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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 2/1/2024 has been considered.
Preliminary Amendment
In the preliminary amendment of 2/1/2024, Applicant amended the specification, amended the Abstract and amended claims 1-10.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/294,413 filed on 2/1/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig 6 lacks any legends in the shown boxes.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a curling an end bend of a rod” in lines 5-6. It is suggested that the above quoted feature is replaced by “a curling of an end bend of a rod” for better clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first configuration" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it will be taken that the above quoted feature recites “a first configuration”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an optimal configuration" in line 8. It is not clear the parameters/structure the “optimal” configuration refers to. For examination purposes, it will be taken that the above quoted feature refers to “original” configuration (based on p. 3, lines 19-21 of the specification).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "end bend of a rod (temple curl)" in lines 5-6. The phrase "(temple curl)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes it will be taken that the above quoted feature recites "end bend of a rod”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the indications on how to solve the detected problems" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it will be taken that the above quoted feature recites "indications on how to solve the detected problems".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "considered as optimal" in line 7. It is not clear the parameters/structure the “optimal” (configuration) refers to. For examination purposes, it will be taken that the above quoted feature refers to “original” configuration (based on p. 3, lines 19-21 of the specification).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "detected to the optician" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it will be taken that the above quoted feature recites “detected to an optician”.
Claims 2-4 and 8-10 depend from claim 1 and are indefinite for the reasons given above.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental steps comprising comparing and analyzing data without significantly more. The claim recites “comparing the first configuration with the second configuration; analyzing the two configurations and determining the differences; and indicating problems detected between the two configurations, providing indications on how to solve them”. This belongs to the enumerated grouping of a judicial exception of abstract ideas, e.g., mental processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the scanning and saving steps are recited with a high degree of generality and are just extra-solution data gathering and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The indicating step is just a notification and is insignificant post-solution activity and thus not meaningful enough to render the claim eligible (See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an... abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post-solution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and post-solution activity and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons give above. The additional steps (processor implementing the actions, three-dimensional scanning, providing indications, checking the scanning, reporting the problems, and measuring from data are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and post-solution activity and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite “a computer program”. “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: … Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitation” (MPEP 2106.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmeister at al. (US 2015/0277154, hereinafter, “Hofmeister”) in view of Mason et al. (US 2016/0135925, hereinafter, “Mason”).
Regarding claim 1, Hofmeister discloses a method for maintaining glasses frame (Abstract) the method including the following steps:
carrying out a scanning of said glasses frame (Fig. 6, [0133]), wherein the scanning measures at least one characteristic of the frame included in a list comprising a front curve-face form angle, a pantoscopic angle, a curling of an end bend of a rod (temple wrap), a maximum opening angle of the rod, a rod bending (Fig. 38E, [0142]);
saving in a data file said at least one characteristic of the glasses frame ([0183]).
Hofmeister does not disclose (saving in a data file said at least one characteristic of the glasses frame) as a first configuration if it is an optimal configuration of the glasses frame, or as a second configuration if it is a modified configuration of the glasses frame;
comparing the first configuration with the second configuration;
analyzing the two configurations and determining the differences; and
indicating problems detected between the two configurations, providing indications on how to solve them.
Mason discloses a method for comparing and analyzing data representative of the state of a patient’s intraoral cavity (Abstract). In one embodiment, data 302, 304 representative of the state of the cavity at two different times is saved and compared to determine possible changes/problems and proving indications on how to solve them (Fig. 3, [0084]).
Both Hofmeister and Mason disclose taking scan data of an object (e.g., a frame, an intraoral cavity) for future processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Hofmeister so that two consecutive scans of the frame (for example, one representing the original frame and one representing a modified frame) are compared for further processing, as taught by Mason, for providing cost savings and improve customer (i.e., the owner of the frame) satisfaction, [0015] in Hofmeister.
Regarding claim 2, Hofmeister/Mason discloses the method according to claim 1 implemented in a computer program comprising a computer code running on an electronic computer performing operations of the method, wherein said computer comprises at least one memory comprising the data file and a processor to implement the actions of the method ([0183] in Hofmeister).
Regarding claim 3, Hofmeister/Mason discloses the method according to claim 1 whereby the scanning is carried out with a three-dimensional scanner, classifying the scanning as a three-dimensional scanning ([0020] in Hofmeister).
Regarding claim 4, Hofmeister/Mason discloses the method according to claim 1 whereby the scanning is carried out with an application scanning the glasses frame, wherein said application is a computer program loaded on a device electronic ([0166] in Hofmeister).
Regarding claim 5, Hofmeister/Mason discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the indications on how to solve the detected problems include at least one among making an appointment with a salesperson or an optician, an explanation on how solving the problems independently, a programming of a maintenance procedure, an indication of a need to change the glasses frame ([0184] in Hofmeister).
Regarding claim 6, Hofmeister/Mason discloses the method according to claim 1 further including the step of checking to verify if the scanning data is a first scanning by asking the user (1006 in Fig. 10A of Mason) or by verifying whether the characteristics of the glasses frame have already been saved in the data file,
in case it is a first scanning, or in case it is a configuration of the glasses frame considered as optimal, then the method saves the characteristics of the glasses frame in the data file, listing the characteristics as the first configuration of the glasses frame (1012 in Fig. 10A of Mason),
otherwise, the method saves the characteristics of the glasses frame in the data file as the second configuration of the glasses frame (1018 in Fig. 10A of Mason).
Regarding claim 7, Hofmeister/Mason discloses the method according to claim 1 further including a step of reporting the problems detected to the optician or to a manufacturer of the glasses frame ([0184] in Hofmeister).
Regarding claim 8, Hofmeister/Mason discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the execution of the scanning includes a step of data scanning and measuring from said data of said at least one characteristic of the glasses frame ([0184] in Hofmeister).
Regarding claim 9, Hofmeister/Mason discloses a computer program loadable into the memory of an electronic computer comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by the computer, carry out a method according to claim 1 ([0183] in Hofmeister).
Regarding claim 10, Hofmeister/Mason discloses the computer program according to claim 9, further comprising a user interface for signaling further lens or frame defects ([0133], [0166] in Hofmeister).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872