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 .
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 holding portion to transport the eyeglasses lens” in claims 1-9.
“An eyeglasses lens processing device configured to process the eyeglasses lens . . .” in claims 1-9.
“A shape information acquisition unit configured to acquire information about a refractive surface shape . . .” in claims 1-9.
“A relative movement unit configured to change a relative positional relationship . . .” in claims 1-9.
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 § 102
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 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al (JP 2003-200337).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki (Figs. 1-3) discloses an eyeglasses lens processing system comprising a transport robot 40 (see paragraphs 0016 and 0022) configured to hold an eyeglasses lens L in a holding portion 50 to transport the eyeglasses lens (see paragraph 0024); an eyeglasses lens processing device (lens grinding machine 20 in paragraph 0016 featuring a main body 21 equipped with a grinding wheel 30 in paragraph 0021) configured to process the eyeglasses lens (see paragraph 0021) held between a pair of lens holding shafts 32, 33 (see paragraph 0021; lens suction cups and lens retaining rubbers); a shape information acquisition unit (lens meter 10, see paragraph 0016) configured to acquire information about a refractive surface shape of the eyeglasses lens (see paragraphs 0017 and 0032; note that as a shape information acquisition unit is being interpreted under 112(f), while the primary information acquisition unit structure in the instant specification is a stylus as found in paragraph 0017, that same paragraph also says that the shape information acquisition unit can be optical in nature; the measured spherical refractive power will incorporate measuring the refractive surface shape as the refractive power incorporates the refractive index of the lens and the radius of curvature of the lens surface); and a relative movement unit 40 (as this limitation is interpreted under 112(f), the notes that the instant specification states that the transport robot can also be the relative movement unit in paragraph 0010; the examiner further notes that the robot motion is driven by drive unit 45 controlled by PC 60 in paragraph 0031) configured to change a relative positional relationship between the eyeglasses lens held by the holding portion of the transport robot and the pair of lens holding shafts (see the description of the control and movement of the lens in paragraphs 0031-0036), in which the relative movement unit at least two-dimensionally changes the relative positional relationship (see paragraph 0035, describing orientation relative to a pair of lens rotation axes 23, 24), based on acquired information of the refractive surface shape (see the opening to paragraph 0035 for example), to insert the eyeglasses lens into a predetermined insertion position in a gap between the pair of lens holding shafts (see paragraph 0036, showing the final positioning of the lens in the holding shafts 32, 33).
As for claim 2, Suzuki further discloses that the relative movement unit at least two-dimensionally changes a position of the eyeglasses lens based on a positional relationship of a refractive surface of the eyeglasses lens with respect to positions of the pair of lens holding shafts (see paragraphs 0035-0036 as described above regarding claim 1), and the positional relationship of the refractive surface is obtained based on the information about the refractive surface shape acquired by the shape information acquisition unit (see paragraph 0032 as described above regarding claim 1).
As for claim 3, Suzuki further discloses that the pair of lens holding shafts include a first holding shaft 32 that holds a front refractive surface side of the eyeglasses lens; and a second holding shaft that holds a rear refractive surface side of the eyeglasses lens 33 (for the above, see Fig. 5a and 5b, showing the holding shafts holding the front and rear surfaces of the lens), and the relative movement unit two-dimensionally changes the position of the eyeglasses lens such that a refractive surface of the eyeglasses lens held by the holding portion of the transport robot passes through a predetermined point or a predetermined region determined with regard to at least one position of the first holding shaft and the second holding shaft, to insert the eyeglasses lens into the predetermined insertion position (see paragraphs 0035-0036 as described above regarding claim 1).
As for claim 4, Suzuki further disclose that the shape information acquisition unit acquires at least one shape of a front refractive surface and a rear refractive surface of the eyeglasses lens (see paragraph 0017); and the relative movement unit inserts the eyeglasses lens into the predetermined insertion position by two-dimensionally changing the position of the eyeglasses lens such that both the front and rear refractive surfaces pass through a predetermined region set between the first and second holding shafts (see paragraphs 0035-0036 as described above in addition to Figs. 5a and 5b).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki (Figs. 1-3) discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a control program (inherent to operation of personal computer 60 which Suzuki discloses to be the means for controlling lenses in paragraph 0016) of an eyeglasses lens processing system including a transport robot 40 (see paragraphs 0016 and 0022) configured to hold an eyeglasses lens L in a holding portion 50 to transport the eyeglasses lens (see paragraph 0024), an eyeglasses lens processing device (lens grinding machine 20 in paragraph 0016 featuring a main body 21 equipped with a grinding wheel 30 in paragraph 0021) configured to process the eyeglasses lens (see paragraph 0021) held between a pair of lens holding shafts 32, 33 (see paragraph 0021; lens suction cups and lens retaining rubbers), a shape information acquisition unit (lens meter 10, see paragraph 0016) configured to acquire information about a refractive surface shape of the eyeglasses lens (see paragraphs 0017 and 0032; note that as a shape information acquisition unit is being interpreted under 112(f), while the primary information acquisition unit structure in the instant specification is a stylus as found in paragraph 0017, that same paragraph also says that the shape information acquisition unit can be optical in nature; the measured spherical refractive power will incorporate measuring the refractive surface shape as the refractive power incorporates the refractive index of the lens and the radius of curvature of the lens surface), a relative movement unit 40 (as this limitation is interpreted under 112(f), the notes that the instant specification states that the transport robot can also be the relative movement unit in paragraph 0010; the examiner further notes that the robot motion is driven by drive unit 45 controlled by PC 60 in paragraph 0031) configured to change a relative positional relationship between the eyeglasses lens held by the holding portion of the transport robot and the pair of lens holding shafts (see the description of the control and movement of the lens in paragraphs 0031-0036), and a controller (the PC 60 indicated above), the control program comprising instructions which, when executed by the controller, cause the eyeglasses lens processing system to perform a control step of controlling the relative movement unit, in which the eyeglasses lens is inserted into a predetermined insertion position in a gap between the pair of lens holding shafts (see paragraph 0036, showing the final positioning of the lens in the holding shafts 32, 33) by at least two-dimensionally changing the relative positional relationship (see paragraph 0035, describing orientation relative to a pair of lens rotation axes 23, 24) based on acquired information about the refractive surface shape (see the opening to paragraph 0035 for example).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 5, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 3, wherein the relative movement unit tilts a refractive surface of the eyeglasses lens with respect to a direction perpendicular to an axial direction of the lens holding shafts, before inserting the eyeglasses lens into the gap between the pair of lens holding shafts, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 6, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 3, wherein before inserting the eyeglasses lens into the gap between the pair of lens holding shafts, the relative movement unit tilts the eyeglasses lens such that an end portion of the rear refractive surface which is located on a side farther from the second holding shaft is closer to the second holding shaft, and changes the position of the eyeglasses lens such that the tilting is returned as the eyeglasses lens moves in an insertion direction perpendicular to the lens holding shaft, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above two claims, JPH 0691505 to Mitsusaka discloses a lens holding mechanism for a lens grinding device, which features the lens in the holder in various rotated orientations (see Figs. 3, 4, 6, and 7, for instance, which shows the rotation of the lens in the holder). Additionally, US 2017/0182622 to Kojima et al. discloses a lens centering method for a lens processing machine where a lens-processing dish holding a lens rotates at a prescribed processing rotational speed about a rotational axis line to oscillate at a prescribed processing oscillation angle about a spherical center of the lens-processing surface (see Fig. 1 and claim 7). However, this prior art, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the specific limitations regarding the relative movement unit tilting a refractive surface of the eyeglasses lens as claimed above in claims 5 and 6.
As to claim 7, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 3, wherein the shape information acquisition unit acquires outer shape information of a cup of a processing jig fixed to a front refractive surface of the eyeglasses lens, and the relative movement unit inserts the eyeglasses lens into the gap between the first holding shaft and the second holding shaft until the eyeglasses lens reaches a position where the cup is not in contact with the first holding shaft, based on the outer shape information, and thereafter moves the eyeglasses lens to an insertable position of the cup in an axial direction of the lens holding shaft to insert the eyeglasses lens into the predetermined insertion position, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 8, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 1, wherein the shape information acquisition unit acquires a lens distance in an axial direction of the lens holding shafts from an end portion of a cup of a processing jig fixed to a front refractive surface of the eyeglasses lens to an end portion of a rear refractive surface of the eyeglasses lens, and the relative movement unit determines whether or not the lens distance is smaller than a gap interval between the pair of lens holding shafts, and when determining that the lens distance is smaller than the gap, the relative movement unit inserts the eyeglasses lens into the predetermined insertion position without performing control for two-dimensionally moving the eyeglasses lens based on the refractive surface shape, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above two claims, US 2014/0287660 to Shibata et al. discloses an apparatus for attaching a cup to a surface of an eyeglass lens for processing of the lens. Paragraph 0025 discloses being able to detect that the cup is attached to the surface of the lens by the cup attaching unit. Additionally, US 2021/0101246 to Takeichi et al. discloses a lens processing system that includes a cup 60 that is attached to eyeglass lens LE as a result of chuck shafts 11C, 12C pinching the lens (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0110). When the cup is attached, a signal S33 (see Fig. 4B) is sent that provides information as to the cup position for assistance during installation of the lens and the chuck shafts in relation to the cup in order to adjust the installation position (see paragraph 0111). However, this prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the specifics of the claims as set forth above, particularly the measurement of outer shape information of the cup of the processing jig as found in claim 7 and the acquisition of a lens distance from an end portion of the cup of the processing jig as found in claim 8, this information being used to assist with relative movement of the eyeglasses lens into a predetermined insertion position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0340673 to Tanaka discloses an eyeglass lens measuring apparatus (see Fig. 6, for example) that uses a robot arm on a lens transporter to transport the eyeglass lens to the measuring apparatus (see paragraph 0110); US Pat. 8,467,042 to Inoguchi discloses a lens shape measuring apparatus for the manufacture of eyeglass lenses that includes a holding position changing section that changes a position of the lens with respect to a laser displacement meter and a lens shape obtaining section that measures the shape of the edge surface of the lens (see claim 1); and US 2004/0058624 to Suzuki et al. discloses a lens grinding processing apparatus where a lens to be processed ML is placed between a lens absorption device 300 and a lens retainer 320 that are capable of slanting adjustably for processing (see Fig. 12 and the abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 September 26, 2026
