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 filed 7-16-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that PHOSITA would not combine Whitehouse with Atsuhiko. The applicant argues that since Whitehouse already possesses the function of rotating the transducers relative to the conveyors by rotating the ring one would not combine Atsuhiko with Whitehouse and the applicant further asserts this would make it harder to control the system. The examiner does not find these arguments convincing. First, as the examiner explained in the rejection these systems are functionally equivalent for performing the task and swapping one out for another would be done for the reasons provided. The examiner notes that the applicant did not address that motivation. Secondly, the difficulty of performing the function with the method disclosed in Atsuhiko is immaterial to a determination of novelty nor is it a teaching away. Thus, the examiner is unconvinced by these arguments.
Further, the applicant argues that one would not see a linear guide track of Atsuhiko and be motivated to include an annular track in Whitehouse. The examiner disagrees. One would see the concept of moving sensors along a track using motors in the sensor mount and then see that one could do that with moving the sensors around an annular pathway. The only thing that changes is the shape of the path which would be trivial for PHOSITA. As for there’s no indication that the track of Atsuhiko would not work if the guide rail could operate upside-down the examiner finds that PHOSITA would be more than capable of adjusting the idea to be capable of this even if it wouldn’t.
For these reasons the examiner is not convinced by the applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 29.
However, upon further search and consideration the examiner will drop the official notice rejection of claim 24.
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) 21-23, 25-29 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 Claim 29, Whitehouse discloses a scanner system, comprising:
a ring member (32, Fig. 1);
a scanner (36, 28, 30, 42) moveably mounted, the 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 an arcuate track mounted to the ring member, the arcuate 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 an 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 moving the scanners around the objects to scan them it fails to explicitly disclose an arcuate track mounted to the ring member, the a 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 ring member includes a stationary outer ring member, and the arcuate 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-28 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to Claim 24 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a plurality of ring-shaped tracks mounted to the stationary outer ring member, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Claims 26-28 are allowable based upon their dependency to claim 24.
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 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 September 29, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights