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 response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected claims 1-2 and 5-6 for further examination. As a result, claims 3-4 and 7 are withdrawn from further prosecution.
Applicant’s Election with traverse is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the searches would be co-extensive and would not unduly burden the examiner. This is not found persuasive because burden is not only based upon searches being co-extensive. Examination and analysis for determination of patentability creates burden.
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.
Regarding to claim 1: The claimed invention is directed to a positional relationship measurement method for measuring a relative positional relationship between a workpiece and a tool without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the step of “deriving an error between the coordinate value acquired and a design coordinate value of the reference point at a position where the workpiece and the tool come into contact with each other”, this step falls into the “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas because of being performed using mathematical calculations. Beside, the steps of “acquiring a coordinate value of a reference point when the workpiece and the tool come into contact with each other” and “outputting information on the error” do not add more significant meaningful so that the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements/steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding to claim 2: The claim(s) recite(s) the step of “in the deriving the error, a plurality of the errors at the plurality of contact positions are derived”, this step falls into the “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas because of being performed using mathematical calculations. Beside, the other steps in the claim body do not add more significant meaningful so that the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsuki et al. (US 2009/0093905).
Otsuki et al. discloses a positional relationship measurement method for measuring a relative positional relationship between a workpiece (FIG. 1, element 6) and a tool (FIG. 1, element 8), the method comprising:
moving the tool relative to the workpiece to bring the workpiece and the tool into contact with each other (FIG. 1 shows the contact between the workpiece 6 and the tool 8);
acquiring a coordinate value of a reference point when the workpiece and the tool come into contact with each other (FIG. 1: The corrected linear axis position (Xa, Ya, Za) which is the center point position of the tool 8 when the tool 8 contacts to the workpiece in the actual position, wherein the center point position reads on the reference point as claimed);
deriving an error between the coordinate value acquired and a design coordinate value of the reference point at a position where the workpiece and the tool come into contact with each other (FIG. 1: The translation error amount (δx, δy, δz) is the difference between the corrected linear axis position (Xa, Ya, Za) (which reads on the claimed coordinate value acquired) and the command linear axis position (Xc , Yc, Zc) (which reads on the claimed design coordinate value)); and
outputting information on the error (FIGs. 4-5: The translation error amount (δx, δy, δz) is outputted to the workpiece setting error compensation unit).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuki et al. (US 2009/0093905) in view of Shimizu (JP 58120109).
Otsuki et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, but is silent on wherein in the moving, the workpiece and the tool are brought into contact with each other at a plurality of positions, in the acquiring the coordinate value, a plurality of coordinate values of the reference point when the workpiece and the tool come into contact with each other at the plurality of positions are acquired, and in the deriving the error, a plurality of the errors at the plurality of contact positions are derived.
Shimuzu discloses a machining apparatus comprising a tool (FIG. 1, element 14: The contact probe) moving relative and coming to contact to a workpiece (FIG. 1, element 12: The work) at a plurality of points (FIGs. 2-3: Positions P1, P2, P3) to determine the coordinate system of a work readily from the plurality of coordinate points (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Otsuki’s method to acquire the coordinate value at a plurality of points, instead of a single point, in order to be able to determine the coordinate system of the workpiece as taught by Shimuzu (Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding to claim 5: The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claims is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that wherein in the moving, the workpiece and the tool are brought into contact with each other at the plurality of positions spaced apart from each other in one translation direction that is a radial direction centered on a rotation axis, and in the outputting, information on the error in the translation direction and information on the error in a rotation direction about the rotation axis are output is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding to claim 6: The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claims is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that wherein in the moving, the tool is relatively moved in two translation directions to come into contact with the workpiece at the plurality of positions, and in the outputting, information on the errors in the two translation directions and information on the error in one rotation direction are output is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853