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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/21/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 13-16 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 Notes - 35 USC § 101
For reasons discussed in a previous action, claims 1-11 and 13-16 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Furthermore, the current amendments disclose using the machine tool to perform a cutting operation, which applies any judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, which in this case, would be a machine tool that cuts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ould et al (US PgPub 20100050837) in view of McMurtry (US Pat 4991304) and Stott (US PgPub 20180252520).
With respect to claim 1, Ould et al discloses:
A method for measuring and cutting a first workpiece in a series of nominal workpieces using a machine tool comprising a scanning probe (abstract states, “A method is described for measuring a workpiece on a machine tool using an analogue probe having a deflectable stylus. The method comprises the step of taking a workpiece having a nominal surface profile, the workpiece being located within the working area of the machine tool.”; paragraph 0014 states, “It is particularly important to note that the term ‘machine tool’ as used herein comprises only apparatus that can use some kind of cutting tool or implement to machine features into a blank part or workpiece.”; paragraph 0001 states, “The present invention relates to a method for scanning an object on a machine tool using an analogue measurement probe.”)
the machine tool outputting machine position data that describes a position of the scanning probe within a coordinate measurement system of the machine tool (Page 1, lines 20-23 of the applicant’s original specification states, “The stylus deflection measurements acquired by such a scanning probe are typically termed ‘probe data’ and the measured position of the scanning probe within the coordinate system of the machine tool is typically termed ‘machine position data’.” The abstract of Ould et al states, “The machine tool is used to move the analogue probe along a predetermined (known) measurement path relative to the workpiece whilst deflection of the stylus is measured.” Paragraphs 0039-0040 state, “the analogue probe could be used in a touch trigger mode to obtain a small number of measurements of workpiece position or form. Once stylus deflection data has been acquired by tracing the probe along the predetermined measurement path, such data may be combined with probe position data from the NC so that the shape of features of the workpiece can be determined.”), and the scanning probe acquiring probe data that describes a series of positions on a surface of the first workpiece relative to the scanning probe (paragraph 0008 states, “The method thus uses a known-path scanning technique in which deflections of the workpiece contacting stylus of the probe are measured as the predetermined measurement path is traversed. It should be noted that the machine tool may provide the relative motion between the probe and the workpiece by moving the probe relative to a static workpiece, moving the workpiece relative to a static probe or by moving both the workpiece and the probe.”), and the method comprising:
(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 (abstract states, “The machine tool is used to move the analogue probe along a predetermined (known) measurement path relative to the workpiece whilst deflection of the stylus is measured.”), the scan path comprising at least a first scan path segment for producing data that can be analyzed to measure the first workpiece (figure 2, reference 34; paragraph 0017 states, “If the predetermined measurement path includes curved (e.g. circular) segments of different radius …”), 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 (paragraph 0008 states, “It should be noted that the machine tool may provide the relative motion between the probe and the workpiece, moving the workpiece relative to a static probe or by moving both the workpiece and the probe.”; paragraph 0015 state, “The speed of relative motion between the analogue probe and the workpiece may vary as the predetermined measurement path is traversed.”; paragraph 0072 states, “the probe motion is smooth or substantially ‘jerk’ free thereby minimizing acceleration effects that may induce unwanted probe deflections.”)
(iii) using the machine tool to perform a cutting operation on the first workpiece using one or more cutting parameters, the one or more cutting parameters being set using at least one of the location and the orientation of the first workpiece calculated in step (ii) (suggested by paragraph 0036, which states, “The recovery action may also be user definable and run as appropriate for the particular cutting application.” Paragraph 0084 states, “part of the machining process could be repeated, possibly after checking the state of the cutting tool that was used for that process.”; see also paragraph 0042)
With respect to claim 1, Ould et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
nominally identical workpieces (Ould teaches “nominal” but does not explicitly use the phrase “nominally identical”)
each identifiable probe motion defining a time stamp
(ii) calculating at least one of a location and an orientation of the first workpiece using any of the probe data acquired in step (i) for the first scan path segment without using any machine position data generated by the machine tool while the scanning probe is driven along the scan path during step (i)
With respect to claim 1, McMurtry discloses:
nominally identical workpieces (abstract states, “A succession of nominally identical workpieces is measured using a probe …”; column 5, lines 16-19 state, “The steps of setting up the various workpieces … then also include steps of cutting metal from the workpiece in accordance with the part program.”)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of McMurtry into the invention of Ould et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of efficiency in repetitive workpiece processing.
With respect to claim 1, Stott discloses:
each identifiable probe motion defining a time stamp (paragraph 0147 states, “The compensation of the measurement probe (110) dynamic deviation may be applicable to the compensation of measurement positions only (e.g. corresponding to a touch probing trigger signal or a sync signal of an analogue probe). In order for the compensation to be synchronized with the trigger pulses, the estimation based on derived acceleration may be calculated continuously. Calculated values and trigger events may be time stamped to match the exact trigger event …”)
(ii) calculating at least one of a location and an orientation of the first workpiece using any of the probe data acquired in step (i) for the first scan path segment without using any machine position data generated by the machine tool while the scanning probe is driven along the scan path during step (i) (obvious in view of combination; The closest support that the examiner could find for this limitation in the applicant’s original specification was on page 14, lines 29-31, which states, “Referring to figure 6, the timing stamps (i.e. the pair of peaks in the two data sets) allow a comparison of the data sets to be performed without also needing to know the machine position data associated with the probe data.” The next closes support that the examiner could find for this limitation in the applicant’s original specification was on page 1, lines 4-7, which state, “the present invention relates to a technique that comprises imparting identifiable motions to the scan path traversed by the scanning probe to introduce time stamps that allow an object to be measured by analysis of the probe data alone.” The current amended limitation recites the negative limitation of “without using any of the machine position data …” In a vacuum, this negative limitation is a bit vague. However, the examiner did not issue a 112 rejection because the examiner, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the applicant’s specification, interpreted the negative limitation to be indicative of the positive limitation of “introducing time stamps that allow an object to be measured.” Because the new secondary reference of Stott explicitly teaches time stamping, in the context of a measurement probe, the claimed limitation is considered to be obvious when the time stamping principles of Stott are applied to Ould et al.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Stott into the invention of Ould et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of efficiently and effectively synchronizing data.
Independent claim 15 represents the apparatus claim version of method claim 1. It is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above. Additional positive elements in claim 15 include:
a scanning probe configured to acquire probe data that describes a series of positions on a surface of a first workpiece relative to the scanning probe (see abstract; paragraphs 0001 and 0008 of Ould et al)
a machine tool that comprises a controller for moving the scanning probe and is configured to output machine position data that describes a position of the scanning probe within a coordinate measurement system of the machine tool (paragraphs 0002, 0004-0005, 0008, 0012, and 0038)
With respect to claim 2, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the scan path is arranged to impart identifiable probe motions before and after the first scan path segment (Ould figure 4, references 42 and 44 show different segments and motions that both precede and follow one another)
With respect to claim 3, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the plurality of identifiable probe motions allow a start and an end of the first scan path segment to be identified (suggested by Ould figures 3-4, which show different arrows and changes in radius (creating recesses) that can be identified as start and end points)
With respect to claim 4, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein at least one of the plurality of identifiable probe motions comprises reducing and then increasing the distance between the scanning probe and the first workpiece (Ould figure 4; The juts in the scan path are interpreted, like as described in page 4, lines 15-21 of the original specification, represent an identifiable change or “dink” in the probe data.)
With respect to claim 5, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the scanning probe comprises a contact probe having a deflectable stylus for contacting the first workpiece and at least one of the plurality of identifiable probe motions comprises increasing and then decreasing stylus deflection (Ould paragraph 0003 state, “Analogue probes typically comprise a stylus for contacting the workpiece surface, and transducers within the probe measure the deflection of the stylus relative to the probe body.”; Ould paragraphs 0069-0071 describe probe motions that increase and decrease stylus deflection)
With respect to claim 6, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein at least one of the plurality of identifiable probe motions comprises a dwell period in which scanning probe motion relative to the first workpiece is halted (Ould paragraph 0071 states, “The measurement path 40 thus causes the probe stylus to be lifted from the surface of the workpiece …” The lifting represents a halt in scanning probe motion.)
With respect to claim 7, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
comprising (iii) using the plurality of identifiable probe motions to synchronize the acquired probe data with a separately collected data set (Ould paragraph 0040 states, “Once stylus deflection data has been acquired by tracing the probe along the predetermined measurement path, such data may be combined with probe position data from the NC so that the shape of features of the workpiece can be determined.”)
With respect to claim 8, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the separately collected data set comprises probe data separately acquired by a machine tool driving a scanning probe along the scan path (Ould paragraph 0040)
With respect to claim 9, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the separately collected data comprises the machine position data that describes the position of the scanning probe as the scanning probe traverses the scan path (Ould paragraph 0040)
With respect to claim 10, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the scanning probe captures probe data at a predetermined capture rate (inherent; the predetermined capture rate is not specified; probe data must be collected at some type of rate, which will inherently be the capture rate) and a feed rate of the machine tool can be varied by a machine tool operator (suggested by Ould disclosure of configurable user input of the numeric controller in paragraph 0030, which specifically names a Fanuc or Mazak controller, which can be used to vary feed rate of the machine tool, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art)
With respect to claim 11, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the scanning probe comprises a contact probe having a deflectable stylus for contacting the first workpiece (Ould paragraph 0002 states, “In practice, the probe has typically been a touch trigger probe … which produces a trigger signal when a stylus of the probe contacts the workpiece surface.”)
With respect to claim 13, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the scan path comprises a plurality of further scan path segments that each produce probe data that can be analyzed to measure a property of the first workpiece, and (Ould figures 3-4)
wherein the scan path is arranged to impart identifiable probe motions before and after each further scan path segment to allow a start and an end of each further scan path segment to be identified from the probe data alone (Ould figures 3-4; paragraphs 0017, 0066, and 0070-0071)
With respect to claim 14, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the first workpiece comprises a component of a consumer electronics device (Ould paragraph 0005 states, “This is due to the inherent nature of commercially available machine tools.”)
With respect to claim 16, Ould et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the probe data is stylus deflection data (Ould abstract states, “The machine tool is used to move the analogue probe along a predetermined (known) measurement path relative to the workpiece whilst deflection of the stylus is measured.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crampton (US PgPub 20050166413) discloses a CMM arm with exoskeleton.
Ferrari et al (US PgPub 20110107612) discloses an articulated arm.
Usui (US Pat 8438746) discloses a coordinate measuring machine.
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 on (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 01/29/26