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 .
Priority
Retrieval of the foreign priority document has failed (see Failure Status Report from 7/1/2025). The Examiner has contacted the Patent Electronic Business Center to request retrieval of the foreign priority document.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
In the IDS filed 3/10/2026, the citation to EP 3206806 has been crossed out because the document has not been submitted.
In the IDS filed 7/27/2026, several duplicate citations have been crossed out.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a handling unit” in claim 1; “at least one processing unit” in claim 1; “a cleaning unit” in claim 1; “at least one carrying device” in claim 3; “a washing unit or a plurality of washing units” in claim 7; “at least one inspection unit” in claim 8; “at least one optical inspection unit” in claim 8; “at least one cosmetic inspection unit” in claim 8; “a loading unit” in claim 10; “ an unloading unit” in claim 10; “a charging unit” in claim 10; “a handling device” in claims 10 and 11; “a positioning unit” in claim 11; “a scanning unit” in claim 11; “a control unit” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the complete processing path." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the lens." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim appears to require treatment of plural lenses by respective units.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the additional processing unit." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one carrying device." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the handling device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitations “at least one inspection unit,” “at least one optical inspection unit,” “at least one cosmetic inspection unit,” “a loading unit,” “an unloading unit,” “a charging unit,” “a handling device,” “a positioning unit,” “a scanning unit,” and “a control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose the structures for performing inspection, optical inspection, or cosmetic inspection, loading, unloading, charging, transferring, positioning, scanning, or the control. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 2, 4, 5, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al. (CN 216989074).
Regarding claim 1, Song discloses a machine for cleaning lenses, the machine comprising: a handling unit for carrying and transferring a lens to be cleaned along a processing path (201), at least one processing unit having a processing chamber for processing the lens carried by the handling unit at a processing position along the processing path, wherein the at least one processing unit comprises a cleaning unit having a cleaning chamber as the processing chamber for cleaning the lens carried by the handling unit (3, 306), wherein the at least one processing unit is arranged to be movable along a movement path between a retracted position in which the lens carried by the handling unit is able to be transferred by the handling unit along the complete processing path outside and relative to the at least one processing unit, and a receiving position in which the lens carried by the handling unit at the processing position is received in the processing chamber to allow the lens be processed (see 305).
Note that cleaning a lens is intended use of the claimed apparatus capable of being met by the apparatus of Song. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5, and 12-14, Song discloses wherein the handling unit comprises a conveyor adapted to move in a conveying direction along the processing path (201); wherein the movement path is at least one of a translational movement path and extending vertically (see 305); wherein the cleaning unit comprises a washing unit to wash the lens (306, 307, 310); further comprising a main frame carrying the handling unit and at least one processing unit, wherein the machine is a standalone machine (Figure 1, 2: 202); wherein the machine is for cleaning eyeglass lenses (the machine is capable of cleaning eyeglass lenses); wherein the conveyor is a circular conveyor having a closed loop processing path (201).
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN 216989074).
Regarding claim 6, Song is relied upon as applied above, but does not expressly disclose a plurality of the processing units, each being moveable between the related retracted position and the related receiving position, wherein the plurality of the processing units are arranged side-by-side in a row, wherein the plurality of the processing units are arranged to be moved individually from each other between their related retracted position and receiving position, or at least some or all of the plurality of the processing units are arranged to be jointly moved between the retracted position and the receiving position. However, this is considered to be a mere duplication of parts which would be met by duplicating the entire cleaning device of Song, resulting in plural of the processing units as claimed. Duplication of parts has been shown to be obvious to a PHOSITA. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B) – Duplication of Parts. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the device of Song, to predictably increase a cleaning capacity, yielding a plurality of the processing units, each being moveable between the related retracted position and the related receiving position, wherein the plurality of the processing units are arranged side-by-side in a row, wherein the plurality of the processing units are arranged to be moved individually from each other between their related retracted position and receiving position, or at least some or all of the plurality of the processing units are arranged to be jointly moved between the retracted position and the receiving position.
Claim 7 is considered to be met by Song as applied above and which results in: wherein the plurality of the processing units comprises a plurality of the cleaning units, wherein the plurality of the cleaning units comprises a washing unit or a plurality of washing units to wash the lens (a first unit 306, 307), and further comprises at least one of: at least one rinsing unit to rinse the washed lens, the rinsing unit comprising a rinsing element having a liquid nozzle to apply a liquid jet onto the lens (a second unit 306, 307).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, a machine as defined by the combination of claims 1 and 3; or a machine as defined by the combination of claims 1 and 9. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Song et al. (CN 216989074), to further include wherein the handling unit comprises at least one carrying device for gripping the lens, such that the lens is carried while being transferred along the processing path and processed in the processing chamber, wherein the carrying device is connected to the conveyor to move along the processing path, wherein the carrying device, at the processing position, protrudes, vertically downward, towards the related processing unit, and wherein the carrying device is arranged to be moveable, at least at the processing position, to approach the related processing unit to enter the lens carried by the carrying device in the related processing chamber of the processing unit in the receiving position. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Song et al. (CN 216989074), to further include wherein the at least one processing unit is arranged below the handling unit or below the processing path or at least below the related processing position, and wherein the receiving position is closer to the handling unit, and closer to the related processing position, than the retracted position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571) 272-1414. 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights