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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 07 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) set forth on page 1 of the reply. This is not found persuasive because search burden is not relevant in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-17, 21, 23 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07 May 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimada et al (JP 2019174207 A).
Regarding claim 1, Shimada et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0009], [0010] and [0023] of the translation) teaches a process (see paragraph [0001] (technique for evaluating the surface roughness of concrete) of Shimada et al), including (a) acquiring three-dimensional point group data of a surface of a shaping object (see paragraph [0009] (obtain point cloud data of a concrete surface using a non-contact 3D scanner) of Shimada et al); (b) calculate at least one of three-dimensional surface texture parameters extended to a plane region using the three-dimensional point group data in reduced dimension (see paragraph [0009] (calculate parameters indicating the roughness of concrete surfaces using point cloud data) of Shimada et al); and (c) evaluating the quality of the object to be shaped using the at least one of the three-dimensional surface texture parameters (see paragraph [0010] (evaluate the surface roughness of concrete) of Shimada et al). Regarding the expression “during laminating and shaping” in the preamble, this expression is a statement of purpose or intended use and thus, this statement is not considered a limitation and is of no patentable significance to claim construction (see MPEP §2111.02 (II)).
Regarding claim 11, see paragraph [0023] (measuring (or shaping) range) of Shimada et al.
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.
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 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al (JP 2019174207 A) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Asano et al (U.S. Patent No. 4,750,140 A).
Regarding claim 10, Shimada et al does not teach (1) evaluating the quality using a combination of at least two of the three-dimensional surface texture parameters. Asano et al (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 7-8; col. 3, lines 38-43) teaches a process (see col. 1, lines 7-8 (method of determining glossiness of a surface of a body) of Asano et al), including evaluating the quality using a combination of at least two of the three-dimensional surface texture parameters (see col. 3, lines 38-43 (glossiness of a surface of a body is a function of two surface roughness degrees) of Asano et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to evaluate the quality using a combination of at least two of the three-dimensional surface texture parameters in the process of Shimada et al in view of Asano et al in order to perform a proper evaluation of glossiness (i.e., quality) (see col. 3, lines 38-43 of Asano et al).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 12-14 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights