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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is unity as presented by PCT examiner. This is not found persuasive because CN 106 738 538 discloses the common technical feature of an apparatus for curing at least one optical article, the apparatus including a housing (8; Figs. 1-2) defining a plurality of portions configured to receive the at least one optical article, the at least one optical article being secured on a holder that moves the at least one optical article through the plurality of portions, wherein the plurality of portions includes a loading portion, a heating portion, a cooling portion, and an unloading portion, and indexable platform that is configured to sequentially move the holder and the at least one optical article from the loading portion to the heating, the cooling portion, and unloading portion, wherein the holder is operatively connected to the indexable platform (see Figs 1-3, item 1-9). It is noted that since this common technical feature is known, it cannot be special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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- 3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DANYANG QUANYU OPTICS GLASSES CO LTD (CN 106 738 538 A; herein after “DANYANG”).
Regarding claim 1, DANYANG teaches an apparatus for curing at least one optical article, the apparatus comprising: a housing (Figs. 1-3, item 8-solidification housing; see Background technique and Contents of Invention, paragraphs 1-30) defining a plurality of portions configured to receive the at least one optical article (resin lens), the at least one optical article being secured on a holder that moves the at least one optical article through the plurality of portions (Figs. 1-2), wherein the plurality of portions includes a loading portion (facing the operator), a heating portion (Figs. 1-2 item 5-preheating section and 6-UV curing section), a cooling portion (Figs. 1-2, item 7-cooling section), and an unloading portion (facing the operator as shown in Fig. 1), and an indexable platform (1) that is configured to sequentially move the holder and the at least one optical article from the loading portion to the heating portion, the cooling portion, and the unloading portion, wherein the holder is operatively connected to the indexable platform.
PNG
media_image1.png
794
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DANYANG QUANYU OPTICS GLASSES CO LTD (CN 106 738 538 A; herein after “DANYANG”), Figs. 1-2 showing housing 8 with platform 1 carrying resin lens.
As for claim 2-3, DANYANG further shows wherein the holder comprises a carousel of holders that are configured to secure optical articles thereto to move through the plurality of portions (Fig 1-2 item 1 includes various holders as lens mold 11 for lens); wherein the carousel moves in an indexing manner to move the optical articles through the plurality of portions (speed motor 12 and reducer 13 drives turntable 1 about 360 degree rotation, where each row has three to four molds).
As for claim 6, DANYANG further shows wherein the holder includes an optical article holding platform upon which the at least one optical article rests (Figs 1-2 holder includes an optical article holding platform in which the optical article rest), wherein the optical article holding platform is configured to hold the at least one optical article as the holder moves through the plurality of portions (Figs 1-2).
As for claim 7, DANYANG further shows wherein the apparatus is configured to continuously move optical articles through the plurality of portions without stopping a cycle of movement of the holder through the plurality of portions to load new optical articles into the apparatus (speed motor 12 and reducer 13 drives turntable 1 about 360-degree rotation, where each row has three to four molds).
As for claim 8, DANYANG further shows wherein the loading portion and the unloading portion are configured to be accessed at the same time as the heating portion and the cooling portion are in operation (Figs 1-2 shows that the operator accesses at the same time as the heating 5-6 and cooling portion 7 are in operation).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DANYANG QUANYU OPTICS GLASSES CO LTD (CN 106 738 538 A; herein after “DANYANG”) in view of APPLETON WILLIAM J (US 2007/102835, as provided by the Applicant’s IDS).
As for claims 4 -5, DANYANG teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein the holder comprises a plurality of holders that are vertically stacked on one another, wherein each holder is configured to secure the optical article thereto; wherein each plurality of holders is configured to rotate freely from the remaining plurality of holders.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to molding and heating lenses, Appleton et al. teach plurality of holders that are vertically stacked on one another, wherein each holder is configured to secure the optical article thereto; wherein each plurality of holders is configured to rotate freely from the remaining plurality of holders. (Fig. 2, item; [0026]-[0029]).It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was made to have modified the apparatus taught by DANGYANG with further having plurality of holders that are vertically stacked on one another, as suggested by Appleton et al., for the benefit of efficiently handling plurality of articles at the same run, thereby reducing cost and time.
Claim(s) 9 -12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DANYANG QUANYU OPTICS GLASSES CO LTD (CN 106 738 538 A; herein after “DANYANG”) in view of CooperVision International Holding Company (GB 2537147 A; herein after “CooperVision”).
Regarding claims 9-12, DANYANG teaches all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, a door provided between the loading portion and the heating portion configured to isolate the heating portion from the loading portion, thereby permitting optical articles to be loaded onto the holder in the loading portion while the heating portion is heating a different optical article…as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to thermal curing of contact lens precursor material in an oven, CooperVision teaches a door provided between the loading portion and the heating portion configured to isolate the heating portion from the loading portion, thereby permitting optical articles to be loaded onto the holder in the loading portion while the heating portion is heating a different optical article (see [0034]; Figs. 1-5 item 220-door).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the Applicant’s invention to modify DANYANG with having a door, as suggested by CooperVision, for the benefit maintaining heated environment for curing contact lens.
It is noted that since CooperVision teaches specific oven for heating (see [0034]), thus claim limitation pertaining to a wherein the heating portion defines an inlet for introducing heated air from a central plenum into the heating portion to heat the at least one optical article; an wherein the heating portion defines at least one outlet in a wall of the heating portion to release the heated air from the heating portion; wherein the at least one outlet is configured to be adjusted on the wall of the heating portion to alter a release path of the heated air from the heating portion are limitations in which one ordinary skilled in the art can design based on the heating needs and housing structure desired, and these limitations are nothing but design choice and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2006/092652 - further carousels 6 can be angularly indexed or continuously rotated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743