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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the details as described in the specification. Specifically, Figs 1-10 are a flow-chart without any written descriptions of the boxes, just numbers of steps. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10-12 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.
Claims 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) as being indefinite because claim 10 depends from claim 2, but recites the limitation "the representing point" and “the difference”. Claim 2 does not introduce either term. The representing point is introduced in claim 9, and the difference is introduced in claim 7, but claim 10 does not depend from claim 7 or claim 9. The claim text confirms claim 10 depends only from claim 2, while claim 9 introduces the representing point and claim 7 introduces the difference. Therefore, the scope of claim 10 is unclear.
Claims 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) as being indefinite because claim 11 depends from claim 10, but recites the limitation "the zone". Claim 11 does not introduce the term “the zone”. The term the zone is introduced in claim 8, but claim 11 does not depend from claim 8. The claim text confirms claim 11 depends only from claim 10, while claim 8 introduces the representing the zone. Therefore, the scope of claim 10 is unclear.
Claims 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA as being indefinite because the phrase “second first reference posture (NV)” in unclear and internally inconsistent. The claim uses the term “first reference posture” for (NV), but claim 12 recites “second reference posture (NV)”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
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: calculation module, in claims 1-14.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Encaoua et al. (US 20140148707 A1) in view of Esser et al. (US 20100157242 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Encaoua et al. teach a calculation module (102) for determining a probability model of a parameter of a first reference posture (FV) of a subject (see para [0049]; “a digital processing unit adapted to process said sets of data of real reference posture to produce an optimal reference posture”, see also para [0096]; “It can especially take the form of conditional probabilities, for example the probability of having an optimal reference posture p, knowing that there is a sequence of postures pi measured after i iterations”), the probability model being intended to determine at least a production parameter of an optical element suitable for the subject (see para [0025]; “the invention proposes a process for estimation of a reference posture of a subject in light of taking measurements for determining parameters for manufacturing a vision correction device”, see also claim 22; “A process for determining parameters for the manufacture of a vision correction device, comprising the steps consisting of: estimating an optimal reference posture value of a subject, and determining from the optimal reference posture value a value of said parameters for manufacturing the correction device”), the calculation module (102) being configured: to determine (301) at least one value of a parameter of a second reference posture (NV), during an occurrence of the second reference posture (NV) (see para [0013]; “The reference posture can especially be the distant vision posture ….the reference posture can correspond to a near-vision posture, such as the reading position”, see also para [0075]; “the subject fixes a target and measurements are taken to evaluate the distance between the target and the frame worn by the subject, the cap, and the angle formed by the inclination”, see also para [0083]; “The operator can take his measurements …. so as to determine by means of the camera 12' mounted on the screen 31 and/or the camera 12 the reference posture in the reading position of the subject”), and to determine (302) the probability model of a parameter of a first reference posture (FV) based on the at least one value of the parameter of the second reference posture (NV) (see para [0094]; “Calculation of the "optimal" reference position 130 is performed from observations and recordings”, see also para [0096]; “conditional probabilities, for example the probability of having an optimal reference posture p, knowing that there is a sequence of postures pi measured after i iterations, and knowing the types of deviation used (looking up, left, reading a document, etc.) prior to each posture pi”). However, Encaoua et al. does not specifically, disclose and based on a model of constraints.
In the same field of endeavor, Esser et al. teaches and based on a model of constraints (see para [0019]; “it is suggested to vary the spatial positions, in particular the vertical positions, of the distance and near reference points freely (within certain limits) depending on the individual data of the spectacle wearer, and to specify them specifically for the respective, individual spectacle wearer”, see also para [0020]; “The position of the individually determined distance and/or near reference point(s) is taken into account in the calculation or optimization of the individual spectacle lens design or individual spectacle lens as design parameters”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary of skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify a method for estimating a reference posture of a subject with a view to taking measurements of Encaoua et al. in view of a method for producing a progressive spectacle lens and to a corresponding apparatus of Esser et al. in order to determine wear-specific optical element production parameters (see para [0019]).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Encaoua et al. in the combination further teach wherein the calculation module (102) is further configured to determine (300) at least one value of the parameter of the first reference posture (FV) during an occurrence of the first reference posture (FV), and wherein determining (302) the probability model is based on at least one value of the parameter of the first reference posture (FV) and the at least one value of the parameter of the second reference posture (NV) (see para [0096]; “It can especially take the form of conditional probabilities, for example the probability of having an optimal reference posture p, knowing that there is a sequence of postures pi measured after i iterations, and knowing the types of deviation used (looking up, left, reading a document, etc.) prior to each posture pi. For example, studies have shown that the probability that the cap of the head is good is stronger once the head has been turned right then left than prior to these movements. The measurements of the cap obtained after these movements will therefore have a higher weight in calculations of this value”).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Encaoua et al. in the combination further teach the model of constraints is and/or a model of behaviour constraints (see para [0095]; “This process is based on the use of a model of human behaviour viewed by the device for interpreting measurements of postures”, see also para [0104]; “The model of human behaviour viewed by device can also be completed by an "a priori" mode…Such an "a priori" model can for example be used to improve calculation of the maximum likelihood by Bayesian inferences, especially counting on a reference posture rather than another…drawing on statistical analyses”).
Esser et al. in the combination further teach a model of design constraints (see para [0019]; “vary the spatial positions, in particular the vertical positions, of the distance and near reference points freely (within certain limits) depending on the individual data of the spectacle wearer, and to specify them specifically for the respective, individual spectacle wearer”)
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Encaoua et al. in the combination further teach the first and/or second reference posture (FV) being characterized by an orientation of a head of the subject relatively to a gaze axis of the subject (see para [0016]; “The posture of the subject can for example be described (non-limiting) by means of two angles for a direction of the known look. The first angle corresponds to the cap of the head, that is, an oriented angle which reflects the fact that the subject tends to have his head more or less turned to left or right when he is looking at an object placed right in front of him”).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
Encaoua et al. in the combination further teach the parameter of the first and/or the second reference posture being a cap angle value and/or a frontal angle value (see para [0103]; “Posture value means here especially the value of the pantoscopic angle and of the cap for a given posture”, see also para [0017]; “The second angle corresponds to the inclination of the head, that is, an oriented angle which reflects the fact that the subject tends to have his head more or less lifted or lowered when looking at an object placed right in front of him. For a given frame, this second angle can be measuring the pantoscopic angle, that is, measuring the inclination of the middle plane of the corrective lens relative to the vertical”).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Esser et al. in the combination further teach the parameter of the first and/or second reference posture being a location of the optical element crossed by a gaze axis of the subject while respectively the first and/or second reference posture (see para [0017]; “The reference point requirement states that the reference point is to coincide with the main visual point of the two eyes. The main directions of sight of the spectacle wearer are inherent and individual properties of the spectacle wearer, while the reference points are specified on the spectacle lens”, see also para [0020]; “The position of the individually determined distance and/or near reference point(s) is taken into account in the calculation or optimization of the individual spectacle lens design or individual spectacle lens as design parameters”).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Encaoua et al.in the combination further teaches wherein the step of determining the probability model is based at least on the difference between the first reference posture and the second reference posture (see para [0096]; “the probability of having an optimal reference posture p, knowing that there is a sequence of postures pi measured after i iterations, and knowing the types of deviation used (looking up, left, reading a document, etc.) prior to each posture pi. For example, studies have shown that the probability that the cap of the head is good is stronger once the head has been turned right then left than prior to these movements. The measurements of the cap obtained after these movements will therefore have a higher weight in calculations of this value”).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Encaoua et al.in the combination further teaches wherein the calculation module (102) is further configured, based on the probability model, to determine a zone of at least one parameter of the first reference posture, the values of the at least one parameter of the first reference posture being superior to a given probability threshold (see para [0102]; “The result obtained is in the form of an "optimal" value and an interval of possible values”).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Encaoua et al.in the combination further teaches wherein the calculation module (102) is further configured, based on the probability model, to determine a representing point, the representing point being a point with a maximal probability or a pondered average of a plurality of points (see para [0104]; “Such an "a priori" model can for example be used to improve calculation of the maximum likelihood by Bayesian inferences”, see also para [0113]; “it is possible to take the average (which could be weighted by conditional probability criteria obtained using statistical tools) as "optimal" value and using the type of spread to calculate a confidence interval as an interval of possible values”).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Encaoua et al.in the combination further teaches the representing point (FV) being located in the vicinity of the first reference posture (FV) when the difference is comprised between a first difference threshold and a second difference threshold (see para [0104]; “Such an "a priori" model can for example be used to improve calculation of the maximum likelihood by Bayesian inferences, especially counting on a reference posture rather than another”, see also para [0132]; “The posture is sufficiently near the reference posture (limited to the cap angle and pantoscopic angle, position in delimited space: distance from the mirror, position up down right and left)”, and [0124]; “postures corresponding to the fixation of targets slightly offset to right and left (+/-6.degree. for example relative to the posture at 0.degree.) can be selected for example and the average can be taken to obtain the reference posture pi to be taken into account for calculations of the "optimal" value of the natural reference posture”).
Esser et al. in the combination further teach the representing point (FV) being located above the first reference posture (FV) when the difference is lower than the first difference threshold, the representing point (FV) being located below the first reference posture (FV) when the difference is higher than the second difference threshold (see para [0019]; “the spatial position, in particular the vertical location, of the reference points is specified. Instead, it is suggested to vary the spatial positions, in particular the vertical positions, of the distance and near reference points freely (within certain limits) depending on the individual data of the spectacle wearer, and to specify them specifically for the respective, individual spectacle wearer”).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Encaoua et al.in the combination further teaches the calculation module being configured to obtain the location of an adapted point (FV) by selecting an adapted point (FV) among points of the zone (FV) (see para [0109]; “select the best posture from the possible values proposed, and the system can display in real time the impact of a choice of posture value on the results of measurements to aid the optician in his decision”, see also para [0137]; “the system edits the posture value among the possible values”).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Encaoua et al.in the combination further teaches being also configured to obtain a first image of the subject during the occurrence of the first reference posture (FV) (see para [0059]; “a system according to the invention comprises for example a frame in the upper region of which are housed an image-capture device 12 such as a camera, placed near a device for obtaining a target which the subject will fix in the reference posture”) and to measure a location of singular points on the first image, and/or to obtain a second image of the subject during the occurrence of second first reference posture (NV) and to measure a location of singular points on the second image (see para [0005]; “an accessory 20 capable of being worn fixed to the head of the subject and bearing a plurality of visual markers 21….. [0010] image analysis means capable of analysing the position of the visual markers in the images taken by the camera. The image analysis means deduce the position and the orientation in space of the accessory 20, and therefore of the head of the subject”, see also para [0011]; “a series of visual markers 21, placed along the branches of the frames and/or on the upper front upright of the frame”), and wherein the step of determining the value of the parameter of the first and/or second reference posture is based on the measured location of the singular points (see para [0010]; “The image analysis means deduce the position and the orientation in space of the accessory 20, and therefore of the head of the subject”, see also para [0069]; “a link is also made between these measurements and an image of the subject to calculate the optimal posture…. the process according to the invention comprises especially the iteration of steps taken by means of pictures (or an equivalent device for tracking position) and calculation of optimal posture from these pictures”).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein.
Encaoua et al.in the combination further teaches in which the singular points of the first image and/or the singular points of the second image being supported by an accessory fixed on an eyeglasses frame worn by the subject and/or an accessory held by the subject (see para [0011]; “the accessory 20 can conform to the accessory illustrated in FIG. 1 and comprise means forming geometric indicators 21 selected specifically to enhance the orientation of the frame. It can comprise a longilinear support bearing a series of visual markers 21, placed along the branches of the frames and/or on the upper front upright of the frame”, see also para [0118]; “The subject preferably wears the accessory 20 formed by means forming geometric indicators 21”).
Regarding claim 14, the scope of claim 14 is fully incorporated in claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 is equally applicable here
Regarding claim 15, the scope of claim 15 is fully incorporated in claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 is equally applicable here
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WINTA GEBRESLASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday9:00-5:00.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5180. 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.
/WINTA GEBRESLASSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights