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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 April 2026 (RCE) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot
because the new grounds of rejection are based on amendment(s) to the Claim(s).
Status
Independent Claim(s) 1 has/have been amended in the RCE filed 13 April 2026. Claim(s) 17-19 is/are added. A Non Final Rejection is being issued in this paper with regards to Claim(s) 1-19.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 17, in line 2, the method step of “providing an end user a measurement report”;
Claim 17, in line 4, “another probe”;
Claim 18, in line 2, “a different probe”;
Claim 19, in line 2, “a mount”.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, in line 7, should read “the probe mount and [a] the part”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 13-14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mayinger (US 11685064 B2, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Mayinger disclose(s):
A method of inspecting a feature (Fig. 3: 224) of a part (Fig. 3: 18), the feature having a predetermined nominal shape (col. 4, lines 18-30), and the method comprising:
i) loading a contact probe (Fig. 3: 218) onto a probe mount (Fig. 3: 204) of a coordinate positioning apparatus (Fig. 1: 10),
the probe mount being configured for exchange of probes thereon (col. 5, lines 22-30),
the coordinate positioning apparatus being configured to facilitate relative movement of the probe mount and a part in three orthogonal degrees of freedom (col. 5, lines 36-42),
the contact probe comprising a reference member (Fig. 3: 242) for engaging the part (Fig. 3), and further comprising a stylus (Fig. 3: 222) which is deflectable relative to the reference member and has a tip for contacting a surface of the part to be measured (Fig. 3 and col. 7, lines 55-66), and
a position of the tip relative to the reference member being transduced (Fig. 3 and col. 5, lines 42-50);
ii) bringing the reference member and the stylus of the contact probe into contact with the part on one side of the feature (Fig. 3 and col. 7, lines 55-66),
iii) then causing the stylus to traverse the feature whilst collecting relative measurement data concerning the position of the tip relative to the reference member (Fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 7-9),
iv) extracting dimension information about the feature from the relative measurement data concerning the position of the tip relative to the reference member (Fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 10-17); and
v) comparing the extracted dimension information to nominal dimension information for a
nominal shape of the feature of the part (Fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 10-17).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Mayinger further disclose(s): wherein the reference member is a skid (Fig. 3: 242) which traverses the feature with the stylus (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Mayinger further disclose(s): wherein the step of causing the stylus to traverse the feature whilst collecting the relative measurement data concerning the position of the tip relative to the reference member, is effected by the coordinate positioning apparatus moving the probe mount on which the probe is exchangeably mounted (Figs. 1 & 3 & col. 5, lines 22-34).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Mayinger further disclose(s): wherein the probe mount is provided on an articulated member (Fig. 1: 36) comprising at least one axis of rotation (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 5.
Mayinger further disclose(s): wherein the contact probe and/or the articulated member are configured such that the reference member and the stylus can be rotated about at least three axes (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 4-21).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 6.
Mayinger further disclose(s): wherein the articulated member on which the contact probe is mounted provides at least two of the at least three axes of rotation (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 4-21).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 5.
Mayinger further disclose(s): wherein the step of causing the stylus to traverse the feature comprises actuating at least one of axes of the articulated member and/or one or more of linear axes of the coordinate positioning apparatus (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 4-21).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Mayinger further disclose(s): wherein the stylus is mounted on an elongate arm (Fig. 1: 40) which is configured to pivot about a point distal of the tip of the stylus such that the tip can pivot relative to the reference member about the pivot point (Fig. 1 and col. 6, lines 7-9).
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 9.
Mayinger further disclose(s): applying a non-linear correction to the measurement data obtained by the contact probe to remove skew caused by pivoting of the stylus (col. 3, lines 21-29).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Mayinger further disclose(s): wherein the feature comprises a recessed feature (Fig. 3: 224).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Mayinger further disclose(s): wherein step i) causing the contact probe to be loaded automatically onto the probe mount of the coordinate positioning apparatus from a rack located within a measurement volume of the coordinate positioning apparatus (Figs. 1 & 3 & col. 5, lines 22-34; a retainer is considered a rack).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Mayinger further disclose(s): further comprising vi) providing to an end user a measurement report (col. 8, lines 63-66) that comprises the dimension information obtained at step iv) as well as measurement information obtained by another probe not having a reference member for engaging the part, the other probe having been mounted on the coordinate positioning apparatus at a different time to that of steps ii) and iii) (col. 5, lines 22-30).
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Mayinger further disclose(s): further comprising obtaining other measurements of the part using a different probe that does not have a reference member for engaging the part (Fig. 2 and col. 7, lines 44-46).
Regarding Claim(s) 19, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Mayinger further disclose(s): wherein the reference member is deflectable relative to a mount (Fig. 1: 34) via which the contact probe is loaded onto the probe mount of the coordinate positioning apparatus, and deflections of the reference member relative to the mount are not transduced (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 16-21).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayinger.
Regarding Claim 3, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Mayinger does not specifically disclose: a height of the feature is at least 50pm..
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a height of at least 50pm, since it has been held that a change in size/height is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPRQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Here the size/ height of the feature (i.e. height of feature 234 as seen in Fig. 3 of Mayinger) does not appear to be significant to the function of the method, thus noting the size/ height is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the method of Mayinger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size/ height of the feature in order to ensure accuracy in measurement.
Regarding Claim 16, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 3.
Mayinger does not specifically disclose: a length of the feature is at least 50pm..
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a length of at least 50pm, since it has been held that a change in size/ length is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPRQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Here the size/length of the feature (i.e. length of feature 234 as seen in Fig. 3 of Mayinger) does not appear to be significant to the function of the method, thus noting the size/ length is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the method of Mayinger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size/length of the feature in order to ensure accuracy in measurement.
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayinger in view of Cooper et al. (US 4167066, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim 11, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Mayinger does not specifically disclose: wherein the part comprises a plurality of features formed in accordance with a predetermined design specification, and
the method further comprises: causing the deflectable stylus to traverse the plurality of features whilst collecting relative measurement data concerning the position of the tip relative to the reference member;
extracting dimension information about one or more of the plurality of features from the relative measurement data; and
comparing the extracted dimension information to the design specification for the part.
However, Cooper teach(es) a method (Fig. 1) including: wherein the part comprises a plurality of features formed in accordance with a predetermined design specification (col. 2, line 65 through col. 3, line 25), and
the method further comprises: causing the deflectable stylus to traverse the plurality of features whilst collecting relative measurement data concerning the position of the tip relative to the reference member(col. 2, line 65 through col. 3, line 25),
extracting dimension information about one or more of the plurality of features from the relative measurement data (col. 3, lines 8-13); and
comparing the extracted dimension information to the design specification for the part (col. 3, lines 17-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Mayinger, with the teachings of Cooper, for the purpose of providing an automatic inspection system by utilizing rapid evaluation of features in a production environment (col. 2, lines 54-57).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Mayinger and Cooper disclose(s) the method of Claim 11.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the plurality of features comprises different sections of a thread of a threaded member of the part.
However, Cooper further teach(es): wherein the plurality of features comprises different sections of a thread of a threaded member of the part (col. 18, lines 14-22).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 15, Mayinger disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Mayinger does not specifically disclose: wherein the nominal dimension information comprises at least one of a height, length and position of the feature.
However, Cooper teach(es) a method (Fig. 1) including: wherein the nominal dimension information comprises at least one of a height, length and position of the feature (col. 18, lines 14-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Mayinger, with the teachings of Cooper, for the purpose of providing an automatic inspection system by utilizing rapid evaluation of features in a production environment (col. 2, lines 54-57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to method of inspecting features: Knabel (US 4926559); Matsumiya et al. (US 6163973); Masuta et al. (US 12373974 B2); Kaim (DE 2014110901 A1);
The following reference(s) relate to method of inspecting features by the same assignee (Renishaw PLC): EP 4563935 A1.
The following reference(s) relate to references cited in the REMARKS (pg. 6) of the RCE filed on 13 April 2026: Ould et al. (WO 2021/170990 A1); Prestidge et al. (WO 2005/065884 A2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/TC/
25 September 2026
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
