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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/24/2026 has been entered into this application.
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.
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 first connection member”, “a second connection member” in claim 2.
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
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11-13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rhody et al. (6,047,082; previously cited reference).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Rhody discloses an inspection apparatus/method configured for/of inspecting optical articles is included in an automated system for inspecting lenses and/or an automated lens inspection system (figs. 1-37), the inspection apparatus/method comprising:
an inspection chamber an enclosed space or cavity for inspection (circular platform 27) comprising an inspection station (optical inspection stations 11, 13) (col. 4, lines 49-52; col. 6, lines 23-32);
depicted drawing fig. 3 depicted section between teeth 25 (each pair of teeth forms an area that receives and holds one of the cuvettes) that is formed in the star-wheel 1 that is indexed, that constituted a holding chamber for securing an optical article(s) within holding slot or cuvette 9 holding the optical articles/contact lens 15 that is within/associated with holding platform 27 configured to index a selected holder into an inspection position (col. 5, lines 20-40), this is functionally equivalent to a holding chamber having an indexable holding platform with a plurality of holding slots each configured for receiving a holder a cuvette 9 adapted for securing the optical article contact lens 15, the indexable holding platform configured to index a selected holder into an inspection position (col. 4 lines 49-col. 5, line 29), as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 1, 5 and 31); and
a gripper mechanism conveyors 3, 5 and 7 and/or cuvettes or lens holders and/or a lens holder(s) (col. 1, lines 49-55) (col. 31, lines 46-49) or the structure of the that allows cuvette to be moved around the star-wheel in a counterclockwise direction along the star-wheel and the computer 64 activates a solenoid plunger 67 which pushes the cuvette to a pass conveyor 5 (col. 7 configured for transferring the selected holder from the inspection position to the inspection chamber is anticipated by a conveyors (3,5,7) that move transparent cuvettes (9) and contact lenses (15) with respect to optical inspection stations (11,13) that take bright field images of the cuvettes and lenses (col. 4, lines 49-54), as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 1)
For the purposes of clarity, the method claim 13 is taught/suggested by the functions shown/stated/set forth with regards to the apparatus claim 1 as rejected above as being anticipated by Rhody.
In addition, based on the context of the applicant disclosure as found in specification as published (see abstract) [par. 0006], Applicant has described “a gripper mechanism” as a device/element that is configured for transferring the selected holder from the inspection position to the inspection chamber, and that the “gripper mechanism” may be linearly movable between a first position corresponding to a location of the inspection position of the indexable holding platform and a second position corresponding to a location of the inspection station. Since Rhody (col. 5, ln 20-40) discloses a conveyor a device/element/system that is configured for transferring selected holder (i.e. cuvette 9) from the inspection position to the inspection chamber, and/or the cuvettes 9 that move along a conveyor and a contact lens is placed in solution in each cuvette and/or the cuvette is moved in a counterclockwise direction along the star-wheel and the computer 64 activates a solenoid plunger 67 which pushes the cuvette to a pass conveyor 5 (col. 7, ln 38-49), then Rhody anticipates the claimed limitations of claim 1, which is, “a gripper mechanism”, as described and found in the instant specification as published.
In addition, a gripper is considered as a device that grasps, holds, and manipulates objects commonly known as the automation system given the BRI.
As to claims 5-7, 11-12 and 14, Rhody further discloses a structure that is use in a method/system (figs. 1-37) that is implementing limitations such as, wherein each holder further comprises an identification tag is wherein marks (such logo or mark) are included on the lens holder (see abstract) (col. 2, line8-9) (col. 7, line 64-67) (col. 12, lines 37-59) (claim 5); wherein the indexable holding platform/circular platform 27 is a rotary magazine a magazine that features cartridges that move in a circular path/circular platform 27 comprising a plurality of distinct circumferential positions each having a holding slot/cuvettes, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 1) (claim 6); and wherein each holding slot/cuvettes of the holding mechanism comprises a baffle (baffle 49) positioned relative to the holder such that the baffle covers the optical article, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 5) (col. 6, lines 61-64) (claim 7); wherein the holding chamber that included in the magazine that features cartridges that move in a circular path/circular platform 27 is in fluid the cuvette fluid communication with the inspection chamber that is included in inspection system/optical inspection stations 11 and 13 (claim 11);
wherein the holding chamber that is included in the magazine that features cartridges that move in a circular path/circular platform 27 is optically isolated from the inspection chamber that is included in inspection system/optical inspection stations 11 and 13 (claim 12); and further comprising returning the selected holder to the indexable holding platform/circular platform 27 after inspecting the optical article the contact lens 15 and rotating the indexable holding platform/circular platform 27 until a next selected holder is indexed to the inspection position that is located in the inspection system/optical inspection stations 11 and 13, as can be seen by depicted drawing steps of (figs.1, 31) (col. 4, lines 49-col. 5, line 29) (claim 14)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-4, 8-10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhody et al. (6,047,082; previously cited reference) in view of Martin et al. (5,804,107; previously cited reference) and/or Schwab et al. (2023/0079414 A1; previously cited reference).
As to claims 2-4 and 8-9, Rhody teaches of the features of claims 2-4 and 8-9, as applied to 1 and 13 comprising holding platform/circular platform 27 is a rotary magazine a magazine that features cartridges that move in a circular path/circular platform 27, lens holder secure to the platform as can be seen in the depicted drawing (fig. 1), circularly moving between positions of location(s) of (i.e. loading position and inspection station(s) (see abstract).
Rhody fail to teach the constructional changes in the apparatus/device of claim 1, as that claimed by Applicants claims 2-4 and 8-9, the constructional changes differences are considered obvious design procedure in the system/device of claim 1 which come within the scope of the customary practice followed by persons skilled in the art of automatic lens inspection system, as evidenced by Martin and/or Schwab it is a conventionally used alternative in automated production line for the production of ophthalmic lenses.
Martin and Schwab from the same field of endeavor teaches of manufacturing ophthalmic lenses and/or automated production line for the production of ophthalmic lenses comprises automated station includes a plurality of grippers for, picking up, and depositing parts to assemble, plurality/second automated station(s), heating chamber, maintaining the assemblies at temperature at certain or some sort range temperature preferred degree(s)(Martin, col. 37, line 58); clamping connections assemblies/clamping means for assemblies (Martin, col. 34, lines 18-57)(figs. 18(a), 29)( Martin, col. 48, lines 19-25)(figs. 1-38)); while Schwab also teaches that in several paragraphs such as (Schwab, [pars. 0002] that automated production lines are known which are fundamentally different regarding the type of lens molds structure(s) used for forming the contact lenses such as that constructional changes such as claimed by Applicant’s claims 2-4 and 8-9, wherein each holder comprises: a holder body having a lens receiving portion, a clamping lid connected to the holder body and movable between a closed position configured for clamping the optical article and an open position; and a first connection member configured for securing the holder body to the holding slot of the indexable holding platform (claim 2);
wherein the first connection member is one of a first magnet and a first magnetically attractable material that is configured for magnetically interacting with a corresponding one of a second magnetically attractable material and a second magnet on the holding slot of the indexable holding platform (claim 3); wherein the gripper mechanism is linearly movable between a first position corresponding to a location of the inspection position of the indexable holding platform and a second position corresponding to a location of the inspection station (claim 8); and wherein the inspection station comprises at least one viewing port and wherein the inspection chamber has a scalloped sidewall (claim 9) is/are known in the art, use in order to secure ophthalmic lenses in the manufacturing process and improve optical quality of ophthalmic lenses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rhody in view of Martin and Schwab with the constructional changes in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 2-4 and 8-9, as evidenced by Martin and/or Schwab it is a conventionally used alternative in automated production line for the production of ophthalmic lenses in order to secure ophthalmic lenses in the manufacturing process and improve optical quality of ophthalmic lenses, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claims 10 and 15, Rhody teaches of the features of claims 10 and 15, as applied to 1 and 13 comprising wherein the holding chamber that included in the magazine that features cartridges that move in a circular path/circular platform 27 is in fluid the cuvette fluid solution 17 (fig. 2) communication with the inspection chamber that is included in inspection system/optical inspection stations 11 and 13.
Rhody fail to teach the constructional changes in the apparatus/device of claims 1 and 13, as that claimed by Applicants claims 10 and 15, the constructional changes such as, further comprising an auxiliary chamber having: a pump configured for circulating fluid within the holding chamber and within a temperature control circuit of the inspection apparatus; a filter configured for filtering the fluid; and a temperature controller configured for controlling a temperature of the fluid (claim 10); and further comprising maintaining a temperature of a fluid immersing the holders at a predetermined temperature (claim 15).
However, the constructional changes are considered obvious design procedure in the system/device of claim 1 which come within the scope of the customary practice followed by persons skilled in the art of automatic lens inspection system, as evidenced by Martin and/or Schwab it is a conventionally used structure(s) in automated production line for the production of ophthalmic lenses in order to maintain temperature within the assemblies at an acceptable temperature and/or in order to maintain some sort of preferred temperature degree(s)(Martin, col. 37, line 58); and/or in order to improve predetermined temperature to effect curing of the lens-forming material to form cured lenses, as per teachings of Schwab (Schwab, [pars. 0027-38]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rhody in view of Martin and Schwab with the constructional changes in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 10 and 15, as evidenced by Martin and/or Schwab it is a conventionally used temperature control process in automated production line for the production of ophthalmic lenses in order to maintain a predetermined temperature to effect curing of the lens-forming material to form cured lenses and in order to to cool down temperature to a temperature at which an unwanted thermally initiated start of the curing process of the lens-forming material is reliably avoided, as per teachings of Schwab (Schwab, i.e. [pars. 0132-133]) and/or in order to maintaining the mold assemblies at a temperature ranging at some sort of preferred temperature (Martin, col. 34, lines 39-40). In this case, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, (see pages 5-8), filed on 02/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
a) Applicant argues that “.... there are several distinguishing features recited in independent claims 1 that are not disclosed in Rhody, namely,
- a holding chamber and an inspection chamber; and
- a gripper mechanism configured for transferring the selected (individual) holder from the inspection position to the inspection chamber (emphasis added).”, and
Applicant argues specifically that Rhody fails to show any distinct separation between the "inspection chamber" (27) and a "holding chamber" (unknown), thereby making it questionable whether these elements constitute "chambers", as required by independent claim 1. ………. Applicant also submits that the…… independent claims I and 13 are not anticipated by or obvious over the prior art of record. Because claims 2-12, 14, and 15 depend on and include all of the elements of amended independent claims 1 or 13, these dependent claims are believed to be patentable for at least the reasons discussed above in connection with independent claims 1 and 13. Reconsideration of the rejections of the above claims is respectfully requested.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (a), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because the feature " a holding chamber and an inspection chamber " as recited in independent claims 1 are clearly disclosed by Rhody. It is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive as Rhody clearly discloses in (col. 5, lines 20-40) and show in (fig. 3) the structure that anticipated “a holding chamber” as claimed. Rhody clearly discloses and depicted in drawing fig. 3 depicted section between teeth 25 (each pair of teeth forms an area that receives and holds one of the cuvettes) that is formed in the star-wheel 1 that is indexed, that constituted a holding chamber for securing an optical article(s) within holding slot or cuvette 9 holding the optical articles/contact lens 15 that is within/associated with holding platform 27 configured to index a selected holder into an inspection position (col. 5, lines 20-40), this is functionally equivalent to “a holding chamber”, and thus anticipated by Rhody considering the BRI consistent with instant application description.
Further, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because based on the context of the applicant disclosure as found in specification as published (see abstract) [par. 0006], Applicant has described “a gripper mechanism” as a device/element that is configured for transferring the selected holder from the inspection position to the inspection chamber, and that the “gripper mechanism” may be linearly movable between a first position corresponding to a location of the inspection position of the indexable holding platform and a second position corresponding to a location of the inspection station. Since Rhody (col. 5, ln 20-40) discloses a conveyor a device/element/system that is configured for transferring selected holder (i.e. cuvette 9) from the inspection position to the inspection chamber, and/or the cuvettes 9 that move along a conveyor and a contact lens is placed in solution in each cuvette and/or the cuvette is moved in a counterclockwise direction along the star-wheel and the computer 64 activates a solenoid plunger 67 which pushes the cuvette to a pass conveyor 5 (col. 7, ln 38-49), then Rhody anticipates the claimed limitations of claim 1, which is, “a gripper mechanism”, as described and found in the instant specification as published. As such, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive, the rejections are proper, and the argument/remarks for request for reconsideration does not appear to place the application in condition for allowance.
In conclusion, Applicant has argued the patentability of claims based solely upon the patentability of independent claim(s), and has presented no additional arguments exclusively pertaining to the dependent claims, since the applicant has not argued the examiner’s position about the rejection(s) regarding the dependent claims, in the previous Official action. The applicant has acquiesced.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877