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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 7/23/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
a) adapted semi-finished lens blank (claim 1)
b) base-curve of the test semi-finished lens (claim 1)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legalese - i.e. it is an almost verbatim copy of claim 1. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: misspelling of the term “egal”. The claim language will be interpreted as the term “equal”. 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 4, 5, 7, 8, and 13-15 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.
As to claims, 4, 5, 13, and 14, the term “second geometrical parameter” is not defined in the description and unclear in that reader does not know whether it is the same type and only a different value as the first geometrical parament, or whether it is a different type of parameter.
As to claims, 7 and 15, the term “intermediate geometrical parameter” is not defined in the description and unclear in that reader does not know whether it is the same type and only a different value as the first or second geometrical parameter, or whether it is a different type of parameter.
Claim 6 is rejected as dependent upon claim 5.
As to claim 8, the claim recites “associated with” which is a subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b). Specifically, what constitutes “associated” is entirely subjective to a practitioner of the invention and/or the subject themselves. Connected or linked to what? The metes and bounds are unclear since those of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand what qualifies as an association or connection, and thus infringement becomes unclear (MPEP 2173.05; 2173).
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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colas (20100283966).
Regarding claim 1, Colas discloses calculation module ([0060]) comprising a memory and a processor ([0063]), the calculation module being configured to select ([0061]) an adapted semi-finished lens blank among a plurality of semi-finished lens blanks ([0071]-[0074]) for manufacturing an ophthalmic lens ([0047], optical system (OS) of an ophthalmic lens) to be mounted in a frame of an eyewear ([0043], spectacle frame), the eyewear being intended to be worn by a user ([0043], spectacle frame chosen by a user), the calculation module being configured: - to determine a geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens ([0040], selected parameter is a geometrical parameter) to be manufactured from a test semi-finished lens blank of the plurality ([0056]-[0059]), the geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens depending on a base-curve of the test semi-finished lens blank ([0111]), a refractive index of the test semi-finished lens blank ([0134]), a prescription of the user ([0047]) and/or a characteristic parameter value of the frame ([0043]), - to select the adapted semi-finished lens blank based on the geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens ([0101]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 2, Colas discloses the test semi-finished lens blank being a first test semi-finished lens blank (Fig 4a – Fig 4c, [0111]), when the geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens is outside the range of the geometrical parameter values the calculation module ([0116]) is also configured to: - select a second test semi-finished lens blank of the plurality ([0114]), the base-curve of the first test semi-finished lens blank being greater than the base-curve of the second test semi-finished lens blank, the adapted semi-finished lens blank being the second test semi-finished lens blank (Fig 4a - Fig 4c, [0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 3, Colas discloses the calculation module ([0060]) being also configured to: - select sequentially an intermediate test semi-finished lens blank of the plurality in an decreasing order of a value of the base-curve (Fig 4a – Fig 4c, [0111]), - determine an intermediate geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens to be manufactured from the intermediate test semi-finished lens blank (Fig 4a – Fig 4c, [0111]), - repeat select and determine until the intermediate geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens is within in the range of the geometrical parameter values (Fig 4a – Fig 4c, [0117]), the adapted semi-finished lens blank being the intermediate semi-finished lens blank allowing the intermediate geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens to be within the range of the geometrical parameter values (Fig 4a – Fig 4c, [0117]-[0118]).
Regarding claim 8, Colas discloses the plurality being a first plurality ([0101], a customized base-curve as a function of optimized optical performances, or minimal thickness, or lens curvature), the calculation module ([0060]) comprising a machine learning model previously trained with data ([0063]) of a second plurality of semi-finished lens blank for manufacturing the ophthalmic lens each semi-finished lens blank of the second plurality being associated with a geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens ([0101], a customized base-curve as a function of optimized optical performances, or minimal thickness, or lens curvature), the calculation module ([0060]) being configured:- to use the machine learning model to determine for at least two semi-finished lens blanks of the first plurality a geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens ([0051], calculating an optical system (OS) of an ophthalmic lens), - to select the semi-finished lens blank of the first plurality associated with the optimal geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens ([0057]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 9, Colas discloses the geometric parameter being chosen among:- a thickness of a border of the lens ([0086], thickness parameter threshold value can be the percentage of maximum authorized thickening of the most cambered base-curve compared to the flattest base-curve), - a thickness of a central part of the lens, - a thickness of a peripheral part of the lens, - an average, a maximum value, a minimum value or a weighted sum of the thickness of the border of the lens, the central part of the lens or the peripheral part of the lens, - a base-curve deviation on the lens, the frame, or a bevel of the frame, - a front distance, - a back distance and - an average, a maximum value, a minimum value, a weighted sum of the front distance or the back distance, and/or the characteristic parameter being chosen among:- a type of the frame ([0136], geometrical data are obtained from a spectacle frame data base), - a size of the frame, - a base of the frame, - at least one parameter related to a mounting of the lens inside a rim of the frame, - a mounting rule of the lens inside the rim and - a tint of the lens.
Regarding claim 10, Colas discloses a computer implemented method ([0060]-[0061]), for selecting an adapted semi-finished lens blank among a plurality of semi-finished lens blanks ([0071]-[0074]) for manufacturing an ophthalmic lens ([0047], optical system (OS) of an ophthalmic lens) to be mounted in a frame of an eyewear ([0043], spectacle frame), the eyewear being intended to be worn by a user ([0043], spectacle frame chosen by a user), the method comprising:- a step of determining a geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens ([0040], selected parameter is a geometrical parameter) to be manufactured from a test semi-finished lens blank of the plurality ([0056]-[0059]), the geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens depending on a base-curve of the test semi-finished lens blank ([0111]), a refractive index of the test semi-finished lens blank ([0134]), a prescription of the user ([0047]) and/or a characteristic parameter value of the frame ([0043]), - a step of selecting the adapted semi-finished lens blank based on the geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens ([0101]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 11, Colas discloses the test semi-finished lens blank being a first test semi-finished lens blank (Fig 4a – Fig 4c, [0111]), when the geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens is outside the range of the geometrical parameter values ([0116]), the step of selecting the adapted semi-finished lens blank comprises:- a step of selecting a second test semi-finished lens blank of the plurality ([0114]), the base-curve of the first test semi-finished lens blank being greater than the base-curve of the second test semi-finished lens blank, the adapted semi-finished lens blank being the second test semi-finished lens blank (Fig 4a - Fig 4c, [0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 12, Colas discloses - select sequentially an intermediate test semi-finished lens blank of the plurality in an decreasing order of a value of the base-curve (Fig 4a – Fig 4c, [0111]), - determine an intermediate geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens to be manufactured from the intermediate test semi-finished lens blank (Fig 4a – Fig 4c, [0111]), - repeat select and determine until the intermediate geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens is within in the range of the geometrical parameter values (Fig 4a – Fig 4c, [0117]), the adapted semi-finished lens blank being the intermediate semi-finished lens blank allowing the intermediate geometrical parameter value of the ophthalmic lens to be within the range of the geometrical parameter values (Fig 4a – Fig 4c, [0117]-[0118]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Headlund (4524419), Dubois (8308294), and Watanabe (7677726) are examples of a manufacturing method of a spectacle lens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights