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 Objections
Claims 5, 10, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 14 recite “a relative rotational angle position of the upper part and lower part about the rotational axis” and should read “a relative rotational angle position of the upper part and the lower part about the rotational axis” to increase clarity and provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 should read “[[at]] on the upper part, there is an outer vacuum chamber, which is bounded at least by an end surface of the retaining section at the upper part and an inner circumferential surface of the flexible retaining ring, “ to increase clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 12-13, and 17-18 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.
Claims 1 and 18 recites the limitation “mutually facing lower and upper wedge sections.” It is unclear whether the surfaces of the lower and upper wedge sections are facing one another or facing in the same direction. As such, it is considered to be indefinite. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to mean the upper and lower wedge sections are facing the same direction.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “in the form of a ring segment of 90°.” It is unclear whether the 90 degrees is a measurement of an arc or an angle on the abutment sections or an angle formed by a point of contact between the abutment sections. As such, it is considered to be indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed to read “in the form of a ring segment with a 90° angle.”
Claims 9, 12-13 and 17 recite the word “preferably” and claim 18 recites the word “particularly” in “particularly a spectacle lens.” It is unclear what intended scope of the claims and as such, the claim language has been held to be indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(c) and 2173.05(d)). For examination purposes, the word “preferably” has been omitted from the claims.
Additionally, claims 13 and 17 recite the limitations “one part” and “the other part.” It is not clear whether the claims are setting forth new parts or referring to the upper and lower parts. As such, it is considered to be indefinite. For examination purposes, the claims have been construed to read “at one of the lower part or upper part” and “the other of the lower part or upper part.”
Additionally, claims 13 and 17 recite the limitation “with play” in “secures the upper part with play.” It is unclear what is meant to secure “with play.” As such, it is considered to be indefinite. The examiner does not have any suggestions for corrections.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US3866667A) in view of Bolandi (US 5571044 A).
Regarding claim 1, Knight (US3866667A) discloses a device for retaining an optical workpiece, at a first one of two opposite workpiece surfaces for processing or treating the optical workpiece at a second one of the workpiece surfaces, (see Abstract) comprising
a lower part with a base, which has a central base axis and which comprises an interface for three-dimensionally defined securing to a holder, (see Ref. Pic. 1 below: lower prism ring 70 with wall 82 which has a central axis BA and comprises bore 84;
Note: “three-dimensionally defined securing to a holder” is an intended use, see FIG. 2: the bore 84 of the lower prism ring is secured three-dimensionally to piston 18, which holds the device, meeting the limitations of the claim)
and a lower wedge section adjoining the base along the base axis and extending transversely to the base axis, (FIG. 2: surface 80—a section of lower prism ring 70 that is inclined to give the ring a wedge shape, thus a lower wedge section—adjoins wall 82 along the base axis and extends transversely to the base axis; see also Col. 4, Lines 13-21)
and an upper part with a retaining section for the optical workpiece, which has a central retention axis, (Ref. Pic. 1 below: upper prism ring 102 with upper edge 118 for lens blank 122, which has a central retention axis AA)
and an upper wedge section adjoining the retaining section along the retention axis and extending transversely to the retention axis, (Ref. Pic. 1 below: annular surface 110—a section of the upper part that contributes to the wedge shape, and thus an upper wedge section—adjoins upper edge 118 along retention axis AA and extends transversely to axis AA)
wherein the lower part and the upper part (lower prism ring 70 and upper prism ring 102) with the mutually facing lower and upper wedge sections (edge 118 and surface 80 mutually face up in the general direction of the lens blank) are rotatable relative to one another about a common rotational axis inclined with respect to the base axis and the retention axis so that a relative rotation of the upper part and lower part about the rotational axis produces relative tilting of the retaining section with respect to the base; (lower prism ring 70 and upper prism ring 102 are rotatable relative to one another about a common rotational axis—the rings 70 and 102 may be rotated as a single unit—so that a relative rotation of rings 70 and 102 about the common rotational axis produces relative tilting of the upper ring to the lower ring including wall 82; see Col. 4, Lines 51-68 and Col. 6, Line 30-Col. 7, Line 2)
characterized by a wedge orientation arrangement (an arrangement of scales 124 and 126;
Note: The examiner reminds the applicant that claims are given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification—see MPEP 2111.01. The arrangement of scales 124 and 126 shows the relative orientation of wedge-shaped rings 70 and 102, meeting the plain meaning of “wedge orientation arrangement” and meeting the limitations of the claim)
with, at the upper part, an orientation aid (scale 128 located on the upper prism ring 102) by way of which
a rotational angle position of the upper part about the base axis can be determined (determining a rotational angle position of the upper part about the base axis is an intended use, and this is capable of being done using the markings on scale 128 of upper prism ring 102; see Col. 6, Line 24-Col. 7, Line 2)
and/or the upper part is fixable in a rotational angle position about the base axis.
and/or with an abutment between the upper part and the lower part (see Ref. Pic. 2 below: sections A and B of upper prism ring 102 and lower prism ring 70, respectively, abut each other).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ref. Pic. 1: Annotated FIG. 4
PNG
media_image2.png
739
1458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ref. Pic. 2: Annotated FIG. 2
Knight does not disclose an abutment between the upper part and the lower part which defines at least one rotational angle end position of the upper part with respect to the lower part about the rotational axis in which the retaining section at the upper part has a minimum or maximum tilt relative to the base of the lower part.
However, Bolandi (US 5571044 A) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to workpiece retaining holders, teaches a retaining device (housing 22 in FIGS. 2 and 4) with an upper part (outer ring 24) and a lower part (inner ring 28) with an abutment between the upper part and the lower part (frusto-conical surfaces 54 between outer ring 24 and inner ring 28) which defines at least one rotational angle end position of the upper part with respect to the lower part about the rotational axis in which the retaining section at the upper part has a minimum or maximum tilt relative to the base of the lower part (FIG. 6: frusto-conical surfaces 54 define a maximum angle of rotation position of outer ring 24 with respect to inner ring 28 about a rotational axis in which the upper ring with opening 62 has a maximum tilt angle relative to the lower ring 24).
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 retaining device of Knight to have an abutment between the upper part and the lower part which defines at least one rotational angle end position of the upper part with respect to the lower part about the rotational axis in which the retaining section at the upper part has a minimum or maximum tilt relative to the base of the lower part, as taught by Bolandi. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “provide large-area contact between adjacent surfaces, thereby reducing stresses and strains on the outer and inner rings” (Bolandi Col. 2, Line 51 - Col. 3, Line 4).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, teaches that the orientation aid has a projection which projects substantially radially outwardly away from the upper wedge section of the upper part with respect to the rotational axis, (Knight FIG. 4: scale 128 is on an edge of surface 110 which projects radially outward away from rotational axis AA which runs vertically through the center of upper prism ring 102)
or has in the upper part a cut-out extending substantially radially inwardly with respect to the rotational axis.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, teaches that the abutment has at the lower part a first abutment section co-operating with a second abutment section of the abutment at the upper part (see Ref. Pic. 2 in the discussion of claim 1 above: section A of lower ring 70 abuts and cooperates with section B of upper ring 102).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, teaches that the first abutment section and the second abutment section of the abutment as seen in a plan view along the rotational axis are each configured in the form of a ring segment with a 90° angle (see Ref. Pic. 2 in the discussion of claim 1 above: sections A and B are shown in a plan view along the rotational axis and are formed in ring segments, each having 90 degree corners between surfaces 106 and the mold cavity 120)
and as seen in a circumferential direction about the rotational axis each have two end-face abutment surfaces, (see Ref. Pic. 2 in the discussion of claim 1 above: sections A and B have two surfaces abutting each other)
wherein one of the abutment surfaces of the first abutment section co-operates with one of the abutment surfaces of the second abutment section so as to fix the maximum tilt of the retaining section at the upper part relative to the base of the lower part, (as per the modification of Bolandi in the rejection of claim 1 above, the frusto-conical surfaces 54, on the left portion of outer ring 24 and lower ring 28 in FIG. 6, cooperate to fix the maximum tilt of the outer ring 24 relative to lower ring 28)
whereas another one of the abutment surfaces of the first abutment section co-operates with another one of the abutment surfaces of the second abutment section so as to fix the minimum tilt of the retaining section at the upper part relative to the base of the lower part (as per the modification of Bolandi in the rejection of claim 1 above, the arrangement of frustoconical surfaces 54 on each outer ring 24 and lower ring 28 provide a range of tilt angles up to ±1.2 degrees, inclusive, between the rings so the frustoconical surfaces 54 disposed around on the rings would fix a minimum tilt angle as well).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US3866667A) in view of Bolandi (US 5571044 A), further in view of Shibata (US20080248720A1).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, teaches a relative rotational angle position of the upper part and the lower part about the rotational axis is securable in steps (see Ref. Pic. 2 in the discussion of claim 1 above: upper ring 70 and lower ring 102 is securable with abutting stepped portions to form a relative rotational angle position; see also Knight Col. 4, Lines 51-68 and Col. 6, Line 30-Col. 7, Line 2), but does not teach that the upper part and the lower part is mechanically positively securable.
However, Shibata (US20080248720A1) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to optical lens retaining devices, teaches an optical lens holder with an upper part and a lower part mechanically positively securable (see FIG. 4a and Shibata ¶[0059]-[0060]: cup 600 and cup holder 630 are secured by positive locking, incorporating interlocking even areas 642a and 703a).
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 upper part and the lower part of Knight, as modified, to be mechanically positively securable, as taught by Shibata. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to reduce the occurrence of unwanted axis deviation (Shibata ¶[0006]).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, teaches a relative rotational angle position of the upper part and the lower part about the rotational axis is securable in steps (see Ref. Pic. 2 in the discussion of claim 1 above: upper ring 70 and lower ring 102 is securable with abutting stepped portions to form a relative rotational angle position; see also Knight Col. 4, Lines 51-68 and Col. 6, Line 30-Col. 7, Line 2), but does not teach that the upper part and the lower part is mechanically positively securable.
However, Shibata (US20080248720A1) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to optical lens retaining devices, teaches an optical lens holder with an upper part and a lower part mechanically positively securable (see FIG. 4a and Shibata ¶[0059]-[0060]: cup 600 and cup holder 630 are secured by positive locking, incorporating interlocking even areas 642a and 703a).
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 upper part and the lower part of Knight to be mechanically positively securable, as taught by Shibata. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to reduce the occurrence of unwanted axis deviation (Shibata ¶[0006]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US3866667A) in view of Bolandi (US 5571044 A) and Shibata (US20080248720A1), further in view of Oeztuerk (US 20250370356 A1; priority date of 03/01/2023 to DE102023201858A1).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, does not teach that formed between the upper part and the lower part is a Hirth toothing with a first toothing section on an upper side of the lower part and a second toothing section, which is formed to be complementary with the first toothing section, on a lower side of the upper part.
However, Oeztuerk (US 20250370356 A1), in the pertinent problem of a system with an optical element with different rotational degrees of freedom, teaches Hirth toothing formed between an upper part and a lower part with a first toothing section on an upper side of the lower part and a second toothing section, which is formed to be complementary with the first toothing section, on a lower side of the upper part (see Abstract and FIG. 4: a first Hirth toothing 152 on an upper side of section 158 formed to be complementary with a second Hirth toothing 166 on a lower side section 144).
Given that both Knight, as modified by Shibata, and Oeztuerk both teach systems with an element with an upper part and a lower part engaged with one another, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the engagement means of Knight, as modified, with the Hirth toothing engagement means of Oeztuerk, to provide the predictable result of securing the upper part to the lower part.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, does not teach that the Hirth toothing has a tooth count of between 28 and 36 teeth
and/or the individual teeth of the Hirth toothing have at the radially outer edge of the teeth as referred to the rotational axis a tooth height of between 1 millimeter and 3 millimeters
and/or the individual teeth of the Hirth toothing lie within a circle about the rotational axis having a radius of between 15 millimeters and 20 millimeters with respect to the rotational axis.
Oeztuerk, as used to modify Knight in the discussion of claim 6 above, teaches that the Hirth toothing has a tooth count of 24 teeth (see Figure 4).
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 Hirth toothing of Knight, as modified, so that the Hirth toothing has a tooth count of between 28 and 36 teeth. Such a modification would be duplication of parts, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). As the Hirth teeth are arranged with uniform distribution (Oeztuerk ¶[0025]) and share the same function of meshing to perform precise positioning, changing the number of teeth would not change the manner of operation. Further, when looking to the specification, namely ¶[0029]-[0030] of the instant application, there is no discussion of criticality or unexpected results concerning the tooth count of the Hirth toothing.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US3866667A) in view of Bolandi (US 5571044 A), Shibata (US20080248720A1) and Oeztuerk (US 20250370356A1), further in view of Achy (US20070105490A1).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, does not teach that mounted at the retaining section of the upper part is a flexible retaining ring on which the optical workpiece is placeable by its first workpiece surface.
However, Achy (US20070105490A1) teaches an upper part of an optical lens holder with a flexible retaining ring on which an optical workpiece is placeable by its first workpiece surface mounted at the retaining section of the upper part (FIGS. 1 and 3: rubber gasket 9 mounted on a retaining face 7 of block 1 on which lens 200 is placeable by its first workpiece surface facing down).
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 lens holder of Knight, as modified, so that mounted at the retaining section of the upper part is a flexible retaining ring on which the optical workpiece is placeable by its first workpiece surface, as taught by Achy.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “[prevent] the optical lens 200 from turning solely by means of friction against the concave face 202, to the exclusion of any mechanical indexing means” (Achy ¶[0041]).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated in this rejection. Achy as used to modify Knight further teaches that the flexible retaining ring is made of NBR or EPDM
and/or has a hardness according to Shore A of between 15 and 80, preferably between 20 and 50,
and/or has a material thickness of between 1.0 millimeter and 8.0 millimeters, preferably between 2.0 millimeters and 5.0 millimeters (a material thickness e.sub.9 of gasket 9 is 1.2 mm, which is between 1 mm and 8 mm; see Achy ¶[0036]).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, does not teach that on the upper part, there is an outer vacuum chamber, which is bounded at least by an end surface of the retaining section at the upper part and an inner circumferential surface of the flexible retaining ring, and can be evacuated for releasable holding of the optical workpiece, which is placed on the flexible retaining ring, at the first workpiece surface.
Achy teaches that on the upper part, there is an outer vacuum chamber, (see FIG. 3: chamber 11 on block 1) which is bounded at least by an end surface of the retaining section at the upper part and an inner circumferential surface of the flexible retaining ring, (chamber 11 is bounded by the bottom surface of cavity 8 of block 1 and an inner circumferential surface of gasket 9)
and can be evacuated for releasable holding of the optical workpiece, which is placed on the flexible retaining ring, at the first workpiece surface (chamber 11 can be evacuated by a vacuum pump to releasbly hold lens 200, placed on gasket 9, at the bottom facing surface of lens 200; see ¶[0038]).
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 device of Knight, as modified, so that on the upper part, there is an outer vacuum chamber, which is bounded at least by an end surface of the retaining section at the upper part and an inner circumferential surface of the flexible retaining ring, and can be evacuated for releasable holding of the optical workpiece, which is placed on the flexible retaining ring, at the first workpiece surface, as further taught by Achy.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “[provide] the lens 200 with a seat that is rigid, precise, and stable, holding, i.e. blocking, the lens in a position that is determined or that can be determined” (Achy ¶[0029]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US3866667A) in view of Shibata (US20080248720A1), Bolandi (US 5571044 A), Oeztuerk (US 20250370356A1), and Achy (US20070105490A1), further in view of Lothar (DE10249251A1).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, does not teach that the lower part and the upper part bound an inner vacuum chamber which is sealed relative to the environment by a sealing ring and which can be evacuated in order to releasably hold the upper part at the lower part in a predetermined rotational angle setting about the rotational axis.
However, Lothar (DE10249251A1) teaches a lens holder wherein a lower part and an upper part bound an inner vacuum chamber which is sealed relative to the environment by a sealing ring (FIG. 9: parts 10’ and 12 bind the top of the chamber defined channel 42’, which is sealed relative to the environment by sealing lip ring 44’)
and which can be evacuated in order to releasably hold the upper part at the lower part in a predetermined rotational angle setting about the rotational axis (channel 42’ is subject to vacuum suction;
Note: “to releasably hold the upper part at the lower part in a predetermined rotational angle setting about the rotational axis” is an intended use. The negative pressure would result in a tighter fit between the connecting parts and thus releasably hold the ring part 38’ at receptacle 10’ at a predetermined rotational angle setting, meeting the limitations of the claim).
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 device of Knight so that the lower part and the upper part bound an inner vacuum chamber which is sealed relative to the environment by a sealing ring and which can be evacuated in order to releasably hold the upper part at the lower part in a predetermined rotational angle setting about the rotational axis, as taught by Lothar.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the air flow can be directed through the body of the device so that the vacuum source can be located further away from the upper and lower parts to avoid crowding components.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated in this rejection. Lothar, as used to further modify Knight as discussed in the rejection of claim 11, further teaches that the inner vacuum chamber is pneumatically connectible or connected with the outer vacuum chamber, the latter preferably by way of a connecting hole in the retaining section of the upper part (Lothar FIG. 9: recess 24’ is pneumatically connected with channel 42’ through a connecting hole to guide compressed air through the device).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US3866667A) in view of Shibata (US20080248720A1), Bolandi (US 5571044 A), Oeztuerk (US 20250370356A1), Achy (US20070105490A1), and Lothar (DE10249251A1), further in view of Schafer (US20110220018A1).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, does not teach that arranged between the lower part and the upper part is a spring element in order to produce between the lower part and the upper part a biasing force which urges the lower part and the upper part apart,
and/or formed between the lower part and the upper part is a detent connection which secures the upper part [[with play]] to the lower part against loss, preferably comprising at one of the lower part or upper part, a plurality of flexible detent hooks which co-operate with an undercut at the other of the lower part or upper part,
and/or formed between the lower part and the upper part is a centering aid which aligns the upper part and the lower part with respect to the common rotational axis, preferably comprising at one part of the lower part or upper part, a substantially hollow-cylindrical sleeve section co-operating with a substantially cylindrical collar at the other part of the lower part or upper part.
However, Schafer (US20110220018A1) teaches an optical lens holder with a detent connection formed between a lower part and an upper part which secures the upper part to the lower part against loss, (see FIG. 5: a detent connection between clamping device 10 and block piece B) comprising at the lower part, a plurality of flexible detent hooks on the lower part (FIG. 6: clamping elements 48 on device 10) which co-operate with an undercut at the upper part (FIG. 25: clamping projects 26 of clamping section 16 of block piece B).
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 device of Knight, as modified, so that formed between the lower part and the upper part is a detent connection which secures the upper part to the lower part against loss, preferably comprising at one of the lower part or upper part, a plurality of flexible detent hooks which co-operate with an undercut at the other of the lower part or upper part, as taught by Schafer.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide simple means of further reinforcing the connection between the lower part and the upper part while avoiding deformation of the parts (see Schafer ¶[0008]-[0009]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US3866667A) in view of Bolandi (US 5571044 A), further in view of Achy (US20070105490A1).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, does not teach that mounted at the retaining section of the upper part is a flexible retaining ring on which the optical workpiece is placeable by its first workpiece surface.
However, Achy (US20070105490A1) teaches an upper part of an optical lens holder with a flexible retaining ring on which an optical workpiece is placeable by its first workpiece surface mounted at the retaining section of the upper part (FIGS. 1 and 3: rubber gasket 9 mounted on a retaining face 7 of block 1 on which lens 200 is placeable by its first workpiece surface facing down).
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 lens holder of Knight, as modified, so that mounted at the retaining section of the upper part is a flexible retaining ring on which the optical workpiece is placeable by its first workpiece surface, as taught by Achy.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “[prevent] the optical lens 200 from turning solely by means of friction against the concave face 202, to the exclusion of any mechanical indexing means” (Achy ¶[0041]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US3866667A) in view of Bolandi (US 5571044 A), further in view of Lothar (DE10249251A1).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, does not teach that the lower part and the upper part bound an inner vacuum chamber which is sealed relative to the environment by a sealing ring and which can be evacuated in order to releasably hold the upper part at the lower part in a predetermined rotational angle setting about the rotational axis.
However, Lothar (DE10249251A1) teaches a lens holder wherein a lower part and an upper part bound an inner vacuum chamber which is sealed relative to the environment by a sealing ring (FIG. 9: workpiece receptacle 10’ and ring part 38’ bind the top of the chamber defined channel 42’, which is sealed relative to the environment by sealing lip ring 44’)
and which can be evacuated in order to releasably hold the upper part at the lower part in a predetermined rotational angle setting about the rotational axis (channel 42’ is subject to vacuum suction;
Note: “to releasably hold the upper part at the lower part in a predetermined rotational angle setting about the rotational axis” is an intended use. The negative pressure would result in a tighter fit between the connecting parts and thus releasably hold the ring part 38’ at receptacle 10’ at a predetermined rotational angle setting, meeting the limitations of the claim).
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 device of Knight, as modified, so that the lower part and the upper part bound an inner vacuum chamber which is sealed relative to the environment by a sealing ring and which can be evacuated in order to releasably hold the upper part at the lower part in a predetermined rotational angle setting about the rotational axis, as taught by Lothar.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the air flow can be directed through the body of the device so that the vacuum source can be located further away from the upper and lower parts to avoid crowding components.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US3866667A) in view of Bolandi (US 5571044 A), further in view of Schafer (US20110220018A1).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, does not teach that arranged between the lower part and the upper part is a spring element in order to produce between the lower part and the upper part a biasing force which urges the lower part and the upper part apart,
and/or formed between the lower part and the upper part is a detent connection which secures the upper part [[with play]] to the lower part against loss, preferably comprising at one of the lower part or upper part, a plurality of flexible detent hooks which co-operate with an undercut at the other of the lower part or upper part,
and/or formed between the lower part and the upper part is a centering aid which aligns the upper part and the lower part with respect to the common rotational axis, preferably comprising at one part of the lower part or upper part, a substantially hollow-cylindrical sleeve section co-operating with a substantially cylindrical collar at the other part of the lower part or upper part.
However, Schafer (US20110220018A1) teaches an optical lens holder with a detent connection formed between a lower part and an upper part which secures the upper part to the lower part against loss, (see FIG. 5: a detent connection between clamping device 10 and block piece B) comprising at the lower part, a plurality of flexible detent hooks on the lower part (FIG. 6: clamping elements 48 on device 10) which co-operate with an undercut at the upper part (FIG. 25: clamping projects 26 of clamping section 16 of block piece B).
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 device of Knight, as modified, so that formed between the lower part and the upper part is a detent connection which secures the upper part to the lower part against loss, preferably comprising at one of the lower part or upper part, a plurality of flexible detent hooks which co-operate with an undercut at the other of the lower part or upper part, as taught by Schafer.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide simple means of further reinforcing the connection between the lower part and the upper part while avoiding deformation of the parts (see Schafer ¶[0008]-[0009]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US3866667A) in view of Achy (US20070105490A1), Lothar (DE10249251A1) and Jochim-Schmidt (US 6126520).
Regarding claim 18, Knight discloses a method for retaining an optical workpiece, particularly a spectacle lens, with a first one of two opposite workpiece surfaces at a retaining device for processing or treating the optical workpiece at a second one of the workpiece surfaces, comprising the following steps:
a) providing the optical workpiece to be processed or treated; (see Abstract and FIG. 4: lens blank 122)
b) providing the retaining device for the optical workpiece, comprising a lower part with a base, which has a central base axis and which comprises an interface for three-dimensionally defined securing to a holder, (see Ref. Pic. 1 in the discussion of claim 1 above: lower prism ring 70 with wall 82 which has a central axis BA and comprises bore 84;
Note: “three-dimensionally defined securing to a holder” is an intended use, the bore 84 of the lower prism ring is secured three-dimensionally to piston 18, which holds the device, meeting the limitations of the claim; see FIG. 2)
and a lower wedge section adjoining the base along the base axis and extending transversely to the base axis, (FIG. 2: surface 80—a section of lower prism ring 70 that is inclined to give the ring a wedge shape, thus a lower wedge section—adjoins wall 82 along the base axis and extends transversely to the base axis; see also Col. 4, Lines 13-21)
as well as an upper part with a retaining section, which has a central retention axis, for the optical workpiece (Ref. Pic. 1 in the discussion of claim 1 above: upper prism ring 102 with upper edge 118 for lens blank 122, which has a central retention axis AA)
and an upper wedge section adjoining the retaining section along the retention axis and extending transversely to the retention axis, (Ref. Pic. 1 in the discussion of claim 1 above: annular surface 110—a section of the upper part that contributes to the wedge shape, and thus an upper wedge section—adjoins upper edge 118 along retention axis AA and extends transversely to axis AA)
wherein the lower part and the upper part (lower prism ring 70 and upper prism ring 102) by the mutually facing lower and upper wedge sections (edge 118 and surface 80 mutually face up in the general direction of the lens blank) are rotatable relative to one another about a common rotational axis which is inclined with respect to the base axis and the retention axis so that a relative rotation of the upper part and lower part about the rotational axis produces a relative tilting of the retaining section with respect to the base, (lower prism ring 70 and upper prism ring 102 are rotatable relative to one another about a common rotational axis—the rings 70 and 102 may be rotated as a single unit—so that a relative rotation of rings 70 and 102 about the common rotational axis produces relative tilting of the upper ring to the lower ring; see Col. 4, Lines 51-68 and Col. 6, Line 30-Col. 7, Line 2)
c) ensuring that the desired relative tilting of the retaining section at the upper part with respect to the base of the lower part is present; (see Col. 4, Lines 51-68 and Col. 6, Line 30-Col. 7, Line 2)
d) placing, with alignment with the retention axis of the retaining device, the optical workpiece by its first workpiece surface at the retaining section of the upper part of the retaining device (Col. 2, Lines 17-36: “the lens blank [may be positioned] in a manner such that when the blocking metal is introduced into the mold, the prescribed amount of prism may be incorporated into the block at the desired meridianal orientation”).
Knight does not disclose that in step a), the retaining device additionally comprises a flexible retaining ring at the retaining section, an outer vacuum chamber bounded at least by an end surface of the retaining section and an inner circumferential surface of the flexible retaining ring,
and an inner vacuum chamber, which is sealed relative to the environment by a sealing ring, between the lower part and the upper part;
in step d), the optical workpiece by its first workpiece surface is placed on the flexible retaining ring;
and step e) evacuating the inner vacuum chamber and the outer vacuum chamber in common in order at the same time to secure the upper part and lower part of the retaining device to one another in the relative rotational setting thereof about the rotational axis as well as the optical workpiece to the retaining section of the retaining device.
However, Achy (US20070105490A1) teaches an upper part of an optical lens holder with a flexible retaining ring on which an optical workpiece is placeable by its first workpiece surface mounted at the retaining section of the upper part (FIGS. 1 and 3: rubber gasket 9 mounted on a retaining face 7 of block 1 on which lens 200 is placeable by its first workpiece surface facing down) and
an outer vacuum chamber, (see FIG. 3: chamber 11 on block 1) which is bounded at least by an end surface of the retaining section at the upper part and an inner circumferential surface of the flexible retaining ring, (chamber 11 is bounded by the bottom surface of cavity 8 of block 1 and an inner circumferential surface of gasket 9),
and a step wherein the optical workpiece by its first workpiece surface is placed on the flexible retaining ring at the retaining section of the upper part of the retaining device (lens 200 is placed on rubber gasket 9 at a retaining face 7 of block 1).
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 method of Knight so that the retaining device provided additionally comprises a flexible retaining ring at the retaining section and an outer vacuum chamber bounded at least by an end surface of the retaining section and an inner circumferential surface of the flexible retaining ring, and step d) further comprises the optical workpiece being placed on the flexible retaining ring, as taught by Achy.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “[prevent] the optical lens 200 from turning solely by means of friction against the concave face 202, to the exclusion of any mechanical indexing means” (Achy ¶[0041]) and to “[provide] the lens 200 with a seat that is rigid, precise, and stable, holding, i.e. blocking, the lens in a position that is determined or that can be determined” (Achy ¶[0029]).
Additionally, Lothar teaches a lens retaining device with an inner vacuum chamber, which is sealed relative to the environment by a sealing ring, between the lower part and the upper part; (Lothar FIG. 9: channel 42’ is sealed relative to the environment via recess 24’ by sealing lip ring 44’, which is located between parts 10’ and 12)
and step e) evacuating the inner vacuum chamber and the outer vacuum chamber in common in order at the same time to the optical workpiece to a retaining section of the retaining device (FIG. 9: the suction source runs through channel 42’ to recess 24’ in order at the same time to suction the lens L to the open section of ring part 38’, which retains the lens, of the device; see also Lothar Trans. ¶[0008]-[0009]).
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 method of Knight, as modified, to provide an inner vacuum chamber, which is sealed relative to the environment by a sealing ring, between the lower part and the upper part and a step of evacuating the inner vacuum chamber and the outer vacuum chamber in common in order at the same time to the optical workpiece to a retaining section of the retaining device.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the air flow can be directed through the body of the device so that the vacuum source can be located further away from the upper and lower parts to avoid crowding components.
Additionally, Jochim-Schmidt (US 6126520) teaches a step of evacuating a vacuum chamber to secure movable components of a retaining device to one another in a relative rotational setting thereof about a rotational axis (providing a negative pressure in cavity 62 generates forces between fixture 60, pad 92, and optical component 12, fixing them from rotation with respect to fixture 60; see Col. 3, Lines 42-55).
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 method of Knight, as modified, to include a step of evacuating the inner vacuum chamber and the outer vacuum chamber in common in order at the same time to secure the upper part and lower part of the retaining device to one another in the relative rotational setting thereof about the rotational axis, as taught by Jochin-Schmidt. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to further secure the upper part to the lower part to prevent energy loss from pressure leakage between components.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated in this rejection. Knight, as modified, further teaches the step c) of ensuring the desired relative tilting of the retaining section with respect to the base comprises relative rotation of the upper part and lower part of the retaining device about the rotational axis;
and/or the step d) of placing the optical workpiece, with alignment with respect to the retention axis of the retaining device, comprises centering of the optical workpiece with respect to the retention axis of the retaining device and/or a rotational angle orientation of the optical workpiece about the retention axis of the retaining device; (the axis and optical center of the lens are properly positioned on the device for the desired angle; see Knight Col. 2, Lines 37-60)
and/or at least the step e) is carried out in an evacuable container into which the retaining device and the optical workpiece are inserted;
and/or if the step e) is performed in an evacuable container, a step f) of removal of the retaining device and the optical workpiece retained thereat from the evacuable container follows in which initially the evacuable container is ventilated, while the optical workpiece is urged substantially along the retention axis against the flexible retaining ring.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights