relative motion, and/or
wherein the drive unit is preferably adapted to displace the polishing tool (100) relative to the lens support unit (220) to obtain a defined distance therebetween.
However, Geist additionally teaches wherein the relative motion further comprises tilting, pivoting and/or linearly moving the polishing tool (100) relatively to the lens support unit (220) to apply the relative motion (fig. 3c of Geist, wherein Geist teaches the polishing tool is pivotable about a swivel axis [0154-0158]), and/or wherein the drive unit is preferably adapted to rotate the lens support unit (220) about a second rotational axis (RA2) to apply the relative motion (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details), and/or
wherein the drive unit is preferably adapted to displace the polishing tool (100) relative to the lens support unit (220) to obtain a defined distance therebetween (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schneider, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Geist to provide wherein the relative motion further comprises tilting, pivoting and/or linearly moving the polishing tool (100) relatively to the lens support unit (220) to apply the relative motion.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the swivel degree of freedom as taught by Geist into the tool of Schneider, as modified. Doing so would allow the polishing tool to follow the curvature of the processing surface and to provide a large contact surface also in the edge area of processing and thus a high removal rate [0157 of Geist] and also provide the polishing pressure is not significantly changed when the polishing tool is moved to the edge area of the processing surface [0158 of Geist] which promotes consistency and quality of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 13, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Schneider, as modified, teaches
wherein the polishing agent supply unit (240) is fluidly connected to the polishing tool (100) through the port (143) (see above rejection of claim 10, wherein the polishing agent supply unit (of Drain) is fluidly connected to the polishing tool of Schneider, as modified, via the inlet, port and channel), wherein preferably the gasket (144) radially seals against the polishing agent supply unit (240) to prevent the polishing agent from leakage and to enable the polishing agent entering the channel (140) only via the inlet (142) (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (EP 1652619), hereinafter Schneider, in view of Xin et al. (CN 110732933), hereinafter Xin, and further in view of Drain et al. (US PGPUB 20070155286), hereinafter Drain, and further in view of Geist et al. (US PGPUB 20210016410), hereinafter Geist, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Joo et al. (US PGPUB 20200009703), hereinafter Joo.
Regarding claim 12, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Schneider, as modified, does not explicitly teach
a control unit (230) for controlling the relative motion by the drive unit based on processing features, like the lens type, form and thickness, the polishing tool type, the polishing agent type,
wherein preferably the control unit (230) is configured to adapt a relative rotational speed between the optical surface (L1, L2) and the polishing tool (100), and/or a pressure for supplying the polishing agent to the polishing tool (100), and/or a flow rate of the polishing agent.
However, Joo teaches a polishing apparatus with a control unit that controls the processing parameters of the polishing tool [0114]. Specifically, Joo teaches
a control unit (230) (300 of Joo) for controlling the relative motion by the drive unit based on processing features (Joo teaches the control unit determines if the rotational speed of the polishing tool is within an allowable range and if the speed is not within the allowable range, the control unit sends the revising processing signal so that the rotational speed becomes within the allowable range by the driving motor [0114]. Therefore, Joo teaches the control unit 300 controls the relative motion by the drive unit (rotation speed by the driving motor) based on processing features (including desired ranges of speeds during processing)), like the lens type, form and thickness, the polishing tool type, the polishing agent type (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details),
wherein preferably the control unit (230) is configured to adapt a relative rotational speed between the optical surface (L1, L2) and the polishing tool (100), and/or a pressure for supplying the polishing agent to the polishing tool (100), and/or a flow rate of the polishing agent (The prior art is not required to teach this language. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schneider, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Joo to provide a control unit (230) (300 of Joo) for controlling the relative motion by the drive unit based on processing features. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the control unit of Joo into the system of Schneider, as modified, wherein the control unit maintains processing speeds within a desired range. Doing so would promote quality of the workpiece and prevent damage to the tool and workpiece.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (EP 1652619), hereinafter Schneider, in view of Xin et al. (CN 110732933), hereinafter Xin, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Togawa et al. (US PGPUB 20200376625), hereinafter Togawa.
Regarding claim 15, Schneider, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 14. Schneider, as modified, does not explicitly teach controlling a thickness of a layer of the polishing agent between the optical surface (L1, L2) and the polishing surface (130) by adapting a flow rate and/or supply pressure of the polishing agent based on a rotational speed of the polishing tool (100) and/or the spectacle lens (L).
However, Togawa teaches a polishing apparatus for polishing a workpiece, including
controlling a thickness of a layer of the polishing agent between the optical surface (L1, L2) and the polishing surface (130) by adapting a flow rate and/or supply pressure of the polishing agent based on a rotational speed of the polishing tool (100) and/or the spectacle lens (L) (Togawa teaches the controller 20 controls the discharge of the liquid depending on the rotation speeds of the rotary table and the polishing pad 102 and other associated parameters [0109]. Overall, Togawa teaches controlling a thickness (supply amount) of a layer of the polishing agent between the workpiece and the tool by adapting a flow rate (discharge rate) of the polishing agent based on a rotational speed of the polishing pad and table [0109]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schneider, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Togawa to provide controlling a thickness of a layer of the polishing agent between the optical surface (L1, L2) and the polishing surface (130) by adapting a flow rate and/or supply pressure of the polishing agent based on a rotational speed of the polishing tool (100) and/or the spectacle lens (L).
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the controller and controller functions of Togawa such that the controller controls the flow of polish based on a rotational speed of the rotational tool. Doing so would promote consistent processing, which promotes quality of the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would prevent overheating of the polishing process, which prevents damage to the tool and the workpiece.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mandler (US PGPUB 20160361790) teaches a lens polishing apparatus with relative motion between the tool and workpiece similar to the claimed invention.
Clarke et al. (US PGPUB 20190134771) teaches a lens polishing apparatus similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights