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 .
1.Claims 6-14 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 6, lines 11-13 recite “wherein the first mold is configured to move to a position that is closer to the first surface of the second body portion than to a first surface of the third body portion that faces the first body portion” and this requires clarification. As is apparent from instant Figure 4, the first body portion of the first mold does not move to such a position, since it is closer to the first surface of the third body portion than it is to the first surface of the second body portion. However, the first core portion of the first mold does move to such a position. Hence, it is unclear exactly what portion of the first mold “is configured…” as set forth at lines 11-13 of claim 6 and applicant needs to clarify this.
2.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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kanzaki 2020/0223164 (see PL 58a in Figs. 6a, 6b and 6c; paragraph 0051).
Kanzaki shows the formation of a plastic lens 22 with an optical portion that refracts light and a flange portion 52 extending therefrom wherein a parting line 58a is continuously formed along the circumference of the side surface of the flange portion—see Figs. 6a-6c and paragraph 0051.
3.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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanzaki 2020/0223164.
Kanzaki discloses the basic claimed lens as set forth in paragraph 1, supra, the reference failing to teach aspects set forth in claims 2-5 which are submitted to have been well within the skill level of the art. For instance, the limitations of instant claims 2 and 3 are submitted to have been obvious physical dimensions for the lens of Kanzaki dependent on the refractive power and size required for the lens, such parameters being obviously determined based on lens requirements. Also, given that the lens is to be reshaped to exact specifications, providing cutting portions on the edge of the flange would have been an obvious modification to the lens of Kanzaki to facilitate the cutting thereof. Due to the parting line being on the edge of the flange, it would be expected that the optical properties—ie, birefringence—at this are or areas would be different—ie, larger—than that of the other areas of the flange portion.
4.Claim(s) 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudet 4,569,807 (see Figs. 1-3B).
Boudet discloses the basic claimed molding apparatus as recited in instant claim 6 for manufacturing a plastic lens (10) comprising a first mold with a first body portion (12A) and a first core (13) accommodated therein, a second mold with a second body portion (12C) and a second core (14) accommodated therein and a third mold comprising a third body portion (12B) coupled to a first surface of the second body portion that faces the first body portion wherein the first core (13) is configured to be movable with respect to the second and third mold and wherein the first core (13) is configured to move to a position closer to the first surface of the second body portion than to a first surface of the third body portion that faces the first body portion (see Figs. 2B and 2C) and wherein, upon the first core being moved, a cavity that is surrounded by (1) the first core (13), (2) the second core (14), (3) the second body portion (12C) and (4) the third body portion (12B) is formed. Again, for the formation of the cavity, see Figs. 2B and 2C. It is seen in Fig. 2B that the initial cavity is between components 1, 2 and 4 while the final cavity as shown in Fig. 2C is between components 1, 2 and 3. However, as the first core (13) is moved, a molding cavity is formed between all components 1-4 at some point during the movement of the first core and hence the last paragraph of instant claim 6 is submitted to be met. Additionally, while Boudet desires to move the first core to form a final cavity so that it is no longer bounded by the third body portion as shown in Fig. 2C, it is clear that such is done to remove the excess material in the recesses of the third body portion completely. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to adjust the movement so that the third body portion forms a part of the final cavity if desired, albeit the excess would have to be cut off from around the lens in a subsequent cutting operation. This is conventionally done in the art to finish a molded lens and hence the inclusion of the third body portion as a final cavity boundary is seen to have been well within the skill level of the art in the operation of the molding apparatus of Boudet. Finally, it is clear that the apparatus of Boudet is inherently capable of forming a mold cavity involving all four of the above-noted surfaces. Essentially, Boudet fails to teach that the first mold –in its entirety-- moves –ie, core and body portion. It is submitted that the modification of the apparatus of Boudet to include motion of both the first core and the first body portion together would have been an obvious aspect to one of ordinary skill in the art dependent on the exact dimension of the first body portion. If such were made a little shorter, it is clear that both would be moved together and it is submitted that such would have been well within the skill level of the art. Boudet shows recess portions that are formed on the opposite surface to the first surface of the third body portion and it is submitted that the exact location of these recess portions would have been an obvious modification to the structure taught therein as such constitutes a mere rearrangement of parts that fulfill the same function. Providing the recess portions as recited in instant claim 8 is submitted to have been an obvious modification dependent on ease of excess resin collection in the recesses. The limitations of instant claims 9-12 are submitted to constitute obvious design considerations for the construction of the mold of Boudet dependent on exact degree of motion desired for the mold parts and to facilitate collection of the excess resin. Heating units as et forth in instant claims 13 and 14 are well known in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and such would have been an obvious modification to the device of Boudet to facilitate resin flow as needed. Claim 15 is rejected essentially for reasons of record in that it would have been obvious to provide motion for the entire first mold—body and core portion—for reasons already set forth.
5.The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Inoue et al 2005/0212154 discloses heating units (17 and 27) for upper and lower press molds.
6.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742