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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “forming” that is a typo. Should be “determining”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
determining a plurality of distances between representation of the part that is based on three-dimensional metrology data and a three-dimensional model of the part;
applying each distance to a function to produce a plurality of function results;
forming a single score from the plurality of function results;
displaying the single score
and performing at least one of comparing the single score to a single score of another part to determine whether changes made to a manufacturing process result in more accurate parts, determining whether the part is constructed accurately enough to warrant constructing additional copies of the part, or using the single score to determine whether the part is constructed accurately enough to warrant physical inspection.
Step 1:
The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one:
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “determining a plurality of distances between representation of the part that is based on three-dimensional metrology data and a three-dimensional model of the part; applying each distance to a function to produce a plurality of function results; forming a single score from the plurality of function results; and performing at least one of comparing the single score to a single score of another part to determine whether changes made to a manufacturing process result in more accurate parts, determining whether the part is constructed accurately enough to warrant constructing additional copies of the part, or using the single score to determine whether the part is constructed accurately enough to warrant physical inspection”.
The recited “determining …, applying … to produce …, forming …, performing …” steps, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, determining the plurality of distances can be done in the mind or with pen and paper to calculate the difference between a measured dimension and corresponding nominal dimension. Applying a normalization on the difference by a tolerance vale can be done in the mind or using pen and paper. Forming a single score by calculating average of the normalized differences can also be identified the mind or using pen and paper. Comparing the single score to a threshold to determine whether the part is constructed accurately enough to warrant physical inspection can be done in the mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two:
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitation of 1) “displaying the single score” that is recited at high level of generality (no details what so ever are provided other than causing to act), it is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or mere field of use and technological environment (MPEP 2016.05(h)) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has the following additional limitations and elements:
1) “displaying the single score”.
Regarding 1) “displaying the single score” is additional limitation that is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception or mere field of use and technological environment and does not add an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim directs to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitation of “scaling the distance based on a tolerance for the part to form a scaled distance” that merely specifies some details of the “applying …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 2 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2, and recites additional limitation of “squaring the scaled distance” that merely specifies some details of the “applying …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 3 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, and recites additional limitation of “forming a weighted sum of the function results, adding one to the weighted sum to form a second sum, and multiplying the inverse of the second sum by a scaling value” that merely specifies some details of the “forming…” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 4 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4, and recites additional limitation of “multiplying each function result by an inverse of a number of distances in the plurality of distances” that merely specifies some details of the “forming…” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 5 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 depends on claim 2, and recites additional elements of “the part is constructed through additive manufacturing and the tolerance is selected based on an identifier for the machine used to form the part” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 depends on claim 5, and recites additional elements of “the tolerance is further based on a longest dimension of the part” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 1: The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A and Step 2B: Similarly, as recited in the rejection of claim 2, claim 8 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The recited additional elements of “building a second part using a model for the second part, build parameters for the second part and a material for the second part wherein at least one of the model for the second part, the build parameters for the second part and the material for the second part is respectively different from the model of the part, the build parameters for the part and the material for the part” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
The additional limitations of “obtaining three-dimensional metrology data from a part constructed using a model of the part, build parameters for the part and a material for the part” that represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, or mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, and are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
The recited additional limitation of “registering a plurality of points determined from the three-dimensional metrology data to corresponding points of a model of the part; for each point in the plurality of points determined from the three-dimensional metrology data, determining a distance from the point to the corresponding point on the model of the part” that merely specifies some details of the “produce …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 8 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8, recite similar additional limitations to that of claim 3, therefore are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9, and recites additional limitation of “determining a weighted sum of the squared values and using the weighted sum to produce the score for the part” that merely specifies some details of the “produce…” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 10 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 depends on claim 10, and recites additional limitation of “forming the weighted sum comprises multiplying each squared value by an inverse of a number of points in the plurality of points” that merely specifies some details of the “produce…” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 11 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 depends on claim 8, and recites additional limitation of “scaling the distance by the inverse of the tolerance” that merely specifies some details of the “scaling…” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 12 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 depends on claim 8, recite similar additional limitations to that of claim 6, therefore are not patent eligible.
Claim 14 depends on claim 8, and recites additional elements of “the tolerance is based on a longest dimension of the part” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15,
Step 1: The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A and Step 2B: Similarly, as recited in the rejection of claim 8, claim 15 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The recited additional limitation of “setting a tolerance for a part based on an identifier of a machine used to form the part” that merely specifies some details of the “modifying …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 15 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15, and recites additional limitation of “setting the tolerance based on a dimension of the part” that merely specifies some details of the “setting…” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 16 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 depends on claim 16, and recites additional elements of “the dimension of the part is the longest dimension of the part” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 depends on claim 15, and recites additional limitation of “dividing each distance by the tolerance to form the modified distance” that merely specifies some details of the “modifying…” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 18 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 depends on claim 15, and recites additional limitation of “using the accuracy score for the part and an accuracy score for a part made before changing parameters used by the machine to determine if changing the parameters improved the part” that merely specifies some details of the “form…” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 19 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 depends on claim 15, and recites additional limitation of “using the accuracy score to determine if the part is accurate enough to warrant performing physical inspection of the part” that merely specifies some details of the “form…” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 20 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-5, 7 and 12-14 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the function result". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose, " the function result " is construed as " he plurality of function results".
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the tolerance value". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitation "the tolerance". The antecedent basis for this limitation is not clear.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent(s).
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL WO 2021221615 A1 in view of Somarakis US 20230410277 A1.
Regarding claim 1, MUNTAL teaches a method comprising:
determining a plurality of distances between representation of the part that is based on three-dimensional metrology data and a three-dimensional model of the part ([0079] Fig. 2 [0038] – [0041] difference between measured dimensions of an additively manufactured object and the intended dimensions of the object, the dimensions are obtained using 3D scanner, i.e. “based on three-dimensional metrology data” and “a three-dimensional model of the part”);
applying each distance to a function to produce a plurality of function results (Fig. 2 [0042] – [0058] a fitness score is created using a function f based on the differences and standard deviation of difference and predetermined tolerance ranges of the dimensions);
forming a single score from the plurality of function results (Fig. 2 [0042] – [0058] a fitness score is created using a function f based on the differences and standard deviation of difference and predetermined tolerance ranges of the dimensions); and
performing at least one of comparing the single score to a single score of another part to determine whether changes made to a manufacturing process result in more accurate parts (Fig. 2 [0058] – [0059] additional objects are generated using geometrically compensated object model data, the fitness scores are calculated for each generated additional objects and used to select the compensation model producing minimum fit ness score for more accurate parts), determining whether the part is constructed accurately enough to warrant constructing additional copies of the part, or using the single score to determine whether the part is constructed accurately enough to warrant physical inspection.
MUNTAL does not explicitly further teach displaying the single score.
Somarakis explicitly teaches in an analogous art that displaying the single score ([0150] quality score displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL to incorporate the teachings of Somarakis, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein displaying the single score. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to inform the operator, as Somarakis teaches in [0150].
Regarding claim 2, MUNTAL further teaches scaling the distance based on a tolerance for the part to form a scaled distance (Fig. 2 [0049] – [0058] the difference of each dimension is multiplied by tolerance range t i.e. “scaled by the tolerance range”).
Regarding claim 3, MUNTAL further teaches squaring the scaled distance ([0055] the scaled differences are squared).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Somarakis as applied to claims 1-3, further in view of Krause US 20210208568 A1.
Regarding claim 6, neither MUNTAL nor Somarakis explicitly further teaches the part is constructed through additive manufacturing and the tolerance is selected based on an identifier for the machine used to form the part.
Krause explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the part is constructed through additive manufacturing and the tolerance is selected based on an identifier for the machine used to form the part ([0092] 3D printer; [0137] [0138] manufacturing tolerance values associated with manufacturing machine identified by UID).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL and Somarakis to incorporate the teachings of Krause, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein the part is constructed through additive manufacturing and the tolerance is selected based on an identifier for the machine used to form the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to associate data to the selected manufacturing machines, as Krause teaches in [0137].
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Somarakis and Chin US 20170056970 A1.
Regarding claim 8, claim recites similar limitations to that of claim 2 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
In addition, MUNTAL further teaches:
obtaining three-dimensional metrology data from a part constructed using a model of the part, build parameters for the part and a material for the part; registering a plurality of points determined from the three-dimensional metrology data to corresponding points of a model of the part; for each point in the plurality of points determined from the three-dimensional metrology data, determining a distance from the point to the corresponding point on the model of the part ([0079] Fig. 2 [0038] – [0041], dimensions of an additively manufactured object using model data of the object i.e. “constructed using a model of the part, build parameters for the part and a material for the part” is obtained using 3D scanner and comparing the measured dimensions to intended dimensions of the object, i.e. “registering a plurality of points determined from the three-dimensional metrology data to corresponding points of a model of the part”, difference between measured dimensions of an additively manufactured object and the intended dimensions of the object, i.e. “for each point in the plurality of points determined from the three-dimensional metrology data, determining a distance from the point to the corresponding point on the model of the part”);
building a second part using a model for the second part, build parameters for the second part and a material for the second part wherein at least one of the model for the second part is respectively different from the model of the part; obtaining three-dimensional metrology data from the second part; registering a plurality of points determined from the three-dimensional metrology data for the second part to corresponding points of for the model of the second part; for each point in the plurality of points determined from the three-dimensional metrology data for the second part, determining a distance from the point to the corresponding point on the model of the second part; scaling each distance based on a tolerance value for the second part to produce a plurality of scaled values for the second part; using the plurality of scaled values for the second part to produce a score for the second part (Fig. 2 [0058] – [0059] additional objects are generated using geometrically compensated object model data i.e. “the model for the second part” “is respectively different from the model of the part”, the fitness scores are calculated for each generated additional objects and used to select the compensation model producing minimum fit ness score for more accurate parts).
MUNTAL does not explicitly further teach:
displaying the score for the part;
at least one of the build parameters for the second part and the material for the second part is respectively different from the build parameters for the part and the material for the part.
Somarakis explicitly teaches in an analogous art that displaying the score for the part ([0150] quality score displayed); and
Chin explicitly teaches in an analogous art that at least one of the build parameters for the second part and the material for the second part is respectively different from the build parameters for the part and the material for the part ([0078] adjusting print parameters and materials to correct errors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL to incorporate the teachings of Somarakis and Chin, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein displaying the score for the part; at least one of the build parameters for the second part and the material for the second part is respectively different from the build parameters for the part and the material for the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to inform the operator, as Somarakis teaches in [0150]; and to correct errors, as Chin teaches in [0078].
Regarding claim 9, MUNTAL further teaches squaring the scaled values to produce squared values and using the squared values to produce the score for the part ([0055] the scaled differences are squared and the fitness function f is calculated based on the squared values).
Regarding claim 10, MUNTAL further teaches determining a weighted sum of the squared values and using the weighted sum to produce the score for the part ([0049] - [0055] each squared scaled difference are weighted by the (1/(6sigma))**2 then summed up).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Somarakis and Chin as applied to claims 8-10, further in view of PARK KR 20110116602 A.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of MUNTAL, Somarakis and Chin does not explicitly further teach multiplying each squared value by an inverse of a number of points in the plurality of points.
PARK explicitly teaches in an analogous art that multiplying each squared value by an inverse of a number of points in the plurality of points (page 8 paragraph 7 an average of a plurality of corresponding values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL, Somarakis and Chin to incorporate the teachings of PARK, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein multiplying each squared value by an inverse of a number of points in the plurality of points. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to obtain average of the values, as PARK teaches in page 8 paragraph 7.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Somarakis and Chin as applied to claims 8-10, further in view of ZHANG CN 113761759 A.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of MUNTAL, Somarakis and Chin does not explicitly further teach scaling the distance by the inverse of the tolerance.
ZHANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that scaling the distance by the inverse of the tolerance (page 3 Formula 2 paragraph 7 from the bottom, the deviation is normalized by the tolerance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL, Somarakis and Chin to incorporate the teachings of ZHANG, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein scaling the distance by the inverse of the tolerance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to normalize the differences with tolerances, as ZHANG teaches in page 3 paragraph 7 from the bottom.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Somarakis and Chin as applied to claims 8-10, further in view of Krause.
Claim 13 recites similar limitations to that of claim 6 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Somarakis and Chin as applied to claims 8-10, further in view of GEIS US 20170108446 A1.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of MUNTAL, Somarakis and Chin does not explicitly further teach the tolerance is based on a longest dimension of the part.
GEIS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the tolerance is based on a longest dimension of the part ([0005] tolerance is determined by the longest length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL, Somarakis and Chin to incorporate the teachings of GEIS, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein scaling the distance by the inverse of the tolerance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to maintain the dimensions, as GEIS teaches in [0005].
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Krause.
Regarding claim 15, MUNTAL teaches a method comprising:
setting a tolerance for a part; obtaining three-dimensional metrology data from the part; for each of a plurality of points associated with the three-dimensional metrology data, determining a distance between the point and an expected location for the point to produce a plurality of distances ([0079] Fig. 2 [0038] – [0041], dimensions of an additively manufactured object using model data of the object is obtained using 3D scanner and comparing the measured dimensions to intended dimensions of the object, difference between measured dimensions of an additively manufactured object and the intended dimensions of the object, i.e. “for each of a plurality of points associated with the three-dimensional metrology data, determining a distance between the point and an expected location for the point to produce a plurality of distances”);
modifying each distance in the plurality of distances using the tolerance to form a plurality of modified distances (Fig. 2 [0049] – [0058] the difference of each dimension is multiplied by tolerance range t);
using the modified distances to form an accuracy score for the part (Fig. 2 [0042] – [0058] a fitness score i.e. “an accuracy score” is created using a function f based on the modified differences).
MUNTAL does not explicitly further teach the tolerance is based on an identifier of a machine used to form the part.
Krause explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the tolerance is based on an identifier of a machine used to form the part ([0137] [0138] manufacturing tolerance values associated with manufacturing machine identified by UID).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL to incorporate the teachings of Krause, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein the tolerance is based on an identifier of a machine used to form the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to associate data to the selected manufacturing machines, as Krause teaches in [0137].
Regarding claim 19, MUNTAL further teaches using the accuracy score for the part and an accuracy score for a part made before changing parameters used by the machine to determine if changing the parameters improved the part (Fig. 2 [0058] – [0059] additional objects are generated using geometrically compensated object model data, the fitness scores are calculated for each generated additional objects and compared to select the compensation model producing minimum fit ness score for more accurate parts).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Krause as applied to claims 15 and 19, further in view of GEIS.
Regarding claim 16, neither MUNTAL nor Krause explicitly further teaches setting the tolerance based on a dimension of the part.
GEIS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that setting the tolerance based on a dimension of the part ([0005] tolerance is determined by the longest length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL and Krause to incorporate the teachings of GEIS, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein scaling the distance by the inverse of the tolerance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to maintain the dimensions, as GEIS teaches in [0005].
Regarding claim 17, GEIS further teaches the dimension of the part is the longest dimension of the part ([0005] tolerance is determined by the longest length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL and Krause to incorporate the teachings of GEIS, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein the dimension of the part is the longest dimension of the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to maintain the dimensions, as GEIS teaches in [0005].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Krause as applied to claims 15 and 19, further in view of ZHANG.
Regarding claim 18, neither MUNTAL nor Krause explicitly further teaches dividing each distance by the tolerance to form the modified distance.
ZHANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that dividing each distance by the tolerance to form the modified distance (page 3 Formula 2 paragraph 7 from the bottom, the deviation is normalized by the tolerance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL and Krause to incorporate the teachings of ZHANG, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein dividing each distance by the tolerance to form the modified distance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to normalize the differences with tolerances, as ZHANG teaches in page 3 paragraph 7 from the bottom.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Krause as applied to claims 15 and 19, further in view of XIU JP 2020087110 A.
Regarding claim 18, neither MUNTAL nor Krause explicitly further teaches using the accuracy score to determine if the part is accurate enough to warrant performing physical inspection of the part.
XIU explicitly teaches in an analogous art that using the accuracy score to determine if the part is accurate enough to warrant performing physical inspection of the part (page 19 paragraph 8 from the bottom, the part passed first inspection proceeds to second inspection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL and Krause to incorporate the teachings of XIU, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein using the accuracy score to determine if the part is accurate enough to warrant performing physical inspection of the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to selecting passed parts for second inspection, as XIU teaches in page 19 paragraph 8 from the bottom.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 depends on claim 3, MUNTAL and Somarakis together teach the claim limitations of claim 3. However, MUNTAL and Somarakis do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
wherein forming a single score from the plurality of function results comprises forming a weighted sum of the function results, adding one to the weighted sum to form a second sum, and multiplying the inverse of the second sum by a scaling value.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, the dependent claims are allowable as they depend upon allowable independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MATHEIS DE 102017102832 A1 teaches tolerance selected based on largest diameter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 EST.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached on (571)272-3667. 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.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115