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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chappa (US-20070128343-A1 – of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 10-15, Chappa teaches an apparatus (500) for applying material to at least one optical article (ophthalmic devices), the apparatus comprising: a holder (518); at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle (506); and a controller configured for controlling a flow rate of the first curable resin composition and the one or more additional curable resin compositions to the at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle so as to provide a gradient pattern on the at least one optical article upon exposure to actinic radiation; wherein controlling the flow rate of the first curable resin composition relative to the flow rate of the one or more additional curable resin compositions varies a concentration of the photochromic composition in the atomized mixture; and wherein the atomized mixture of the first curable resin composition and the one or more additional curable resin compositions is applied on the at least one optical article in a single pass or multiple passes (Fig 6,10 and ¶0035,0041-0042,0047-0048,0057,0124-0125).
The limitations “for retaining the at least one optical article” and “for mixing a first curable resin composition in liquid form and one or more additional curable resin compositions in liquid form, and applying an atomized mixture of the first curable resin composition and the one or more additional curable resin compositions to at least a portion of the at least one optical article, wherein at least one of the first curable resin composition and the one or more additional curable resin compositions is a photochromic composition” are a recitation of intended use of the claimed holder and at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114(II). Here, Chappa teaches an apparatus which includes all the structural limitations of the claim, specifically apparatus comprising: a holder (518) and at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle (506) (Fig 6,10 and ¶0035,0041-0042,0047-0048,0057,0124-0125).
The limitations “wherein the atomized mixture of the first curable resin composition and the one or more additional curable resin compositions is applied on the at least one optical article as a coating having a uniform thickness or a non-uniform thickness”; “wherein coating has a thickness of 1 µm to 40 µm”; “wherein a density of droplets of the coating is 725 droplets-per-inch to 1400 droplets-per-inch” and “wherein the at least one optical article is selected from the group consisting of optical lenses, optical filters, windows, visors, mirrors, displays, and ophthalmic lenses” recite the inclusion of a material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed and do not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
Regarding claims 5 and 7-8, as applied to the apparatus of claim 1, Chappa teaches an apparatus wherein the at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle comprises a housing (514) having a first liquid feed channel and a second liquid feed channel extending therethrough (Fig 6 and ¶0057; see channels from 504 and 510 that deliver compositions to 506); wherein a first end of the first liquid feed channel is in fluid communication with a first liquid reservoir containing the first curable resin composition, and wherein a first end of the second liquid feed channel is in fluid communication with a second liquid reservoir containing the one or more additional curable resin compositions (¶0041), wherein a second end of the first liquid feed channel and a second end of the second liquid feed channel terminate in a nozzle having an atomizing surface (¶0039-0040,0049).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to the apparatus of claim 1, Chappa teaches an apparatus wherein the gradient pattern is linear, curvilinear, radial, or a combination thereof (¶0134-0138).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to the apparatus of claim 1, Chappa teaches an apparatus wherein the ultrasonic discharge nozzle has a frequency of 48-120 kHz (¶0040).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chappa (US-20070128343-A1 – of record), as applied to the apparatus of claim 1, and in further view of Xu (CN-102759570-A – of record).
Regarding claims 2-4, as applied to the apparatus of claim 1, Chappa does not teach an apparatus wherein the holder is fixed on a base platform and wherein the at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle is attached to a movable arm that is movable relative to the base platform, wherein the controller is configured for positioning the at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle relative to the holder prior to applying the atomized mixture to at least a portion of the at least one optical article; wherein the movable arm has up to six degrees of freedom for moving the at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle relative to the holder.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (articulated six-freedom mechanical arm; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Xu discloses wherein the ultrasound transducer is fixed in the spray nozzle, spray nozzle fixed at the tool end of the articulated six-freedom mechanical arm, water spray nozzle and ultrasonic transducer can along with the mechanical hand to move in six degrees of freedom (Fig 1 and claim 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Chappa by applying the known technique of wherein the holder is fixed on a base platform and wherein the at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle is attached to a movable arm that is movable relative to the base platform and wherein the movable arm has up to six degrees of freedom for moving the at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle relative to the holder disclosed in Xu to the apparatus disclosed in Chappa such that the controller is configured for positioning the at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle relative to the holder prior to applying the atomized mixture to at least a portion of the at least one optical article with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chappa (US-20070128343-A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to the apparatus of claim 5, while Chappa discloses an apparatus comprising a housing (514) having a first liquid feed channel and a second liquid feed channel extending therethrough (Fig 6 and ¶0057; see channels from 504 and 510 that deliver compositions to 506), Chappa does not explicitly disclose wherein the first liquid feed channel is parallel to the second liquid feed channel, or wherein the first liquid feel channel is coaxial with the second liquid feed channel.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Chappa such that the first liquid feed channel is parallel to the second liquid feed channel or such that the first liquid feel channel is coaxial with the second liquid feed channel with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chappa (US-20070128343-A1 – of record) in view of Xu (CN-102759570-A – of record).
Regarding claims 17-18, Chappa teaches an apparatus (500) for applying material to at least one optical article (ophthalmic devices), the apparatus comprising: a holder (518); at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle (506); and a controller configured for positioning the at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle relative to the holder prior to applying the atomized mixture to at least a portion of the at least one optical article, and for controlling a flow rate of the first curable resin composition and the one or more additional curable resin compositions to the at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle so as to provide a gradient pattern on the at least one optical article upon exposure to actinic radiation; wherein controlling the flow rate of the first curable resin composition relative to the flow rate of the one or more additional curable resin compositions varies a concentration of the photochromic composition in the atomized mixture, and wherein the atomized mixture of the first curable resin composition and the one or more additional curable resin compositions is applied on the at least one optical article as a coating having a uniform thickness or a non-uniform thickness (Fig 6,10 and ¶0035,0041-0042,0047-0048,0057,0124-0125).
The limitations “for retaining the at least one optical article” and “for mixing a first curable resin composition in liquid form and one or more additional curable resin compositions in liquid form, and applying an atomized mixture of the first curable resin composition and the one or more additional curable resin compositions to at least a portion of the at least one optical article, wherein at least one of the first curable resin composition and the one or more additional curable resin compositions is a photochromic composition” are a recitation of intended use of the claimed holder and at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114(II). Here, Chappa teaches an apparatus which includes all the structural limitations of the claim, specifically apparatus comprising: a holder (518) and at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle (506) (Fig 6,10 and ¶0035,0041-0042,0047-0048,0057,0124-0125).
Chappa does not teach an apparatus comprising a base platform having a holder for retaining the at least one optical article nor at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle mounted on a movable arm that is movable relative to the base platform.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (articulated six-freedom mechanical arm; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Xu discloses wherein the ultrasound transducer is fixed in the spray nozzle, spray nozzle fixed at the tool end of the articulated six-freedom mechanical arm, water spray nozzle and ultrasonic transducer can along with the mechanical hand to move in six degrees of freedom (Fig 1 and claim 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Chappa by applying the known technique of a base platform having a holder for retaining the at least one optical article nor at least one ultrasonic discharge nozzle mounted on a movable arm that is movable relative to the base platform disclosed in Xu to the apparatus disclosed in Chappa with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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 on (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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
