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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1 requires computer implementation of two determining steps which would be considered abstract ideas falling under mental processes including evaluations. Further the claim requires the additional element of computer implementation which not indicative of reduction into a practical application. Further the use of a computer to perform the abstract idea does not indicate significantly more than the judicial exception and does not support the idea of an inventive concept being present.
Claim 2 further defines the abstract ideas of claim 1 although they would still be considered abstract ideas.
Claim 3 further includes a data acquisition step that would be considered a mental process of evaluation and a determining step that would be considered a mathematical calculation. These steps are performed by the same generic computational devices of claims would and are therefore not considered to be indicated as being reduced to practice and no inventive concept is present.
Claim 4 further defines the abstract ideas of claim 3 although they would still be considered abstract ideas.
Claim 5 further includes a determining step that would be considered a mental process or evaluation. This are performed by the same generic computational devices of claims would and are therefore not considered to be indicated as being reduced to practice and no inventive concept is present.
Claim 6 further includes a determining step that would be considered a mental process or evaluation. This are performed by the same generic computational devices of claims would and are therefore not considered to be indicated as being reduced to practice and no inventive concept is present. Further the implementation of clips as holders would be considered well-understood, route and conventional activity previously known in the industry, specified using highly general holders to the judicial exception.
Claim 7 further defines the abstract ideas of claim 2 although they would still be considered abstract ideas.
Claim 8 further defines the abstract ideas of claim 2 although they would still be considered abstract ideas.
Claim 9 further includes a determining step that would be considered a mental process or evaluation. This are performed by the same generic computational devices of claims would and are therefore not considered to be indicated as being reduced to practice and no inventive concept is present. Further the implementation of a manufacturing mark would be considered well-understood, route and conventional activity previously known in the industry, specified using highly general holders to the judicial exception.
Claim 10 would be considered a processing step of merely applying a coating would be considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 11 further defines the insignificant extra solution activity to include multiple generic methods of marking.
Claim 12 includes a sending step that would be considered mere insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 13 further defines the abstract ideas of claim 1 although they would still be considered abstract ideas.
Claim 14 further defines the dipping step of claim 1 into broad classes of coating materials well known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15 essentially claims the apparatus of claim 1 including a generic “processor”.
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 (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 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, 9-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koenig, II et al. (USPGPub 2020/0384788).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Koenig teaches that it is known to coat an ophthalmic lens via dip coating the use of a mark applied and used relative to the orientation of a location on the coating device [0048] wherein the mark may be considered a “lens parameter”.
Regarding claim 10, the coating applied may be considered a “dipping mark”.
Regarding claim 12, Koenig further teaches using the dipping apparatus robotic arm to move the dipping substrate into location [0057-0060].
Regarding claim 13, Koenig further teaches taking into account a thickness of the substrate, particular the coating thickness [0080].
Regarding claim 14, Koenig further teaches wherein the coating may be a tint coating [0079].
Regarding claims 15, Koenig teaches that it is known to coat an ophthalmic lens via dip coating the use of a mark applied and used relative to the orientation of a location on the coating device [0048] wherein the mark may be considered a “lens parameter”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights