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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 & 21-28 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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 & 21-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse (US PAT 6,407,818) (Whitehouse) in view of Atsuhiko et al (PGPub 2002/0083607).
Regarding Claims 16 & 29, Whitehouse discloses a scanner system, comprising:
a ring assembly (32, Fig. 1) comprising at least one ring member;
at least one scanner (36, 28, 30, 42), the at least one scanner comprising at least one of a laser scanner or an image scanner (Column5, 10-16 & 26-33); and
a conveyor member (10 & 18) for transporting a plurality of objects (12, 14, 16) through an opening of the ring assembly (Column 4, lines 55-67),
wherein the at least one scanner moves along at least a portion of the arcuate pathway of the at least one track and the ring member to scan an exterior surface of the plurality of objects as each of the plurality of objects pass through the opening of the ring assembly so as to generate a three-dimensional (3D) model of each of the plurality of objects (Column 6, lines 19-26);
while Whitehouse teaches moving the scanners around the objects to scan them it fails to explicitly disclose at least one track fixedly mounted to the at least one ring member, the at least one track defining an arcuate pathway, the scanner movably mounted relative to the at least one track, and wherein the at least one scanner moves relative to and along at least a portion of the arcuate pathway of the at least one track and relative to the ring member to scan an exterior surface of the plurality of objects;
However, Atsuhiko discloses a scanner (9) mounted on an X-axis table (4) which is guided along a hollow guide rail (1) and moved by a motor (42) to scan a object under test (7) (Fig. 2, Paragraphs 84-86);
Thus, the concept of using a track to guide the scanners along the ring instead of the ring turning would be obvious in combination and the limitations, “at least one track fixedly mounted to the at least one ring member, the at least one track defining an arcuate pathway, the scanner movably mounted relative to the at least one track, and wherein the at least one scanner moves relative to and along at least a portion of the arcuate pathway of the at least one track and relative to the ring member to scan an exterior surface of the plurality of objects” would be met in the combination of these two arts;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Whitehouse with at least one track fixedly mounted to the at least one ring member, the at least one track defining an arcuate pathway, the scanner movably mounted relative to the at least one track, and wherein the at least one scanner moves relative to and along at least a portion of the arcuate pathway of the at least one track and relative to the ring member to scan an exterior surface of the plurality of objects because this is functionally equivalent to the moving the whole ring and allows such advantages as individually moving each scanner which allows for scanning back and forth in case one needs to redo a portion of the scan without having to move all of the scanners and reduces the need for four scanners since the one underneath the conveyor belt is not useful thus saving costs.
Regarding Claim 21, Whitehouse as modified by Atsuhiko discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the at least one ring member includes a stationary outer ring member, the at least one track comprises at least one ring-shaped track mounted to the stationary outer ring member,” would be met in combination since the track would be what the sensors moved along it would be obvious in combination that the ring member would be stationary to provide structural support for the track.
Regarding Claim 22, Whitehouse as modified by Atsuhiko discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the stationary outer ring member and the at least one ring-shaped track are concentric with each other,” this is implicit in the combination since the track would be mounted on the ring and would have the same central axis.
The reasons for combination remain the same.
Regarding Claim 23, Whitehouse as modified by Atsuhiko discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the at least one scanner is configured to move along at least a portion of the arcuate pathway and rotate about the at least one ring-shaped track,” this would be obvious in combination since in Whitehouse the ring rotates around the sample and the combination would mean that the scanner follows the track around the ring.
The reasons for combination remain the same.
Regarding Claim 24, Whitehouse as modified by Atsuhiko discloses the aforementioned but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one track comprises a plurality of ring-shaped tracks mounted to the stationary outer ring member;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be an obvious variation to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make each track for each scanner separate;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Whitehouse with wherein the at least one track comprises a plurality of ring-shaped tracks mounted to the stationary outer ring member because this would maintain the separation between scanners and prevent them from colliding with one another thus saving potential damage to the scanners.
Regarding Claim 25, Whitehouse as modified by Atsuhiko discloses the aforementioned. Further, Whitehouse teaches a plurality of scanners (36, 28, 30, 42). Thus, the limitation is met in combination with the above rejection of claim 24.
Regarding Claim 26, Whitehouse as modified by Atsuhiko discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “the plurality of ring-shaped tracks comprises a first ring-shaped track and a second ring-shaped track,” would be obvious for the same reasons as stated in Claim 24. Thus, it is met as well by the same rejection.
Regarding Claim 27, Whitehouse as modified by Atsuhiko discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the first ring-shaped track and the second ring-shaped track are configured to rotate the plurality of scanners in the same direction,” would be met by the combination of Whitehouse with Atsuhiko since the combination of arts would result in a machine capable of performing this function.
The reasons for combination remain the same.
Regarding Claim 28, Whitehouse as modified by Atsuhiko discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the first ring-shaped track and the second ring-shaped track are configured to rotate the plurality of scanners in opposite directions,” would be met by the combination of Whitehouse with Atsuhiko since the combination of arts would result in a machine capable of performing this function.
The reasons for combination remain the same.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 April 10, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights