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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/26 & 07/17/25 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a visualization module in claim 1 (3 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0081]: e.g., said visualization module 3 comprises a lens 13 and a camera 14).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites an abstract idea as indicated in bold and underlined below:
a method for determining a position of an optic centre of a lens blank comprising the following steps:
determining a position of an optic centre of the lens blank by using the magnitudes of the relative displacements carried out in step h) to fulfil the distance criterion of previous step.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed toward the abstract idea (bold and underlined above) falls in the category of mental processes.
Step 2a: While claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception, namely the abstract idea of: determining a position of an optic centre of the lens blank by using the magnitudes of the relative displacements carried out in step h) to fulfil the distance criterion of previous step. For the above stated reasons, the bold and underlined parts of claim 1 shown above have been considered as mental processes (by hand). Such limitations are considered to set forth the abstract idea, because the claims are directed toward an idea in and of itself. The claims only recite and describe gathering and combining data by reciting steps of organizing information through mathematical relationships and/or algorithms. The gathering and combining steps merely employ mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information to generate additional information in the form of "determining a position of an optic centre of the lens blank by using the magnitudes of the relative displacements carried out in step h) to fulfil the distance criterion of previous step".
This idea is similar to the basic concept of manipulating information using mathematical relationships found to be an abstract idea by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams).
The courts have indicated that comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene) and ideas in and of themselves (Bilski and Alice) are all examples of judicial exceptions, particularly abstract ideas. The courts have indicated that, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be a judicial exception, particularly abstract ideas (Benson) as were an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams.
Thus, the claim is drawn to an abstract idea.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons:
Step 2b: Claims recites additional elements that includes: "light source", "visualization module", "lens blank", and "actuators", therefore the claims recite the abstract ideas. Viewing these limitations individually, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality and only perform generic functions of receiving, manipulating or calculating and transmitting information. Generic computers performing generic functions or components which are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea (see MPЕР § 2106.05(f)). Looking at the elements as combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
There is no particular machine (discounting the generic computer components) applying the abstract idea (see MРЕР § 2106.05(b)), and there is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)).
The remaining consideration is whether the claim constitutes an improvement to a particular technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or whether it just generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field-of-use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim is generally in the field of a method of determining a position of an optic centre of the lens blank. However, no evidence is provided to show that a particular technological process is being improved.
The claim doesn't recite any details of what calculation or determination results are being considered, how evaluation for comparing results, and how initiating results are obtained or an indication of them, or what is being done with the results at the end.
The underlying process that is supposed to be improved is not stated in this claim. It is not clear what the purpose of the claim is what is expected to be achieved.
For reasons stated above, it has been determined that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea/ judicial exception with additional generic computer elements, and the genomically recited additional computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea/judicial exception because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an "Inventive concept") to the exception. The rationale detailed in the above paragraphs apply mutatis mutandis. Determining, adjusting, capturing, processing, comparing, and displaying a result data are all well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Dependent claims 2-15 are dependent on their respective base claim 1, and include all the limitations of their respective base claims. Therefore, claims 2-15 recite the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in claims 2-15 are each functional generic/conventional processing steps performed by computer components comprise data gathering and processing steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mental process or mathematical formula are similar to those found to be non-patent eligible in, e.g., Alice Corp., FairWarning, and Parker v Flook. Claims 2-15 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claims 2-15 are rejected under 101 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1; the recitation that an element "able to" performs a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. The Examiner assumes that the words "able to" is deleted and is not part of the above limitation.
Regarding claim 4; the recitation “determining in step g) (X,Y) coordinates related to a position of the spot comprises determining (X,Y) coordinates of a point of the spot, and preferably determining (X,Y) coordinates of a centre of the spot” is indefinite, since it is unclear whether the limitation following the word “preferably” is required by the claim. For the purpose of this action, Examiner assumes that “preferably” is delete and is not part of the above limitation.
Regarding claims 6-7; the recitation that an element "can" performs a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. The Examiner assumes that the words "can" is deleted and is not part of the above limitation.
Any dependent claim not explicitly rejected above also stands as rejected under 35 USC 112(b), by virtue of their dependence on at least Claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimaru et al (2002/0097389 hereinafter “Daimaru”) in view of Vokhmin (CA 2 323 672 A1).
Regarding claim 1; Daimaru discloses a method for determining a position of an optic centre of a lens blank (18 @ figure 4) comprising the following steps:
a) providing a light source (13 @ figure 4) for generating a light beam;
b) providing a visualization module (19, 20, 11 @ figure 4);
c) positioning said lens blank (18 @ figure 4) between said light source (13 @ figure 4) and said visualization module (19, 20 @ figure 4) along a possible optical path (figure 4) of said light beam, such that said visualization module (19, 20 @ figure 4) is able to detect light generated by said light source (13 @ figure 4) and passing through said lens blank (18 @ figure 4);
e) illuminating said lens blank (18 @ figure 4) with the light beam generated by said light source (13 @ figure 4);
d) providing actuators (pulse motor 17 @ figure 4) able to induce a relative displacement target plate (15 @ figure 4) to the lens blank (17 @ figure 4);
f) visualizing thanks to the visualization module (19, 20 @ figure 4) a spot (60, 60a-60c @ figure 10) obtained from the light generated in the previous step (see step e) and passing through the lens blank (18 @ figure 4);
h) inducing the relative displacement (15, 17 @ figure 4) between said visualization module (20 @ figure 4) and said lens blank (18 @ figure 4) in order to move the spot (60, 60a-60c @ figure 10) of previous step closer to a reference point (OC @ figure 10) in the field of view of said visualization module (20 @ figure 4);
i) repeating (paragraph [0004]: e.g., The measurement is repeated at different estimated positions ("points of measurement"), where each subsequent estimated position is determined by a reiterative computer algorithm, until a position is obtained where the difference between estimated positions is approximately zero) steps e) to h) until a distance (paragraph [0039]: e.g., with P representing the prism value, D representing the dioptric power of the lens and δ representing the relative distance between the position of the point of measurement and the position of the true optical center, the relationship between these values is: δ=10P/D) between the reference point (OC @ figure 10) and the spot (60 @ figure 10) of previous step fulfils a distance criterion (figures 10, 14, paragraphs [0005] and [0048]: e.g., The second and third marks 60a and 60b respectively are placed on lens 18 on a straight line passing through the first mark 60, thereby showing the direction of the cylinder axis. The fourth mark 60c serves for recognizing vertical positions of the marks. The relationships between the positions have been specified in advance and are conventionally known to those skilled in the art. In general, the positions of the marks are different from the position of the optical center O.C because, in the present embodiment, the marks are not required to be placed at the position of the optical center; instead, the examined lens 18 may be placed at a suitable position, selected as desired. In this case, the first mark is placed at the position of measurement by "free marking," wherein the position of measurement is decided to be the position where the examined lens 18 is disposed); and
j) determining, a portion for information processing (11 @ figure 4 and paragraphs [0026] and [0033]: e.g., Information processing portion 11 also performs additional functions for the optical system 10 such as calculating the position of the optical center, preparing and memorizing data regarding relative positions of the optical center, and marking and recording the optical center position data into a specific recording medium or transferring the data to other instruments such as a computer), a position of an optic centre of the lens blank (18 @ figure 4) by using the magnitudes of the relative displacements (15, 17 @ figure 4) carried out in step h) to fulfil the distance criterion (paragraphs [0005] and [0048]) of previous step. See figures 1-12
Daimaru discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for step providing actuators able to induce a relative displacement between said visualization module and said lens blank. However, Vokhmin teaches that it is known in the art to provide step providing actuators (15, 16, 17 @ figure 1-2 and 6) able to induce a relative displacement (14 @ figures 1-2 and 6: e.g., displacement mechanism 14 comprises driving motors 16 and 17 with linear actuators and a driving motor 18 with a rotating actuator for respective linear and rotational displacement of the blocking unit 10) between said visualization module (20 @ figures 1-2 and 6) and said lens blank (A @ figures 1-2 and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Daimaru with step of providing actuators able to induce a relative displacement between said visualization module and said lens blank as taught by Vokhmin for the purpose of analyzing more accurate lens power measuring and mapping, images of the
mapping pattern on the lens.
Regarding claim 2; Daimaru discloses further comprising step g) determining (X,Y) coordinates related to a position of the spot (position of the point measurement 60 @ figure 10 and paragraphs [0035]: e.g., the prism value at the "point of measurement" can be measured by determining the central coordinates of the pattern. In this context, the "point of measurement" is typically defined to be an estimated or calculated position close to the true optical center of the lens 18 where the prism value is being measured. The central coordinates of the pattern when the examined lens 18 is "set" at the measurement table 3 are expressed as (x1, y1)) of step f) in a field of view of the visualization module (19, 20 @ figure 4).
Regarding claim 4; Daimaru discloses determining in step g) (X,Y) coordinates related to a position of the spot comprises determining (X,Y) coordinates of a point of the spot (paragraphs [0035] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 5; Daimaru discloses the reference point (OC @ figure 10, 14 and paragraph [0026]: e.g., the position of an optical reference point, such as the optical center) in the field of view of the visualization module (19, 20 @ figure 4) in step h) is a centre in said field of view with (X,Y) coordinates equal to (0,0) (figures 7-8).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimaru in view of Voklmin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al (US 2012/0206693 hereinafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 3; Daimaru in view of Voklmin combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the lens blank is illuminated with white light in step e). However, Tanaka teaches that it is known in the art to provide the lens blank (400 @ figure 1) is illuminated with white light (11 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0034]: e.g., an illumination unit 10 is equipped with an illumination light source 11 which emits white light) in step e). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Daimaru with limitation above as taught by Tanaka for the purpose of improving the processing shape of the prescription lens based on the outline of the lens.
Claim 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimaru in view of Voklmin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benz et al (US 2013/0107203 hereinafter “Benz”).
Regarding claim 6; Daimaru in view of Voklmin combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the lens blank is positioned in step c) on a vacuum chuck through which light pass. However, Benz teaches that it is known in the art to provide the lens blank (5 @ figure 3) is positioned in step c) on a vacuum chuck (10 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0025]: e.g., the pick head 10 may hold the lens blank 5 using a vacuum device) through which light pass. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Daimaru with limitation above as taught by Benz for the purpose of determining accuracy the optic center of a lens blank, such as an intraocular lens blank or a contact lens blank.
Regarding claim 7; Daimaru in view of Voklmin combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the following additional steps: k) providing a mandrel having a central hole through which light can pass; I) positioning said lens blank on said mandrel. However, Benz teaches that it is known in the art to provide the following additional steps: k) providing a mandrel (10 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0006]: e.g., the lens blank to a fixture such that the optic center of the lens blank is aligned with a center of the fixture … paragraph [0022]: e.g., the lens blank may be transferred to a fixture, such as a mandrel, such that the optic center of the lens blank is aligned with the center of the fixture) having a central hole through which light can pass; I) positioning said lens blank (5 @ figure 3) on said mandrel (10 @ figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Daimaru with limitation above as taught by Benz for the purpose of determining accuracy the optic center of a lens blank, such as an intraocular lens blank or a contact lens blank.
Regarding claim 8; Daimaru in view of Voklmin combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the result of step j) is used for positioning the lens blank on the mandrel in step I). However, Benz teaches that it is known in the art to provide the result of step j) is used for positioning the lens blank (5 @ figures 3 and 5) on the mandrel (10 @ figures 3 and 5) in step I). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Daimaru with limitation above as taught by Benz for the purpose of ~ determining accuracy the optic center of a lens blank, such as an intraocular lens blank or a contact lens blank.
Regarding claim 9; Daimaru in view of Voklmin combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the mandrel is provided in step k) with a known position. However, Benz teaches that it is known in the art to provide the mandrel (10 @ figures 3 and 5) is provided in step k) with a known position (figures 3 and 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Daimaru with limitation above as taught by Benz for the purpose of determining accuracy the optic center of a lens blank, such as an intraocular lens blank or a contact lens blank.
Regarding claim 10; Daimaru in view of Voklmin combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the lens blank is secured on the mandrel with a ring. However, Benz teaches that it is known in the art to provide the lens blank (5 @ figures 3 and 5) is secured on the mandrel (10 @ figures 3 and 5) with a ring (figures 3 and 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Daimaru with limitation above as taught by Benz for the purpose of determining accuracy the optic center of a lens blank, such as an intraocular lens blank or a contact lens blank.
Regarding claim 11; Daimaru discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the following additional steps after step I): m) illuminating the lens blank (18 @ figure 4) mounted on the measurement table (3 @ figure 4) with light; n) visualizing in a field of view of a visualization module (19, 20 @ figure 4) a spot (60 @ figure 10) obtained from the light generated in the previous step and passing through the lens blank (18 @ figure 4) mounted on the measurement table (3 @ figure 4); and o) determining, the portion for information processing (11 @ figure 4), a position of an optic centre of the lens blank (5 @ figure 4 and paragraph [0033]) mounted on the measurement table (3 @ figure 4).
Daimaru in view of Voklmin combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the lens blank is secured on the mandrel. However, Benz teaches that it is known in the art to provide the lens blank (5 @ figures 3 and 5) is secured on the mandrel (10 @ figures 3 and 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Daimaru with limitation above as taught by Benz for the purpose of determining accuracy the optic center of a lens blank, such as an intraocular lens blank or a contact lens blank.
Claims 12-13 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimaru in view of Voklmin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Godot (US 2016/0114453).
Regarding claim 12; Daimaru in view of Voklmin combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for determining an orientation of the lens blank: taking an image of the side of the lens blank for visualizing one of its extremity along the thickness of the lens blank; analysing said image; based on the analysis of previous step, determining where an anterior and/or a posterior surface of the lens blank is positioned to the mandrel. However, Godot teaches that it is known in the art to provide an image processing device (400 @ figure 8) for determining an orientation of the lens blank (10 @ figures 3b, 4); a camera (301, 302, 303 @ figures 3B and 5) taking an image of the side of the lens blank (10 @ figure 5) for visualizing one of its extremity along the thickness of the lens blank (10 @ figure 3-5 and paragraph [0065]: e.g., Geometrical data defining the semi-finished lens member includes the thickness, the base of the lens, the addition of the lens, surface data including the radius of curvature etc.); analysing said image (400, 410 @ figure 8); based on the analysis of previous step, determining where an anterior (11 @ figure 2B) and/or a posterior surface (12 @ figure 2B) of the lens blank (10 @ figure 2B) is positioned to the mandrel (22, 21 @ figure 2B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Daimaru with limitation above as taught by Godot for the purpose of improving the optical quality of machined optical lens.
Regarding claim 13; Daimaru in view of Voklmin combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the anterior surface is identified as the one presenting a specific feature with respect to the posterior surface. However, Godot teaches that it is known in the art to provide the anterior surface (front surface 11 @ figure 2B) is identified as the one presenting a specific feature with respect to the posterior surface (opposing surface 12 @ figure 2B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Daimaru with limitation above as taught by Godot for the purpose of improving the optical quality of machined optical lens.
Regarding claim 15; Daimaru in view of Voklmin combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a thickness of at least a portion of the lens blank is determined based the image taken from the side of the lens blank. However, Godot teaches that it is known in the art to provide a thickness of at least a portion of the lens blank is determined (paragraph [0018]: e.g., the predetermined relative positioning is determined based on prescription data including at least one of addition, prism and lens thickness data) based the image taken from the side of the lens blank (10 @ figure 2B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Daimaru with limitation above as taught by Godot for the purpose of improving the optical quality of machined optical lens.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimaru in view of Voklmin and Godot as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Litvin et al (US 2022/0202563 hereinafter “Litvin”).
Regarding claim 14; Daimaru in view of Voklmin and Godot combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a lens blank is rejected if it is determined that the anterior surface of the lens blank is below its posterior surface. However, Litvin teaches that it is known in the art to provide a lens blank (501 @ figure 5A) is rejected if it is determined that the anterior surface (paragraph [0077]: e.g., the width of the anterior rim (503) extending from the anterior surface of the optical lens) of the lens blank (501 @ figure 5A) is below its posterior surface (the width of the posterior rim (504) extending below the posterior surface of the optical lens and the flanges (505)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Daimaru with limitation above as taught by Litvin for the purpose of improving keratoprosthesis devices for surgical.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Wu (US 2016/0349527) discloses a lens assembly and test apparatus includes a bearing tray, a controller, a lens eccentricity detection system, a lens assembly device, a dispensing device and a resolution detection device.
2) Akiyama et al (US 2002/0052167) discloses an apparatus for and process of attaching a lens holder to an uncut lens for a spectacle lens which enables efficient attachment of the lens holder at a position without the processing interference when the lens holder is attached to a progressive multifocal lens or a multifocal lens.
3) Videcoq (US Patent No. 6298277) discloses a device for supporting the blank in the device for applying the adapter, devices for emitting/receiving radiation for analyzing the blank a device for acquiring the characteristics of the blank by analyzing a signal delivered by the emitting/receiving devices and a device for determining blank trimming information for controlling the trimming device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
January 21, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877