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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 09/10/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 09/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of the restricted groups are similar and therefore there would be no undue or additional search burden. This is not found persuasive because as explained in the restriction requirement dated 07/10/2026, there is a serious search and/or examination bur. Although the claims possess overlapping subject matter, there remains enough of a difference in subject matter between the groups that would pose a serious search burden. Furthermore, even if there were no search burden due to the similar/overlapping subject matter, applicant has not addressed any of the remaining factors identified above that pose a serious search/examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/10/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 8-9, all instances of “a said” should read –said--.
In claim 1, third paragraph from the end, “pending” should read --depending--.
In claim 1, third paragraph from the end, “lines” should read --line--.
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.
Claim 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a first transfer robot configured to transfer the corresponding scalable predetermined number of closed plastic lens molds (BCM/FCM) containing the lens-forming material from the casting module to - a stacking module”. It is not clear if the “stacking module” is recited as intended use or as a required structure of the claimed invention. Grammatically, the limitation is recited as intended use as indicated by the preposition “to” immediately prior. However, the formatting of the claim implies that the production line front end comprises the stacking module. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to require the above structure.
Claim 1 recites “a second transfer robot configured to transfer a predetermined number of the closed plastic lens molds (BCM/FCM) containing the cured lenses (CL) from a said individual lens mold tray to - a demolding and delensing module“. It is not clear if the “demolding and delensing module” is recited as intended use or as a required structure of the claimed invention. Grammatically, the limitation is recited as intended use as indicated by the preposition “to” immediately prior. However, the formatting of the claim implies that the production line front end comprises the demolding and delensing. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to require the above structure.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the back surface of the base curve plastic lens". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the back surfaces of the front curve plastic lens molds". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanka et al. (US 6609041) hereinafter Sanka and Schlagel et al. (US 6207086) hereinafter Schlagel in view of Gibson et al. (US 2016/0176091 of record) hereinafter Gibson, Gibson et al. (US 2017/0348927) hereinafter Gibson '927, Biel et al. (US 2019/0064541) hereinafter Biel, and Parnell et al. (US 6007229) hereinafter Parnell.
Regarding claim 1, Sanka teaches:
An automated production line for the production of ophthalmic lenses, in particular contact lenses (Fig 5: manufacturing line 1300), the production line comprising:
- a production line front end comprising:
- a first injection-molding machine arranged in the production line and configured to concurrently produce a scalable plurality of front curve plastic lens molds (Fig 5: one or more injection molding machines 500; col 6, ln 36-41; col 9, ln 66-col 10, ln 3);
- a second injection-molding machine arranged in the production line and configured to concurrently produce a scalable plurality of base curve plastic lens molds corresponding to the scalable plurality of front curve plastic lens molds (Fig 5: one or more injection molding machines 500; col 6, ln 36-41; col 9, ln 66-col 10, ln 3);
- a casting module comprising
- a filling station configured to dose a predetermined amount of lens-forming material into a scalable predetermined number of the front curve plastic lens molds (Fig 5: stage 1901; col 11, ln 55-57),
- a capping station configured to place a corresponding scalable predetermined number of the base curve plastic lens molds having the same age as the scalable predetermined number of front curve plastic lens molds (col 11, ln 3-5) on the scalable predetermined number of front curve plastic lens molds containing the predetermined amount of lens-forming material, to form a corresponding scalable predetermined number of closed plastic lens molds containing the lens-forming material (Fig 5: stage 1902; col 11, ln 59-61);
- a plurality of lens mold trays, each lens mold tray configured for being loaded with a multiple of the corresponding scalable predetermined number of closed plastic lens molds containing the lens-forming material (Fig 5: carriers 1309),
- a curing module (Fig 5: cure tunnel 1903)
- a demolding and delensing module comprising
- a demolding station configured to open the predetermined number of closed plastic lens molds by separating the base curve plastic lens molds and the front curve plastic lens molds from each other, with the cured lenses adhering either to the base curve plastic lens molds or to the front curve plastic lens molds (Fig 5: stage 1904; col 12, ln 2-4),
- a delensing station configured to release the cured lenses from the base curve plastic lens molds or from the front curve plastic lens molds (Fig 5: lens transfer station 1905; col 13, ln 1-6),
- a transfer module configured to transfer the cured lenses released from the delensing station to a treatment carrier tray (Fig 5: lens transfer station 1905; col 13, ln 1-6);
- a production line back end comprising:
- a scalable treatment module (Fig 5: hydration step 1906; col 13, ln 17-25);
- an inspection module for the inspection of the ophthalmic lenses (Fig 5: packaging zone 1908; col 15, ln 1-5); and
- a primary packaging module for packaging those ophthalmic lenses that have successfully passed the inspection in primary packaging containers (Fig 5: packaging zone 1908; col 15, ln 1-5).
Schlagel, which is incorporated by reference in Sanka, teaches a treatment module comprising a number of liquid baths for a liquid bath treatment of the cured lenses carried by the treatment carrier tray to obtain the ophthalmic lenses (Fig 1: lens support 25; col 5, ln 45-55; col 6, ln 20-47; col 7, ln 29-42), wherein the number of liquid baths are reduced or increased depending on the number of ophthalmic lenses concurrently produced by the production line (col 5, ln 30-36);
Sanka does not teach the first and second injection-molding machines configured to produce curve plastic lens molds within a predetermined cycle time of less than ten seconds.
In the same field of endeavor regarding lens production, Gibson teaches injection molding of curve plastic lens molds with cycle times of less than ten seconds for the motivation of providing high-speed manufacturing lines ([0042, 0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the injection molding machines as taught by Sanka and Schlagel to run at cycle times as taught by Gibson in order to provide high speed manufacturing lines.
Sanka and Schlagel in view of Gibson does not teach:
- a scalable plurality of ovens,
wherein each individual oven of the scalable plurality of ovens comprises a heatable chamber sized to accommodate said scalable stack of lens mold trays carrying the closed plastic lens molds as well as a door for opening and closing the chamber, to allow the stack handling robot to load said scalable stack of lens mold trays loaded with the closed plastic lens molds containing the lens-forming material into the heatable chamber when the door is open, to allow the heatable chamber to be heated to a predetermined temperature to effect curing of the lens-forming material to form cured lenses in the closed plastic lens molds on the individual lens mold trays of the scalable stack when the door is closed, and to allow the stack handling robot to remove said scalable stack of lens mold trays loaded with the closed plastic lens molds containing the cured lenses from the chamber when the door is open again.
In the same field of endeavor regarding lens production, Gibson ‘927 teaches a scalable plurality of ovens (Fig 5: oven 210; [0004]) comprising a heatable chamber sized to accommodate said scalable stack of lens mold trays carrying the closed plastic lens molds ([0047-0048]) as well as a door for opening and closing the chamber (access door 220; [0047]), to allow loading said scalable stack of lens mold trays loaded with the closed plastic lens molds containing the lens-forming material into the heatable chamber when the door is open ([0047]), to allow the heatable chamber to be heated to a predetermined temperature to effect curing of the lens-forming material to form cured lenses in the closed plastic lens molds on the individual lens mold trays of the scalable stack ([0059]) for the motivation of increasing the rate of manufacture ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the production line as taught by Sanka in view of Schlagel and Gibson to include the ovens as taught by Gibson ‘927 in order to increase the rate of manufacture.
Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, and Gibson ‘927 does not explicitly recite allowing the heatable chamber to be heated to a predetermined temperature to effect curing of the lens-forming material to form cured lenses in the closed plastic lens molds on the individual lens mold trays of the scalable stack when the door is closed and removing said scalable stack of lens mold trays loaded with the closed plastic lens molds containing the cured lenses from the chamber when the door is open again.
However, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114.
Since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, and Gibson ‘927 does not teach:
- a first transfer robot configured to transfer the corresponding scalable predetermined number of closed plastic lens molds containing the lens-forming material from the casting module to
- a stacking module comprising
- a stacking robot for stacking a scalable plurality of lens mold trays loaded with the closed plastic lens molds containing the lens-forming material to form a scalable stack of lens mold trays;
- a stack handling robot, to load said scalable stack of lens mold trays loaded with the closed plastic lens molds containing the lens-forming material into the heatable chamber, to remove said scalable stack of lens mold trays loaded with the closed plastic lens molds containing the cured lenses from the chamber
- a destacking module comprising a destacking robot configured to destack the individual lens mold trays from the scalable stack of lens mold trays removed from the chamber of said oven for allowing access to the closed plastic molds of each individual lens mold tray,
a transfer gripper configured to transfer the cured lenses released from the delensing station to a treatment carrier tray.
However, Gibson ‘927 teaches stacking a scalable plurality of lens mold trays loaded with the closed plastic lens molds containing the lens-forming material to form a scalable stack of lens mold trays, load said scalable stack of lens mold trays, loading said scalable stack of lens mold trays loaded with the closed plastic lens molds containing the lens-forming material into the heatable chamber, removing said scalable stack of lens mold trays loaded with the closed plastic lens molds containing the cured lenses from the chamber.
In the same field of endeavor regarding lens production, Biel teaches transfer robots for the motivation of transferring mold carriers between manufacturing units ([0120]) and a gripper for the motivation of secure transfer of the contact lens ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the production line as taught by Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, and Gibson ‘927 to include the transfer robots and gripper as taught by Biel in order to transfer mold carriers between manufacturing units and secure transfer of the contact lens.
Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, and Biel does not explicitly recite destacking the individual lens mold trays from the scalable stack of lens mold trays removed from the chamber of said oven for allowing access to the closed plastic molds of each individual lens mold tray. However, Gibson ‘927 teaches stacking trays in the curing unit, and Sanka teaches processing of unstacked carriers after removal from the curing unit, implying a destacking step of lens mold trays removed from the chamber of said oven for allowing access to the closed plastic molds of each individual lens mold tray. It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art in combination teaches the above function.
It would be further obvious to configure the transfer robots to perform the claimed functions since the prior art teaches the claimed functions since automating a manual activity is obvious. See MPEP2144.04(III). Furthermore, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114.
Since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, and Biel does not teach a second transfer robot configured to transfer a predetermined number of the closed plastic lens molds containing the cured lenses from a said individual lens mold tray to a demolding and delensing module.
In the same field of endeavor regarding lens production, Parnell teaches a robotic arm for the motivation of transporting mold sections (col 4, ln 48-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the production line as taught by Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, and Biel to include a robotic arm as taught by Parnell in order to transport mold sections.
Regarding claim 2, Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, and Parnell teaches the production line of claim 1.
Sanka further teaches wherein the first injection-molding machine comprises a first tool half (Fig 3: mold half 20) and a second tool half (Fig 3: mold half 440), the first tool half and the second tool half being movably arranged relative to one another between a closed position for injection-molding of the front curve plastic molds and an open position for removal of the molded front curve plastic molds (Fig 3; col 3, ln 28-30),
wherein the first tool half comprises a first tooling plate (Fig 2-3: cassette 21; col 5, ln 38-39) to which a scalable plurality of individual first sleeves are pre-mounted (Fig 3), each of the individual first sleeves having an individual optical tool insert mounted thereto (Fig 2-4: inserts 24) that determines the shape of a concave optical front surface of the front curve plastic lens mold formed by the individual optical tool insert (col 7, ln 2-8),
and wherein the second tool half comprises a second tooling plate (Fig 3) to which a scalable plurality of a scalable plurality of individual second sleeves are pre-mounted (Fig 3), the scalable plurality of individual second sleeves corresponding to the scalable plurality of individual first sleeves of the first tool half (Fig 3), each of the individual second sleeves having an individual back piece insert mounted thereto (Fig 2-4: inserts 441) that determines the shape of a convex back surface of the front curve plastic lens mold formed by the individual back piece insert (Fig 3),
wherein the first tool half further comprises a first slot accommodating the first tooling plate (Fig 2-4: base 23), the first slot allowing to mount the first tooling plate by sliding the first tooling plate into the first slot and then fixing the first tooling plate, and allowing to demount the first tooling plate by unfixing the first tooling plate and then pulling the first tooling plate out of the first slot (Fig 4: col 10, ln 61-67),
and wherein the second injection-molding machine (col 6, ln 36-39) comprises a third tool half (Fig 3: mold half 20) and a fourth tool half (Fig 3: mold half 440), the third tool half and the fourth tool half being movably arranged relative to one another between a closed position for injection-molding of the base curve plastic lens molds and an open position for removal of the molded base curve plastic lens molds (Fig 3; col 3, ln 28-30),
wherein the third tool half comprises a third tooling plate (Fig 2-3: cassette 21; col 5, ln 38-39) to which a scalable plurality of individual third sleeves are pre-mounted (Fig 3), each of the individual third sleeves having an individual optical tool insert mounted thereto that determines the shape of a convex optical front surface of the base curve plastic lens mold formed by the individual optical tool insert (col 7, ln 2-8),
and wherein the fourth tool half comprises a fourth tooling plate (Fig 3) to which a scalable plurality of individual fourth sleeves are pre-mounted (Fig 3), the scalable plurality of individual fourth sleeves corresponding to the scalable plurality of individual third sleeves of the third tool half (Fig 3), each of the individual fourth sleeves having an individual back piece insert mounted thereto (Fig 2-4: inserts 442) that determines the shape of the concave back surface of the base curve plastic lens mold formed by the individual back piece insert (Fig 3),
wherein the third tool half further comprises a third slot accommodating the third tooling plate (Fig 2-4: base 23), the third slot allowing to mount the third tooling plate by sliding the third tooling plate into the third slot and then fixing the third tooling plate, and allowing to demount the third tooling plate by unfixing the third tooling plate and then pulling the third tooling plate out of the third slot (Fig 4: col 10, ln 61-67),
Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, and Parnell does not teach wherein the second tool half further comprises a second slot accommodating the second tooling plate, the second slot allowing to mount the second tooling plate by sliding the second tooling plate into the second slot and then fixing the second tooling plate, and allowing to demount the second tooling plate by unfixing the second tooling plate and then pulling the second tooling plate out of the second slot;
and wherein the fourth tool half further comprises a fourth slot accommodating the fourth tooling plate, the fourth slot allowing to mount the fourth tooling plate by sliding the fourth tooling plate into the fourth slot and then fixing the fourth tooling plate, and allowing to demount the fourth tooling plate by unfixing the fourth tooling plate and then pulling the fourth tooling plate out of the fourth slot.
However, Sanka teaches a tool half further comprises a slot accommodating a tooling plate (Fig 2-4: base 23), the slot allowing to mount the tooling plate by sliding the tooling plate into the slot and then fixing the tooling plate, and allowing to demount the tooling plate by unfixing the tooling plate and then pulling the tooling plate out of the slot for the motivation of allowing interchanging the cassettes (Fig 4: col 10, ln 61-67),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second and fourth tool halves as taught by Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, and Parnell with the slots and cassettes as taught by Sanka in order to allow interchanging the cassettes.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, and Parnell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reece et al. (US 2018/0104920) hereinafter Reece.
Regarding claim 7, Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, and Parnell teaches the production line of claim 1.
Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, and Parnell does not teach:
wherein the demolding and delensing module comprises one or both of
- a front curve demolding and delensing branch for opening the closed plastic lens molds containing the cured lenses and for picking the cured lenses up from the front curve plastic lens molds;
-a base curve demolding and delensing branch for opening the closed plastic lens molds containing the cured lenses and for picking the cured lenses up from a temporary carrier;
wherein the front curve demolding and delensing branch comprises
- a lens pre-release station comprising mechanical stamps for pressing against the back surface of the base curve plastic lens molds to release the cured lenses from the base curve plastic lens molds,
- the demolding station for opening the plastic lens molds, and
- the delensing station, the delensing station comprising pins for pressing against the back surfaces of the front curve plastic lens molds to release the cured lenses from the front curve plastic lens molds, to allow the released cured lenses to be transferred by the transfer gripper to the treatment carrier tray;
wherein the base curve demolding and delensing branch comprises
- the demolding station for opening the closed plastic lens molds, the demolding station comprising pins for pressing against the back surfaces of the front curve plastic lens molds to release the cured lenses from the front curve plastic lens molds;
- the delensing station comprising receiver grippers arranged beneath the base curve plastic lens molds and ultrasonic horns for applying ultrasonic waves to the back surfaces of the base curve plastic lens molds to release the cured lenses from the base curve plastic lens molds and allow them to be received by the receiver grippers arranged beneath the base curve plastic lens molds, to allow the received cured lenses to be transferred by the transfer gripper to the treatment carrier tray.
In the same field of endeavor regarding lens production, Reece teaches a front curve demolding and delensing branch for opening the closed plastic lens molds containing the cured lenses and for picking the cured lenses up from the front curve plastic lens molds (Fig 2, 4), wherein the front curve demolding and delensing branch comprises a lens pre-release station (Fig 4) comprising a mechanical stamp for pressing against the back surface of the base curve plastic lens molds to release the cured lenses from the base curve plastic lens molds (Fig 4-6: pushing pin 300: [0073]), a demolding station for opening the plastic lens molds ([0065]), and a delensing station (Fig 2), the delensing station comprising a pin (Fig 2: pin 70; [0064]) for pressing against the back surfaces of the front curve plastic lens molds to release the cured lenses from the front curve plastic lens molds, to allow the released cured lenses to be transferred for the motivation of enhancing yield ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the demolding and delensing module as taught by Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, and Parnell with the front curve demolding and delensing branch as taught by Reece in order to enhance yield.
Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, Parnell, and Reece does not teach the lens pre-release station comprising mechanical stamps the delensing station comprising pins.
However, it has been held that duplication of parts is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the mechanical stamp and pin.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, and Parnell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pfaff et al. (US 2021/0080347) hereinafter Pfaff.
Regarding claim 9, Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, and Parnell teaches the production line of claim 1.
Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, and Parnell does not teach:
wherein the inspection module of the production line back end comprises:
- a closed-loop rail having a geometric shape that can be freely determined so as to fit in the space defined by a room where the closed-loop rail is arranged ,
- a plurality of self-driving shuttles arranged on the closed-loop rail, each self- driving shuttle carrying a plurality of inspection cuvettes arranged thereon;
- a plurality of stations arranged along the closed-loop rail, the plurality of stations comprising the following individual stations arranged along the closed-loop rail in the following sequence
- a cuvette filling station configured to fill the plurality of cuvettes with water, the plurality of cuvettes being arranged on a said shuttle in a handling position,
- a lens insertion station configured to insert the ophthalmic lenses transferred from the treatment module into the plurality of filled cuvettes arranged on the shuttles, one said ophthalmic lens into one said cuvette,
- a first cuvette tilting station configured to tilt the plurality of cuvettes arranged on the shuttle from the handling position to an inspection position,
- a lens inspection station configured to inspect the ophthalmic lenses in the plurality of cuvettes,
- a first cuvette tilting-back station for tilting the plurality of cuvettes containing the inspected ophthalmic lenses from the inspection position back to the handling position,
- an ophthalmic lens transfer station for transferring those inspected ophthalmic lenses that have successfully passed the inspection to the primary packaging module,
- a cuvette cleaning station for sucking the water from the plurality of cuvettes.
In the same field of endeavor regarding lens production, Pfaff teaches:
- a closed-loop rail having a geometric shape that can be freely determined so as to fit in the space defined by a room where the closed-loop rail is arranged ([0014]),
- a plurality of self-driving shuttles arranged on the closed-loop rail ([0015, 0027]), each self- driving shuttle carrying a plurality of inspection cuvettes arranged thereon ([0015]);
- a plurality of stations arranged along the closed-loop rail ([0038]), the plurality of stations comprising the following individual stations arranged along the closed-loop rail in the following sequence
- a cuvette filling station configured to fill the plurality of cuvettes with water, the plurality of cuvettes being arranged on a said shuttle in a handling position ([0038]),
- a lens insertion station configured to insert the ophthalmic lenses transferred from the treatment module into the plurality of filled cuvettes arranged on the shuttles, one said ophthalmic lens into one said cuvette ([0038]),
- a first cuvette tilting station configured to tilt the plurality of cuvettes arranged on the shuttle from the handling position to an inspection position ([0040]),
- a lens inspection station configured to inspect the ophthalmic lenses in the plurality of cuvettes ([0038]),
- a first cuvette tilting-back station for tilting the plurality of cuvettes containing the inspected ophthalmic lenses from the inspection position back to the handling position ([0040]; if the system is a closed-loop, then the cuvettes must be tilted back),
- an ophthalmic lens transfer station for transferring those inspected ophthalmic lenses that have successfully passed the inspection to the primary packaging module ([0038]),
- a cuvette cleaning station for sucking the water from the plurality of cuvettes ([0038]) for the motivation of transporting the cuvettes between stations of the inspection module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection module as taught by Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, and Parnell with the shuttle and rail system and stations as taught by Pfaff in order to transport the cuvettes between stations of the inspection module.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12528261. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12168328. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12330384. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12515424. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12343951 in view of Sanka in view of Schlagel, Gibson, Gibson ‘927, Biel, and Parnell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights