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 .
Response to Arguments
The reply filed on 19 February 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection caused by the amendments.
The examiner thanks applicants for the interview on 13 January 2026, and would like to note that, unlike Japanese patents, US patent practice cannot incorporate specific details from the specification into the claims. The claims must be interpreted under a broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and the claims must include details sufficient to differentiate over the prior art.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are pending in this application and have been considered below. Claim 9 is canceled by the applicant.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT PCT/JP2021/016291. Priority to PCT/JP2021/016291 with a priority date of 22 April 2021 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs dated 15 August 2023 and 6 May 2024 that were previously considered remain placed in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 (all claims except 4-5, addressed below) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2019 0128663 A1, (Isei et al.) in view of Non Patent Publication “Remanufacturing System with Chatter Suppression for CNC Turning”, (Miadlicki et al.). The references are listed in a PTO-892 from the Office Action in which they are first used.
Claim 1
PNG
media_image1.png
546
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Isei et al. teach a crankshaft shape inspection method ("crankshaft shape inspection apparatus," paragraph [0026]), comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (Isei et al., showing a system using superposition and multiple coordinate systems.)]acquiring three-dimensional point cloud data of a surface of a crankshaft by a three-dimensional shape measuring device ("distance to a crankshaft surface is measured by using an optical head which projects laser light in an orthogonal direction of the rotation center axis," paragraph [0017]) measuring a surface shape of the crankshaft ("a crankshaft shape information generating means," paragraph [0044]);
superposing the three-dimensional point cloud data on a surface shape model of the crankshaft prepared in advance based on design specifications of the crankshaft ("superposing partial shape information of a measured reference sample on coordinates of true shape data," paragraph [0064]);
moving the three-dimensional point cloud data superposed on the surface shape model to match with a coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined ("superposes the true shape data of the reference sample prepared in S091 and the four pieces of shape information indicating part of the reference sample generated in S093 by moving and rotating the shape information indicating part of the reference sample (S094)," paragraph [0165]);
generating an estimated machined surface, which is the surface after machining of a predetermined machining portion of the crankshaft, in the coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined ("a reference sample whose shape has been grasped by additional measurement in advance is prepared. Further, true shape data indicating shape information of this reference sample is prepared (S091)," paragraph [0160]); and
machining portion point cloud data, which are point cloud data of the machining portion ("the position estimation unit 64 estimates each position of the plurality of journal S3 and the plurality of pins Sl in the three-dimensional shape of the crankshaft S corresponding to the crankshaft shape information generated in S103 (S104)," paragraph [0179]), calculating a distance between the extracted machining portion point cloud data and the estimated machined surface ("estimates each position of the plurality of journals and the plurality of pins in the crankshaft shape information by using the reference coordinates stored in the storage means," paragraph [0052] where the interpretation of calculating a distance includes estimating a position)and determining a machining stock of the crankshaft to be insufficient based on the calculated distance ("accurately inspect a shape of the crankshaft, for example, a bend and a twist of the crankshaft, and positional displacement of counterweights," paragraph [0229] where the interpretation of inspect includes determining a machining stock to be insufficient).
[AltContent: textbox (Miadlicki et al. Fig. 4, showing a system using multiple forms of recognition to generate a model.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
864
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Isei et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of the coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined.
However, Miadlicki et al. teach extracting from the three-dimensional point cloud data that was moved to match with the coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined ("The next step was to convert the point cloud to parametric geometry. The implemented algorithms (Figure 4) identify the geometry of the shaft class parts based on cross-sections. The geometry of the identified part is then imported into SOLIDWORKS for further processing," page 4, section 2.3 and "the workpiece is modelled using the finite element method, as described in section 2.4. For RCA modal synthesis, the dynamic properties of the components (w index—workpiece, s index—spindle) are noted as matrix equations" page 12, first paragraph, which teaches that multiple coordinate systems (geometries) as matrix equations).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Isei et al. and Miadlicki et al. as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify “Crankshaft Shape Inspection Apparatus, System and Method” as taught by Isei et al. to use multiple coordinate systems as taught by Miadlicki et al. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “In the modern industry, in line with the latest trends and the idea of Industry 4.0, the objective is to increase automation and autonomy of production. The aim of these activities is to reduce the dependence of production plants on qualified machine operators and technologists, and to increase production efficiency.” as noted by the Miadlicki et al. disclosure in the Abstract, which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher efficiency as there is a reasonable expectation that the settings of the crankshaft centerline would change when it is worked on or the machine is changed; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The rejection of method claim 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of apparatus claim 8 and apparatus claim 10 while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures. Claims 8 and 10 are mapped below for clarity of the record and to specify any new limitations not included in claim 1.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Isei et al. teach the crankshaft shape inspection method according to claim 1, wherein superposing the three-dimensional point cloud data on the surface shape model of the crankshaft comprise the three-dimensional point cloud data are translated and rotated to make a distance between the three-dimensional point cloud data and the surface shape model minimum, and are superposed on the surface shape model ("superposes the true shape data of the reference sample prepared in S091 and the four pieces of shape information indicating part of the reference sample generated in S093 by moving and rotating the shape information indicating part of the reference sample (S094)," paragraph [0165] where translating is moving), and
moving the three-dimensional point cloud data comprise, from the three- dimensional point cloud data superposed on the surface shape model machining reference portion point cloud data, which are point cloud data of a predetermined machining reference portion, are extracted, and the three-dimensional point cloud data are translated and rotated to make coordinates of a machining reference determined by the extracted machining reference portion point cloud data match with coordinates predetermined in the coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined ("superposed on shape information of a reference sample acquired by each of the shape measuring devices 31 to 34, it is sufficient that it is possible to judge that their pieces of shape information match with each other," paragraph [0160]).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Isei et al. teach the crankshaft shape inspection method according to claim 1, wherein generating an estimated machined surface comprise, the machining portion is a shaft portion and a pin of the crankshaft, and the estimated machined surface is a cylinder ("the true shape data indicating the shape information of this reference sample is produced as data having no error between an actual shape by using an original coordinate system of this true shape data (hereinafter, referred to as a reference sample coordinate system)," paragraph [0160]).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Isei et al. teach the crankshaft shape inspection method according to claim 1,wherein determining the machining stock of the crankshaft to be insufficient comprise, a proportion of point cloud data whose distance to the calculated estimated machined surface is less than a predetermined minimum required machining stock to the machining portion point cloud data is calculated, and when the calculated proportion of the point cloud data is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value, the machining stock of the crankshaft is determined to be insufficient ("The differences between the three-dimensional shape of the crankshaft corresponding to the crankshaft shape information generated by the processing in S103 and the actual measured values are each 0.1 mm or less in approximately 40% of the total and 0.2 mm in approximately 70% of the total," paragraph [0222] where less than a predetermined minimum is taught by differences between shape information and the measured value and percentages of difference shows determined to be insufficient).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Isei et al. teach the crankshaft shape inspection method according to claim 1,wherein the three-dimensional shape measuring device is a plurality of optical three-dimensional shape measuring devices that are arranged around a rotation center axis of the crankshaft, and measure a three-dimensional shape of the crankshaft by projecting and receiving light on and from the crankshaft while relatively moving in a direction parallel to the rotation center axis of the crankshaft ("As illustrated in FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, the positioning target 90 is disposed next to the first support part 12. FIG. 20 illustrates one example of the positioning target 90. The positioning target 90 has unique inclined surfaces 91 for positioning in which exact position and shape are recognized in advance in a field of view of each of the shape measuring devices 31 to 34 and is measured with the crankshaft S, thereby improving position measurement accuracy in a rotation axis direction," paragraph [0122]).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Isei et al. teach an arithmetic unit intended for inspecting a shape of a crankshaft("crankshaft shape inspection apparatus," paragraph [0026]), the arithmetic unit comprising:
a computer processor including processing circuitry programmed to perform operations ("The processing unit 60 has one or a plurality of processors and peripheral circuits thereof," paragraph [0154]) comprising:
acquire three-dimensional point cloud data of a surface of the crankshaft based on a result obtained by a three-dimensional shape measuring device ("distance to a crankshaft surface is measured by using an optical head which projects laser light in an orthogonal direction of the rotation center axis," paragraph [0017]) measuring a surface shape of the crankshaft ("a crankshaft shape information generating means," paragraph [0044]);
superpose the three-dimensional point cloud data on a surface shape model of the crankshaft prepared in advance based on design specifications of the crankshaft ("superposing partial shape information of a measured reference sample on coordinates of true shape data," paragraph [0064]);
move the three-dimensional point cloud data superposed on the surface shape model to match with a coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined ("superposes the true shape data of the reference sample prepared in S091 and the four pieces of shape information indicating part of the reference sample generated in S093 by moving and rotating the shape information indicating part of the reference sample (S094)," paragraph [0165]);
generate an estimated machined surface, which is the surface after machining of a predetermined machining portion of the crankshaft, in the coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined ("a reference sample whose shape has been grasped by additional measurement in advance is prepared. Further, true shape data indicating shape information of this reference sample is prepared (S091)," paragraph [0160]); and
machining portion point cloud data ("the position estimation unit 64 estimates each position of the plurality of journal S3 and the plurality of pins Sl in the three-dimensional shape of the crankshaft S corresponding to the crankshaft shape information generated in S103 (S104)," paragraph [0179]), which are point cloud data of the machining portion, calculate a distance between the extracted machining portion point cloud data and the estimated machined surface ("estimates each position of the plurality of journals and the plurality of pins in the crankshaft shape information by using the reference coordinates stored in the storage means," paragraph [0052] where the interpretation of calculating a distance includes estimating a position), and determine a machining stock of the crankshaft to be insufficient based on the calculated distance ("accurately inspect a shape of the crankshaft, for example, a bend and a twist of the crankshaft, and positional displacement of counterweights," paragraph [0229] where the interpretation of inspect includes determining a machining stock to be insufficient).
Isei et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of the coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined.
However, Miadlicki et al. teach extract from the three-dimensional point cloud data that was moved to match with the coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined ("The next step was to convert the point cloud to parametric geometry. The implemented algorithms (Figure 4) identify the geometry of the shaft class parts based on cross-sections. The geometry of the identified part is then imported into SOLIDWORKS for further processing," page 4, section 2.3 and "the workpiece is modelled using the finite element method, as described in section 2.4. For RCA modal synthesis, the dynamic properties of the components (w index—workpiece, s index—spindle) are noted as matrix equations" page 12, first paragraph, which teaches that multiple coordinate systems (geometries) as matrix equations).
Isei et al. and Miadlicki et al. are combined as per claim 1.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Isei et al. teach a crankshaft shape inspection apparatus ("crankshaft shape inspection apparatus," paragraph [0026]), comprising:
four or more optical three-dimensional shape measuring devices that are arranged around a rotation center axis of a crankshaft, and measure a three-dimensional shape of the crankshaft by projecting and receiving light on and from the crankshaft while relatively moving in a direction parallel to the rotation center axis of the crankshaft ("crankshaft shape inspection apparatus 1 includes a support device 10, a first mobile device 21 to a fourth mobile device 24, a first shape measuring device 31 to a fourth shape measuring device 34," paragraph [0120]); and
an arithmetic unit that receives measurement results obtained by the four or more three- dimensional shape measuring devices and executes a predetermined arithmetic operation ("The processing unit 60 has one or a plurality of processors and peripheral circuits thereof," paragraph [0154]),
wherein the three-dimensional shape measuring devices are divided into first-group shape measuring devices and second-group shape measuring devices, the first-group shape measuring devices that have light projection directions thereof inclined in the same direction with respect to a direction orthogonal to the rotation center axis of the crankshaft and the second-group shape measuring devices that have light projection directions thereof inclined in a direction different from the direction of the first-group shape measuring devices ("the first shape measuring device 31 includes a projection unit 311 and a light-receiving unit 312, the second shape measuring device 32 includes a projection unit 321 and a light-receiving unit 322, the third shape measuring device 33 includes a projection unit 331 and a light-receiving unit 332, and the fourth shape measuring device 34 includes a projection unit 341 and a light-receiving unit 342. In FIG. 2, FIG. 3A, and FIG. 3B, a light path (light axis) of projection light projected from each of the shape measuring devices 31 to 34 to the crankshaft Sis indicated by a dot and dash line, and a light path (light axis) of incident light reflected off the crankshaft S and incident to each of the shape measuring devices 31 to 34 is indicated by a two-dot chain line," paragraph [0127]),
the second-group shape measuring devices are arranged around the rotation center axis of the crankshaft between the first-group shape measuring devices ("the four first shape measuring device 31 to fourth shape measuring device 34 disposed around the crankshaft S in one direction," paragraph [0204]), and
in the arithmetic unit, a surface shape model of the crankshaft, which is created based on design specifications of the crankshaft, is stored in advance ("The reference coordinate information is stored in the storage unit 52," paragraph [0179]), the arithmetic unit includes:
a computer processor including processing circuitry programmed to perform operations ("The processing unit 60 has one or a plurality of processors and peripheral circuits thereof," paragraph [0154]) comprising:
acquire three-dimensional point cloud data of a surface of the crankshaft based on results obtained by the three-dimensional shape measuring devices ("distance to a crankshaft surface is measured by using an optical head which projects laser light in an orthogonal direction of the rotation center axis," paragraph [0017]) measuring a surface shape of the crankshaft ("a crankshaft shape information generating means," paragraph [0044]);
superpose the three-dimensional point cloud data on the surface shape model ("superposing partial shape information of a measured reference sample on coordinates of true shape data," paragraph [0064]);
move the three-dimensional point cloud data superposed on the surface shape model to match with a coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined ("superposes the true shape data of the reference sample prepared in S091 and the four pieces of shape information indicating part of the reference sample generated in S093 by moving and rotating the shape information indicating part of the reference sample (S094)," paragraph [0165]);
generate an estimated machined surface, which is the surface after machining of a predetermined machining portion of the crankshaft, in the coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined ("a reference sample whose shape has been grasped by additional measurement in advance is prepared. Further, true shape data indicating shape information of this reference sample is prepared (S091)," paragraph [0160]); and
machining portion point cloud data ("the position estimation unit 64 estimates each position of the plurality of journal S3 and the plurality of pins Sl in the three-dimensional shape of the crankshaft S corresponding to the crankshaft shape information generated in S103 (S104)," paragraph [0179]), which are point cloud data of the machining portion, calculate a distance between the extracted machining portion point cloud data and the estimated machined surface ("estimates each position of the plurality of journals and the plurality of pins in the crankshaft shape information by using the reference coordinates stored in the storage means," paragraph [0052] where the interpretation of calculating a distance includes estimating a position), and determine a machining stock of the crankshaft to be insufficient based on the calculated distance ("accurately inspect a shape of the crankshaft, for example, a bend and a twist of the crankshaft, and positional displacement of counterweights," paragraph [0229] where the interpretation of inspect includes determining a machining stock to be insufficient).
Isei et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of the coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined.
However, Miadlicki et al. teach extract from the three-dimensional point cloud data that was moved to match with the coordinate system used when the crankshaft is machined ("The next step was to convert the point cloud to parametric geometry. The implemented algorithms (Figure 4) identify the geometry of the shaft class parts based on cross-sections. The geometry of the identified part is then imported into SOLIDWORKS for further processing," page 4, section 2.3 and "the workpiece is modelled using the finite element method, as described in section 2.4. For RCA modal synthesis, the dynamic properties of the components (w index—workpiece, s index—spindle) are noted as matrix equations" page 12, first paragraph, which teaches that multiple coordinate systems (geometries) as matrix equations).
Isei et al. and Miadlicki et al. are combined as per claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent Publication 2017 0241773 A1 to Nishiwaki et al. discloses image forming device 3 forms an image of the reflected light, on the vicinity of the light incident surface. The surface shape of the object 2 in a portion in which the reflected light has been reflected is measured according to an output distribution of each of the photo sensors 410 and 411 arranged to face the light emitting surfaces.
US Patent Publication 2021 0150695 A1 to YOGO discloses a three-dimensional surface shape of a workpiece from an image of the workpiece, the image being taken by an imaging unit and the image including a specific optical pattern projected by the imaging unit. The controller collates the measured three-dimensional surface shape of the workpiece and a nominal contour data representing a three-dimensional surface shape of a non-defective product corresponding to the workpiece, and the controller detects, as a possible molding fault, a portion recognized to show a shape different from the three-dimensional surface shape of the non-defective product in the workpiece. The controller specifies, as a molding fault, among the detected possible molding faults, only a possible molding fault in which a dimension of the shape is equal to or more than a criterion value representing a criterion for the molding fault.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATH E WELLS whose telephone number is (703)756-4696. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Ms. Jennifer Mehmood can be reached on 571-272-2976. 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.
/Heath E. Wells/Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Date: 27 February 2026