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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 13-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Drawings
As discussed in a previous action, the drawings filed on 02/21/19 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
For reasons discussed in previous actions, claims 1-11 and 13-18 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. New claim 18 recites similar limitations, as independent claims 1 and 15, which were previously found to be eligible.
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 7 and 10 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 7 states:
The method according to claim 1, comprising (iii) using the plurality of identifiable probe motions to synchronize the acquired probe data with a separately collected data set
This limitation is indefinite because claim 1 already discloses a step (iii). It is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be an additional step taken as part of or after step (iii) in claim 1, or whether the limitation is meant to illuminate how step (iii) in claim 1 is performed (as a narrowing limitation but not additional step), or if this is a typo, and the limitation of claim 7 should actually be labeled step (iv). Or is the applicant considering “iii” to be an active agent and stating that this active agent (iii) performs the step of “using the plurality of identifiable probe motions to synchronize …”? If this is the case, it is not entirely clear how a process step can serve as an active agent.
Claim 10 states:
wherein the scanning probe captures probe data at a predetermined capture rate and a feed rate of the machine tool can be varied by a machine tool operator
This limitation is unclear because it represents the following two clauses, but it is not clear how the clauses should be interpreted:
wherein the scanning probe captures probe data at a predetermined capture rate
and a feed rate of the machine tool can be varied by a machine tool operator
One way of interpreting the clauses is that the two clauses represent separate ideas/concepts. One concept would be that the scanning probe captures probe data at a predetermined capture rate. The second concept would be that a feed rate of the machine tool can be varied by a machine tool operator.
If these clauses were meant to be separate, a comma may be appropriate, such as:
wherein the scanning probe captures probe data at a predetermined capture rate, and a feed rate of the machine tool can be varied by a machine tool operator (emphasis mine)
Alternatively, the two clauses could also be interpreted as both modifying the “scanning probe captures …” as in the scanning probe captures 1) probe data at a predetermined capture rate and the scanning probe captures 2) a feed rate of the machine tool …
However, under such a scenario, there may have been some words missing from the limitations, such as:
wherein the scanning probe captures both (a) probe data at a predetermined capture rate and (b) a feed rate of the machine tool that can be varied by a machine tool operator (emphasis mine)
Since the scope of the limitation is unclear, the claim is considered indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, and 13-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claim 1 discloses the following limitations, which were not found, taught, disclosed, or suggested in the prior art:
(i) using the machine tool to drive the scanning probe along a scan path relative to the first workpiece while the scanning probe acquires the probe data, the scan path comprising a first scan path segment for producing data that can be analyzed to measure the first workpiece, and the scan path also being arranged to impart a plurality of identifiable probe motions to the scanning probe that can be identified from the acquired probe data alone, the first scan path segment not including any of the plurality of identifiable probe motions, and each identifiable probe motion (a) being a deviation from a scan path along which the scanning probe would otherwise be driven to acquire the probe data but for the plurality of identifiable probe motions and (b) occurring at a known time during traversal of the scan path to thereby define a time stamp
(ii) calculating at least one of a location and an orientation of the first workpiece using the probe data acquired in step (i) for the first scan path segment (a) by aligning the acquired probe data with other data based on the time stamps in the probe data and (b) without using any of the machine position data generated by the machine tool while the scanning probe is driven along the scan path during step (i)
Independent claims 15 and 18 disclose similar limitations that were not found, taught, disclosed, or suggested by the prior art. All other claims depend on claims 1, 15, and 18. They are rejected as a result of their dependency.
The examiner considered the amended claims to adequately distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lombardo et al (US Pat 9316619) discloses a non destructive evaluation scanning probe with self-contained multi-axis position encoder.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 10/03/26
