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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 03/19/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The amended statement of incorporation by reference to International Application No. PCT/EP2020/075557 and European Application No. 19197211.6 (03/11/2022 Preliminary Amendment at 2) is ineffective because it was added on the date of entry into the U.S. national phase, which is after the filing date of this application. The filing date of this U.S. national stage application is the filing date of the associated international application, which is 09/11/2020. MPEP § 1893.03(b). Thus, the specification amendment of 03/11/2022 is new matter. MPEP § 608.01(p)(I)(B). To be clear, there is no objection to the priority statement; the objection is to the incorporation statement. Examiner suggests deleting the phrase “the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Verdi in view of Shivaswamy and Wuethrich
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130205607 A1 (“Verdi”) in view of US 6941669 (“Shivaswamy”), with or without EP 2350479 B1 (“Wuethrich”) (citations to Wuethrich are to the translation filed 09/17/2024).
Verdi pertains to a machine tool having a precision measuring block (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Shivaswamy pertains to a machine tool having a precision support block for measurement (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Wuethrich pertains to a machine tool having a precision support block (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0001-0004). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Verdi discloses a structural component for a machine tool (Fig. 1; block 1),
wherein the structural component is formed from a mineral casting (¶ 0014, block 1 is made of concrete, which is a type of mineral casting (e.g., concrete is a mineral aggregate mixed with a binding agent such as cement)),
and at least one sensor module is integrated into the structural component, wherein the sensor module is completely enclosed by the mineral casting (Fig. 1, sensor modules S1-S10; ¶ 0016, “embedded in the material constituting the block itself”; ¶ 0018, identifying “optical-fibre interferometric” sensor modules, such as those made by SMARTEC SA under the trade name “SOFO”; see Inaudi, Daniele, et al., “SOFO: STRUCTURAL MONIROING WITH FIBER OPTIC SENSORS”, FIB, Monitoring and Safety Evaluation of Existing Concrete Structures, 02/13/1999, Vienna, Austria (“Inaudi”) at page 3 for details about this “SOFO” sensor module),
and contains at least one sensor for detecting a mechanical load of the structural component during operation of the machine tool (¶ 0018, “The sensors consequently basically detect the mean deformation of the material along the measuring line.”; ¶ 0004, “the load (weight of the piece and of the mobile parts of the machine supported by the machine bed)...are detected”; operation of a machine tool could include placing the machine tool on the block 1, causing the weight load to be detected by sensor modules S1-S10),
the at least one sensor for detecting a mechanical load...being completely enclosed by the mineral casting so that the mineral casting surrounds the at least one sensor for detecting a mechanical load...in all three spatial directions (Fig. 1, sensor modules S1-S10 are embedded in block 1 in the recited manner; ¶ 0016, “embedded in the material constituting the block itself”; ¶ 0018, identifying “optical-fibre interferometric” sensor modules, such as those made by SMARTEC SA under the trade name “SOFO”),
wherein the sensor module is provided at a predetermined position in the structural component (Fig. 1, the sensor modules S1-S10 are provided at the predetermined positions as shown).
Verdi does not explicitly disclose:
the sensor module contains at least one temperature sensor,
the at least one temperature sensor being completely enclosed by the mineral casting so that the mineral casting surrounds...the at least one temperature sensor in all three spatial directions,
wherein the at least one temperature sensor is located in a defined position with respect to the at least one sensor for detecting a mechanical load so that a spatial position and a spatial orientation of the at least one temperature sensor and the at least one sensor for detecting a mechanical load are fixed in relation to one another.
However, the Verdi/Shivaswamy combination makes obvious this claim.
Shivaswamy discloses:
the sensor module contains at least one temperature sensor (Fig. 2, temperature sensors 110 installed on or embedded within bed 20; 7:66-8:33),
the at least one temperature sensor being completely enclosed by the mineral casting so that the mineral casting surrounds...the at least one temperature sensor in all three spatial directions (Fig. 2; 8:19-33, “The sensors 110 may be installed on the surface of the machine 10, or may be embedded therein”; 7:66-8:18; see discussion below re “enclosed by the mineral casting”),
wherein the at least one temperature sensor is located in a defined position with respect to the at least one sensor for detecting a mechanical load so that a spatial position and a spatial orientation of the at least one temperature sensor and the at least one sensor for detecting a mechanical load are fixed in relation to one another (Fig. 2, temperature sensors 110; 7:66-8:18, temperature sensors 110 placed at defined positions with respect to the other temperature sensors 110; see discussion below re “spatial position...orientation...are fixed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Shivaswamy with Verdi by adding temperature sensors to the Verdi sensor modules (which are embedded together in the mineral casting) such as the temperature sensors taught by Shivaswamy. This would have been obvious because for accurate dimensional measurements, it would be desirable to correct for measurement and/or positioning “inaccuracies of a moving member of a machine due to thermal expansion of the machine member” (e.g., thermal expansion of the workpiece or the structural component itself) (Shivaswamy 1:8-18). Further, it would have been obvious to place a temperature sensor in a fixed, defined position with respect to one of the sensors for detecting a mechanical load, as the locations for both sensors would be fixed and defined when embedding both types of sensors in the mineral casting (i.e., they cannot move after embedding). Further, the fixed, defined sensor positions result in a known spatial relationship that would allow for the desired measurements to be made with the two different types of sensors (mechanical load and temperature) (Shivaswamy 7:66-8:18, “The quantity and positioning of the sensors 110 is determined based upon known operating conditions of the machine 10. That is, an operator who is skilled with operation of the machine 10 may know from fist-hand experience that certain locations on the machine 10 experience local ‘hot spots,’ in which case, the operator may choose to install several sensors 110 in the general region of such a ‘hot spot’”).
To the extent Verdi does not explicitly disclose wherein the structural component is formed from a mineral casting, the Verdi/Shivaswamy/Wuethrich combination makes obvious this claim.
Wuethrich discloses wherein the structural component is formed from a mineral casting (¶ 0021, “A solid body according to this embodiment can be embedded in a support structure that is produced by casting a hardenable material (casting compound)...Embedding the solid body in a support structure made of mineral casting is particularly advantageous. Mineral casting, ie a mixture of a plastic-based binder (eg a polymer such as epoxy resin) and a filler in the form of a mixture of stones and/or crushed rock and/or sand and/or gravel, forms the basis for forming load-bearing structures which, on the one hand, can take on any shape and, on the other hand, have great strength and stability, so that such load-bearing structures made of mineral casting can guarantee high load-bearing capacity and great stability.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Wuethrich with the Verdi/Shivaswamy combination by modifying the concrete structural component to be made of a mineral casting (e.g., a mixture of stones and a plastic-based binder) instead. This would have been obvious because Wuethrich teaches that a support structure made from mineral casting can “guarantee high load-bearing capacity and great stability” (Wuethrich ¶ 0021), which helps to minimize deformation of the Verdi support structure used for measurement purposes (Verdi ¶ 0049, “the present invention provides a method for compensating the measuring errors deriving from the deformations of the block of concrete”; also see US 20170076966 A1 (“Vix”) ¶ 0022, describing a machine tool having a structural component made alternatively of any of “a metal body, iron body, cast iron body, mineral casting body, steel body, block of stone, block of marble, block of basalt and/or block of granite”).
Regarding claim 2, the Verdi/Shivaswamy combination or the Verdi/Shivaswamy/Wuethrich combination makes obvious the structural component of claim 1 as applied above. Verdi further discloses wherein the sensor module is configured to detect a compressive force and/or a tensile force and/or an elongation and/or a compression and/or a bending and/or a torsion and/or a length change and/or a mechanical vibration (¶¶ 0029-0042, describing detection of bending and torsion).
Regarding claim 3, the Verdi/Shivaswamy combination or the Verdi/Shivaswamy/Wuethrich combination makes obvious the structural component of claim 1 as applied above. Verdi further discloses wherein the sensor module is configured to detect mechanical loads as a numerical value without considering its sign (¶ 0017, an absolute, actual difference in length of the sensor module body due to a mechanical load is detected; ¶ 0018, “[the sensors] exploit the principle of detection of the distance between their own ends through the unbalancing between the path of a measuring fibre and the path of a reference fibre.”).
Regarding claim 8, the Verdi/Shivaswamy combination or the Verdi/Shivaswamy/Wuethrich combination makes obvious the structural component of claim 1 as applied above. Verdi further discloses wherein the structural component is a machine bed (Abstr.; ¶ 0001, “a measuring machine provided with a block of concrete having the function of foundation or machine bed”).
Regarding claim 9, the Verdi/Shivaswamy combination or the Verdi/Shivaswamy/Wuethrich combination makes obvious the structural component of claim 1 as applied above. Verdi further discloses a machine tool, comprising the structural component according to claim 1 (Abstr.; ¶ 0001, “a measuring machine provided with a block of concrete having the function of foundation or machine bed”).
The obviousness rationale for claims 2-3 and 8-9 is the same as for claim 1.
Verdi in view of Shivaswamy, Ebershach, and Wuethrich,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130205607 A1 (“Verdi”) in view of US 6941669 (“Shivaswamy”) and US 5579246 (“Ebershach”), with or without EP 2350479 B1 (“Wuethrich”) (citations to Wuethrich are to the translation filed 09/17/2024).
Verdi pertains to a machine tool having a precision measuring block (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Shivaswamy pertains to a machine tool having a precision support block for measurement (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Ebershach pertains to a machine tool having a precision support block for measurement (Fig. 1; 3:53-4:2). Wuethrich pertains to a machine tool having a precision support block (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0001-0004). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 4, the Verdi/Shivaswamy combination or the Verdi/Shivaswamy/Wuethrich combination makes obvious the structural component of claim 1 as applied above. Verdi, Shivaswamy, and Wuethrich do not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor module is configured to detect mechanical vibrations. However, the Verdi/Shivaswamy/Ebershach combination or the Verdi/Shivaswamy/Ebershach/Wuethrich combination makes obvious this claim.
Ebershach discloses wherein the sensor module is configured to detect mechanical vibrations (4:49-58, the disclosed sensors are capable of detecting mechanical vibrations including vibrations; 8:6-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Ebershach with the Verdi/Shivaswamy combination or the Verdi/Shivaswamy/Wuethrich combination by adding or modifying the sensor modules such as the acceleration sensors taught by Ebershach. This would have been obvious because for accurate dimensional measurements, it would be desirable “to reliably correct the errors of the measured coordinate values which are due to interfering vibrations” (Ebershach 2:2-7).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 5-6 and 11 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 12-15 are pending. Claims 7, 10, and 12-15 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected.
Specification – The amendments to the specification have been entered.
Claims – The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, both Verdi and Shivaswamy disclose sensors (mechanical load sensor and temperature sensor, respectively) that are completely enclosed by the mineral casting so that the mineral casting surrounds the sensor in all three spatial directions (Verdi ¶ 0016, “embedded in the material constituting the block itself”; Shivaswamy 8:19-33, “The sensors 110 may be installed on the surface of the machine 10, or may be embedded therein”).
The question is not whether an invention was obvious to the inventor, Applicant, or even a single prior-art author, but whether the invention was obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). There is no requirement under KSR for the prior art to explicitly state an exact technique for obtaining a result if a person of ordinary skill could ascertain how the result could be accomplished based on the prior art in combination with the person’s logic, judgment, and common sense. Id. at 418 (“the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“an analysis of obviousness...also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”). The general concept of embedding sensors completely in a material body (i.e., in all three spatial directions) is well known and would have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the cited prior art, even if it was not explicitly disclosed (see, e.g., US 7034660 B2 (“Watters”) Figs. 1A-B, 2A-B, 4A; 19:16-25, disclosing stress/strain and temperature sensors entirely surrounded and embedded in a concrete structure; US 5970393 A (“Khorrami”) Figs. 1-2; 1:24-30, 3:30-44, disclosing stress/strain sensors embedded in a structural body (“Embedded into the body material of a mechanical structure”); US 6370964 B1 (“Chang”) Figs. 1A-C, 2A-B; 3:36-44, 8:5-12, disclosing stress/strain sensors embedded in a structural body).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are conclusory and are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723