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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 May 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.
The reply filed on 06 May 2026 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because it fails to include a complete or accurate record of the substance of the 14 April 2026 interview. In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant's undersigned representative discussed how the optical center of the lens was deduced in relation to the geometrical figure. The examiner recommended clarifying this feature. The examiner stated that amending the claims in this manner would overcome the current grounds of rejection, but that additional search and consideration would be necessary," the Examiner traverses. Examiner did not state that amending claims in the way suggested by applicant would overcome the current ground(s) of rejection. As stated in the Examiner Interview Summary Record, “Examiner suggests moving rejected 103 dependent claim(s) up into independent claim in to overcome 102 rejection(s) and clarifying center markings and characterization point(s) in Claim 1” and “Examiner states that further search/consideration will need to be conducted upon reply and/or in view of any newly added amendment(s) to the claims in order to determine patentability of the instant application.” Examiner submits that no rejected § 103 dependent claim(s) were incorporated into independent claim(s) to overcome 102 rejection(s) and Yoda discloses all new amendments in regard to the center markings and characterization point(s). Upon further search and consideration, and in view of the applicant’s amendments, Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoda et al. US 20010055111 A1 (herein after "Yoda"). 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"). Please see §§ 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In the Office Action, at page 7, the Office objected to the drawings…withdrawal of the objection to the drawings is respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. Examiner submits that this argument is moot. Please see new drawing objection(s) below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that " In the Office Action…withdrawal of the § 112 (d) or § 112, 4th paragraph rejection is respectfully requested…withdrawal of the § 112 (b) or § 112, 2nd paragraph rejection is respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. Examiner submits that this argument is moot. Please see new §§ 112(d) and 112(b) rejections below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In short, Yoda does not disclose: determining, for at least three of said distinct centering markings…as recited in amended independent claim 1," the Examiner traverses. Yoda discloses determining ([0135]), for at least three of said distinct centering markings (marks 3A, 3B, and 3C; [0135])…of each of said at least three distinct centering markings (images of micro engraved marks 3A, 3B, and 3C formed on processing target lens 1; [0135]). Please see §§§ 102(a)(1), 103, and 112(b) rejections below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "While Figs. 17 and 18 separately disclose two distinct markings, even if Figs. 17 and 18 were combined…positioned geometrical figure," the Examiner traverses. See previous argument(s) above in the present Office action. In reference to page 6 of the Final rejection, dated 06 February 2026, “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]).” Therefore, it would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the micro engraved marks of Yoda, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co , 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP § 2144. Please see §§§ 102(a)(1), 103, and 112(b) rejections below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "As discussed above, Yoda does not disclose all the features of amended independent claim 1. Videcoq fails to cure the deficiencies in Yoda…Accordingly, withdrawal of the §103(a) rejection is respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. See previous argument(s) above in the present Office action. Please see §§§ 102(a)(1), 103, and 112(b) rejections below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "New claim 18 is patentably distinguished over the references relied upon for at least the reasons discussed above," the Examiner traverses. See previous argument(s) above in the present Office action. Examiner submits that “The method for centering an ophthalmic lens, further comprising: centering the ophthalmic lens using the deduced position of the optical center” is of improper dependent form, for it is unclear if the claim fails to reference the claim upon which it depends on or if there is a lack of antecedent basis for a new, independent claim. Please see §§ 112(d) and 112(b) rejections below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
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 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.
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 process for blocking an ophthalmic lens, second operation of blocking said ophthalmic lens by 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 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 Objections
Claims 1-18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the acquired image" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, for there is no previous recitation of “an acquired image”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18 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.
With respect to Claim 18, the recitation “The method for centering an ophthalmic lens, further comprising: centering the ophthalmic lens using the deduced position of the optical center” is of improper dependent form, for it is unclear if the claim fails to reference the claim upon which it depends on or if there is a lack of antecedent basis for a new, independent claim.
Since the scope of Claim 18 cannot be ascertained, Claim 18 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 1-18 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 Claim 1, the recitation “virtually positioning a geometrical figure on the acquired image so that the geometrical figure passes through the characterization points” is indefinite for failing to provide objective boundaries and identify elements with reasonable certainty. It is unclear what actions or operations constitute virtually positioning and the specification provides no objective standard that would inform a person having ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the positioning operation beyond (a human? a device?) generally placing something on an image. Furthermore, the claim recites a geometric figure without identifying its type or relationship to the following introduced virtual regular geometrical figure and determined regular geometrical figure (see Claim 4). Since the latter geometrical figures are introduced as distinct claim elements (see Claim 4) rather than as the recited geometric figure of Claim 1, it is unclear whether they are the same geometrical figure(s) or different figures, and thus, the scope of the geometrical figure limitation is ambiguous. Since a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope, the claim limitation “virtually positioning a geometrical figure on the acquired image so that the geometrical figure passes through the characterization points” is indefinite, pursuant § 112(b).
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 or 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
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) 1-9 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoda et al. US 20010055111 A1 (herein after "Yoda").
With respect to Claim 1, Yoda discloses a method for centering an ophthalmic lens including a plurality of distinct centering markings, the method (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10), comprising:
positioning ([0041]; figs. 17, 18) the ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) including the plurality of distinct centering markings (marks 3A, 3B, and 3C; [0135]) 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 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 a processor (image processing unit 106; [0085]) by
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 of the at least three (marks 3A, 3B, and 3C; [0135]) distinct centering markings (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]), virtually positioning ([0041]; figs. 17, 18) a geometrical figure (horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; fig. 17) on the acquired image (image projected on light-receiving surface into image signal; [0084]) so that the geometrical figure (horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; fig. 17) passes through the characterization points (passing through reference position/geometrical center O; [0041]), 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 virtually positioned ([0041]; figs. 17, 18) geometrical figure (horizontal reference line 2 with curved segments; [0041]; fig. 17) using the positions of said respective 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 each of said at least three 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.
Furthermore, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoda due to circumstance(s) as follows: “when the interpretation of the claim(s) is or may be in dispute, i.e., given one interpretation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C.102 is appropriate and given another interpretation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is appropriate.” See MPEP §§ 2111- 2116.01 for guidelines on claim interpretation.
In reference to page 6 of the Final rejection, dated 06 February 2026, “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]).”
Therefore, it would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the micro engraved marks of Yoda, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co , 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP § 2144.
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 processing (image processing; [0086]) comprises a positioning ([0041]; figs. 17, 18) 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 the 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 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 the 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 ([0041]; figs. 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), the process 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]).
With respect to Claim 15, Yoda discloses a centering apparatus (image sensing optical system 105; [0079]) comprising:
a chassis (support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7);
a part (lens holder 37; [0079]) mounted on the chassis (support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7), configured to receive an ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1 to be edged on lens holder 37 of image sensing optical system 105; [0079]);
a centering system (image sensing processing apparatus 105; [0079]; fig. 5, 7, 8-10) mounted on the chassis (support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7), the centering system (image sensing processing apparatus 105; [0079]; fig. 5, 7, 8-10) comprising an image sensor (image sensing unit 48; [0085]) configured to acquire 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 processor (image processing unit 106; [0085]) configured to perform the 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]) comprising:
a chassis (support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7);
a part (lens holder 37; [0079]) mounted on the chassis (support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7), configured to receive an ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1 to be edged on lens holder 37 of image sensing optical system 105; [0079]);
a centering system (image sensing processing apparatus 105; [0079]; fig. 5, 7, 8-10) mounted on the chassis (support cylinder 42; [0079]; fig. 7), the centering system (image sensing processing apparatus 105; [0079]; fig. 5, 7, 8-10) comprising an image sensor (image sensing unit 48; [0085]) configured to acquire 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 processor (image processing unit 106; [0085]) configured to perform 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]; figs. 17, 18) 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).
With respect to Claim 18, Yoda discloses the method for centering an ophthalmic lens (operation of image sensing processing apparatus; [0079]; fig. 5, 8-10), further comprising:
centering ([0079]; fig. 5, 8-10) the ophthalmic lens (progressive multifocal/processing target lens 1; [0079]) using the deduced 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]).
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 4.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Encaoua et al. US 20120257162 A1 discloses a measurement method and equipment for the customization and mounting of corrective ophthalmic lenses comprising estimating the position of the face with respect to the image acquisition means by processing said images performed by acquiring an image of the subject wearing a device equipped with at least three reference markers, substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
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 17 July 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights