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, see pages 9 - 13, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the specification objection, 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation, the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections (i.e., 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections) and objections of the specification of 01/07/2026 has been withdrawn. In addition, due to the claim amendments, the claims are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of all pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,886,394 B1 to Kume (hereinafter “Kume”) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art described in the Background art section of the instant application as filed at page 1, line 12 – page 2, line 3 (hereinafter “AAPA”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Kume teaches a surface texture measuring machine (see abstract and Col. 1, lines 7 – 11, describing a roughness measuring apparatus and method, see Fig. 1) comprising:
a stylus arm (see Col. 4, lines 1 – 17 describing the measurement unit 12 comprising a pickup 22 having a stylus 26), including at least a stylus (see stylus 26, Fig. 2) projecting therefrom and configured to move while scanning a surface of each of a workpiece and a master workpiece (see arrangement at Figs. 1, 2, see Col. 4, lines 4 – 17 describing the arrangement and measurement obtained with the stylus 26 while moving the stylus with the driving unit 24);
a display (see monitor 18, Fig. 1, see also Col. 5, lines 8 – 18); and
a controller, including at least a processor (see data processing device 14 including the CPU 28, Figs. 1, 2, see Col. 1, lines 1 – 34), configured to:
set one or more parameters related to a surface texture of the workpiece (see Col. 4, lines 39 – 56 describing steps S100 – S120, Fig. 3 which include selecting a parameter to be evaluated such as Ra, Rz, or Sm, see also step S200, Fig. 5 and Col. 5, lines 38 – 40 describing selection of a first parameter Ra, hence reading on the invention as claimed);
calculate a measurement value corresponding to each of the parameters on a basis of displacement measurement data obtained by scanning the surface of each of the workpiece and the master workpiece with the stylus (see Col. 4, lines 4 – 17 describing the measurement unit 12 which has a pickup 22 with a stylus 26 on the top end that measures a surface roughness of a workpiece W, Fig. 2, the surface roughness is measured on a basis of a displacement amount of the stylus 26 as described at Col. 4, lines 8 – 16, see also Col. 4, lines 57 – 64 and steps S130, S140 Fig. 3 and steps S230, S240, Fig. 5 and Col. 5, lines 46 – 52 describing the measuring step S230 which computes the roughness of the workpiece by the parameters (Ra) to be evaluated from the measurement data obtained from the measuring unit 12);
calculate a judgment value corresponding to each of the parameters, the measurement value of the master workpiece, defined as a reference value (see Col. 4, lines 26 – 34, 45 – 56 which describes storage device that stores four types of standard cut-off values and a maximum roughness value, and further states “The maximum value is not limited to 0.5 µm and may be set at a desired value, or may even be set based on inspecting standard values of a processed surface of the workpiece W, which is indicated on a drawing. Moreover, the maximum value may be set at a range (for example 0.2 µm -0.6 µm), and the maximum value may be set after obtaining measurement data indicating the surface roughness of the workpiece”, see also Col. 5, lines 40 – 44 which states “The maximum value (0.5 µm) is set based on inspecting standard value of a surface of the workpiece W to be measured or values which is determined beforehand by a preliminary measurement”, thus the maximum value is either set based on inspecting standard value (i.e., reference) or predetermined beforehand, thus reading on the invention as claimed), and
compare the measurement value of the workpiece and the judgment value for each of the parameters (see Col. 4, lines 65 – Col. 5, line 18, and Col. 5, lines 53 – 61 describing the CPU 28 compares the computed roughness with the maximum value, note that the maximum value is either set based on inspecting standard values of a surface of the workpiece to be measured or is determined beforehand by a preliminary measurement as described above, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Kume teaches calculating a judgment value as described above, Kume is silent regarding calculating a judgment value range, the judgment value range including an upper limit and a lower limit, the upper limit and the lower limit being calculated based on at least the measurement value of the master workpiece, defined as a reference value, and a value having a predetermined ratio relative to the reference value, defined as a tolerance.
AAPA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches calculating a judgment value range, the judgment value range including an upper limit and a lower limit, the upper limit and the lower limit being calculated based on at least the measurement value of the master workpiece, defined as a reference value, and a value having a predetermined ratio relative to the reference value, defined as a tolerance (see page 1 line 26 – page 2, line 3 of the Background section of the specification which describes the known typical surface texture measuring machine which performs pass/fail judgment and which further states “For the pass/fail judgment, one or more parameters are set as judgment items and a judgment value corresponding to each of the parameters is set. The judgment value is a value given by adding a tolerance, or acceptable error, to a reference value. For instance, a value given by adding an upper tolerance limit (a positive tolerance) to the reference value of the parameter is an upper-limit judgment value, whereas a value given by adding a lower tolerance limit (a negative tolerance) to the reference value of the parameter is a lower-limit judgment value”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the judgment value range including a tolerance added to the judgment value of AAPA into Kume, in order to improve and enhance quality and accuracy of the data obtained by the surface texture measuring machine.
Kume in view of AAPA as modified above further teaches;
wherein, in a state in which the measurement value of the workpiece is outside of the judgment value range, display a fail indication on the display (see Kume at Fig. 3 describing comparison at step S150 and if there is an area over the threshold, then output and display respective roughness to monitor at S180, and/or see AAPA describing the surface texture measuring machine performing a pass/fail judgment, hence reading on the invention as claimed), and
wherein, in a state in which the measurement value of the workpiece is inside of the judgment value range, display a pass indication on the display (see Kume at Fig. 3 describing comparison at step S150 and if there is an area below the threshold, then output roughness at S190, and/or see AAPA describing the surface texture measuring machine performing a pass/fail judgment, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 2, Kume in view of AAPA as modified above teaches wherein in a state in which a first parameter and a second parameter different from each other are set as the parameters (see setting of parameters Ra, Rz, Sm of Kume at Col. 4, lines 38 – 44), the controller is further configured to calculate the judgment value range corresponding to the first parameter and the judgment value range corresponding to the second parameter by using values different from each other as the ratio (see Col. 4, lines 38 – 56, Col. 5, lines 38 – Col. 6, line 2 of Kume and see page 1, line 18 – page 2, line 3 of AAPA and modification above).
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume in view of AAPA and further in view of CN 107024411 B to Zhang, Zheng-QI et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 6, Kume teaches a surface texture measuring machine (see abstract and Col. 1, lines 7 – 11, describing a roughness measuring apparatus and method, see Fig. 1) comprising:
a stylus arm (see Col. 4, lines 1 – 17 describing the measurement unit 12 comprising a pickup 22 having a stylus 26), including at least a stylus (see stylus 26, Fig. 2) projecting therefrom and configured to move while scanning a surface of at least one workpiece (see arrangement at Figs. 1, 2, see Col. 4, lines 4 – 17 describing the arrangement and measurement obtained with the stylus 26 while moving the stylus with the driving unit 24);
a display (see monitor 18, Fig. 1, see also Col. 5, lines 8 – 18); and
a controller, including at least a processor (see data processing device 14 including the CPU 28, Figs. 1, 2, see Col. 1, lines 1 – 34), configured to:
set one or more parameters related to a surface texture of the at least one workpiece (see Col. 4, lines 39 – 56 describing steps S100 – S120, Fig. 3 which include selecting a parameter to be evaluated such as Ra, Rz, or Sm, see also step S200, Fig. 5 and Col. 5, lines 38 – 40 describing selection of a first parameter Ra, hence reading on the invention as claimed);
calculate a measurement value corresponding to each of the parameters on a basis of displacement measurement data obtained by scanning the surface of the at least one workpiece (see Col. 4, lines 4 – 17 describing the measurement unit 12 which has a pickup 22 with a stylus 26 on the top end that measures a surface roughness of a workpiece W, Fig. 2, the surface roughness is measured on a basis of a displacement amount of the stylus 26 as described at Col. 4, lines 8 – 16, see also Col. 4, lines 57 – 64 and steps S130, S140 Fig. 3 and steps S230, S240, Fig. 5 and Col. 5, lines 46 – 52 describing the measuring step S230 which computes the roughness of the workpiece by the parameters (Ra) to be evaluated from the measurement data obtained from the measuring unit 12);
calculate a judgment value corresponding to each of the parameters, the measurement value of a plurality of workpieces, defined as a reference value (see Col. 4, lines 26 – 34, 45 – 56 which describes storage device that stores four types of standard cut-off values and a maximum roughness value, and further states “The maximum value is not limited to 0.5 µm and may be set at a desired value, or may even be set based on inspecting standard values of a processed surface of the workpiece W, which is indicated on a drawing. Moreover, the maximum value may be set at a range (for example 0.2 µm -0.6 µm), and the maximum value may be set after obtaining measurement data indicating the surface roughness of the workpiece”, see also Col. 5, lines 40 – 44 which states “The maximum value (0.5 µm) is set based on inspecting standard value of a surface of the workpiece W to be measured or values which is determined beforehand by a preliminary measurement”, thus the maximum value is either set based on inspecting standard value (i.e., reference) or predetermined beforehand, thus reading on the invention as claimed), and
compare the measurement value of the at least one workpiece and the judgment value for each of the parameters (see Col. 4, lines 65 – Col. 5, line 18, and Col. 5, lines 53 – 61 describing the CPU 28 compares the computed roughness with the maximum value, note that the maximum value is either set based on inspecting standard values of a surface of the workpiece to be measured or is determined beforehand by a preliminary measurement as described above, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Kume teaches calculating a judgment value as described above, Kume is silent regarding calculating a judgment value range, the judgment value range including an upper limit and a lower limit, the upper limit and the lower limit being calculated based on at least an average value of the measurement values of a plurality of workpieces, defined as a reference value, and a value having a predetermined ratio relative to the reference value, defined as a tolerance.
AAPA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches calculating a judgment value range, the judgment value range including an upper limit and a lower limit, the upper limit and the lower limit being calculated based on at least the measurement value of the master workpiece, defined as a reference value, and a value having a predetermined ratio relative to the reference value, defined as a tolerance (see page 1 line 26 – page 2, line 3 of the Background section of the specification which describes the known typical surface texture measuring machine which performs pass/fail judgment and which further states “For the pass/fail judgment, one or more parameters are set as judgment items and a judgment value corresponding to each of the parameters is set. The judgment value is a value given by adding a tolerance, or acceptable error, to a reference value. For instance, a value given by adding an upper tolerance limit (a positive tolerance) to the reference value of the parameter is an upper-limit judgment value, whereas a value given by adding a lower tolerance limit (a negative tolerance) to the reference value of the parameter is a lower-limit judgment value”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the judgment value range including a tolerance added to the judgment value of AAPA into Kume, in order to improve and enhance quality and accuracy of the data obtained by the surface texture measuring machine.
Kume in view of AAPA as modified above further teaches;
wherein, in a state in which the measurement value of the workpiece is outside of the judgment value range, display a fail indication on the display (see Kume at Fig. 3 describing comparison at step S150 and if there is an area over the threshold, then output and display respective roughness to monitor at S180, and/or see AAPA describing the surface texture measuring machine performing a pass/fail judgment, hence reading on the invention as claimed), and
wherein, in a state in which the measurement value of the workpiece is inside of the judgment value range, display a pass indication on the display (see Kume at Fig. 3 describing comparison at step S150 and if there is an area below the threshold, then output roughness at S190, and/or see AAPA describing the surface texture measuring machine performing a pass/fail judgment, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Kume in view of AAPA teach calculating the judgment value range using “the measurement values” as described above, Kume in view of AAPA do not explicitly teach using “an average value of the measurement values” as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an average value of the measurement values, since it is known in the art of analyzing sensor data or data processing of sensor data, that use of average values over individual measurement values provides more reliable data, reduce random errors and improves overall accuracy and consistency of the system.
In addition, Zhang, in the field of quality uniformity detection and evaluation method, teaches that it is known to use average measurement values (see for instance at page 4, third paragraph or step 10 describing calculating average value of each representative sample and comparing the average value with the standard value before the judging step, see also steps 2, 3 and 6 at page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an average value of Zhang into Kume in view of AAPA, in order to improve accuracy of the measuring system. The modification allows for more reliable system with reduced random errors due to use of average values.
Regarding Claim 4, Kume in view of AAPA in view of Zhang as modified above teaches wherein in a state in which a first parameter and a second parameter different from each other are set as the parameters (see setting of parameters Ra, Rz, Sm of Kume at Col. 4, lines 38 – 44), the controller is further configured to calculate the judgment value range corresponding to the first parameter and the judgment value range corresponding to the second parameter by using values different from each other as the ratio (see Col. 4, lines 38 – 56, Col. 5, lines 38 – Col. 6, line 2 of Kume and see page 1, line 18 – page 2, line 3 of AAPA and modification above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form accompanying this office action which includes the following relevant prior art:
Bryll (U.S. 2016/0103443 A1) teaches a method for programming a three-dimensional (3D) workpiece scan path for a metrology system comprising a 3D motion control system, a first type of Z-height sensing system, and a second type of Z-height sensing system that provides less precise surface Z-height measurements over a broader Z-height measuring range. The invention further describes an optical pen 320 having a measuring range R1 that is bounded by a minimum range distance R1MIN and a maximum range distance R1MAX, related to minimum and maximum sensed wavelengths in the system. Generally speaking, in many such CRS systems the resolution and/or accuracy is a roughly fixed proportion of the measuring range. Generally speaking, to achieve better resolution and/or accuracy the numerical aperture of the system is increased, which reduces the measuring range R1.
Saito et al. (CN 1750389 B) teaches a measurement control parameter setting method and measuring device of the control circuit of the control system. The measuring device including stylus 131 with the measuring object W. The system further includes sensing detection circuit 21 for signal processing, and as the sensor detection signal output, the sensing detection signal also forms a measuring signal of the invention.
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 MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights