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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 03/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search for any invention embodied in Group I would necessarily include a search for the invention embodied in Group II. This is not found persuasive because the method as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product, such as the polishing agent being applied from above the workpiece carrier for cooling purposes, or the polishing agent passing through the permeable lining and then cooled to define a specific mold shape adapted to the shape of the optical lens. Therefore, the search for one invention, i.e. apparatus claims, will not necessarily yield relevant art of the method claims and these two individualized searches between apparatus and method would be overly burdensome on the Examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 6 are objected to because of the following antecedent basis informalities:
Claim 1, ll. 6-7, consider amending to, --mirror, and wherein the lining (4) is configured as
Claim 2, ll. 2, consider amending to, --polishing agent (8) is formed between the at least one first surface (3) of the optical lens (2) or of the—
Claim 4, ll. 3, consider amending to, --adapted to a shape of the at least one first surface (3) of the optical lens (2) or of the optical mirror,--
Claim 6, ll. 3, consider amending to, --slide in [[the]]an axial direction in the at least one line (9).—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 7-8 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 3 recites the term “in particular” rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claim invention. See MPEP 2173.005(d). For examination purposes, the limitation following the term “in particular” are optional.
Claim 7 recites the term “preferably” rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claim invention. See MPEP 2173.005(d). For examination purposes, the limitation(s) following the term “preferably” are optional.
Claim 8 is rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b) since it is dependent on claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH04201039 (JP’039), as provided by applicant in IDS filed on 02/01/2024 and translation provided by Examiner.
The embodiment of fig. 5 is utilized in the following rejection; however, specific reference numbers and features are shown in earlier figures. Please refer to those figures for details.
Regarding claim 1, JP’039 discloses a device for polishing an optical lens (embodiment of fig. 5), using a liquid polishing agent (item 18; p. 4, ll. 18 in NPL), wherein the device has a workpiece carrier (item 25; p. 5, ll. 1-2; fig. 5) for establishing at least a first surface of the optical lens (workpiece carrier is disposed below lower surface of optical lens, i.e. first surface of optical lens), wherein the workpiece carrier has a porous and elastic lining (item 26; p. 5, ll. 1; fig. 5) for establishing the at least one first surface of the optical lens (porous and elastic lining 26 establishes the at least one first surface of optical lens 16’ by directly engaging with the at least one surface; similar to applicant’s disclosure), and wherein the lining is configured as a lining that is permeable for the polishing agent (p. 5, ll. 9 through p. 10, ll. 4; lining 26 is formed of sponge rubber with pores and thereby, capable of allowing the liquid polishing agent 18 to pass through via pores).
Regarding claim 3, JP’039 discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lining comprises an elastic form material (p. 5, ll. 9-10; lining 26 is an elastic body from sponge rubber or the like).
Regarding claim 7, JP’039 discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a lens guide ring (item 27; p. 5, ll. 2-5; fig. 5) is provided for alignment (p. 5, ll. 17-18; lens guide ring 27 fits lens to be processed into place, i.e. aligned).
Regarding claim 8, JP’039 discloses the device as claimed in claim 7, wherein a gap (item 29; fig. 5) is arranged between the lens guide ring and the optical lens (fig. 5).
The recitations “for the polishing agent” is considered to be an intended use limitation. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the lining is porous and the polishing agent may pass through and fall within gap between the lens guide ring and the lining.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102020008132 (DE’132), as provided by applicant in IDS filed on 02/01/2024 and translation provided by Examiner, in view of Urban (US 2006/0199481).
Regarding claim 1, DE’132 discloses a device for polishing an optical lens (fig. 1; lens 50), using a liquid polishing agent (defined as polishing suspension S; pp. [0025] and [0042] in NPL), wherein the device has a workpiece carrier (includes items 10, 11, 20; figs. 1-2) for establishing at least a first surface of the optical lens (first surface S1; pp. [0044]; figs. 1-2).
DE’132 does not explicitly disclose wherein the workpiece carrier further includes a porous and elastic lining for establishing the at least one first surface of the optical lens and wherein the lining is configured as permeable for the polishing agent.
However, Urban (US 2006/0199481) teaches a polishing tool for fine machining of optical lenses using a liquid polishing agent (abstract and pp. [0035] and [0038]; fig. 1), wherein the tool includes a workpiece carrier (item 10; fig. 1) and a porous and elastic lining (item 16; pp. [0038]; fig. 1), and wherein the lining is configured as permeable for the polishing agent (lining 16 includes pores for the rinsing and cooling of the liquid polishing agent; pp. [0038]; fig. 1). The polishing agent in Urban is analogous to the polishing suspension in DE’132 which is similarly disposed between the optical lens and the polishing tool during the polishing process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device, as disclosed in DE’132, to include a lining between the workpiece carrier and at least first surface of the lens (corresponding to the position of the lining between the workpiece carrier and at least first surface of the polishing disc in Urban), as taught in Urban, to assist in better circulation and more uniform film of polishing suspension onto the surface of the lens being machined (pp. [0009] in Urban).
Regarding claim 2, DE’132 as modified discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein during a polishing process, a layer composed of polishing agent is formed between the at least one first surface of the optical lens and the lining (pp. [0042]; polishing suspension is located within chamber 12 behind at least one first surface S1 and gap SP; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, DE’132 as modified discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lining comprises an elastic form material (Urban; lining 16 is an elastic foam; pp. [0035] and [0038] in Urban).
Regarding claim 4, DE’132 as modified discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lining is configured to be adapted to a shape of the at least one first surface of the optical lens (Urban; lining 16 is a foam capable of being molded and adapted to fit the shape of the surface in which the foam is attached to, i.e. in this instance, the first surface of the lens in DE’132).
DE’132 as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the lining is arranged in the workpiece carrier so as to be replaceable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lining to be replaceable since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements for maintenance and/or repair involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.V-C).
Regarding claim 5, DE’132 as modified discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one line for polishing agent is arranged in the workpiece carrier (item 10; fig. 1; similar to applicant’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 7, DE’132 as modified discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a lens guide ring (item 11; fig. 1) is provided for alignment (pp. [0041-0042]; lens guide ring 11 fits lens to be processed into place, i.e. aligned).
Regarding claim 8, DE’132 as modified discloses the device as claimed in claim 7, wherein a gap (item SP; fig. 1) is arranged between the lens guide ring and the optical lens (pp. [0042]; gap SP is formed between lens guide ring 11 and circumference of optical lens LU; fig. 1).
The recitations “for the polishing agent” is considered to be an intended use limitation. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the gap is formed between the lens circumference and the lens guide ring through which the polishing suspension (i.e. polishing agent) exits.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH04201039 (JP;039), as provided by applicant in IDS filed on 02/01/2024 and translation provided by Examiner.
Regarding claim 4, JP’039 discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lining is configured to be adapted to a shape of the at least one first surface of the optical lens (p. 6, ll. 1-4; lining 26 is capable of adapting, i.e. conforming, to the at least one first surface of the lens 16’, fig. 5).
JP’039 does not explicitly disclose wherein the lining is arranged in the workpiece carrier so as to be replaceable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lining to be replaceable since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements for maintenance and/or repair involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.V-C).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102020008132 (DE’132), as provided by applicant in IDS filed on 02/01/2024 and translation provided by Examiner, in view of Urban (US 2006/0199481) and further in view of Mandler (DE 10057228), as provided by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 6, DE’132 as modified discloses the device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the at least one line has a pipe (defined as tubing through which S extends through the at least one line 10; fig.), but does not disclose wherein the at least one line is arranged to slide in an axial direction in the line.
However, Mandler (DE’228) teaches a device (fig. 1) for polishing an optical lens (item 4), wherein the device comprises a workpiece carrier (includes items 1, 2, 3, 5; fig. 1) having a lining (item 4; fig. 1) and at least one line (item 2; fig. 1) for a polishing agent (i.e. air), wherein the at least one line has a pipe (item 12; fig. 1) that is able to slide in an axial direction in the line (via item 26; fig. 1; pp. [0062-0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the workpiece carrier, as disclosed in DE’132, to include a return spring within the workpiece carrier to move the pipe in an axial direction, as taught in Mandler, in order to provide the workpiece carrier with a desired gimbal-like mobility and axially adjust the workpiece carrier relative to a polishing disc when desired (pp. [0044-0047] in Mandler).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feucht (JP2006116697) discloses a device for polishing an optical lens capable of using a liquid polishing agent, wherein the device has a workpiece carrier with a porous and elastic lining.
Schafer (US 2025/0222554) discloses a device for polishing an optical lens using a polishing agent, wherein the device has a workpiece carrier with a porous and elastic lining that is configured as semi-permeable.
Mauderer (US 11,662,544) discloses a device for polishing an optical lens using a liquid polishing agent, wherein the device has a workpiece carrier with a porous and elastic lining that is permeable for the polishing agent.
Banks (US Patent No. 4,373,991) discloses a device for polishing using a liquid polishing agent, wherein the device has a workpiece carrier with a porous lining that is permeable for the polishing agent and the polishing agent forms a layer between the workpiece and the lining.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights