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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT Claims 1-5 in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 10/09/2025 is acknowledged. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 6-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 10/09/2025 . Claim Objections Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT "the feed unit" in line 1 of the claim should read "the at least one feed unit" for consistency with claim 1, line 6 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim s 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: " bottom of the nozzle " in line 1 0 of the claim should read " bottom the rotating nozzle " for consistency with claim 1, line 12 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation 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: FILLIN "Identify each claim limitation." \d "[ 1 ]" drive module , displacement module in claims FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) in which each respective limitation appears." \d "[ 2 ]" 3-4 ; and arc generating module , rotating power module in claim 5. 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 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1 recites the limitation s " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT placing a lens of at least one quasi-contact lens on a pallet " in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT line 3 and "the lens of the quas i -contact lens" in lines 13 and lines 14-15 of the claim . Is a lens or a quasi-contact lens being placed on the pallet? Is the lens from a group of quasi-contact lenses ? Or vice-versa? Is the lens a quasi-contact lens? This limitations is unclear. Examiner presumes the limitations means the lens is a quasi-contact. Hence, f or examination purposes, the limitation s are read as “placing a lens of at least one quasi-contact lens on a pallet” in line 3 and “the lens of the at least one quasi-contact lens” in lines 13 and 14-15 . Claims 2-5 are rejected for dependence on claim 1. Claims 2 also recites the limitation “the lens of the quasi-contact lens” in lines 2-3, 3-4 and 4-5 is rejected for the same reasons above and is also interpreted as “the lens of the at least one quasi-contact lens”. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 2 recites the limitation " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT wherein the plasma output f ro m the electric arc generating unit is sprayed " in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT lines 1-2 of the claim . However, no plasma output has been previously referenced; nor has it been established that the plasma is sprayed from the electric arc generating unit (reference claim 1, line 12 “ spraying the plasma from a rotating nozzle ”). For examination purposes, the limitation is read as “ wherein the plasma output fr o m the electric arc generating unit rotating nozzle is sprayed ”. Claim 2 recites the limitation " for clearing impurities clogged pores of the " in line 3 of the claim . The wording of this limitation is unclear. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to read as “ for clearing impurities clogged within pores of the ”. Claim 5 recites the limitation " a nozzle arranged at a bottom... with at least one spray hole " in line s 6-7 of the claim . It is unclear if said nozzle is referring to the rotating nozzle of claim 1, 12 ( i.e., spraying the plasma form a rotating nozzle ) or is separate therefrom. Based on paragraphs 0017-0020 and Figure 3, Examiner presumes the nozzles are the same. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as “ FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT a the rotating nozzle arranged at a bottom... with at least one spray hole ”. Allowable Subject Matter Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 1-5 would be allowable if the 112b rejections identified above are resolved. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: FILLIN "Enter explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT Claim 1 would be allowable for requiring: “ placing a lens of at least one quasi-contact lens on a pallet of a modification processing machine for contact lenses; driving at least one of an electric arc generating unit and the pallet to move by at least one feed unit of the modification processing machine for contact lenses while the electric arc generating unit is connected with a gas supply unit; introducing water-free working gas from the gas supply unit to the electric arc generating unit and ionizing the working gas into plasma by the electric arc generating unit; and spraying the plasma from a rotating nozzle arranged at the electric arc generating unit to hit a surface of the lens of the [at least one] quasi-contact lens for formation of at least one circular groove on the surface of the l ens of the [at least one] quasi-contact lens. ” While the use of plasma to surface treat contact lenses is known in the art, the art neither teaches nor suggest a specific method as claimed above. The closes t prior art, Suzuki ( US 200 2 /0064597 A1 ) discloses a method for modifying an ophthalmic lens surface (Figures; paragraph 0012), comprising: p roviding at least one lens on a holder ( 68 in Figure 8; paragraph 0075) of a processing system; driving the holder to move by at least one feed unit (conveyor 66); introducing gas to a plasma generating device and converting the gas into plasma by the plasma generating device (paragraphs 0049-0050, gas is supplied by a pump… gas jetted from the outlet 24 blows the plasma generated between the electrodes 14, 16 outside the plasma generating device ); and spraying the plasma onto a surface of the lens (Figure 8; paragraph 0078, plasma gas blown out from the t wo heads 10, 10 of the respective two plasma generating devices is blown onto the front and back surfaces of the contact lens 28 ). Further , Suzuki discloses providing the outlet of the plasma generating device with a planar member (50, 60 in Figures 6-7) having perforations (54, 64) which enhance the surface medication of the lens by the plasma (paragraph 0071-0073). However, Suzuki fails to teach or suggest a method for modifying a lens surface using a machine wherein a plasma is sprayed from a rotating nozzle of a plasma generating device to form at least one circular groove on the surface of the lens. In fact, Suzuki discloses the entirety of the surface of the lens is surface modified with the plasma (paragraph 0071, lens is uniformly modified ; Figure 8, both sides of lens is treated ). Another prior art, Hiroshi (JP2016081842A, disclose s a plasma process apparatus (101 in Figure 30) suitable for surface treatment of contact lenses (paragraph 0068) , comprising a plasma generation unit (108); and a gas supply path (110). A gas is supplied via the gas supply path to the plasma generation unit and plasma is emitted from the plasma generation unit via a nozzle member (113) to process a material (106). Further , Hiroshi discloses providing the plasma process apparatus with a deflection member (13) having various structures (Figure 14) to change the flow of the plasma emitted by the plasma process apparatus. However, similar to the above, Hiroshi fails to teach or suggest forming a circular groove in a surface of the lens via rotating the source of the plasma. Another prior art, Rastogi ( U S 2005/0045589 A1 ), discloses a method for plasma treating an intraocular or contact lens (Figure 1), comprising supporting a surface of the intraocular or contact lens with a spindle (32) to expose an opposite surface of the lens to a first treatment process (100-106); using the spindle as one electrode (108); transferring the lens to an opposite spindle (34) to support the treated opposite surface of the lens and to expose the surface of the lens to a second treatment process (108) . However, similar to the above, Rastogi fails to teach or suggest forming a circular groove in a surface of the lens via rotating the source of the plasma. Another prior art, Kast l (US 2021/0129391 A1), discloses a method of removing a lens forming material deposited on a lens forming surface ( 1 in Figure 1), compris ing providing a plasma (2) from a plasma generating device ( 4 ) ; exposing the lens forming surface to the plasma for removing the lens forming material deposited on the lens forming surface ( paragraphs 0065) . However, similar to the above, Kastl fails to teach or suggest forming a circular groove in a surface of the lens via rotating the source of the plasma. Further, Kast l discloses the surface being cleaned is not a lens, but is a mold for forming the lens. Claims 2-5 would be allowable at least for depending on claim 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Virak Nguon whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4196 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7001 . 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. /VIRAK NGUON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741 12/10/2025