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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 and 19-21 are directed to a coordinate measuring system for determining three-dimensional coordinates of an object, which is considered to be a machine. Claims 13-16 are a computer implemented method for determining three-dimensional coordinates of an object, which is considered to be a process. Claim 17 is directed to a computer program product comprising program code which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, Therefore, claims 1-17 and 19-21 each fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a coordinate measuring system for determining three-dimensional coordinates of an object comprising “the computing device is configured to determine, based on the measurement data, three-dimensional coordinates of the measurement points, and for storing nominal data of the object in a data storage, the nominal data comprising nominal dimension data of the object for a pre-defined temperature and one or more expansion coefficients of the object,” and
“the computing device is configured to determine, based on the determined three-dimensional coordinates of the measurement points, on the provided temperature data and on the expansion coefficients, tempered coordinates of the object, wherein the tempered coordinates are three-dimensional coordinates that the object would have at a tempered state in which the object uniformly has the pre-defined temperature,
wherein the computing device is configured to determine, based on the tempered coordinates, deviations of the object at the defined temperature from the nominal dimension data, wherein, if the deviations exceed a predefined threshold, the computing device is further configured:
to decide, based on the tempered coordinates, whether the object is scrapped, redone or adapted, and/or
to provide the measurement results to a user of the system” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least page 16, line 17-page 24, line 11 and page 25, line 12-page 27, line 21 of the instant application, teach the analyzing data to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the storing and comparing could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 further recites the additional elements “a coordinate measuring device, at least one temperature sensor and a computing device, wherein: the coordinate measuring device comprises an arrangement of sensors configured to generate measurement data from which three-dimensional coordinates of at least one measurement point on the object are derivable” and “the at least one temperature sensor is configured to determine one or more actual temperature values of the object, to generate temperature data based on the determined actual temperature values and to provide the temperature data to the computing device, wherein the actual temperature values of the object deviate from the pre-defined temperature”. The additional elements of the coordinate measuring device, the temperature sensor, and the computing device are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the coordinate measuring device and the temperature sensor are considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The computing device is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a coordinate measuring device, at least one temperature sensor and a computing device, wherein: the coordinate measuring device comprises an arrangement of sensors configured to generate measurement data from which three-dimensional coordinates of at least one measurement point on the object are derivable” and “the at least one temperature sensor is configured to determine one or more actual temperature values of the object, to generate temperature data based on the determined actual temperature values and to provide the temperature data to the computing device, wherein the actual temperature values of the object deviate from the pre-defined temperature” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the coordinate measuring device, the temperature sensor, and the computing device are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the coordinate measuring device and the temperature sensor are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The computing device is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-3, 8-9, 11-12, and 20-21 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 4 recites the further additional elements of “wherein the coordinate measuring device is a coordinate measuring machine comprising:
a base;
a probe head;
a frame structure comprising a plurality of frame members and one or more actuators; and
a control unit configured to control the actuators to move the probe head along a measurement path to approach a plurality of measurement points on the object,
wherein the frame members are arranged to movably connect the probe head to the base so that the probe head can approach an object that is positioned on the base, the movability of the probe head defining a working volume of the coordinate measuring machine, wherein:
the control unit comprises the computing device” and the further abstract ideas of “the control unit is configured to define the measurement path based on the determined deformation of the object; and/or
the control unit is configured to adapt the measurement path in real-time based on the determined deformation of the object; and/or
the coordinate measuring machine comprises one or more fixations configured to fix a position and orientation of the workpiece on the base, and expansion coefficients of the fixations are considered by the computing device for determining the tempered coordinates”. The additional elements of the base, the probe head, the frame structure, the plurality of frame members and the one or more actuators, the control unit are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the base, the probe head, the frame structure, and the plurality of frame members and the one or more actuators are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. These limitations in the claims are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 recites the further additional element of “the probe head comprises a contacting temperature sensor configured to approach and contact surface points of the object to measure a temperature at each of the contacted surface points and to generate contact temperature values for each of the surface points” and “the contacting temperature sensor is included in a tactile stylus that is used for approaching the plurality of measurement points on the object; and/or
the control unit is configured to control the actuators to move the probe head along the measurement path to approach the plurality of measurement points and the plurality of contacted surface points”. The additional elements of the contacting temperature sensor, tactile stylus, and the control of the actuators are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the contacting temperature sensor, tactile stylus, and the control of the actuators are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. These limitations in the claims are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 recites the further additional elements of “wherein the arrangement of sensors comprises at least one laser distance meter”, “the coordinate measuring device is embodied as a laser tracker, as a laser scanner or as a geodetic surveying device;
the coordinate measuring device comprises the at least one temperature sensor, particularly a thermal imaging temperature sensor that is configured to be directed to the object and to generate the temperature data in the form of one or more thermal images; and/or
the system is configured to determine three-dimensional coordinates of the object in a production line, wherein the object is a specimen of a workpiece being produced in the production line.” The additional elements of at least one laser distance meter, the laser tracker, the laser scanner, the geodetic surveying device, the temperature sensor, production line, and the workpiece are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of at least one laser distance meter, the laser tracker, the laser scanner, the geodetic surveying device, the temperature sensor are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. These limitations in the claims are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 6 is not eligible.
Claim 7 recites the “wherein the at least one temperature sensor is a thermal imaging temperature sensor that is configured:
to be directed to the object or, if the coordinate measuring device is a coordinate measuring machine, to a working volume of the coordinate measuring machine, and
to generate the temperature data in the form of one or more thermal images” and “wherein, if the coordinate measuring device is a coordinate measuring machine, the thermal imaging temperature sensor is:
attached to one of the frame members or to the probe head and movable relative to the base”. The additional elements of the thermal imaging temperature sensor, the object, the coordinate measuring machine, and the thermal imaging temperature sensor is attached to one of the frame members or to the probe head and movable relative to the base are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the thermal imaging temperature sensor, the object, the coordinate measuring machine, and the thermal imaging temperature sensor is attached to one of the frame members or to the probe head and movable relative to the base are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. These limitations in the claims are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 7 is not eligible.
Claim 10 recites the further additional elements of “at least one attachable temperature sensor configured to be attached to surface points of the object to measure a temperature at the surface points and to generate contact temperature values for the surface points”. The additional elements of the attachable temperature sensor configured to be attached to surface points of the object are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of attachable sensor’s attachments are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. These limitations in the claims are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 10 is not eligible.
Claim 13 is directed to a computer-implemented method for determining three-dimensional coordinates of an object comprising “determining, based on the measured three-dimensional coordinates, on the measured one or more actual temperatures and on one or more expansion coefficients of the object, tempered coordinates of the object, wherein the tempered coordinates are three-dimensional coordinates that the object would have at a tempered state in which the object uniformly has the pre-defined temperature” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least page 16, line 17-page 24, line 11 and page 25, line 12-page 27, line 21 of the instant application, teach the analyzing data to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the storing and comparing could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 13 further recites the additional elements “measuring three-dimensional coordinates of an object using a coordinate measuring device, wherein, during the measurement, one or more actual temperatures of the object deviate from a pre-defined temperature; measuring the one or more actual temperatures of the object using at least one temperature sensor”. The additional elements of the plurality of the coordinate measuring device, the temperature sensor, and the computing device are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the coordinate measuring device and the temperature sensor are considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The computing device is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “measuring three-dimensional coordinates of an object using a coordinate measuring device, wherein, during the measurement, one or more actual temperatures of the object deviate from a pre-defined temperature; measuring the one or more actual temperatures of the object using at least one temperature sensor” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the coordinate measuring device, the temperature sensor, and the computing device are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the coordinate measuring device and the temperature sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The computing device is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 13 is not eligible.
Claims 14-18 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 13 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 13 above.
Claim 19 recites the further additional element of “wherein each set of temperature data is a thermal imaging temperature sensor that is configured to be directed to the object and to generate the temperature data in the form of one or more thermal images”. The additional element of the thermal imaging temperature sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations in the claims are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 19 is not eligible.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853