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 .
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):
“at least one grinder configured to machine a part with the grind line” of claims 1 and 12.
“a first/second coordinate measuring machine” of claims 1 and 12. Within the art, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) or articulated arm coordinate measuring machines (AACMMs) is a device that measures the geometry of physical objects by sensing discrete points on the surface of the object with a probe or multiple probes. CMMs specify a probe's position in terms of its displacement from a reference position in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system (i.e., with XYZ axes). Therefore, the term “coordinate measuring machine” is understood as referring to a specific type of machine as defined herein.
“a processor” of claims 1 and 12 with means “to provide processor outputs to said at least one grinder responsive to data collected from said first coordinate measuring machine and said second coordinate measuring machine” of claim 1
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(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 13-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim contains indefinite language. The claim requires “a communication channel operatively coupling the processor with at least one sensor of said first coordinate measuring machine and at least one sensor of said second coordinate measuring machine and/or the grind line with the at least one grinder” [emphasis added]. The language makes unclear what is being coupled and if there are alternatives to what is being coupled. Applicant should consider rephrasing the claim to make clear what the alternatives are using punctuation and/or phrases denoting the beginning and end of the choices (ex. “operatively coupling at least one of…, and…”).
Regarding claim 6, the claimed “two different coordinate measuring machines” is indefinite. The term “different” may be used to denote a specific item, such as “one item” and a “different item,” but the term “different” is ultimately relative and, in this case, creates ambiguity about whether this is saying the two different coordinate measuring machines are different from each other, different from the “first” and “second” coordinate measuring machines already claimed, or whether “different” even requires “coordinate measuring machines” to be different from the claimed “first” and “second” coordinate measuring machines.
Additionally, “the inspection data” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the claimed “further comprising: an instruction…” should be connected to a structure. While it is implied that this is an instruction as part of the “set of instructions” of the “computer readable storage device” previously claimed, it is not explicit. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “[wherein the set of instructions further comprises: an instruction…”
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites a “process” comprising:
“providing at least one grinder configured to machine a part with the grind line;
a first coordinate measuring machine operatively coupled to said at least one grinder;
a second coordinate measuring machine operatively coupled to said at least one grinder; and
a processor operatively coupled to said at least one grinder and said first coordinate measuring machine and said second coordinate measuring machine;
configuring said processor to provide processor outputs to said at least one grinder responsive to data collected from said first coordinate measuring machine and said second coordinate measuring machine.”
The semicolons make unclear whether or not the claimed structures of “a first coordinate measuring machine,” “a second coordinate measuring machine,” and “a processor” are actually being provided as claimed. As this is a “process” claim, it is assumed they are, but the semicolons imply a separate thought. Applicant should replace the semicolons with commas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 2-4 and 7, are allowed.
Claims 5 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “said processor configured to provide processor outputs to said at least one grinder responsive to data collected from said first coordinate measuring machine and said second coordinate measuring machine” [emphasis added]. Applicant describes the purpose(s) for having a second coordinate measuring machine in Table 1, paragraph 0039 of the Application Publication.
US-2007/0155284 discloses a first and second metrology units, but not a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) or articulated arm coordinate measuring machines (AACMMs) is a device that measures the geometry of physical objects by sensing discrete points on the surface of the object with a probe or multiple probes. CMMs specify a probe's position in terms of its displacement from a reference position in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system (i.e., with XYZ axes).
The prior art of WO2011107746A1 discloses a coordinate measuring machine (CMM 102), but fails to disclose a “second coordinate measuring machine” as claimed. Since the prior art discloses a working system and does not imply that multiple coordinate measuring machines would provide any advantage(s) over a single/first coordinate measuring machine, it therefore would not have been obvious to modify to include a second coordinate measuring machine such that “said processor [is] configured to provide processor outputs to said at least one grinder responsive to data collected from said first coordinate measuring machine and second coordinate measuring machine” as claimed.
Claim 8, and those claims depending therefrom including claim 9, are allowed.
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a computer readable storage device readable by the system, tangibly embodying a program having a set of instructions executable by the system to perform the following steps for a grind line, the set of instructions comprising: an instruction to receive inspection data for a part from each of a first coordinate measuring machine, a second coordinate measuring machine and at least one grinder” [emphasis added].
Claim 12, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 13-18, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a second coordinate measuring machine operatively coupled to said at least one grinder” and “configuring said processor to provide processor outputs to said at least one grinder responsive to data collected from said first coordinate measuring machine and said second coordinate measuring machine” [emphasis added].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-9628775, US-20200064119, and WO2004096502A1 are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723