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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 3, line 21, the reference to claim 1 by number should be removed, as any amendment to claim 1 is an implicit amendment to the specification, and the current version of claim 1 now may not be the same version of claim 1 later in examination.
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 1-11 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation a method for measuring optical lens surfaces, and the claim also recites in particular for the centering measurement on aspherical lenses which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the centering measurement" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What centering measurement on aspherical lenses is being referred to here?
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites various steps in past tense. In nonlimiting examples, “an optical measuring beam is generated/directed/detected”, “an optical lens arrangement that is to be measured”, “an aperture delimiting the measuring beam is inserted”, “which aperture acts as a vignetting field stop and is imaged”, “an angle between the first lens surface to be measured an dan optical axis . . . is determined”. It is unclear if these steps are positively recited steps that must be performed as part of the claimed method. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite active steps of generating, directing, detecting, inserting, and so on. For an example of active method step claiming in United States practice, please see the claims of US 2012/0133951. The above issues also appear to exist in all dependent claims 2-11.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 twice recites the broad recitation a reference position, and the claim also recites, in a parenthetical, zero position, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In this case, it is not clear whether “zero position” in the parenthetical is merely a definition of the claimed reference position or if it is a further limitation of the claimed reference position.
Further regarding the above limitation in claim 1, the claim recites “a reference position (zero position)” in the last two lines of the claim. However, this limitation is also recited in the line before “characterised in that”. As a result, it is not clear if “a reference position (zero position)” that is used for determining the angle between the second lens surface to be measured and the optical axis of the measuring beam is the same reference position as the reference position used for determining the angle between the first lens surface to be measured and the optical axis of the measuring beam or if these are two different reference positions. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is considering the reference position to be the same for both the determination of the first and second angles.
As for claim 6, as a result of the rejection of claim 1 regarding the “in particular” limitation as set forth above, it is unclear whether or not claim 6 sets forth a further limitation of claim 1, because it is not clear if “in particular for the centering measurement on aspherical lenses” in claim 1 is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim and therefore not required or a required feature of the claim. Is claim 6 setting forth that the method of claim 1 is additionally being used for a centering measurement when the optical lens arrangement is an aspherical lens on top of the measurement being performed in claim 1? Clarification is required, and if claim 6 sets forth a further centering measurement when the optical lens arrangement is an aspherical lens, better delineation and positive recitation as to when and how the centering measurement takes place is required.
As for claim 9, the idiomatic English and past tense verbiage used in the claim makes it difficult to ascertain whether or not each of the plurality of sensors includes an extended light source, a collimating optical arrangement, an aperture acting as a vignetting field stop, and a spatially resolving optical detector, or if some of these elements are shared between the sensors. Clarification is required.
Additionally regarding claim 9, the claim recites “the lens surfaces of an optical lens arrangement that are to be measured” in lines 5-6 of the claim. It is unclear if the lens surfaces of “an optical lens arrangement” here is the same lens surfaces of the optical lens arrangement being measured in claim 1, or if the plurality of sensors is being used to measure a different optical lens arrangement.
Beyond the past tense language issue set forth above, claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, and 11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on at least claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for measuring optical lens surfaces, the method comprising, among other essential steps, determining an angle between the first lens surface to be measured and an optical axis of the measuring beam a the point of intersection of the optical axis of the measuring beam with the first lens surface to be measured from an intensity distribution of the first light spot on the optical detector and a shift of the first light spot in relation to a reference position; and, at the same time, determining an angle between the second lens surface to be measured and the optical axis of the measuring beam at the point of intersection of the optical axis of the measuring beam with the second lens surface to be measured from an intensity distribution of the second light spot on the optical detector and a shift of the second light spot in relation to the reference position, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claim, the examiner first notes that while EP 3961180 discloses the claimed invention, this publication is not eligible as prior art as it published on March 2, 2022, which is after the effective filing date of the instant application, which is February 28, 2022.
Additionally, US 2006/0164630 to Hofbauer appears to be the closest prior art, and discloses in Fig. 1 a system and method for determining the angle or angle changes of objects. Light from a radiation source 2 generates a beam bundle 1 that enters an optical system via a beam splitter 3, passes through an optical system 6 and a screen 4 before reflecting off of object 5 which is subjected to angle changes. The object in some embodiments can be a lens (see paragraph 0045). The light reflected by the surface generates a screen image that is detected by a detector 7 on which the screen image is projected, and an analysis unit determines the position of the screen image to prior reference position and reference point to obtain the measured value of the angle and the angle change (see paragraph 0056). The reference position is considered a null position (see paragraph 0037). However, this reference fails to disclose performing the measurement of an angle between a first lens surface and a second lens surface in relation to a reference position simultaneously as claimed.
Finally, US 2024/0385074 to Sato discloses an eccentricity measurement method (Fig. 13) that involves setting a measurement condition on the basis of design data of an optical system under test, the optical system being a lens (see paragraph 0060). The eccentricity measurement device is set, and a reference point is measured. The optical unit under test is put on a holding table, a counter for identifying that optical unit is set, and deviation amounts of the reflected image of the surface under test corresponding to the counter number and eccentricity amounts of the apparent spherical center of the surface under test are calculated. This is repeated for various surfaces of the object under test. However, this method also fails to disclose the specifics of the claimed method as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2008/0304080 to Ueki discloses an aspheric lens surface decentering method that interferometrically determines the decenter of a lens under test (see the abstract); and US 2012/0133951 to Heinisch et al. teaches a method for measuring spacings between optical surfaces of an optical system (see abstract) using interferometry.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 29, 2026