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.
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledged Receipt
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 11 September 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection are based on amendment(s) to the Claim(s).
With respect to independent Claim(s) 1: In response to applicant's argument that Steffey et al. (US 6879933 B2) does not disclose a “contact probe comprising a reference member for engaging the part and further comprising a stylus” , the examiner disagrees since it is Rees et al. (US 11650050 B2) that is understood to teach a" contact probe comprising a reference member for engaging the part and further comprising a stylus " (see Fig. 3 of Reese: probe 4, reference member 14 & stylus 5), thus meeting the claim limitations.
The Drawing Objection(s) mailed on 11 March 2025 is/are overcome by the amendment filed on 11 September 2025.
However, with respect to amended Claim language filed on 11 September 2025, there is/are now Drawing Objection(s).
The Claim Objection(s) mailed on 11 March 2025 is/are overcome by the amendment filed on 11 September 2025.
The 112(a) & 112(b) Rejection(s) mailed on 11 March 2025 is/are overcome by the amendment filed on 11 September 2025.
However, with respect to amended Claim language filed on 11 September 2025, there is/are now 112(a) Rejection(s).
Status
In the amendment filed 11 September 2025, independent Claim(s) 1 has/have been amended and Claim(s) 16 is/are newly added. A Final Rejection is being issued in this paper with regards to Claim(s) 1-16.
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 1, in lines 8-9, “the probe mount and a part are moveable relative to each other in three orthogonal degrees of freedom”.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 1: “the probe mount and a part are moveable relative to each other in three orthogonal degrees of freedom” (lines 8-9), the examiner understands that the “part” is also moveable. The applicant’s specification (filed 18 January 2023) states in page 11, line 10, “A contact probe can be mounted on the probe mount” and in page 7, lines 5-10 , “As will be understood, a skid member is a portion of the contact probe which is configured to be biased against the surface of the part being inspected and to slide over the surface of the part as the contact probe is moved relative to the part. ”. The specification and the drawings do not support the “the probe mount and a part are moveable relative to each other in three orthogonal degrees of freedom”.
In order to expedite prosecution, the Examiner understands the probe mount is moveable relative to the part in three orthogonal degrees of freedom.
Claim(s) 2-16 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
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.
As best understood: Claim(s) 1-9, 11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees et al. (US 11,650,050 B2, see reference in its entirety) in view of Steffey et al. (US 6,879,933 B2, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Rees et al. disclose(s):
A method of inspecting a feature of a part, the feature having a predetermined nominal shape (column 1, lines 9-14; an inspection/measurement robot provides a method of inspecting a feature of a part/surface having predetermined nominal shape), and the method comprising:
loading a contact probe (Fig. 1: 4) onto a probe mount (Fig. 1: 6) of a coordinate positioning apparatus (Fig. 4),
the probe mount being configured so that the probe mount is moveable relative to the part in three orthogonal degrees of freedom (Figs. 1 & 4 and column 3, lines 57-58 and column 4, lines 41-50; coordinate positioning apparatus as seen in Fig. 4 facilitates movement of probe mount in three orthogonal degrees of freedom on the part that is being inspected),
the contact probe comprising a reference member for engaging the part (Fig. 3 and column 4, lines 41-50; reference member 14 for engaging a part/surface), and further comprising a stylus (Fig. 3: 5) 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 column 5, line 66 through column 6, line 3; stylus 5 has a tip for contacting a surface to be measured), and
a relative position of the tip and the reference member being transduced (Fig. 3 and column 5, line 66 through column 6, line 3; tip of stylus 5 and the reference member 14 being transduced);
bringing the reference member and the stylus of the contact probe into contact with the part on one side of the feature, then causing the stylus to traverse the feature whilst collecting measurement data concerning the relative position of the tip and the reference member (Fig. 3 and column 4, lines 41-50; reference member 14 and stylus 5 of contact probe 4 contact the feature/part/surface and collects related measurement data).
Rees et al. do not specifically disclose: extracting dimension information about the feature from the measurement data; and comparing the extracted dimension information to nominal dimension information for a nominal shape of the feature of the part.
However, Steffey et al. teach(es) a method (Fig. 5) including: extracting dimension information about the feature from the measurement data; and comparing the extracted dimension information to nominal dimension information for a nominal shape of the feature of the part (Fig. 5 and column 8, line 66 through column 9, line 3; measurement data is extracted and compared to nominal dimension information of the part being measured).
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 Rees et al., with the teachings of Steffey et al., for the purpose of facilitating the complicated inspection process (column 2, lines 62-67).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Rees et al. further disclose(s): wherein the reference member is a skid which traverses the feature with the stylus (Fig. 3 and column 4, lines 41-50; contact probe 4 comprises the reference member 14 comprising a skid which traverses the feature/surface with the stylus 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein a height of the feature is at least 50um.
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 the feature, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 optimum range of the height in order to ensure accuracy in measurement.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Rees et al. further disclose(s): wherein the step of causing the stylus to traverse the feature whilst collecting the measurement data concerning the relative position of the tip and the reference member is effected by the coordinate positioning apparatus moving the probe mount on which the probe is exchangeably mounted (Figs. 3 & 4 and column 4, lines 41-50; stylus 5 traverses the feature/surface and collects measurement data related to the tip of the stylus 5 and is effected by the coordinate positioning apparatus seen in Fig. 4 moving the probe mount on which the probe is exchangeably mounted via rack 30).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Rees et al. further disclose(s): wherein the probe mount is provided on an articulated member (Fig. 1: 7) comprising at least one axis of rotation (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 5.
Rees et al. 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 (Figs. 1 & 3; contact probe 4 and articulated member 7 are configured such that reference member 14 and the stylus 5 can be rotated about at least three axes as seen in Figs. 1 & 3).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 6.
Rees et al. 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; articulated member 7 on which contact probe 4 is mounted provides at least two of the at least three axes of rotation as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 5.
Rees et al. 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 the linear axes of the coordinate positioning apparatus (Fig. 1 and column 4, lines 41-50; causing the stylus 5 to traverse the feature/surface actuates at least one of axes of the articulated member 7 as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Rees et al. further disclose(s): wherein the stylus is mounted on an elongate arm 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 (Figs. 1 & 3; stylus 5 is mounted on an elongate arm 8 which pivots about a point distal of the tip of the stylus relative to the reference member 14 about said pivot point as seen in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Rees et al. further disclose(s): wherein the part comprises a plurality of features, and the method comprises causing the deflectable stylus to traverse the plurality of features whilst collecting measurement data concerning the relative position of the tip and the reference member (Fig. 3 and column 4, lines 41-50; the part/surface comprises a plurality of features in which causes the deflectable stylus 5 to traverse the plurality of features as seen at 10A in Fig. 3).
The combination does not specifically disclose: plurality of features formed in accordance with a predetermined design specification; extracting dimension information about one or more of the plurality of features from the measurement data, and comparing the extracted dimension information to the design specification for the part.
However, Steffey et al. further teach(es): plurality of features formed in accordance with a predetermined design specification; extracting dimension information about one or more of the plurality of features from the measurement data, and comparing the extracted dimension information to the design specification for the part (Fig. 5 and column 8, line 66 through column 9, line 3; measurement data from a plurality of features in accordance with a predetermined design specification is extracted and compared to dimension information to the design specification of the part being measured).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
Rees et al. further disclose(s): 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 (Fig. 4 and column 4, lines 8-14; causing the contact probe 4 to be loaded automatically from a rack 30 located within the measurement volume/area of the coordinate positioning apparatus as seen in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
The combination does not specifically to disclose: wherein the nominal dimension information comprises at least one of a height, length and position of the feature.
However, Steffey et al. further teach(es): wherein the nominal dimension information comprises at least one of a height, length and position of the feature (Fig. 105 and column 10, lines 28-37; nominal dimension information comprises length of the feature).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 3.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein a length of the feature is at least 50um.
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 the feature, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 optimum range of the length in order to ensure accuracy in measurement.
As best understood: Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees et al. and Steffey et al. further in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 10,429,166 B2; see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
The combination above does not specifically disclose: applying a non-linear correction to the measurement data obtained by the contact probe to remove skew caused by pivoting of the stylus.
However, Nakagawa et al. teach(es) a method (Fig. 5) including: applying a non-linear correction to the measurement data obtained by the contact probe to remove skew caused by pivoting of the stylus (Fig. 5 and column 4, lines 4-31; applying a non-linear correction to the measurement data by a probe to remove translational displacement caused by the displacement of the stylus tip).
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 combined method of Rees et al. and Steffey et al., with the further teachings of Nakagawa et al., for the purpose of increasing accuracy in measurement (column 1, lines 14-22).
As best understood: Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees et al. and Steffey et al. further in view of Koretz (US 5,136,527; see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 11.
The combination does not specifically disclose: in which the plurality of features comprises different sections of a thread of a threaded member of the part.
However, Koretz teach(es) a method (Fig. 2) including: wherein the plurality of features comprises different sections of a thread of a threaded member of the part (Fig. 2 and column 3, line 5; plurality of features include different sections of a thread of a threaded member 20, in which helical gear 20 is considered a threaded member).
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 combined method of Rees et al. and Steffey et al., with the further teachings of Koretz, for the purpose of increasing capability of measurement of topology of surfaces of variously shaped work pieces having plurality of features (column 1, lines 7-10).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Rees et al. and Steffey et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 1.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the feature comprises a recessed feature.
However, Koretz teach(es) a method (Fig. 2) including: wherein the feature comprises a recessed feature (Fig. 2 and column 3, line 5; the feature includes a recessed feature as seen in the recesses of helical gear 20).
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 combined method of Rees et al. and Steffey et al., with the further teachings of Koretz, for the purpose of increasing capability of measurement of topology of surfaces of variously shaped work pieces having plurality of recessed features (column 1, lines 7-10).
Conclusion
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 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 on (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/
07 November 2025
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights