Office Action Predictor
Application No. 18/323,482

PROCEDURE FOR MEASURING A MEASURED VARIABLE IN A PROCESS STEP OF A MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND MEASUREMENT CHAIN FOR CARRYING OUT SAID PROCEDURE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 25, 2023
Examiner
KIRKLAND III, FREDDIE
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Kistler Holding AG
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

85%
Career Allow Rate
955 granted / 1129 resolved
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
avg trend
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
35 pending
1164
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§103
34.1%
-5.9% vs TC avg
§102
40.5%
+0.5% vs TC avg
§112
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103
FINAL REJECTION 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 Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. With respect to claims 2-21, the claim rejections are withdrawn. Claim Objections Claim 2 recites the limitation "the manufacturing process" in line 15 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funaki U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0205166 in view of Angel et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0339554. With respect to claim 1, Funaki teaches a method for using a measurement chain (the measurement chain of tool system 300, figure 1), which includes an evaluation unit and a plurality of measurement units (management device 200 and cutting tools 100, figures 1 and 2), for measuring a measured variable occurring in a process step of a manufacturing process and resulting from an interaction of a machine tool and a workpiece during the manufacturing process (a measurement result from a sensor attached to the cutting tool taking measurements during turning, paragraph 27), wherein the evaluation unit includes a primary antenna (wireless base unit 201, paragraph 55-56, figure 1), wherein each of the respective measurement units includes a respective sensor (measurement sensor 10 and/or acceleration sensor 50, paragraphs 74-78. Figure 3), a respective converter unit and a respective secondary antenna (data generation unit 20 and wireless communication unit 30, paragraphs 78-81), a plurality of secondary housing (the housings of the cutting tools 100, figures 1-3), wherein each of the plurality of secondary housings contains the respective sensor, the respective converter, and the respective secondary antenna (figures 1-3), the method comprising the following steps: disposing the workpiece and a tool of the machine tool relative to each other so that a measurement unit is positioned in a measuring position for measuring the measured variable (cutting tools 100A-100F positioned relative to the workpiece P, paragraph 69, figure 2); establishing a transmission connection between the respective secondary antenna of the respective measurement unit and the primary antenna so as to automatically couple the respective positioned measurement unit with the evaluation unit (wireless communication unit 30 wirelessly transmits the sensor packet to wireless base unit 201 in the reporting state, paragraph 83); using a respective sensor of the respective positioned measurement unit to automatically generate measurement signals representing the measured variable (measurement sensor 10 in a measurement state, paragraph 79-80); using a respective converter unit of the respective positioned measurement unit to automatically convert the measurement signals into measurement data (paragraph 80); and automatically transmitting the measurement data by the respective secondary antenna of the respective positioned measurement unit to the primary antenna (wireless communication unit 30 transmits measurement information based on a measurement result of the sensor attached to cutting tool 100 to wireless base unit 201 outside cutting tool 100, paragraph 82). Funaki fails to teach wherein the primary antenna is housed in a primary housing carried on the machine tool and spaced apart from the plurality of secondary housing. Angel teaches a machining center 100 that includes a fluid driven cutting tool spindle 200 is mounted within a machine spindle 110 that is disposed within the machining center 100. The fluid driven cutting tool spindle 200 supports a cutting insert 130. The machine spindle 110, fluid driven cutting tool spindle 200, cutting insert 130, and a workpiece 140 are housed within an enclosure 102 of the machining center 100 (paragraph 166), and where the functions of the machine center are controlled, managed or adjusted via the machining center controller 190 that is located on or within the machining center 100 (paragraph 170, figure 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the location of the primary antenna and housing of Funaki with the location of the machining center controller that is located on the machine tool as taught by Angel in order to improve communication of the machining centers (paragraph 6, Angel). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 20 and 21 are allowed. Pending overcoming the claim objection, claim 2 is allowable. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: With regard to claims 2, 20, and 21, the closest found prior art, Funaki U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0205166 in view of Angel et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0339554, discloses the closest found prior art of record. However, Funaki in view of Angel fails to encompass all the limitations of the claimed subject matter. Further, the claimed subject matter is not obvious when looking at the closest found prior art of record separately or in combination with each other. Funaki in view of Angel fails to teach a machine tool wherein each respective converter unit and respective secondary antenna of the respective measurement unit are connected to each other and arranged at a spatial distance from the respective sensor and electrically connected by a respective signal cable to the respective sensor; a plurality of secondary housings carried by the turret, wherein each of the secondary housings contains the respective converter unit and respective secondary antenna of the respective sensor, wherein each of the plurality of secondary housings is spaced apart from each other of the plurality of secondary housings; and wherein each of the respective plurality of measurement units is configured to be positioned in a measuring position where only the respective measurement unit can be coupled to the evaluation unit for establishing a transmission connection between the respective secondary antenna and the primary antenna because only the respective secondary antenna is disposed at a distance within the limited transmission distance of the primary antenna when the respective measurement unit is disposed at the measuring position. Funaki in view of Angel also fail to teach wherein each respective converter unit and respective secondary antenna of each respective measurement unit are connected to each other and arranged at a spatial distance from the respective sensor and electrically connected by a respective signal cable to the respective sensor; a plurality of secondary housings, wherein each of the plurality of secondary housings contains a respective converter unit and respective secondary antenna of a respective sensor, wherein each of the plurality of secondary housings is carried by a respective clamping unit in a manner that disposes a spatial distance between the respective one of the plurality of secondary housings and the respective one of the plurality of sensors; and wherein each of the respective plurality of measurement units is configured to be positioned in a measuring position where only the respective measurement unit can be coupled to the evaluation unit for establishing a transmission connection between the respective secondary antenna and the primary antenna because only the respective secondary antenna is disposed at a distance within the limited transmission distance of the primary antenna when the respective measurement unit is disposed at the measuring position. Thereby, the claims are found allowable over the found prior art of record as the examiner can find no teaches of above claimed subject matter, nor reasons within the found prior art of record on its own or in combination with each other to combine the elements of the references to fully encompass the claimed subject matter. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm. 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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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. FREDDIE KIRKLAND III Primary Examiner Art Unit 2855 /Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 2/7/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 25, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 19, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 31, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12594549
PLUNGER ROD AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SUCH A PLUNGER ROD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590868
ADJUSTABLE TEST OBJECT HOLDER FOR A DRIVE TRAIN, TEST BENCH, AND DRIVE TRAIN TEST BENCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584836
INSTRUMENTED PENDULUM FOR MINIATURIZED CHARPY IMPACT TEST AND CHARPY IMPACT MACHINE COMPRISING THE INSTRUMENTED PENDULUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583129
TORQUE SENSOR AND ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584592
A system for checking the functionality of a pressure relief valve
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1129 resolved cases by this examiner