1.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) 1-4, 7-13, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reignault et al 2016/0306176 in view of Wang et al 2018/0306720 and Japanese Patent 6-175,088 (see the Abstract and 6, 6a in Fig. 1).
Reignault et al and Wang et al are applied for reasons of record, the references disclosing the basic claimed method and system for superposing two ophthalmic lenses lacking essentially the use of at least one touch probe that contacts the lenses in a predetermined number of measurement points. Japanese Patent -088 discloses a method and device for working on a lens wherein the inclination—ie, position in space—of the lens is determined using a touch sensor that contacts the lens in at least three points. See the Abstract and touch sensor 6 with contacting stylus 6a in Figure 1 of
JP -088. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and system of the primary reference by using a touch sensor or probe as taught by JP -088 to ensure that the lenses are accurately positioned in space during the superposing. While it is understood that JP -088 does not superpose two lenses, the reference clearly needs to ascertain the exact position of a lens in space to perform the working thereon. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any operation requiring an accurate spatial position determination—be it the superposition of two lenses as in the instant or the working on a single lens as in JP -088-- would benefit from a touch sensor as taught in JP -088 to perform such a determination. It is submitted that JP -088 constitutes analogous art to the instant on this basis.
2.Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-13, 16 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. The aspect of a touch probe configured to provide a number of measurements is submitted to be fairly taught in newly applied JP -088 as noted in paragraph 1, supra. Again, while it is noted that Wang et al and JP -088 are not directed to superposing two lenses, it is submitted that the secondary references provide teachings in an analogous environment to the instant. Additionally, it would appear reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been expected to know of image capture devices positioned in the instant manner (as taught in Wang et al) and touch probes (as taught by JP -088) as conventional means by which the position of an object to be worked on can be readily ascertained. Given the disclosure of Reignault et al at paragraphs 0115-0119 concerning the superposition, it is submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the position ascertaining means of the secondary references as obvious modifications to the primary reference.
3.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.
4.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742