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 .
Claims 9-17, 19 and 21 are pending
Claims 1-8, 18 and 20 are canceled
Claim 21 is withdrawn
Claims 9 and 19 have been amended
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 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.
Claim(s) 9-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flemming et al. US 2020/0269287 (US’287) in view of Wang, Wang-heng CN 111359937 (CN’937) (translation provided used for citations).
Regarding claim 9, US’287 teaches a cleaning device for cleaning at least one lens (a cleaning station for an optical element, abstract), the cleaning device comprising:
at least one cleaning station (cleaning station, see fig. 1, para. 63);
and at least one handling device for feeding the lens to the at least one cleaning station (Block piece 5 is used for transferring the lens through multiple process stations, holder 5 holds the optical element 3 and a first drive 7 rotates the optical element holder 5 during cleaning, the optical elements 3 may be auto-loaded when the optical element holder 5 is equipped with clamping means for cooperation with clamping portion C of the block piece B, block piece B in a machine or apparatus for processing of the lens, and to provide in particular for reliable and secure mounting to the processing equipment throughout the whole process, para. 58-79, 101, see fig. 1-3);
wherein the handling device has at least one rotatable holder for rotatable holding of the lens (holder 5 is rotatable by drive 7, see fig. 3, para. 72-75).
US’287 does not teach wherein the at least one cleaning station has a rotatable brush as a cleaning member and an axis of rotation of the rotatable brush is arranged at least substantially perpendicular or transversely to an axis of rotation of a corresponding holder of the at least one rotatable holder.
CN’937 teaches a multifunctional VR glasses lens VR glasses technology field of cleaning device (abstract). The cleaning device provides batch cleaning of lenses by providing multiple cleaning stations where each performs a different cleaning operation, the first provides a brush cleaning the second provides a liquid spray and the third drying station. The motor drives the cleaner to clean the lens, sprayer fully washing the surface of the lens, and then drying by dryer, convenient multifunctional dust removing cleaning the surface of the lens, high cleaning efficiency, good cleaning effect, drives the lens to move by a conveyor belt, convenient for simultaneously cleaning the multiple lenses. The brush cleaning is performed with a round brush arranged perpendicular to the lens surface (page 2-4, fig. 1). Therefore, the device of US’287 can be modified to perform batch cleaning as taught by CN’937 to perform simultaneously cleaning of multiple lenses including removing dust with a brush before fluid cleaning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning device of US’287 to include wherein the at least one cleaning station has a rotatable brush as a cleaning member and an axis of rotation of the rotatable brush is arranged at least substantially perpendicular or transversely to an axis of rotation of a corresponding holder of the at least one rotatable holder because CN’937 teaches that the configuration perform simultaneously cleaning of multiple lenses and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of US’287 teaches the cleaning device of claim 9. US’287 further teaches wherein the at least one handling device is operable to feed the lens from above or in a vertical direction (see fig. 1 and 3, para. 50 and 69).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of US’287 teaches the cleaning device of claim 9. US’287 further teaches wherein the at least one holder is movable in a vertical direction for lens specific location regulation or positioning of the lens (the holder is configured to be moved between processing stations and can be moved in any direction during processing, para. 58-79, 101, see fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of US’287 teaches the cleaning device of claim 9. The modified device of US’287 further teaches wherein the at least one cleaning station comprises a plurality of cleaning stations arranged next to one another or behind each other in a direction and the at least one handling device is configured to transfer the lens (US’287 teaches block piece B for secure mounting to the processing equipment throughout the whole process, para. 58-66, see fig. 1-3 and the modified device of CN’937 includes perform batch cleaning with multiple stations as taught by CN’937 to perform simultaneously cleaning of multiple lenses as discussed above).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of US’287 teaches the cleaning device of claim 12. The modified device of US’287 further teaches wherein the direction is a horizontal direction and the at least one handling device is configured to transfer the lens in the horizontal direction (the conveying belt moves the lenses through the stations horizontally as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 17, the modified device of US’287 teaches the cleaning device of claim 12. The modified device of US’287 further teaches at least one handover device for the transfer of the lens between the cleaning stations, with regard to claim 14 and wherein the at least one handling device has a carriage that is adjustable or movable in the horizontal direction to transfer the lens in the horizontal direction, with regard to claim 15 and wherein the carriage transfer the lens in the horizontal direction selectively to one of the cleaning stations, with regard to claim 17 (conveyor belt 6 transports lens clamps 7 horizontally to deliver the lenses selectively to each cleaning station, fig. 1-3, page 4-5 of CN’937).
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of US’287 teaches the cleaning device of claim 9. The modified device of US’287 further teaches wherein the at least one cleaning station has exactly one rotatable brush as a cleaning member (as discussed above CN’937 teaches the cleaning device provides batch cleaning of lenses by providing multiple cleaning stations where each performs a different cleaning operation, the first provides a brush cleaning the second provides a liquid spray and the third drying station).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’287 in view of CN’937 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Schneider et al. US 2018/0059411 (US’411).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of US’287 teaches the cleaning device of claim 15.
The modified device of US’287 does not teach wherein the carriage is adjustable or movable in the horizontal direction along a rail.
US’411 teaches an apparatus and a method for cleaning a lens with which the lens can selectively be fed by means of a common handling device to several cleaning devices and can be moved in a lens-specific manner during cleaning (abstract). The handling device 7 preferably has a rail 7D, which extends in the X direction and/or the arrangement direction of the cleaning devices 4, 5, 6 and/or holds and/or guides the gripping device 7A and/or the arm 7B and/or the slide 7C in particular in such a manner that the gripping device 7A, arm 7B or slide 7C can be moved or shifted by a motor (para. 57-58 and 133, see fig. 1 and 5). Therefore, US’411 teaches an alternative arrangement for the transporting of the lenses includes a rail.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of US’287 to include wherein the carriage is adjustable or movable in the horizontal direction along a rail because US’411 teaches an alternative arrangement for the transporting of the lenses includes a rail and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (B).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 9 to include subject matter regarding a rotatable brush has changed the scope of claim 9, and as a result, the 102 rejection of claim 9 as stated in the non-final office action mailed 2-6-26 is withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 103 as obvious over U’287 in view of CN’937 which includes both the rejection of claim 9 as stated in the non-final office action and additional discussion regarding the teachings of CN’937 relating to the features added to claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5-6-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Wang merely discloses a conveyor belt 6 with a non-rotating lens clamp 7, and a rotating rod 12 with a cleaner 13 fixed thereto. See Wang English Translation at pg. 4 and FIGS. 1 and 2. As such, Wang fails to disclose at least one cleaning station that has a rotatable brush as a cleaning member and an axis of rotation of the rotatable brush is arranged at least substantially perpendicular or transversely to an axis of rotation of a corresponding holder of the at least one rotatable holder as recited by amended independent claim 9 at least because the lens clamp 7 does not rotate and therefor does not have an axis of rotation, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As discussed above and in the non-final rejection office action mailed 2-6-26 US’287 teaches a rotatable holder which coincides with the optical axis OA of the optical element (para. 64-67, see fig. 1 and 3). The rotation axis A is oriented vertically. Wang is not relied on to teach this feature since US’287 already has a rotatable holder. Wang is relied on solely for the rotatable brush. Wand discloses rotating rod 12 driven by second motor 10 through bevel gears (pages 3-4, see fig. 2). The bevel gear arrangement coverts the vertical motor output to a horizontal rotational axis for rod 12, on which the cleaner 13 is fixed. The brush thus rotates about a horizontal axis positioned above the lens surface. Therefore, the combination of US’287 and Wang teaches one or ordinary skill in the art that the rotating brush of Wang and rotating holder of US’287 can be combined to perform cleaning that would include wherein the at least one cleaning station has a rotatable brush as a cleaning member and an axis of rotation of the rotatable brush is arranged at least substantially perpendicular or transversely to an axis of rotation of a corresponding holder of the at least one rotatable holder. The perpendicular arrangement is a natural and predictable geometric consequence of combining a vertically oriented rotating lens with a horizontally oriented rotating brush. Additionally, Wang discloses lens clamp 7 with clamping plates 72 connected to post 71 via bearings to permit lens rotation during cleaning for conveniently completely cleaning the lens (page 4-5 and claim 4, see fig. 1 and 3). As a result, Wang’s lens clamps are rotatably mounted and applicants’ characterization that “the lens clamp 7 does not rotate” is contradicted by Wang’s own discloser.
In response to applicant's argument that Flemming and Wang are directed toward cleaning concepts that are fundamentally different from each other, e.g., fluid-based cleaning vs. brush-based cleaning is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as discussed above and in the non-final rejection office action mailed 2-6-26 both Wang and US’287 are concerned with automated methods of cleaning optical lenses, their different approaches to performing the cleaning does not place them in different fields of art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to seek out any knowledge that may be useful is performing lens cleaning and applicant’s argument impractically narrows the field of the art with which one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rely on for knowledge.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights