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 .
Status
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed on 8/7/2025, which amended claims 17, 29, 36 and cancelled claims. Claims 17, 19, 21, 23-32, and 36-38 are currently pending.
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.
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 17, 19, 21, 23-32, and 36-38 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.
Regarding claim 17, the claim limitation “adjustment means that provides an absolute reference of the position of an illumination spot (x, y, z) for setup of the external coordinate system is provided for referencing a coordinate system of transmitting optics to the external coordinate system, and the adjustment means are different than the mechanical means, the optical components, the imaging components, and the image-recording components” invokes 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. Although the claim recites “adjustment means are different than the mechanical means, the optical components, the imaging components, and the image-recording components,” the claim limitation is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the entirety of the claimed function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim of providing “an absolute reference of the position of an illumination spot (x, y, z) for setup of the external coordinate system is provided for referencing a coordinate system of transmitting optics to the external coordinate system,” and the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure that performs the entire claimed function. See MPEP 2181, subsection III. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning absolute reference measurement of the position of an illumination spot (x, y, z) for setup of the external coordinate system is provided for referencing a coordinate system of transmitting optics to the external coordinate system. 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.
Thus, claim 17 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17, 19, 21, 23-32, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, the claim limitation “adjustment means that provides an absolute reference of the position of an illumination spot (x, y, z) for setup of the external coordinate system is provided for referencing a coordinate system of transmitting optics to the external coordinate system, and the adjustment means are different than the mechanical means, the optical components, the imaging components, and the image-recording components” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. As discussed above, the claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on the failure of the specification to disclose the corresponding structure that performs the entire claimed function; therefore, the means-plus-function limitation of the adjustment means also lacks adequate written description. That is, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim of providing “an absolute reference of the position of an illumination spot (x, y, z) for setup of the external coordinate system is provided for referencing a coordinate system of transmitting optics to the external coordinate system,” and therefore the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to establish that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of the application was filed. See MPEP 2181, subsection IV. Thus, claim 17 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 17, 21, 23-25, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumont et al. (US PGPub 2015/0317780, Dumont hereinafter) in view of Roos (US Patent No. 6,615,112).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Dumont discloses measurement system for optical measurement of at least one of distance, position, speed, or color (Figs. 1-12), the measurement system comprising:
at least one of optical components, imaging components, or image-recording components (Figs. 1-6 and 12, paras. [0028], [0035]-[0051], apparatus 100 includes cameras 102 and 108, a laser projector 106, a light source 104),
a housing within which the at least one of optical components, imaging components, or image-recoding components are positioned (paras. [0025], [0027], [0028], [0035]-[0051], [0067], the apparatus 100 is disposed in a housing),
at least one external fixed point, which defines an external coordinate system or lies therein (Figs. 1-6 and 12, paras. [0028], [0035]-[0041], [0048]-[0059], the world coordinate system of the camera system has a world system axis and has a fixed point), and
at least one internal fixed point, which defines an internal coordinate system or lies therein (Figs. 1-6 and 12, paras. [0028], [0035]-[0051], the cameras have camera system coordinate systems with axes that are centered and oriented on images sensors of the cameras),
wherein: the external and the internal coordinate systems are different relative to one another (Figs. 1-6 and 12, paras. [0028], [0035]-[0059], the world coordinate system of the camera system and the cameras have camera system coordinate systems),
the external and the internal coordinate systems have an unambiguous reproducible position relative to one another to provide an adjustment or calibration of the system, the unambiguous reproducible position being defined, at least in part, by the housing so as to simplify an overall structure of the measurement system (the limitations “the external and the internal coordinate systems have an unambiguous reproducible position relative to one another to provide an adjustment or calibration of the system, the unambiguous reproducible position being defined, at least in part, by the housing so as to simplify an overall structure of the measurement system” describe the intended use of the system to provide an adjustment or calibration of the recited measurement system, and the performance of the adjustment or calibration is not required by the apparatus claim as the step describes the manner of operation of the claimed apparatus that does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art system of Dumont. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 1-6 and 12, paras. [0025], [0027]-[0028], [0035]-[0059], [0067], the cameras 102, 108 and laser projector 106 are mounted on a mounting structure 110 in the apparatus 100 in a housing such that they have an orientation to each other),
the internal coordinate system defines the position of at least one of the optical components, the imaging components, or the image-recording components (Figs. 1-6 and 12, paras. [0028], [0035]-[0051], the cameras have camera system coordinate systems with axes that are centered and oriented on images sensors of the cameras),
the external coordinate system is a mechanical reference coordinate system that has to be aligned with the coordinate system of a respective measurement application (Figs. 1-12, paras. [0025]-[0026], [0028], [0035]-[0051], the cameras and laser projector 106 are disposed on mounting structure 110, and the apparatus 100 includes a processing system 112 coupled to the cameras and projector to perform photogrammetric processing and laser triangulation),
the external coordinate system, and consequently a sensor positioning or setup, is aligned using mechanical means (the limitation “the external coordinate system, and consequently a sensor positioning or setup, is aligned using mechanical means” is not being interpreted as positively requiring a sensor positioning or setup as the claim is a measurement system, and performing a sensor positioning or setup in the external coordinate system alignment is a step limiting the manner of operating the device that does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art system of Dumont. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 1-12, paras. [0024]-[0035], [0066]-[0082], the apparatus 100 including the laser projector and cameras are moved along a surface to be measured). Dumont does not appear to explicitly describe adjustment means that provides an absolute reference of the position of an illumination spot (x, y, z) for setup of the external coordinate system is provided for referencing a coordinate system of transmitting optics to the external coordinate system, and the adjustment means are different than the mechanical means, the optical components, the imaging components, and the image-recording components.
Roos discloses external and internal coordinate systems are different relative to one another (Figs. 1-12, col. 4, lines 60-67, col. 5, lines 9-30, lines 54-67, col. 6, lines 1-67, col. 7, lines 10-25, lines 45-64, col. 8, lines 3-16, col. 8, lines 47-67, col. 9, lines 8-20, col. 12, lines 20-41, the world or vehicle coordinate system is different from the coordinate system of the measuring robot),
the external and the internal coordinate systems have an unambiguous reproducible position relative to one another to provide an adjustment or calibration of the system, the unambiguous reproducible position being defined, at least in part, by the housing so as to simplify an overall structure of the measurement system (Figs. 1-12, col. 4, lines 60-67, col. 5, lines 9-30, lines 54-67, col. 6, lines 1-67, col. 7, lines 10-25, lines 45-64, col. 8, lines 3-16, col. 8, lines 47-67, col. 9, lines 8-20, col. 11, lines 40-67, col. 12, lines 1-18, calibration step includes a working point 28, and the coordinates of the measuring points are converted into coordinates of the world or vehicle coordinate system, and the measuring robot 6 with measuring tool 10 is calibrated),
adjustment means that provides an absolute reference of the position of an illumination spot (x, y, z) for setup of the external coordinate system is provided for referencing a coordinate system of transmitting optics to the external coordinate system (Figs. 1-12, col. 4, lines 60-67, col. 5, lines 9-30, lines 54-67, col. 6, lines 1-67, col. 7, lines 10-25, lines 45-64, col. 8, lines 3-16, col. 8, lines 47-67, col. 9, lines 8-20, col. 11, lines 40-67, col. 12, lines 20-41, optical measuring device 10 is a 3D sensor with three Cartesian translatory measuring axes and is calibrated on measuring robot 6 with calibrating device using a Tool Center Point (TCP) at a defined position in the coordinate system of the measuring robot, and the coordinates of measuring points are converted to a world coordinate system. Reference sample 33 is on sample plate 34, and adjusting device 35 comprises displaceable lateral guides 43 and adjusting carriage 42. The testing device 27 having optical measuring device 10 is calibrated using the reference sample 33. The measuring robot 6 performs absolute measurement at measuring points 11. “In addition, a preferably Cartesian measuring coordinate system 17, in which the measurements are performed within the corresponding partial working area 18, is spanned on the calibration marks. Simple coordinate transformation of the measured measuring point coordinates into the vehicle coordinate system 3 or another desired coordinate system is possible due to the known absolute position of the calibration marks 13 and of the measuring coordinate system 17”), and the adjustment means are different than the mechanical means, the optical components, the imaging components, and the image-recording components (Figs. 1-12, col. 6, lines 1-67, col. 7, lines 10-25, lines 45-64, col. 8, lines 3-16, col. 8, lines 47-67, col. 12, lines 20-41, the adjusting device 35 includes displaceable lateral guides 43 and adjusting carriage 42 and is different from the optical measuring device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included adjustment means that provides an absolute reference of the position of an illumination spot (x, y, z) for setup of the external coordinate system is provided for referencing a coordinate system of transmitting optics to the external coordinate system, and the adjustment means are different than the mechanical means, the optical components, the imaging components, and the image-recording components as taught by Roos in the measurement system as taught by Dumont since including adjustment means that provides an absolute reference of the position of an illumination spot (x, y, z) for setup of the external coordinate system is provided for referencing a coordinate system of transmitting optics to the external coordinate system, and the adjustment means are different than the mechanical means, the optical components, the imaging components, and the image-recording components is commonly used to improve calibration for 3D sensors in a measurement station to identify causes of errors and allow specific corrections, thereby improving measurement accuracy (Roos, col. 2, lines 30-63).
Regarding claim 21, Dumont as modified by Roos discloses wherein the internal coordinate system defines the position of an optical axis with respect to position and direction (Dumont, Figs. 1-6 and 12, paras. [0024]-[0025], [0028], [0035]-[0051], the cameras have camera system coordinate systems with axes that are centered and oriented on images sensors of the cameras. The camera systems have optical axes).
Regarding claim 23, Dumont as modified by Roos discloses wherein the imaging components comprise at least one optomechanical light source as transmitting optics (Dumont, Figs. 1-6 and 12, paras. [0024]-[0029], a laser projector 106 including a laser diode or other laser source and a rotating mirror or other apparatus that produces a laser image defining a plane in space is mounted on mounting structure 110 to produce laser images).
Regarding claim 24, Dumont as modified by Roos discloses wherein the image-recording components comprise at least one optomechanical sensor element as receiving optics (Dumont, Figs. 1-12, paras. [0024]-[0035], the cameras 102, 108 capture images with an image sensor).
Regarding claim 25, Dumont as modified by Roos discloses wherein a position of the transmitting optics relative to the internal coordinate system can be set to predetermined values (Dumont, Figs. 1-12, paras. [0024]-[0035], the cameras 102, 108 and the laser projector 106 are disposed at positions in apparatus 100 that are used for triangulation by processing system 112 relative to the internal coordinate system).
Regarding claim 36, Dumont as modified by Roos discloses wherein, after measuring the position of the illumination spot (x, y, z) in different and absolutely definable distances, the setup of the sensor or the external coordinate system is mechanically reproduced (the limitation “wherein, after measuring the position of the illumination spot (x, y, z) in different and absolutely definable distances, the setup of the sensor or the external coordinate system is mechanically reproduced” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the system and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the structure of apparatus 100 taught by Dumont, which teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. Dumont, Figs. 1-12, paras. [0024]-[0035], [0066]-[0082], the apparatus 100 moves around or along an object to be measured, and the processing system 112 determines the 3D coordinates of points with calibrations for laser triangulation, as modified by Roos, Figs. 1-12, abstract, col. 4, lines 60-67, col. 5, lines 9-30, lines 54-67, col. 6, lines 1-67, col. 7, lines 10-25, lines 45-64, col. 8, lines 3-16, col. 8, lines 17-67, col. 9, lines 8-20, col. 12, lines 20-41, optical measuring device 10 is a 3D sensor with three Cartesian translatory measuring axes and is calibrated on measuring robot 6 with calibrating device using a Tool Center Point (TCP) at a defined position in the coordinate system of the measuring robot, and the coordinates of measuring points are converted to a world coordinate system. Reference sample 33 is on sample plate 34, and adjusting device 35 comprises displaceable lateral guides 43 and adjusting carriage 42. The testing device 27 having optical measuring device 10 is calibrated using the reference sample 33. The calibration procedure is performed when a new measuring device 10 replaces the first measuring device).
Regarding claim 37, Dumont as modified by Roos discloses wherein a position of the receiving optics relative to the internal coordinate system can be set to predeterminable values (Dumont, Figs. 1-12, paras. [0024]-[0051], the cameras 102, 108 are arranged with optical axes disposed at predetermined distances and angles, and the cameras have camera system coordinate systems with axes that are centered and oriented on images sensors of the cameras).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumont as modified by Roos as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US Patent No. 5,561,526, Huber hereinafter).
Regarding claim 19, Dumont as modified by Roos does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the external and the internal coordinate systems can be converted into one another by means of at least one of translation, rotation, or mirroring.
Huber discloses wherein the external and the internal coordinate systems can be converted into one another by means of at least one of translation, rotation, or mirroring (Fig. 5, col. 6, lines 50-67, col. 7, lines 1-10, col. 8, lines 37-67, transforming projector coordinates to camera coordinates comprises the first coordinate system is rotated until it is aligned with a second coordinate system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the external and the internal coordinate systems can be converted into one another by means of at least one of translation, rotation, or mirroring as taught by Huber in the measurement system as taught by Dumont as modified by Roos since including wherein the external and the internal coordinate systems can be converted into one another by means of at least one of translation, rotation, or mirroring is commonly used to provide an accurate three-dimensional measurement system that reduces alignment and optical quality requirements (Huber, col. 1, lines 46-52).
Claims 26-29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumont as modified by Roos as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ruhland et al. (US PGPub 2016/0069670, Ruhland hereinafter).
Regarding claim 26, Dumont as modified by Roos does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the external and the internal fixed point are assigned to a monolithic structural element.
Ruhland discloses wherein the external and the internal fixed point are assigned to a monolithic structural element (Figs. 1-10, paras. [0027], [0032]-[0034], [0038]-[0039], [0046]-[0047], [0051], carrying structure 102 includes three arms for carrying cameras 111-113 and projector 121; thus fixed points are assigned to the carrying structure 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the external and the internal fixed point are assigned to a monolithic structural element as taught by Ruhland in the measurement system as taught by Dumont as modified by Roos since including wherein the external and the internal fixed point are assigned to a monolithic structural element is commonly used to provide a mechanically and thermally stable structure for a portable scanner for improved operational latitude for determined three dimensional coordinate measurement (Ruhland, paras. [0002]-[0006], [0028], [0064]).
Regarding claim 27, Dumont as modified by Roos does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising transmitting optics and receiving optics disposed on a monolithic structural element adjusted in accordance with the fixed points.
Ruhland discloses transmitting optics and receiving optics disposed on a monolithic structural element adjusted in accordance with the fixed points (Figs. 1-10, paras. [0027], [0032]-[0034], [0038]-[0039], [0046]-[0047], [0051], carrying structure 102 includes three arms for carrying cameras 111-113 and projector 121; thus fixed points are assigned to the carrying structure 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included transmitting optics and receiving optics disposed on a monolithic structural element adjusted in accordance with the fixed points as taught by Ruland in the measurement system as taught by Dumont as modified by Roos since including transmitting optics and receiving optics disposed on a monolithic structural element adjusted in accordance with the fixed points is commonly used to provide a mechanically and thermally stable structure for a portable scanner for improved operational latitude for determined three dimensional coordinate measurement (Ruhland, paras. [0002]-[0006], [0028], [0064]).
Regarding claim 28, Dumont as modified by Roos and Ruhland discloses wherein the transmitting optics and receiving optics are configured to laser triangulation (Dumont, Figs. 1-12, paras. [0024]-[0035], [0066]-[0082], the apparatus 100 including the laser projector and cameras are moved along a surface to be measured, and the processing system 112 extracts images and performs laser triangulation based on the mounted positions of the cameras and laser projector).
Regarding claim 29, Dumont as modified by Roos and Ruhland discloses wherein: the monolithic structural element has the function of a carrier for the transmitting optics and receiving optics and the function of a part of the housing (Dumont, paras. [0025], [0027], [0028], [0035]-[0051], [0067], the apparatus 100 is disposed in a housing, and as modified by Ruhland, Figs. 1-10, paras. [0027], [0032]-[0034], [0038]-[0039], [0046]-[0047], [0051], carrying structure 102 includes three arms for carrying cameras 111-113 and projector 121).
Regarding claim 31, Dumont as modified by Roos and Ruhland discloses wherein the monolithic structural element is made of plastic using an injection molding process (Ruhland, Figs. 1-10, para. [0028], the carrying structure 102 is made from fiber-reinforced synthetic material. The patentability of the claimed plastic monolithic structural element does not depend on the method of its production. The plastic monolithic structural element is the same as the fiber-reinforced synthetic material of the carrying structure 102, and the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product may have been made by a different process. See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 32, Dumont as modified by Roos and Ruhland discloses wherein the plastic is fiber-reinforced plastic (Ruhland, Figs. 1-10, para. [0028], the carrying structure 102 is made from fiber-reinforced synthetic material).
Claims 30 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumont as modified by Roos and Ruhland as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Becker et al. (US PGPub 2017/0184703, Becker hereinafter).
Regarding claim 30, Dumont as modified by Roos and Ruhland does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the monolithic structural element is milled or cast from metal.
Becker discloses wherein the monolithic structural element is milled or cast from metal (para. [0023], the support structure is an integral component made of metal, made, for example, by aluminum die casting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the monolithic structural element is milled or cast from metal as taught by Becker as the monolithic structural element in the measurement system as taught by Dumont as modified by Roos and Ruhland since including wherein the monolithic structural element is milled or cast from metal is commonly used as a support structure in a measurement system to provide a stable and accurate support.
Regarding claim 38, Dumont as modified by Roos in view of Ruhland and Becker discloses wherein the monolithic structural element is reworked (Becker, para. [0023], the support structure is an integral component made of metal, made, for example, by aluminum die casting. The limitation “wherein the monolithic structural element is reworked” describes the process of production of the monolithic structural element, and the patentability of the monolithic structural element does not depend on the method of production. The monolithic structural element is the same as the monolithic structural element of the support structure disclosed by Dumont as modified by Roos in view of Ruhland and Becker, and the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product may have been made by a different process. See MPEP 2113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 8/7/2025, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive owing to the amendments to the claims. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 8/7/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive owing to the amendments to the claims. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 8/7/2025, with respect to the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive owing to the amendments to claim 17. The prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-8 that Dumont as modified by Roos fails to suggest the claim language as recited in claim 17. The Applicant alleges that Dumont does not describe “unique (separate and distinctly defined) (inner and outer) coordinate systems as specifically required in claim 17” and “fails to teach or suggest anything that itself provides an absolute reference of the position of an illumination spot for setup.” The Applicant also alleges Roos fails to provide “an absolute reference of the position of an illumination spot for setup as do the adjustment means presently claimed” and argues that Roos and Dumont rely upon relative positioning and orientation. The Applicant contends that nothing in Dumont or Roos teach or suggest the housing as claimed which at least partly defines “the unambiguous reproducible position […] so as to simplify an overall structure of the measurement system.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim language recites, in part, “at least one external fixed point, which defines an external coordinate system or lies therein, and at least one internal fixed point, which defines an internal coordinate system or lies therein, wherein: the external and the internal coordinate systems are different relative to one another, the external and the internal coordinate systems have an unambiguous reproducible position relative to one another to provide an adjustment or calibration of the system, the unambiguous reproducible position being defined, at least in part, by the housing so as to simplify an overall structure of the measurement system.” This claim language does not require “unique (separate and distinctly defined) (inner and outer) coordinate systems.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Dumont discloses a housing within which the at least one of optical components, imaging components, or image-recoding components are positioned (paras. [0025], [0027], [0028], [0035]-[0051], [0067], the apparatus 100 is disposed in a housing), at least one external fixed point, which defines an external coordinate system or lies therein (Figs. 1-6 and 12, paras. [0028], [0035]-[0041], [0048]-[0059], the world coordinate system of the camera system has a world system axis and has a fixed point), and at least one internal fixed point, which defines an internal coordinate system or lies therein (Figs. 1-6 and 12, paras. [0028], [0035]-[0051], the cameras have camera system coordinate systems with axes that are centered and oriented on images sensors of the cameras), wherein: the external and the internal coordinate systems are different relative to one another (Figs. 1-6 and 12, paras. [0028], [0035]-[0059], the world coordinate system of the camera system and the cameras have camera system coordinate systems).
As discussed above, the language “adjustment means that provides an absolute reference of the position of an illumination spot (x, y, z) for setup of the external coordinate system is provided for referencing a coordinate system of transmitting optics to the external coordinate system, and the adjustment means are different than the mechanical means, the optical components, the imaging components, and the image-recording components” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but the disclosure fails to disclose the corresponding structure that performs the entire claimed function. See MPEP 2181, subsections III, IV. As best understood, Roos discloses adjustment means that provides an absolute reference of the position of an illumination spot (x, y, z) for setup of the external coordinate system is provided for referencing a coordinate system of transmitting optics to the external coordinate system (Figs. 1-12, col. 4, lines 60-67, col. 5, lines 9-30, lines 54-67, col. 6, lines 1-67, col. 7, lines 10-25, lines 45-64, col. 8, lines 3-16, col. 8, lines 47-67, col. 9, lines 8-20, col. 11, lines 40-67, col. 12, lines 20-41, optical measuring device 10 is a 3D sensor with three Cartesian translatory measuring axes and is calibrated on measuring robot 6 with calibrating device using a Tool Center Point (TCP) at a defined position in the coordinate system of the measuring robot, and the coordinates of measuring points are converted to a world coordinate system. Reference sample 33 is on sample plate 34, and adjusting device 35 comprises displaceable lateral guides 43 and adjusting carriage 42. The testing device 27 having optical measuring device 10 is calibrated using the reference sample 33. The measuring robot 6 performs absolute measurement at measuring points 11. “In addition, a preferably Cartesian measuring coordinate system 17, in which the measurements are performed within the corresponding partial working area 18, is spanned on the calibration marks. Simple coordinate transformation of the measured measuring point coordinates into the vehicle coordinate system 3 or another desired coordinate system is possible due to the known absolute position of the calibration marks 13 and of the measuring coordinate system 17”), and the adjustment means are different than the mechanical means, the optical components, the imaging components, and the image-recording components (Figs. 1-12, col. 6, lines 1-67, col. 7, lines 10-25, lines 45-64, col. 8, lines 3-16, col. 8, lines 47-67, col. 12, lines 20-41, the adjusting device 35 includes displaceable lateral guides 43 and adjusting carriage 42 and is different from the optical measuring device). That is, Roos discloses an absolute measurement at measuring points using known absolute position of calibration marks and of the measuring coordinate system.
Additionally, the claim recites “measurement system,” which is an apparatus, and the language “the external and the internal coordinate systems have an unambiguous reproducible position relative to one another to provide an adjustment or calibration of the system, the unambiguous reproducible position being defined, at least in part, by the housing so as to simplify an overall structure of the measurement system” recites the intended use of the system to provide an adjustment or calibration of the recited measurement system with the intention of simplifying the structure of the measurement system, and the performance of the adjustment or calibration is not required by the claim as the step describes the manner of operation of the claimed apparatus that does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art system taught by Dumont as modified by Roos. See MPEP 2114. The language “the unambiguous reproducible position being defined, at least in part, by the housing so as to simplify an overall structure of measurement system” does not structurally limit the structure of the housing or the measurement system and instead describes the function of the housing as simplifying the overall structure of the measurement system. The claim language, as drafted, does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. Therefore, Dumont’s housing discloses the structural claim limitations of the measurement system housing (Figs. 1-6 and 12, paras. [0025], [0027]-[0028], [0035]-[0059], [0067], the cameras 102, 108 and laser projector 106 are mounted on a mounting structure 110 in the apparatus 100 in a housing such that they have an orientation to each other).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571)272-2303. 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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882