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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant notes that drawings are not typically necessary for the claimed method where the recited steps are clearly disclosed in the specification…Withdrawal of this objection is therefore respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that “Drawings are required when they are necessary for the understanding of the invention (PCT Art. 7)…The international application must contain drawings when they are necessary for the understanding of the invention. Moreover where, without drawings being actually necessary for the understanding of the invention, its nature admits of illustration by drawings, the applicant may include such drawings and any designated Office may require the applicant to file such drawings during the national phase. Flow sheets and diagrams are considered drawings.” See 37 CFR 1.437, PCT Rule 7, PCT Rule 11, and MPEP § 608.02 for further clarification. Examiner also reminds the applicant that enabling the public to understand the invention and its scope is just as important as enabling a person skilled in the art to understand, for “[t]he requirement for an adequate disclosure ensures that the public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent.” See MPEP § 608. Accordingly, the drawings of the present application remain objected to for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims (for example, flow sheets in cases of processes, and diagrammatic views, see 37 CFR 1.81(b)).
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant notes that claim 4 has a scope wider than that of claims 9 and 10. For instance, a regular geometrical figure in the sense of claim 4 can be an interrupted curve (for instance, a circle in dotted line). That is why claim 9 is a narrowing limitation of claim 4, and claim 10 is a narrowing limitation of claim 9. Withdrawal of this rejection is solicited," the Examiner traverses. Claim 10 attempts to further limit Claim 9, but it fails to do so since Claim 9 recites mutually exclusive geometric alternatives, for Claim 10 reciting an option of a circle is not within an alternative of Claim 9 reciting a polygon. Thus, Claim 10 does not consistently narrow Claim 9, for it partially contradicts one of the selections of Claim 9. Examiner invites the applicant to provide evidence or explanation demonstrating how a circle can be considered a further limitation of a polygon. A dependent claim must further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends, but Claim 10 does not impose an additional limitation applicable to Claim 9. Since the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained, Claim 10 is further rejected under § 112(b). See 112(d) rejections below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Consequently, the Applicant respectfully traverses these objections based on the following reasons. Claim 1 explicitly recites the methodological steps required to achieve the result…Methods that determine the optical center via other means are excluded," the Examiner traverses. Claim 1 is indefinite under § 112(b), for the limitations “processing said image,” “determining…a position of at least one characterization point,” and “deducing the position of the optical center” are recited in purely functional terms. These limitations recite generic processing performed by a processing unit without reciting structure or acts for performing the claimed functions. Examiner notes that the as-filed specification fails to disclose corresponding structure, algorithms, acts for performing these functions, or fails to clearly link or associate any such disclosure with the claimed functions. The as-filed specification does not support the full breadth of the claims, which cover all ways of deducing an optical center from at least three markings. Thus, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. See MPEP §§ 2181, 2183, and 2173. See § 112(f) invoke and 112(b) rejections below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The same applies to claim 3, which has a scope narrowed to an embodiment wherein the determination of the optical center must rely upon the positions of the characterization points of all centering markings…Therefore, the claim scope is reasonably certain and satisfies the requirements of 35 USC 112 (b)," the Examiner traverses. Examiner notes that the claims are directed to extracting information from images and performing mathematical or geometric reasoning to determine a location, which is implemented using generic imaging and processing components, without any technological improvement or specific implementation. The method steps recited are generic data acquisition, analysis, and result steps, wherein the image sensor and processing unit are recited functionally and generically. In other words, no claim element nor limitation within these claims specify a particular algorithm, data structure, optical configuration, or processing technique that improves computer and imaging technology. Furthermore, “a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear.” Examiner submits that different infringement conclusions utilizing the same input data provided by the claims could be reached, and thus, the claims lack objective boundaries required under § 112(b). For example: the geometric centroid method satisfies the claim limitations; for each marking, a geometric centroid of the marking shape is selected as the characterization point through utilizing simple triangulation to determine the optical center; an intensity-based peak method also satisfies the claim limitations; the brightest pixel for each marking is selected as the characterization point utilizing a least squares fit to determine the center; a manual point selection also satisfies the claim limitations; a point based on subjective judgement can be manually selected for each marking through connecting the three points with a triangle and picking the intersection of medians as the optical center. See MPEP 2173.04. See response to previous argument above and 112(f) invoke and 112(b) rejections below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant disagrees…In the claimed variant objected to, the manual adjustment is not merely a capability of the device, but a specific procedural step defined by the claim language. In the present case, it is clear that infringement occurs when the position of the ophthalmic lens relative to said part is manually adjusted…Withdrawal of these rejections are respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. Applicant admits that, in the present case, infringement occurs when the position of the ophthalmic lens relative to said part is manually adjusted. Examiner reminds the applicant that since a specific action/function performed by a user is recited, rather than a clearly defined structure or algorithm, the claims are to be rejected under § 112(b). “In Katz, a claim directed to “[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” Relying on manual adjustment for infringement makes it difficult to determine with reasonable certainty whether a particular act falls within the claimed scope. Such reliance on user-performed actions constitutes the indefiniteness inherent in the claims and supports rejection under § 112(b).
In response to the applicant's argument that "In the embodiment of Figure 17, the lens comprises a circular (o) mark 3A and an H-shaped mark 3B. In the embodiment of Figure 18, the lens comprises two circular (o) marks 3A and 3C. These two figures show distinct embodiments (§37). Therefore, in any single embodiment (Fig. 17 OR Fig. 18), the lens does not comprise 3 centering markings, so that this document does not disclose the determining and deducing operations claimed in claim 1. The Examiner states that the marks 3A, 3B and 3C are used to center the lens. Applicant points out that 3B and 3C are alternative marks, located on distinct lenses. The marking 3B is used to center the lens of Figure 17 whereas the mark 3C is used to center the lens of Figure 18. Consequently, claim 1 is not anticipated by Yoda," the Examiner traverses. Yoda explicitly discloses “According to this embodiment, an image of the processing target lens 1 is sensed and binarized. Geometrical feature parameters of each graphic pattern contained in the binarized image are extracted. Graphic patterns with these feature parameters satisfying predetermined conditions are extracted as images of the micro engraved marks 3A, 3B, and 3C formed on the processing target lens 1 in advance…the reference position of the processing target lens 1 can be obtained by detecting the micro engraved marks 3A, 3B, and 3C by image processing” ([0135]). Applicant’s argument improperly conflates separate figures with distinct embodiments, ignoring that a single embodiment can be illustrated across multiple figures. Accordingly, the teachings of figs. 17 and 18 are properly considered collectively for anticipation under § 102 rejection.
In response to the applicant's argument that "However, to further clarify the claimed feature, claim 1 has been amended to specify that "the position of the optical center of said ophthalmic lens is deduced from the position of said at least one characterization point of each of said at least three of said distinct centering markings". Yoda clearly does not disclose or suggest this. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the claims, as amended, are both novel and non-obvious. Reconsideration and allowance of all the claims are respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's assertion that "Yoda clearly does not disclose or suggest this" is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's findings. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method for centering an ophthalmic lens, steps, determining, for at least three of said centering markings, the position of at least one characterization point of each centering mark, deducing therefrom the position of the optical center of said ophthalmic lens, a function of the position of the characterization points, step of processing, position of the optical center is deduced from the position of said determined regular geometrical figure, performed by a least square fitting method, step of deducing a lens axis from the orientation of said determined regular geometrical figure, process for centering and blocking an ophthalmic lens, first operation of centering said ophthalmic lens, second operation of blocking said ophthalmic lens by means of a blocking accessory that is deposited onto the ophthalmic lens in a blocking position, being determined and sent to an edging machine in view of the edging of said ophthalmic lens, and position of the ophthalmic lens relative to said part is manually adjusted must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(f) & 112(b)
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.
With respect to Claims 1, 12, and 15-16, claim limitations “acquiring at least one image of said ophthalmic lens by means of an image sensor,” and “processing said image to find a position of an optical center of said ophthalmic lens by means of a processing unit” in Claim 1, “a second operation of blocking said ophthalmic lens by means of a blocking accessory that is deposited onto the ophthalmic lens in a blocking position” in Claim 12, and “centering means mounted on the chassis, which include an image sensor for acquiring images of the ophthalmic lens when received on the part” in Claims 15 and 16, 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.
These limitations define the claimed invention solely by what is achieved and not how it is structurally or methodically implemented. The as-filed specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing these functions, and does not clearly link any disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions. For example, the as-filed specification does not disclose any algorithm, processing steps, or geometric/mathematical method for determining the optical center. The claims merely rely on generic components (i.e., image sensor, processing unit, centering means, etc.). Although a least square fitting method is mentioned in the disclosure and in Claims 6 and 17, the disclosure still fails to provide sufficient detail about how the algorithm is applied to the characterization points, how the points are selected, or how the sum of distances is computed and minimized in practice. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the bounds of the claims which renders them indefinite.
Therefore, Claims 1-17 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) & 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites “wherein said distinct centering markings are distributed along a virtual regular geometrical figure,” while Claim 9 defines “according to claim 4, wherein said virtual regular geometrical figure is a polygon or a closed curve or a combination of segments and curves” and Claim 10 defines “according to claim 9, wherein said virtual regular geometrical figure is a circle or a rectangle or a diamond or hexagonal.” For example, Claim 10 reciting an option of a circle is not within an alternative of Claim 9 reciting a polygon. Since Claim 10 inconsistently redefines the same elements of Claims 4 and 9, rather than further limiting them, the claim fails comply with the requirements of § 112(d). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Since the scope of Claim 10 cannot be ascertained, Claim 10 is also 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.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-17 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.
With respect to Claims 1, 3-4, and 8, and notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942) See MPEP §2173.05(g).
In the current instance, “step of processing comprises: determining, for at least three of said centering markings, the position of at least one characterization point of each centering mark, and deducing therefrom the position of the optical center of said ophthalmic lens,” in Claim 1, “wherein the position of the optical center of said ophthalmic lens is determined as a function of the position of the characterization points of all the centering markings of the ophthalmic lens” in Claim 3, “wherein the position of the optical center is deduced from the position of said determined regular geometrical figure” in Claim 4, and “wherein said method comprises a step of deducing a lens axis from the orientation of said determined regular geometrical figure” in Claim 8 could involve many different algorithms, geometric constructions, or fitting procedures. Without specifying a procedure or constraint, a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine whether any given method fails within these claim limitations, and thus, these limitations recite a result/function achieved by the invention and renders the claim language ambiguous and indefinite. Furthermore, multiple non-equivalent mathematical and geometric methods could produce entirely different results which also makes the claim boundaries unclear. For example: the geometric centroid method satisfies the claim limitations; for each marking, a geometric centroid of the marking shape is selected as the characterization point through utilizing simple triangulation to determine the optical center; an intensity-based peak method also satisfies the claim limitations; the brightest pixel for each marking is selected as the characterization point utilizing a least squares fit to determine the center; a manual point selection also satisfies the claim limitations; a point based on subjective judgement can be manually selected for each marking through connecting the three points with a triangle and picking the intersection of medians as the optical center. See MPEP 2173.04.
With respect to Claim 14, [a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP § 2173.
In the current instance, “the position of the ophthalmic lens relative to said part is manually adjusted” in Claim 14 recites a method of using the apparatus within a method/process claim limitation. Thus, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows the position of the ophthalmic lens relative to said part to be manually adjusted, or whether infringement occurs when the position of the ophthalmic lens relative to said part is manually adjusted. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) & MPEP § 2173(p). Examiner reminds the applicant that since a specific action/function performed by a user is recited, rather than a clearly defined structure or algorithm, the claims are to be rejected under § 112(b). “In Katz, a claim directed to “[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005).”
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a method for centering an ophthalmic lens, a process for centering and blocking an ophthalmic lens, a centering apparatus, and a processing unit adapted for performing the process.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoda et al. US 20010055111 A1 (herein after "Yoda").
With respect to Claim 1, Yoda discloses a method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10), comprising steps of:
- positioning the ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) on a part of a centering apparatus (lens supply unit 103 places progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1 to be edged on lens holder 37 of image sensing optical system 105; [0079]);
- acquiring ([0084]) at least one image (image projected on light-receiving surface into image signal; [0084]) of said ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) by means of an image sensor (image signal output from image sensing unit 48 of image sensing optical system 105; [0085]); and
- processing said image (image processing; [0086]) to find a position of an optical center (middle point C detected by image processing unit 106 is geometrical center O of processing target lens 1; [0129]) of said ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) by means of a processing unit (image processing unit 106; [0085]),
wherein, said ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) comprising several distinct centering markings (marks 3A, 3B, and 3C; [0135]), said step (fig. 8-10) of processing (image processing; [0086]) comprises:
determining ([0135]), for at least three of said distinct centering markings (marks 3A, 3B, and 3C; [0135]), a position of at least one characterization point of each distinct centering marking (positional definitions common to all processing target lenses 1 are set between micro engraved marks 3A, 3B, and 3C and reference position O, so reference position of processing target lens 1 is obtained by detecting micro engraved marks 3A, 3B, and 3C by image processing; [0135]), and
deducing the position (reference position/geometrical center C or O having positional relationship with processing center position 11 is obtained on binarized image on basis of positions of extracted micro engraved marks; [0135]) of the optical center (geometrical center O of the processing target lens 1; [0129]) of said ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) from the position of said at least one characterization point (positional definitions common to all processing target lenses 1 are set between micro engraved marks 3A, 3B, and 3C and reference position O, so reference position of processing target lens 1 is obtained by detecting micro engraved marks 3A, 3B, and 3C by image processing; [0135]) of each of said at least three of said distinct centering markings (images of micro engraved marks 3A, 3B, and 3C formed on processing target lens 1; [0135]).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 2, Yoda discloses the method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 1, wherein the characterization point is a geometrical center (reference position/geometrical center C or O; [0135]) of the distinct centering marking (marks 3A, 3B, and 3C; [0135]).
With respect to Claim 3, Yoda discloses the method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 1, wherein the position of the optical center (geometrical center O of the processing target lens 1; [0129]) of said ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) is determined as a function of the position of the characterization points (positional definitions common to all processing target lenses 1 are set between micro engraved marks 3A, 3B, and 3C and reference position O, so reference position of processing target lens 1 is obtained by detecting micro engraved marks 3A, 3B, and 3C by image processing; [0135]) of all the distinct centering markings (marks 3A, 3B, and 3C; [0135]) of the ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]).
With respect to Claim 4, Yoda discloses the method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 1, wherein said distinct centering markings (marks 3A, 3B, and 3C; [0135]) are distributed along a virtual regular geometrical figure (dotted horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; as seen in fig. 18), said step of processing (image processing; [0086]) comprises a positioning of a determined regular geometrical figure (solid horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; fig. 17) on said image (image projected on light-receiving surface into image signal; [0084]) so that this determined regular geometrical figure (horizontal lines 2 with curved segments; fig. 17-18) passes through the characterization points (passing through reference position/geometrical center O; [0041]) of said at least three distinct centering markings (marks 3A, 3B, and 3C; [0135]), and wherein the position of the optical center (geometrical center O of the processing target lens 1; [0129]) is deduced from the position (micro engraved marks formed at two positions spaced apart from geometrical center O on horizontal reference line 2 by an equal distance; [0041]) of said determined regular geometrical figure (solid horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; fig. 17).
With respect to Claim 5, Yoda discloses the method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 4, wherein said step of processing (image processing; [0086]) also comprises a scale (e.g., spaced apart by 17 mm, micro engraved marks formed at two positions spaced apart from geometrical center O on horizontal reference line 2 by an equal distance; [0041]) of said determined regular geometrical figure (solid horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; fig. 17) so that this determined regular geometrical figure (horizontal lines 2 with curved segments; fig. 17-18) passes through the characterization points (passing through reference position/geometrical center O; [0041]) of said at least three distinct centering markings (marks 3A, 3B, and 3C; [0135]).
With respect to Claim 6, Yoda discloses the method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 4, wherein the positioning (fig. 17-18) is performed by a least square fitting method (reference positions separated from geometrical center O are fixed, e.g., eyepoint 11 fixed at position separated upward from geometrical center O by distance d1 e.g., 2 mm, and distance center 12 is fixed at position separated upward from position of eyepoint 11 by distance d2 e.g., 4 mm, and thus, position of geometrical center O or eyepoint 11 obtained by inputting images of micro engraved marks 3A and 3B along horizontal lines 2 and calculating their position coordinates by image processing; [0042]; as seen in fig. 12a-12b, & 17).
With respect to Claim 7, Yoda discloses the method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 4, wherein a shape (image processing unit 106 extracts geometrical feature parameters from respective concatenation components e.g., horizontal reference lines 2 and stores them in memory; [0090]; image processing unit 106 obtains line segment connecting center of the small circle region and center of H region e.g., a vector shape, calculates angle defined by vector V and horizontal reference line 2 of image sensing processing apparatus; [0106]) of said determined regular geometrical figure (solid horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; fig. 17) is determined either manually or automatically by the processing unit (image processing unit 106; [0085]) as a function of said image (image projected on light-receiving surface into image signal; [0084]).
With respect to Claim 8, Yoda discloses the method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 4, wherein said determined regular geometrical figure (solid horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; fig. 17) does not exhibit a symmetry of revolution (as seen in fig. 12a-12b, & 17-18) and wherein said method comprises a step of deducing a lens axis (major axis L1, and minor axis L2 of each concatenation component are extracted; [0096]; lens axis as seen in fig. 12a-12b, & 17-18) from an orientation (rotational angle of processing target lens 1 with respect to horizontal reference line 2; [0106]) of said determined regular geometrical figure (solid horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; fig. 17).
With respect to Claim 9, Yoda discloses the method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 4, wherein said virtual regular geometrical figure (dotted horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; as seen in fig. 18) is a polygon or a closed curve or a combination of segments and curves (horizontal reference line 2 segment with curves; [0041]; as seen in fig. 17-18).
With respect to Claim 11, Yoda discloses the method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 4, wherein, the distinct centering markings (marks 3A, 3B, and 3C; [0135]) are distributed along at least two coaxial virtual regular geometrical figures (dotted horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; as seen in fig. 18) of a same type (micro engraved marks formed at two positions spaced apart from geometrical center O on horizontal reference lines 2 by an equal distance; [0041]).
With respect to Claim 12, Yoda discloses a process for centering and blocking an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10), comprising:
a first operation of centering said ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) according to claim 1 (image processing unit 106 sets centers of minimum circumscribed circles of respective regions; [0116], calculates coordinates of middle point C geometrical center O; [0117]); and
a second operation of blocking (progressive multifocal lens image sensing processing apparatus forms a layout blocker, and is juxtaposed with an edger; [0073]) said ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) by means of a blocking accessory (processing jig/lens holder mounted on progressive multifocal lens 1; [0073]) that is deposited onto the ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) in a blocking position (blocking to mount lens holder at processing center of progressive multifocal lens 1; [0073]).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 13, Yoda discloses the process (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 12, wherein said blocking position (blocking to mount lens holder at processing center of progressive multifocal lens 1; [0073]) is:
the position of the optical center (geometrical center O of the processing target lens 1; [0129]) of said ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]), or
another position (block data, data representing position of eyepoint 11 with reference to geometrical center O; [0128]), said blocking position (blocking to mount lens holder at processing center of progressive multifocal lens 1; [0073]) relative to said optical center (geometrical center O of the processing target lens 1; [0129]) being determined ([0073]) and sent to an edging machine (processing target lens 1 conveyed to edger is subjected to edging such as an arris process by edger on basis of lens frame shape data; [0134]) in view of an edging (progressive multifocal lens image sensing processing apparatus forms a layout blocker, and is juxtaposed with an edger; [0073]) of said ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]).
With respect to Claim 14, Yoda discloses the process (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 12, wherein, before depositing the blocking accessory (processing jig/lens holder mounted on progressive multifocal lens 1; [0073]) onto the ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]):
the position of the blocking accessory (processing jig/lens holder mounted on progressive multifocal lens 1; [0073]) relative to the ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) is automatically adjusted (accurately and automatically positioning progressive multifocal lens 1 and lens holder; [0010]), while the ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) remains stationary relative to said part (lens holder 37 chucks/fixes the processing target lens 1 on the opening portion of the upper surface of a lens support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7) of said centering apparatus (image sensing optical system 105; [0079]), or
the position of the ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) relative to said part is manually adjusted (spectacle lens 1 and lens holder 200 can be positioned manually by an operator; [0136]).
With respect to Claim 15, Yoda discloses a centering apparatus (image sensing optical system 105; [0079]) including:
a chassis (support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7);
a part (lens holder 37; [0079]) mounted on the chassis (support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7), for receiving an ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1 to be edged on lens holder 37 of image sensing optical system 105; [0079]);
centering means (fig. 7) mounted on the chassis (support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7), which include an image sensor (image sensing unit 48; [0085]) for acquiring images (image projected on light-receiving surface into image signal; [0084]) of the ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) when received on the part (fig. 7-10); and
a processing unit (image processing unit 106; [0085]) adapted for performing a method according to claim 1 (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10).
With respect to Claim 16, Yoda discloses a centering apparatus (image sensing optical system 105; [0079]) including:
a chassis (support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7);
a part (lens holder 37; [0079]) mounted on the chassis (support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7), for receiving an ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1 to be edged on lens holder 37 of image sensing optical system 105; [0079]);
centering means (fig. 7) mounted on the chassis (support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7), which include an image sensor (image sensing unit 48; [0085]) for acquiring images (image projected on light-receiving surface into image signal; [0084]) of the ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) when received on the part (fig. 7-10); and
a processing unit (image processing unit 106; [0085]) adapted for performing the process of claim 12 (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10).
With respect to Claim 17, Yoda discloses the method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 5, wherein the positioning ([0041]; fig. 17) and the scale (e.g., spaced apart by 17 mm, micro engraved marks formed at two positions spaced apart from geometrical center O on horizontal reference line 2 by an equal distance; [0041]) of said determined regular geometrical figure (solid horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; fig. 17) are performed by a least square fitting method (reference positions separated from geometrical center O are fixed, e.g., eyepoint 11 fixed at position separated upward from geometrical center O by distance d1 e.g., 2 mm, and distance center 12 is fixed at position separated upward from position of eyepoint 11 by distance d2 e.g., 4 mm, and thus, position of geometrical center O or eyepoint 11 obtained by inputting images of micro engraved marks 3A and 3B along horizontal lines 2 and calculating their position coordinates by image processing; [0042]; as seen in fig. 12a-12b, & 17).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda et al. US 20010055111 A1 (herein after "Yoda") in view of Videcoq et al. US 20150077546 A1 (herein after "Videcoq").
With respect to Claim 10, Yoda discloses the method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) according to claim 9.
Yoda does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein said virtual regular geometrical figure (dotted horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; as seen in fig. 18) is a circle or a rectangle or a diamond or hexagonal.
However, in another field of endeavor, Videcoq teaches a method for acquiring and measuring geometrical data of a demonstration lens adapted to a spectacle frame ([0020-29]), wherein an adapter 35 is a circle (adapter is placed on convex face of blank by having center of adapter match said barycenter [0027], center of the adapter has to be positioned so as to correspond to point O, which itself corresponds to barycenter B of 2-D shape of demonstration lens; [0065]; as seen in fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Yoda to include the technical feature of a virtual regular geometrical figure being in the shape of a circle, for the purpose of obtaining very accurate positioning as well as very accurate control of a machining machine while perfectly aligning supporting axes and angular orientation within a lens, as taught by Videcoq ([0065-66]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 02 February 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872