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 .
1.Claims 2, 14 and 20 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.
These claims recite a lower lip having “a uniform protrusion” and it should be clarified that such a protrusion is a continuous, or uninterrupted, protrusion, if that is what is intended. As these claims are currently drafted, it is unclear exactly what uniform means with respect to the lower lip protrusion—ie, uniform can be appearance or material composition.
2.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) 1-7, 9-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Application 1,410,889 (see Figs. 6a-6d; paragraph 0082) in view of Clerc 2007/0109493 (see paragraph 0030).
EP -889 discloses a process of casting a lens, loading a wafer inside a gasket and locking a wafer inside a gasket including the steps of providing a gasket (30) having a groove defined by a lower lip (30b) and an upper lip (30c) having interrupted protrusions, placing a wafer (25) inside the groove by supporting the wafer on the lower lip (30b) and obviously positioning the wafer between cutouts of the interrupted protrusions of the upper lip, locking the wafer inside the groove by placing the wafer so that the polarizing axis notch (25b) is located at the polarizing axis fixing projection (30d) on the interrupted protrusions of the lower lip (ie, a complementary shape) and introducing a lens material into molds of the gasket and curing the material to form the cast lens. The primary reference essentially lacks the aspects of an automated or automatic process employing a robot having robotic arms to load and lock the wafer into the gasket. Clerc discloses placing a lens wafer (see 1 in Figs. 1-5) into a mold using “any suitable robotic arm or mechanism” (see paragraph 0030, first two lines). The use of a robot arm as taught by Clerc to place the wafer into the gasket groove of the primary reference would allow for an automated process and such would have been an obvious modification thereto to provide for automatic operation as is conventional in the art. It is submitted that providing a lower lip with a uniform—ie, continuous—protrusion as recited in instant claim 2 would have been an obvious feature in the primary reference dependent on the degree of stability and support desired for the wafer. In other words, it would have been quite obvious to have replaced the interrupted protrusions of lower lip 30b of the primary reference with a continuous protrusion to form the lip. Taking the wafer from a wafer inventory as set forth in instant claim 3 would have been an obvious feature in the process of EP -889 so that a variety of lenses with different polarizing properties. It is submitted that instant claim 4 is obvious in the combination as applied given that making the lower lip a continuous , uniform protrusion is obvious. The corners of the wafer would be shown as notches 25a in Fig. 6c of the primary reference. The rotation of the wafer as set forth in instant claims 5-7 –by the robotic arms—so that the wafer becomes locked into place when notch 25b interacts with projection 30d is submitted to have been an obvious aspect in the combination as applied. Clearly, the wafer must be positioned with notch 25b fitting around projection 30d and this constitutes a locking that would be accomplished by rotating the wafer. The insertion of front and back surface molds into the interior of the gasket as set forth in instant claims 9 and 10 is shown in Fig. 5 of EP -889 and the use of a rim for the upper mold appears to be shown in the gasket depicted in Fig. 6b. Rims on gaskets to provide mold stops are nothing but conventional in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and such would have been an obvious aspect in the gasket of the primary reference to ensure proper mold placement. Vent ports in gaskets are conventional in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and the exact placement of the wafer with respect to such a port as set forth in instant claims 11 and 12 would have been an obvious feature to ensure proper venting. Note that Clerc shows a wafer with a curved and straight side. Instant claims 14 and 15 are rejected for reasons of record as set forth with respect to claims 2 and 3. The placement of the wafer inside the groove without distortion as recited in instant claim 16 is submitted to be obvious in the combination as applied. Instant claims 17 and 18 are submitted to be obvious over the combination as applied essentially for the same reasons as set forth with respect to claim 4.
3.Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Application 1,410,889 in view of Clerc and Blacker et al 2015/0226880 (see Figs. 5b and 6b).
EP -889 and Clerc disclose the basic claimed processes as set forth in paragraph 2, supra, the references essentially lacking a teaching of employing a hexagonal wafer which is locked into a complementary hexagonal shape of the upper lip. Blacker et al (see Figs. 5b and 6b) shows hexagonal wafers that would have been obviously employed for the wafer of the primary reference dependent on the exact shape of the wafer desired. It is further submitted that the use of a hexagonal wafer would have required a complementary hexagonal shape for the upper lip to lock the wafer in place.
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