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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on February 17, 2023.
Drawing
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Figures 1, 2, and 3 are objected because they are photographs. The figures are acceptable for descriptive purposes; however, the examiner requires that the photographs be replaced with black and white line drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. In particular, claim 14 recites a form in the interior chamber for providing a snug fit, which is not shown in the drawings. Accordingly, the drawings must be amended to include this feature, or Claim 14 must be amended to remove this limitation. No new matter should be entered.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being unpatentable over Gleason (US 20170115113 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Gleason teaches laser target [0001] comprising: a scan sphere [0003] having a first outer spherical surface (12, see annotated picture Fig.2 of Gleason below) and a hollow interior portion (38, see annotated picture Fig.2 of Gleason below); and, a magnet positioned in the interior portion [0005].
PNG
media_image1.png
431
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gleason Fig.2, the original figure has been annotated and labeled for illustration.
In regards to Claim 2, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 1. Gleason further teaches wherein the magnet is secured to a top portion of the interior portion (14, Fig.2, [0022]).
In regards to Claim 3, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 1. Gleason further teaches wherein the interior portion (38, [0021] Fig.2) includes a first chamber (20, fig.2, annotated picture fig.2 of Gleason above) configured to fit over another sphere (18b, [0022], fig.5b, annotated picture fig.5B of Gleason below) having a second outer spherical surface (52 smaller than the first outer spherical surface (18b), fig.5b, annotated picture fig.5B of Gleason below) and a second chamber (16 [0025] fig.2, annotated picture fig.2 of Gleason above) for securing the magnet (14,[0005]).
PNG
media_image2.png
467
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gleason Fig.5B, the original figure has been annotated and labeled for illustration.
In regards to Claim 4, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 1 and 3. Gleason further teaches, wherein the first chamber (20, Fig.2, [0022]) is generally cylindrical. (As shown in fig.2, the cylindrical rod (44) extends into and fits within chamber (20), thereby evidencing that chamber 20 is cylindrical).
In regards to Claim 5, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 1 and 4. Gleason further teaches, wherein the second chamber (16, [0025]) is generally cylindrical. (Fig.1c shows magnet (14) resides in Chamber (16). Since magnet (14) is cylindrical, and fits within chamber (16), this evidences that chamber 16 is cylindrical).
In regards to Claim 7, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 1. Gleason further teaches wherein the interior portion has a lower opening (recess 38, [0021]).
In regards to Claim 8, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 1 and 7. Gleason further teaches wherein the lower opening is circular [0021].
In regards to Claim 9, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 1. Gleason further teaches wherein the scan sphere is formed from anodized aluminum [0021].
In regards to Claim 12 Gleason teaches, a scanning target [0001] comprising: a scan sphere [0003] having an outer spherical scanning surface (12, see annotated picture Fig.2 of Gleason above) having an interior chamber (20, fig.2, annotated picture fig.2 of Gleason above), configured to fit over another sphere (18b, [0022], fig.5b, annotated picture fig.5B of Gleason above) having a surface smaller than the spherical scanning surface of the scan sphere. (52 smaller than the first outer spherical surface (18b), fig.5b, annotated picture fig.5B of Gleason above)
In regards to Claim 13, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 12. Gleason further teaches a magnet in the interior chamber for adhering the scan sphere to another sphere [0005].
In regards to Claim 17, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 12 and 13. Gleason further teaches the magnet is in a top portion of the interior chamber of the scan sphere (14, fig.2, [0022]).
In regards to Claim 18, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 12. Gleason further teaches wherein the scan sphere is formed from aluminum [0021].
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 6,11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason (US 20170115113 A1) and in view of Bal-tec Integration Spheres brochure (2017) available at swww.scanningspheres.com Non - Patent Literature (NPL) entitled, Integration of Spheres, published by Bal-tec / Micro Surface Engineering, Inc., hereinafter “Bal-tec”.
In regards to Claim 6, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 1 and 5. Gleason does not teach wherein the first chamber is larger than the second chamber. Bal-tec teaches wherein the first chamber is larger than the second chamber (refer page1, lines 10-20, annotated picture of Bal-tec, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
1126
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bal-tec, the original figure has been annotated and labeled for illustration. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser target super precision scan sphere system of Gleason with the teaching of Bel-tec, in order to achieve the predictable result of a more accurate laser target device.
In regards to Claim 11, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 1. But Gleason does not teach wherein the scan sphere has a scan tolerance of +/- 2-3 thousandths of an inch. Bal-tec teaches, wherein the scan sphere has a scan tolerance of +/- 2-3 thousandths of an inch (Refer Bal-tec page1, lines 18-20). (The positional accuracy of the nest to the spherical diameter is < 5 microns = 005mm (.0002 inches) which is less than .002 inches).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser target super precision scan sphere system of Gleason with the teaching of Bel-tec, in order to achieve the predictable result of a more accurate laser target device.
In regards to Claim 20, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 12. But Gleason does not teach wherein the scan sphere has a scan tolerance of +/- 2-3 thousandths of an inch. Bal-tec further teaches, wherein the scan sphere has a scan tolerance of +/- 2-3 thousandths of an inch (Refer Bal-tec page1, lines 16-20). (The positional accuracy of the nest to the spherical diameter is < 5 microns = 005mm (.0002 inches) which is less than .002 inches).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser target super precision scan sphere system of Gleason with the teaching of Bel-tec, in order to achieve the predictable result of a more accurate laser target device.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason (US 20170115113 A1) and in view of Graham (US 20110235143 A1).
In regards to Claim 10, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 1. But Gleason does not teach wherein the first spherical surface of the scan sphere is textured. Graham teaches wherein the first spherical surface of the scan sphere is textured [0028].
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser target super precision scan sphere system of Gleason with the teaching of Graham which discloses a textured sphere surface suitable for enabling apex detection and providing the positional location of the sphere. In conjunction, the combination of Gleason and Graham provides an improved scanning system with apex detection and more accurate positional determination of the sphere.
In regards to Claim 19, Gleason disclosed the limitations in claim 12. But Gleason does not teach wherein the outer spherical surface of the scan sphere is textured. Graham further teaches wherein the outer spherical surface of the scan sphere is textured [0028].
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser target super precision scan sphere system of Gleason with the teaching of Graham which discloses a textured sphere surface suitable for enabling apex detection and providing the positional location of the sphere. In conjunction, the combination of Gleason and Graham provides an improved scanning system with apex detection and more accurate positional determination of the sphere.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason (US 20170115113 A1) and in view of Valenzuela (US 20160207638 A1)
In regards to Claim 14, Gleason disclose the limitations in claim 12. However, Gleason does not disclose a scanning target comprising foam in the interior chamber for providing a snug fit over another sphere. Valenzuela scanning target comprising foam in the interior chamber for providing a snug fit over another sphere ([0049], Fig.24, annotated picture Fig.2A of Valenzuela below)
PNG
media_image4.png
635
848
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Valenzuela Fig.2A, the original picture has been annotated and labeled for illustrations
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser target super precision scan sphere system of Gleason with the teaching of Valenzuela. Valenzuela discloses a laser device coupled in to a chamber and the coupling sphere include an elastic material such as foam. Such Valenzuela’s modification represents the predictable use of known foam material providing secure engagement and cushioning of components within the chamber, thereby achieving the expected result of reliable and stable laser target devise.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason (US 20170115113 A1) and in view of Barazas (US 6837716 B1).
In regards to Claim 15, Gleason disclose the limitations in claim 12. However, Gleason does not disclose a scanning target comprising a plurality of compressible fingers in the interior chamber for providing a snug fit over another sphere. Brazas teaches, a plurality of compressible fingers in the interior chamber for providing a snug fit over another sphere (Col.1, lines 52-60, refer the annotated picture fig.1 of Brazas below).
PNG
media_image5.png
494
801
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Brazas Fig.1, the original picture has been annotated and labeled for illustrations
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser target super precision scan sphere system of Gleason with the teaching of Brazas. Brazas discloses using compressible fingers to insert and retain a sphere within a chamber. Such combination would have resulted the construction of a laser target device with easier sphere insertion and reliable retention of a sphere inside the chamber.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason (US 20170115113 A1) and in view of Evans (US 9632219 B2).
In regards to claim 16, Gleason disclose the limitations in claim 12. While Gleason discloses securing the positioning members in various ways, Gleason does not specifically disclose the limitations adhesive in the interior chamber for adhering the scan sphere to another sphere. Evan teaches adhesive in the interior chamber for adhering the scan sphere to another sphere (Refer Col.5, lines 30-40).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the interior chamber of Gleason by incorporating an adhesive application as thought by Evan, since adhesive is a known means for adhering one object to another. Such substitution, as disclosed by Evan, represents the predictable use of known materials to achieve the expected result of securely retaining a sphere within a chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOHANES M TAFETE whose telephone number is (571)272-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8-4:30.
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 Martin can be reached on 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.
/YOHANES MELESE TAFETE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN/SPE, Art Unit 2855