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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on10/03/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8, 10-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-8, line 1 “Method” should be read –The method--.
Claims 10-13, line 1 “Manufacturing system” should be read –The manufacturing system --.
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 1-15 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.
A preamble of Claim 1 “a method for manufacturing by machining an ophthalmic device made from a substate, carrying out a roughing on a face of substrate and next a finishing on said face of the substrate” that is unclear and has many issues.
First, as this is written, it is unclear what this method is manufacturing? Is this method manufacturing an ophthalmic device from a substrate, right?
Second, the “carrying out a roughing… and .. a finishing” is unclear since it appears both roughing and finishing are not positively claimed because this method only one step of “blocking” …by applying first blocking force and…the second blocking force. There is nothing to do with the “manufacturing” the an ophthalmic device.
In the body of claim 1, the latter lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what it refers to.
Also, it is unclear what “the latter a first locking force” is.
As claim 1 is written, it is only step of blocking the substate by applying on “the latter” a first blocking force …a second blocking force… that is unclear where the first and second blocking forces are coming from and how the forces are blocked the substate. Any structures are contacting the substrate during blocking the substate?
Moreover, what is the constitution of roughing and finishing of claim 1 (until claim 2) referring to.
Is it unclear whether the roughing and finishing refer to types of machines or step of roughing and finishing?
If an art has a clamping device that secures the workpiece by first and second blocks (clamps) by a pressure for “roughing” (unknown what it is) and later, releasing the pressure of the clamps for “finishing” or releasing the workpiece, that meets the claimed invention right?
As results, it is unclear what the method is about.
The “roughing” in claim 2 is unclear whether it refers the roughing step of claim 1 or inherent structure of claim 1 or an additional step or structure.
The scope of claim 3 “a first roughing…a second roughing “ is unclear whether they refer the roughing of claim 1 or additional first and second roughing. How many of roughing in the invention and what are they for?
The scope of claim 5 is unclear since claim 1 recites the “finishing”, however, claim 5 appears reciting a step of “next edging…polishing” which conflicts to the scope of claim 1. Also, claim 5 used many times of language “and/or” throughout the claim makes confusing what it is being claimed. And claim 5 “the first blocking force…the second blocking force” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what they refer to.
Claim 6 “roughing and finishing” are unclear whether they refer the steps or structures of claim 1 or additional roughing and finishing.
Claim 7 “blocking” is unclear whether it refers the step of claim 1 or an additional blocking step.
The scope of claim 9 “a command and control unit…in order to implement the method for manufacturing by machining an ophthalmic device …claim 1” is unclear what the command and control unit does for the method of claim 1? This unit is for saving data or what since the language “implement” has many different means. Claim 14 have the same issue. It is unclear what the computer program does for the method of claim 1.
Claim 11 “the command and control unit” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what it refers to.
Claim 15 “…a computer program that implements at least partially the method…to claim 1” that is unclear what the at least partially the method is referring to, for an example, if user just turns on a machine, this is “at partially the method”, right?
All of the issues above, it appears that the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sonzogni (US 2016/0243667 A1).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, Sonzongni teaches a method for manufacturing an ophthalmic device from a substrate by machining (Figure 1 and Abstract), carrying out a roughing on a face of the substrate (a surface of a first step, Para. 38, Figure 1) and a finishing on said face of the substrate (a subsequent step of the semi-finished product, Para. 38), the method comprising:
blocking the substrate by applying on “the latter” a first blocking force during the roughing (see the first step, Para. 38 “the suction holding force” and a second blocking force during the finishing (see the subsequent step, Para. 38 “the suction holding force alone”), the first blocking force being higher than the second blocking force (see Para. 29 recites “a pressure holding force in addition to a suction force” that means the 1st blocking force is greater than the second blocking force).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Sonzongni teaches that the roughing (structure) comprises milling and/or turning of the substrate (Para. 66).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Sonzongni teaches that the roughing and the finishing are carried out on a first face of the substrate (upper surface) and at least the first blocking force and the second blocking force are applied on a second face (bottom surface) of the substrate opposite to the first face (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Sonzongni teaches that blocking comprises maintaining the substrate (Figure 1) by vacuum sucking the substrate (see the suction 12).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Sonzongni teaches that the substrate (20) is the substrate which is machined defines an ophthalmic surface which is a progressive ophthalmic surface (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Sonzongni discusses a command and control unit including system elements configured to run a computer program in order to implement the method for manufacturing by machining an ophthalmic device (see Figure 1 and Para. 68 “The movement of the rotary shaft 14 between the first and the second operative position and the pressure exerted on the surface to be machined 20b are controlled through an actuator” and Abstract “activating a pressure holding force depending on the level of the mechanical stresses exerted on the semi-finished product during the surface machining cycle on said surface” in which inherently has a controller and computer program to operate or run the machine system).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Sonzongni discusses a manufacturing system (see Figures of Sonzogni) configured for carrying out the manufacturing method comprising a roughing tool (30), a finishing tool (Para. 19 “the finishing and polishing step” that inherently has tool for performing these steps), a blocking device (11-13) configured to apply to the substrate at least the first blocking force during the roughing and the second blocking force during the finishing (see the discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Sonzongni discusses a command and control unit (see the discussion in claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Sonzongni discusses that the blocking device comprises a clamping member (see the suction chamber 13) which is configured to apply a variable clamping force selected amongst at least the first blocking force and the second blocking force (see the discussion of claim 1 above and the abstract “activating a pressure holding force depending on the level of the mechanical stresses exerted on the semi-finished product during the surface machining cycle on said surface”).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Sonzongni discusses that the blocking device comprises a vacuum sucking member which is configured to apply a variable vacuum sucking force selected amongst at least the first blocking force and the second blocking force (see the discussion in claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Sonzongni discusses that a computer program including instructions configured to implement the method for manufacturing by machining an ophthalmic device when said computer program is run by a computer (see the discussion of claim 9 above. With regards to “a computer”, any controller for controlling or activating machine is a computer. If the claimed computer is different, define it in the claim).
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.
Claims 3-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonzongni.
Regarding claims 3-4, as best understood, Sonzongni teaches all of the limitations as stated above except including a first roughing during which the first blocking force is applied on the substrate and a second roughing between the first roughing and the finishing (see the discussion of roughing and finishing in claim 1 above), however, Sonzongni fails to discuss that a third blocking force is applied on the substrate, the third blocking force being higher than the second blocking force applied during the finishing and the third blocking force is equal or lower than the first blocking force.
Please note that Sonzongni’s Abstract recites “activating a pressure holding force depending on the level of the mechanical stresses exerted on the semi-finished product during the surface machining cycle on said surface”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Sonzongni to have a third blocking force is applied on the substrate, the third blocking force being higher than the second blocking force applied during the finishing and the third blocking force is equal or lower than the first blocking force, in order to allow the mechanical stresses vary depending on the instantaneous position of the aforementioned tool, by activating and deactivating the pressure holding force depending on the instantaneous surface machining position it becomes possible to counteract high mechanical stresses and at the same time ensure full access to the surface to be treated (as discussed Para. 32).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Sonzongni teaches all of the limitations as stated above (it is unclear and confusing since claim 5 depends on claim 1, there are many limitations are not connecting to claim 1 or another word, claim 5 is not properly depending to claim 1) including polishing (Para. 89 “polishing cutting steps of the surface 20b…low stresses”) the substrate and blocking the substrate by applying on a fifth blocking force during the polishing, the fifth blocking force being equal, lower or higher than the first blocking force and/or the second blocking force (see the Sonzongni’s Abstract recites “activating a pressure holding force depending on the level of the mechanical stresses exerted on the semi-finished product during the surface machining cycle on said surface” and see Para. 34 “ the mechanical stresses are higher, requiring a combined suction and pressure action according to the invention in order to ensure reliable holding of the semi-finished product also in the absence of reference blocks” that means at a low mechanical stresses; it requires just the suction force as seen in Para. 36).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonzongni in view of Kenji (CN 110732943 A and Translation).
Regarding Claim 15, Sonzongni shows all of the limitations as stated above except a client-server communication interface for transferring to a remote computer at least manufacturing data, such as the first blocking force and the second blocking force, which are determined by a computer program that implements at least partially the method for manufacturing by machining an ophthalmic device, when said computer program is run in a command and control unit, the remote computer implementing the rest of said method for manufacturing.
Kenji shows a server (205, Figure 10 and Page 10 of translation, the very last paragraph “cloud server via a network…internet 202” for communicating and controlling a system 200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Sonzongni to have a server, as taught by Kenji, in order to allow remotely control multiple systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cook (US 5567198) shows a manufacture of lens having a pressing or holding forces to secure the lens (substrate).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/26/2026
Prosecution Insights