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 Amendment
Applicant’s response to the last office action, filed July 28, 2025 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-- Applicant asserted, (see Page 9, 1st par.), that while Kruth provides details
regarding calibration, parameter selection, and data processing (see section 3), it does not disclose or suggest any adaptive or dynamic modification of measurement parameters during the measurement process itself.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Kruth et al clearly discloses on Page 825, right-hand-column, section 4.1, Performing precise and traceable dimensional measurements requires scale calibration by measuring a simple calibrated reference object (two spheres on a bar or plate, a gauge block or stepped pyramid with well-known dimensions), and this measurement allows identifying a global scale factor to link the pixel or voxel size to the unit of length (meter/micrometer). Furthermore, this measurement can be done prior, together or/and after the measurement of the actual workpiece, [i.e., implicitly adapting the step of determining measurand data, “scale calibration”, taking the at least one conformity result into account, “linking the pixel or voxel size obtained from the measurement to the unit of length, for performing precise and traceable dimensional measurements”, and this scale calibration is clearly performed at least before the step of determining measurement data has ended, “this measurement can be done prior to the measurement of the actual workpiece”]). Further, in response to applicant's argument that Kruth et al fail to show any “dynamic modification of measurement parameters during the measurement process itself”, (see Page 9, 1st paragraph), and that “the dynamic adaptation results is a more efficient use of measurement resources and faster throughput in industrial settings”, (see Page 10, 1st Paragraph), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dynamic modification of measurement parameters) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claims 1-15 was proper, and it is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 9-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruth et al, ("Computed tomography for dimensional metrology", Science direct, Vol. 60, no. 2, pages 821 -842), (thereafter reference as Kruth).
In regards to claim 1, Kruth discloses a computer-implemented method for
measuring an object, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
determining measurement data by means of a device for measuring the object, wherein the measurement data generates a digital representation of the object with a plurality of image data of the object, (see at least: Page 824-825, Figs. 9-10, and section 3.2.1, performing reconstruction of the volume model out of the acquired 2D projection images using a number of angular poses, (3D reconstruction)).
carrying out the following steps, at least before the step of determining measurement data has ended:
analyzing at least one-dimensional measurement variable of at least one part of the digital representation of the object, (see at least: Page 825, section 3.2.1, left-hand-column, second paragraph, the 3D reconstruction is followed by the edge (surface) detection or segmentation determining the respective interfaces between solid materials and surrounding air or between different solid materials, “analyzing at least one-dimensional measurement variable”, to convert 3D voxel data into 3D surface data. Further, section 3.2.2, performing dimensional analysis to extract geometrical features (like planes, cylinders, spheres, etc.) and calculate geometrical data (position, orientation, dimension, length, diameter, angle, form errors, measurement uncertainty, etc.), [i.e., analyzing at least one-dimensional measurement variable of at least one part of the digital representation of the object, “extract geometrical features and calculate geometrical data based on dimensional analysis”]);
determining at least one conformity result relating to the analyzed part of the digital representation of the object, (see at least: sections 3.2.2; 7.9, calculate geometrical data (measurement uncertainty), “determining at least one conformity result relating to the analyzed part of the digital representation of the object”. See also, Page 826, section 4.2, left-hand-column, 1st paragraph, the acquired gray images have to be processed in several steps to obtain dimensional measurand values and deviations (possibly linked to a measurement uncertainty and a go/nogo check against tolerances). See also Pages 831-882, under section 7.1, the measurand uncertainty of measurement of CT is closely related to the question which sensor describes the surface best), wherein the conformity result indicates to what extent the analyzed at least one dimensional measurement variable fulfils at least one predefined conformity criterion for the object, (see at least: sections 3.2.2; 7.9, calculate geometrical data (measurement uncertainty), “determining at least one conformity result relating to the analyzed part of the digital representation of the object”. See also, Page 826, section 4.2, left-hand-column, 1st paragraph, the acquired gray images have to be processed in several steps to obtain dimensional measurand values and deviations (possibly linked to a measurement uncertainty and a go/nogo check against tolerances); and from section 4.2, right-hand-column, last paragraph, through Page 827, left-hand-column, 1st paragraph, CMM software for measurand assessment cover all common procedures for dimensional metrology such as … checking versus given tolerances, uncertainty calculation, [i.e., wherein the conformity result, “a measurement uncertainty”, indicates to what extent the analyzed at least one dimensional measurement variable, “implicit by dimensional measurand values and deviations being linked to a measurement uncertainty”, fulfils at least one predefined conformity criterion for the object, “go or no go check against tolerances”]).
Kruth does not expressly disclose adapting the step of determining measurement data taking the at least one conformity result into account.
However, Kruth discloses performing precise and traceable dimensional measurements requires scale calibration by measuring a simple calibrated reference object (two spheres on a bar or plate, a gauge block or stepped pyramid with well-known dimensions), and this measurement allows identifying a global scale factor to link the pixel or voxel size to the unit of length (meter/micrometer). Furthermore, this measurement can be done prior, together or/and after the measurement of the actual workpiece, [which is technically equivalent to implicitly adapting the step of determining measurand data, “scale calibration”, taking the at least one conformity result into account, “linking the pixel or voxel size obtained from the measurement to the unit of length, taking into account the precise and traceable dimensional measurements”]).
In regards to claim 2, Kruth obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kruth further discloses wherein the step of adapting the step of determining measurement data taking the conformity result into account comprises the following sub-step: terminating the step of determining measurement data if the conformity result indicates that the analyzed at least one dimensional measurement variable fulfils the entire at least one conformity criterion, or if the conformity result indicates that the analyzed at least one dimensional measurement variable does not fulfil at least one part of the at least one conformity criterion, (see at least: Page 835, section 7.7, right-hand-column, ISO 10360 is typically made for CMMs where we can distinguish between the length measuring system of the CMM, to determine the accuracy of the length measuring system based on the maximum permissible length error MPEe; and from Page 837, left-hand-column, 2nd paragraph, the uncertainty of the measurement has to be considered for making a conformity statement (e.g. towards MPE-limits), [i.e., implicitly terminating the step of determining measurement data, if the conformity result, “accuracy of the length measuring system”, indicates that the analyzed at least one dimensional measurement variable, “geometrical data such as length measuring”, does not fulfil at least one part of the at least one conformity criterion, “implicitly if the length measuring system is smaller than the MPEe”]).
In regards to claim 3, Kruth obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kruth further discloses wherein the step of determining a conformity result further comprises the following sub-step: taking into account at least one uncertainty of the analyzed at least one dimensional measurement variable, (see at least: Page 837, left-hand-column, 2nd paragraph, “under section 7.7”, the uncertainty of the measurement has to be considered for making a conformity statement (e.g. towards MPE-limits).
In regards to claim 4, Kruth obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kruth further discloses wherein the at least one uncertainty of the analyzed at least one-dimensional measurement variable is defined globally for all dimensional measurement variables in the digital representation of the object, (see at least: Page 831, section 7.1, right-hand-column; and Page 832, section 7.2, right-hand-column, first paragraph, the size of the 3D voxels in the 3D model, … In most cases however, length calibration is done globally: identify global 3D scale factors by comparing lengths measured on a 3D reconstructed object model with known lengths of the measured object, [i.e., the at least one uncertainty, of the analyzed at least one-dimensional measurement variable, “at least the size or dimension of the 3D voxels”, is defined globally, “defined globally based on the length calibration”, for all dimensional measurement variables in the digital representation of the object, “for the 3D voxels in the 3D reconstructed model”]).
In regards to claim 5, Kruth obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kruth further discloses wherein the step of determining a conformity result comprises the following additional sub-step: determining at least one uncertainty of the analyzed at least one-dimensional measurement variable from a local analysis of the measurement data on which the analyzed at least one-dimensional measurement variable is based, (see at least: Page 831, section 7.1, right-hand-column, the assessed surface geometry …. For a dimensional measurement this surface is further used for local or global measurement operations (e.g., point-wise measurement, fit of a regular geometry to a surface area or a global actual-nominal comparison against a reference data set) … the uncertainty which has to be locally attributed to the measured surface, [i.e., determining at least one uncertainty of the analyzed at least one-dimensional measurement variable from a local analysis of the measurement data, “the measurement of the uncertainty has to be locally attributed to the measured surface”, on which the analyzed at least one-dimensional measurement variable is based, “the assessed surface geometry, which forms measurand of the CT measurement”]).
In regards to claim 9, Kruth obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kruth further discloses wherein in the step of determining measurement data by means of a device for measuring the object, a radiographic measurement of the object is carried out, (see at least: Page 825, right-hand-column, 2nd paragraph, the 3D reconstruction is followed by the edge (surface) detection or segmentation determining the respective interfaces between solid materials and surrounding air or between different solid materials. The edge detection converts 3D voxel data into 3D surface data, [i.e., carrying out the radiographic measurement of the object, “the 3D reconstruction”, where determining measurement data by means of a device for measuring the object, “edge (surface) detection or segmentation”]), wherein the method comprises the following sub-steps before the step of determining measurement data:
determining at least one calibration value for the device for measuring the object for at least one predefined radiographic geometry, (see at least: Page 825, section 4.1, performing scale calibration for a position of the magnification axis (position of rotary axis, see Fig. 8) that coincides with the position that will be used during the actual measurement);
wherein the step of determining measurement data has the following sub-steps:
determining at least one required radiographic geometry, (see at least: Page 824, section 3.1.3, Fig. 8, “determining magnification M”); and using the at least one predefined radiographic geometry if the at least one predefined radiographic geometry corresponds to the at least one required radiographic geometry or, if none of the at least one predefined radiographic geometries corresponds to the at least one radiographic geometry, a geometry that covers a predefined surrounding region around the required radiographic geometry, (Page 825, section 4.1, performing calibration by identifying a global scale factor … for a position of the magnification axis (position of rotary axis, see Fig. 8) that coincides with the position that will be used during the actual measurement, [i.e., using the at least one predefined radiographic geometry, “global scale factor”, if the at least one predefined radiographic geometry corresponds to the at least one required radiographic geometry, “position of the magnification axis (position of rotary axis, see Fig. 8) coincides with the position that will be used during the actual measurement]).
In regards to claim 10, Kruth obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kruth further discloses wherein in the step of determining measurement data by means of a device for measuring the object, a radiographic measurement of the object is carried out, (see at least: Page 824, section 3.1.3, Fig. 8, “determining magnification M”), wherein after the steps of determining measurement data and carrying out the steps of analyzing, determining at least one conformity result, (see at least: sections 3.2.2; and 7.9, “see the rejection of claim 1 for more details”) and adapting, (Page 826, section 4.2, left-hand-column, “see the rejection of claim 1 for more details”), the method comprises the following steps:
determining calibration values for a device for examining objects by means of at least one radiographic geometry that was used during the step of determining the measurement data, (see at least: Page 825, section 4.1, performing scale calibration for a position of the magnification axis (position of rotary axis, see Fig. 8) that coincides with the position that will be used during the actual measurement);
generating an at least partially digital representation of the object from the measurement data by means of the calibration values, (see at least: Page 825, section 4.1, “performing workflow for dimensional metrology based on identifying scale calibration value”; and from Page 829, section 5.5, “partial scanning” based on general workflow, which implicitly comprises the scale calibration”);
analyzing at least one part of the at least partial digital representation of the object, (see at least: Page 825, section 3.2.1, left-hand-column, second paragraph, the 3D reconstruction is followed by the edge (surface) detection or segmentation determining the respective interfaces between solid materials and surrounding air or between different solid materials, “analyzing at least one-dimensional measurement variable”, to convert 3D voxel data into 3D surface data. Further, section 3.2.2, performing dimensional analysis to extract geometrical features (like planes, cylinders, spheres, etc.) and calculate geometrical data (position, orientation, dimension, length, diameter, angle, form errors, measurement uncertainty, etc.), [i.e., analyzing at least one-dimensional measurement variable of at least one part of the digital representation of the object, “extract geometrical features and calculate geometrical data based on dimensional analysis”]);
determining at least one conformity result relating to the analyzed part of the at least partial digital representation of the object, (see at least: sections 3.2.2; 7.9, calculate geometrical data (measurement uncertainty), “determining at least one conformity result relating to the analyzed part of the digital representation of the object”. See also, Page 826, section 4.2, left-hand-column, 1st paragraph, the acquired gray images have to be processed in several steps to obtain dimensional measurand values and deviations (possibly linked to a measurement uncertainty and a go/nogo check against tolerances). See also Pages 831-882, under section 7.1, the measurand uncertainty of measurement of CT is closely related to the question which sensor describes the surface best);
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claim 12 is rejected for at least similar rational.
The Examiner further acknowledged the following additional limitation(s): “adapting the step of determining measurement data taking the at least one conformity result into account; is carried out while the step of determining measurement data is carried out”
However, Kruth discloses adapting the step of determining measurement data taking the at least one conformity result into account; is carried out while the step of determining measurement data is carried out, (see at least: Page 826, section 4.2, left-hand-column, the acquired gray images have to be processed in several steps to obtain dimensional measurand values and deviations (possibly linked to a measurement uncertainty and a go/nogo check against tolerances), which is technically equivalent to adapting dimensional measurand values and deviations, “adapting the step of determining measurement data”, linked to a measurement uncertainty, “taking the at least one conformity result into account”, while the while the step of determining measurement data is carried out, “implicitly while obtaining dimensional measurand values of the CT”]).
In regards to claim 13, Kruth obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kruth further discloses wherein the step of analyzing at least one-dimensional measurement variable further comprises the following sub-step: generating a digital representation of the object, (see at least: Page 834, left-hand-column, first paragraph); that contains only those parts of the object in which the at least one predefined conformity criterion is defined, and a predefined surrounding region around the parts of the object, (see at least: Fig. 25, and Page 834, left-hand-column, last paragraph)
In regards to claim 14, Kruth obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kruth further discloses wherein the step of analyzing at least one-dimensional measurement variable further comprises the following sub-step: identifying a surface position in only that at least one part of the digital representation of the object in which the step of analyzing at least one part of the digital representation of the object is to be carried out, (see at least: Page 825, section 3.2.2, using CT systems for dimensional metrology call for additional specific software to extract … geometrical features (like planes, cylinders, spheres, etc.) and calculate geometrical data (position, orientation, dimension, length, diameter, angle, form errors, measurement uncertainty, etc.), [i.e., identifying a surface position in only that at least one part of the digital representation of the object, “implicit by calculate geometrical data such as position”, in which the step of analyzing at least one part of the digital representation of the object is to be carried out, “implicit by using CT systems for dimensional metrology”]).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claim 15 is rejected for at least similar rational.
The Examiner further acknowledged the following additional limitation(s): “a non-transitory computer program product that contains instructions that can be executed on a computer, which when executed on a computer cause the computer to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1”. However, Kruth discloses the “non-transitory computer program product that contains instructions that can be executed on a computer, which when executed on a computer cause the computer to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1”, (see at least: Page 826, right-hand-column, last paragraph, “CMM software for measurand assessment” implicit the use of the non-transitory computer program product … carry out the method as claimed in claim 1”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, and 11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 6, the prior art of record, alone or in reasonable combination, does not teach or suggest, the following underlined limitation(s), (in consideration of the claim as a whole):
“wherein in the region the conformity result indicates that it is not possible to determine whether the dimensional measurement variable fulfils or does not fulfil the at least one predefined conformity criterion; and modifying a radiographic geometry of the radiographic measurement of the object in the step of determining measurement data, in such a way that further measurement data is determined for the identified at least one region”
The relevant prior art of record, Kruth et al, ("Computed tomography for dimensional metrology", Science direct, Vol. 60, no. 2, pages 821 -842), (thereafter reference as Kruth) discloses a computer-implemented method for measuring an object, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
determining measurement data by means of a device for measuring the object, wherein the measurement data generates a digital representation of the object with a plurality of image data of the object, (see at least: Page 824-825, Figs. 9-10, and section 3.2.1, “see the rejection of claim 1 for more details”);
carrying out the following steps, at least before the step of determining measurement data has ended:
analyzing at least one-dimensional measurement variable of at least one part of the digital representation of the object, (see at least: Page 825, section 3.2.1, left-hand-column, second paragraph, and section 3.2.2, “see the rejection of claim 1 for more details”);
determining at least one conformity result relating to the analyzed part of the digital representation of the object, wherein the conformity result indicates to what extent the analyzed at least one dimensional measurement variable fulfils at least one predefined conformity criterion for the object, (see at least: sections 3.2.2; 7.9, and Page 826, section 4.2, left-hand-column, 1st paragraph, from section 4.2, right-hand-column, last paragraph, through Page 827, left-hand-column, 1st paragraph, “see the rejection of claim 1 for more details”);
Kruth further discloses the acquired gray images have to be processed in several steps to obtain dimensional measurand values and deviations (possibly linked to a measurement uncertainty and a go/nogo check against tolerances), (Page 826, section 4.2, left-hand-column), which is technically equivalent to adapting dimensional measurand values and deviations, “adapting the step of determining measurement data”, linked to a measurement uncertainty, “taking the at least one conformity result into account); and wherein in the step of determining measurement data by means of a device for measuring the object, a radiographic measurement of the object is carried out, (see at least: Page 827, left-hand-column, 1st paragraph, the step from point clouds to measurand assessment in CT metrology remains one of the critical steps in ensuring proper, accurate and traceable CT measurements, “carrying out a radiographic measurement of the object”), wherein the step of adapting the step of determining measurement data taking the conformity result into account has the following sub-steps: identifying at least one region in at least one part of the digital representation of the object, (Page 832, left-hand-column, 1st paragraph, Concerning the measurand the uncertainty of measurement of CT is closely related to the question which sensor … The sampling of a surface by a CT measurement can be interpreted as a morphological operator which works on the surface geometry of the real workpiece. CT has intrinsically an integrative characteristic as it attributes an (average) gray value to a volumetric region (voxel) of the workpiece, [i.e., identifying at least one region in at least one part of the digital representation of the object, “implicitly identifying the surface geometry of the real workpiece, based on CT measurement, which has intrinsically an integrative characteristic … to a volumetric region (voxel) of the workpiece”]).
However, while disclosing identifying at least one region in at least one part of the digital representation of the object; Kruth et al fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with the other cited references, wherein in the region the conformity result indicates that it is not possible to determine whether the dimensional measurement variable fulfils or does not fulfil the at least one predefined conformity criterion; and modifying a radiographic geometry of the radiographic measurement of the object in the step of determining measurement data, in such a way that further measurement data is determined for the identified at least one region
A further prior art of record, Howard et al, (US-PGPUB 20200309719), discloses a computer-implemented method for measuring an object, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
determining measurement data by means of a device for measuring the object, wherein the measurement data generates a digital representation of the object with a plurality of image data of the object, (see at least: Par. 0015, in step 145 the operator creates fixturing for the additional orientation and in step 150 CT scans the part in the additional orientation. The additional scan orientation data is loaded in step 155 into a 3D image viewing software and in step 160 merged in the best orientation CT scan data into 3D image viewing software, [i.e., determining measurement data by means of a device for measuring the object, “the operator creates fixturing for the additional orientation …and scans the part in the additional orientation”, wherein the measurement data generates a digital representation of the object with a plurality of image data of the object, “generating CT scan data”]); and
analyzing at least one-dimensional measurement variable of at least one part of the digital representation of the object, (see at least: Par. 0013, performing X-ray penetration of the component to determine a plurality of poses for CT inspection that produce high resolution data using either experience, experimentation, or computer analysis, [i.e., analyzing at least one-dimensional measurement variable of at least one part of the digital representation of the object, “performing X-ray penetration of the component to determine a plurality of poses for CT inspection”]); and
determining at least one conformity result relating to the analyzed part of the digital representation of the object, wherein the conformity result indicates to what extent the analyzed at least one-dimensional measurement variable fulfils at least one predefined conformity criterion for the object, (see at least: Par. 0014, Fig. 1, steps 105-135, In the step 105, the operator reviews the geometry of the part. The operator next estimates in step 110 the best orientation …. the software is used in step 130 to register the best orientation CT Scan data to CAD or reference data. in step 135, the scan data is reviewed to determine regions where the image signal is acceptable and determine regions where the image signal is unacceptable, [i.e., determining at least one conformity result relating to the analyzed part of the digital representation of the object, “determine regions where the image signal is acceptable and determine regions where the image signal is unacceptable”]).
However, Howard fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with the other cited references, carrying out the steps 105-135, at least before the step of determining measurement data has ended; and wherein in the region the conformity result indicates that it is not possible to determine whether the dimensional measurement variable fulfils or does not fulfil the at least one predefined conformity criterion; and modifying a radiographic geometry of the radiographic measurement of the object in the step of determining measurement data, in such a way that further measurement data is determined for the identified at least one region
Regarding claims 7 and 8, claims 7 and 8 are in condition for allowance in view of their dependency from claim 6.
With respect to claim 11, the prior art of record, alone or in reasonable combination, does not teach or suggest, the following underlined limitation(s), (in consideration of the claim as a whole):
“wherein within a group, the radiographic measurements differ from each other by a radiographic angle to the object, which is equidistant within a predefined tolerance angular range, wherein the radiographic measurements of different groups in the sequence have radiographic angles that are arranged equidistantly between the radiographic angles of the radiographic measurements of other groups within the predefined tolerance angle range”
The relevant prior art of record, Kruth et al, ("Computed tomography for dimensional metrology", Science direct, Vol. 60, no. 2, pages 821 -842), (thereafter reference as Kruth) discloses a computer-implemented method for measuring an object, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
determining measurement data by means of a device for measuring the object, wherein the measurement data generates a digital representation of the object with a plurality of image data of the object, (see at least: Page 824-825, Figs. 9-10, and section 3.2.1, “see the rejection of claim 1 for more details”).
carrying out the following steps, at least before the step of determining measurement data has ended:
analyzing at least one-dimensional measurement variable of at least one part of the digital representation of the object, (see at least: Page 825, section 3.2.1, left-hand-column, second paragraph, and section 3.2.2, “see the rejection of claim 1 for more details”);
determining at least one conformity result relating to the analyzed part of the digital representation of the object, wherein the conformity result indicates to what extent the analyzed at least one dimensional measurement variable fulfils at least one predefined conformity criterion for the object, (see at least: sections 3.2.2; 7.9, and Page 826, section 4.2, left-hand-column, 1st paragraph, from section 4.2, right-hand-column, last paragraph, through Page 827, left-hand-column, 1st paragraph, “see the rejection of claim 1 for more details”).
Kruth further discloses wherein the step of determining measurement data is carried out by means of an axial computed tomographic measurement with at least one sequence of at least two groups of at least two radiographic measurements, (see at least: Page 824, section 3.1.3, In a medical CT scanner, the X-ray tube(s) and the detector continuously rotate around the measured object (patient), … “an axial computed tomographic measurement; and from 3.2.1, reconstruction and edge detection; and section 3.2.2, calculating geometric data, (position, orientation, dimension, length, diameter, angle, form errors, measurement uncertainty, etc.), “at least one sequence of at least two groups of at least two radiographic measurements”. Also, Page 829, section 5.5, rotation-only scanning with cone beam, “an axial computed tomographic measurement”).
However, Kruth fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with the other cited references, wherein within a group, the radiographic measurements differ from each other by a radiographic angle to the object, which is equidistant within a predefined tolerance angular range, wherein the radiographic measurements of different groups in the sequence have radiographic angles that are arranged equidistantly between the radiographic angles of the radiographic measurements of other groups within the predefined tolerance angle range
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARA ABDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0273. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached on (571) 272-7332. 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.
/AMARA ABDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 02/25/2025