DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s arguments, see "Remarks", pages 8-10, filed April 23, 2026, with respect to the objections to the specification and drawings, as well as the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), being overcome by amendment have been fully considered and persuasive. The objections to the specification and drawings and the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of January 22, 2026 have been withdrawn.
3. Applicant’s arguments, see "Remarks", page 10, filed April 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 4, 6, 8, 11, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) being overcome by amendment have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as recited below.
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. §103 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. Namely, the amendment to independent claim 1 adds the claim limitations of now-cancelled claims 3/10 and 8. Applicant does not express any arguments against the prior art rejections of now-cancelled claims 3 or 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103, and rather argued that the claim limitations of claims 3 and 10 with claim 8 (see “Remarks”, page 11, para. 2) are not taught by Hall (US 20170276651 A1; cited in prior PTO-892) in view of Ganser (US 20160231210 A1; cited in prior PTO-892). As the prior art rejection for claims 3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103 of January 22, 2026, stated that said claims were unpatentable over Hall in view of Ganser and further in view of Ballard (WO 0117671 A1; cited in prior PTO-892) (see page 14), the rejection(s) below also relies on Hall in view of Ganser and further in view of Ballard.
5. Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026, with respect the rejections of claims 15-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (see "Remarks" page 12), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As Applicant’s arguments against the prior art rejection of claim 15 are based on that Hall does not teach a perpendicular relation between the plurality of probes taught by Hall {paras. [0081]-[0089] and [0119]} – Examiner would draw Applicant’s attention to the rejection of January 22, 2026, pages 20-21, where Examiner stated that although “Hall in view of Ganser is not explicit that the second measurement probe is oriented perpendicularly to the first measurement probe” (page 20), that King (US 20040069077 A1) teaches a “second measurement probe oriented perpendicularly to the first measurement probe {shown in Fig. 7, described in paras. [0030]-[0034]}” (page 21). As such, the perpendicular relationship is remedied by King. As to Applicant’s argument that Ganser and King are silent as to second, third, and fourth clamps with the relationships defined in claim 15, Examiner would draw Applicant’s attention to the rejection of January 22, 2026, pages 19-20, which state how Ganser teaches a first, second, third, and fourth clamps and their relationships as stated in claim 15 of the instant application. As such, the prior art rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 of January 22, 2026, stands. Further, it should be noted that Applicant does not provide further argument against the prior art rejections of claims 16 and 18-20, and as such those same rejections stand.
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.
6. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 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 1 recites the limitation "the measurement probe" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear if “the measurement probe” refers to “a measurement probe” recited in line 11 of the claim, or a separate measurement probe. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret “the measurement probe” of line 7 of claim 1 to be the “measurement probe” of line 11 of claim 1.
As claims 2, 4-7, 9, and 11-14 are dependent upon claim 1, they inherit the above deficiencies.
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.
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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Ganser and further in view of Ballard.
In regard to claim 1, Hall teaches a specimen measurement device [measuring machine 50], comprising: a clamp [fixture 64]; a single actuator {para. [0022] coordinate positioning apparatus, as known on coordinate measuring machines (CMM); paras. [0215]-[0218] and Figs. 31-32 describe an embodiment with a linear stage motor with a linear encoder}; a measurement probe [probe 56] configured to contact the clamped specimen [Fig. 3 shows that measurement object 62 held by a fixture] with a probing force {para. [0013] describe the probe contacting the object with a particular force}; and a single position sensor {ultrasound transducer, position sensing described in para. [0008]} configured to measure a dimension of the clamped specimen based on detecting a position of the measurement probe {paras. [0008]-[0009] describe detecting position of the probe and measuring dimensions of the object}, that the probe [probe 56] can be in any direction or location of the test area [shown in Fig. 3], and that the probe is configured to move via actuator in a first direction [Fig. 3 shows that the probe 56 can be moved in any three-dimensional direction on the CMM bed].
Hall is not explicit that the single actuator is configured to control the clamp to position a specimen with clamping force, nor that the first clamp comprises first and second arms positioned on opposing sides of the first measurement probe, nor that the clamp and a second clamp are configured to move in a second direction opposite the first direction.
However, Ganser teaches a specimen holder {material testing machine 1/101/201/301; para. [0102] is explicit that any elements can be combined in a desired manner} configured to hold a material for testing during distance measurements {paras. [0005] and [0011], such that the clamp is controlled to position a specimen with a clamping force {Fig. 4 shows specimen 399 being clamped between to clamps, clamping force described in para. [0001]}, and that the first clamp [first holder 303] comprises first and second arms [jaws 307 and 307'] positioned on opposing sides of the first measurement probe {since the Hall's probe 56 can be in any direction or location of the test area as shown in Hall Fig. 3, it is reasonable to assume that if the probe was at the midsection of Ganser's specimen 399, thus the first and second arms would be on opposing sides of the Hall's probe}, and that the specimen holding device having clamps moving in a second direction {para. [0100] describes the clamps closing to a closing position 305 – since Hall’s probe can be in any location, either of these directions could easily be in an opposite direction of the probing direction with Hall’s probe moving along the other clamp}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ganser’s method of positioning a specimen with clamps exhibiting a clamping force as Hall’s use of a fixture to hold a measurement object in order to better safely hold a workpiece during a test as taught by Ganser {paras. [0001]-[0002]}. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ganser’s clamp with two arms positioned on opposing sides of Hall’s measurement probe in order to better keep a probe clear of contact while a specimen is being clamped, such that no components are damaged by interference during a closing of clamps such that a workpiece is more safely held during a test, especially during a clamp’s closing process, as taught by Ganser {paras. [0001]-[0002] and [0071]}. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ganser’s method of having on of a clamp move in an opposite direction of another clamp and Hall’s measurement probe in order to better keep a probe clear of contact while a specimen is being clamped, such that no components are damaged by interference during a closing of clamps such that a workpiece is more safely held during a test, especially during a clamp’s closing process, as taught by Ganser {paras. [0001]-[0002] and [0071]}.
Hall in view of Ganser are not explicit that the single actuator comprises a twin lead screw.
However, Ballard teaches a twin leadscrew [leadscrew 462], driven by a motor [motor 464], configured to drive a lower clamp 470 towards an upper clamp 468 [shown in Fig. 13, described on page 23 lines 15-33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ballard’s twin leadscrew as an actuator for Hall in view of Ganser’s measuring machine because a motorized leadscrew is an obvious substitution of an actuator, as acknowledged by the Applicant {para. [0073] of the instant application states that the twin lead screws may be replaced with a variety of other types of actuators}.
In regard to claim 2, Hall further teaches that the single actuator, the measurement probe, and the single position sensor are configured to measure a width of the specimen {paras. [0008]-[0009] describe the measuring machine positioning the probe such that the position sensor can measure features of a surface; Fig. 13(b) shows that the calibration block 400 was measured in three-dimensions, thus measuring a width, as described in para. [0124]}.
In regard to claim 4, Hall in view of Ganser and Ballad teaches a motor configured to turn the twin lead screw [Ballad leadscrew 462 with motor 464, see above], and Hall further teaches a current sensor configured to detect a motor current to determine whether the probing force exceeds the first threshold force {para. [0088] describes monitoring the torque load caused by the electrical current demand caused by the servo motor; paras. [0147]-[0149] describe comparing negligible movement signals to a detection threshold (threshold force) such that contact between probe and a solid body (probing force) can be monitored}.
In regard to claim 6, Hall further teaches processing circuitry [computer 70] configured to: engage the measurement probe with the specimen {para. [0081] describes the computer controlling the CMM; paras. [0008]-[0009] describe the probe engaging the object}; and determine a width of the specimen based on the single position sensor {para. [0081] describes the computer controlling the CMM; Fig. 13(b) shows that the calibration block 400 was measured in three-dimensions, thus measuring a width, as described in para. [0124]}.
Hall does not teach that the single actuator clamps the first and second clamps onto the specimen.
However, Ganser teaches a single actuator {para. [0100] describes material testing machine 301 being configured with an actuation unit, paras. [0023] and [0081] describe having one actuator} such that two clamps hold the specimen [shown in Fig. 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ganser’s use of clamps holding a specimen driven by an actuator as Hall’s use of a fixture to hold a measurement object in order to better safely hold a workpiece during a test as taught by Ganser {paras. [0001]-[0002]}.
In regard to claim 7, Hall does not teach that the clamp is configured to constrain the specimen and clamp the specimen in a predetermined location with respect to a specimen thickness meter for a range of specimen widths using the single actuator.
However, Ganser teaches that the clamp is configured to constrain the specimen [shown in Fig. 4] and clamp the specimen in a predetermined location [closing position 305] with respect to a specimen thickness meter {described in paras. [0008]-[0020]; para. [0015] particularly describes setting the clamps based on a specimen thickness}, for a range of specimen widths {para. [0100] describes that the closing position 305 can be at different predetermined locations, thus a variety of specimen widths or lengths], using the single actuator {para. [0100] describes material testing machine 301 being configured with an actuation unit, paras. [0023] and [0081] describe having one actuator}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ganser’s method of clamps constraining a specimen in a predetermined location to a specimen thickness meter for a range of specimen widths in order to better safely accommodate a variety of workpieces during a test as taught by Ganser {paras. [0001]-[0002]}.
In regard to claim 9, Hall further teaches that the single actuator, the measurement probe, and the single position sensor are configured to measure a thickness of the specimen {paras. [0008]-[0009] describe the measuring machine positioning the probe such that the position sensor can measure features of a surface; Fig. 13(b) shows that the calibration block 400 was measured in three-dimensions, thus measuring a thickness, as described in para. [0124]; alternatively, an ultrasound transducer and probe are able to measure thickness as described at least in para. [0014]}.
In regard to claim 11, Hall in view of Ganser and Ballad teaches a motor configured to turn the twin lead screw [Ballad leadscrew 462 with motor 464, see above], and Hall further teaches a current sensor configured to detect a motor current to determine whether a second force exceeds a second threshold force {para. [0088] describes monitoring the torque load caused by the electrical current demand caused by the servo motor; paras. [0147]-[0149] describe comparing negligible movement signals to a detection threshold (threshold force) such that contact between probe and a solid body (probing force) can be monitored}.
In regard to claim 12, Hall teaches that the clamp [fixture 64] is configured to clamp the specimen to a support surface {CMM bed; described in para. [0080] and shown in Fig. 3}.
Hall is not explicit that the clamp has a first spring with a first clamping force, that a second clamp has a second spring with a second clamping force, that the second spring is preloaded to engage the second clamp to the specimen after the clamp, or that the second clamping force is greater than the first clamping force.
However, Ganser teaches that a pair of springs {actuator 12 and actuator 14 can be configured as springs; {para. [0082] describes that actuator 12 as a closing force limitation spring 62 that provides a safety closing force 61, actuator 14 as a screw spring 62 that provides an actuation force 64, otherwise known as a closing force}, with a first spring [actuator 12] configured to close a first clamp [holder 3] and provide a first clamping force [safety closing force 61], a second spring [actuator 14] configured to close a second clamp [holder 3’] with a second force [actuation/closing force 64], wherein the second spring is preloaded {para. [0042] describes the actuators having a hold-open force/pressure that must be overcome by their corresponding closing pressures/forces, thus a preloaded force}, such that the second clamp clamps after the first clamp {para. [0048] describes an embodiment where the actuators are clamped sequentially}, and that the second clamping force is greater than the first clamping force {paras. [0098]-[0099] describe an embodiment in which the first actuator (actuator 214) provides the safety vector force 261, and the second actuator (actuator 211) provides the clamping pressure/force 270 [shown in Fig. 3] [clamping force and clamping forces described interchangeably in para. [0028]; paras. [0070]-[0073] describe that the clamping forces are higher than that of the closing forces – thus the clamping forces provided by a second spring exceed that of the clamping forces provided by the second spring].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ganser’s first and second springs sequentially clamping a first and second clamp with a greater clamping force on a second clamp with Hall’s measuring machine in order to better ensure that a specimen is safely held by a holding force before engaging a greater force to increase user safety, as taught by Ganser {at least in paras. [0001]-[0002], [0040], [0050], [0055] and [0070]-[0073]}.
In regard to claim 13, Hall teaches a support surface [CMM bed – shown in Fig. 3] configured to position the specimen prior to measurement [Fig. 3 shows specimen 62 held by fixture 64], and measuring the specimen with a second measurement probe {at least paras. [0081]-[0089] and [0119] describes using additional probes}.
Hall does not teach that the second clamping force is set such that the second clamp raises the specimen above the support surface prior to the engagement of the second measurement probe.
However, Ganser teaches that a second clamping force [actuation force 64] can be used to move a specimen to a desired location {para. [0100] describes that the closing position 305 can be at different predetermined locations}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ganser’s specimen holder to raise a specimen from Hall’s CMM bed in order to better safely position a specimen at a desired location, as taught by Ganser {paras. [0001]-[0002] and [0100]}.
In regard to claim 14, Hall further teaches that the second measurement probe is configured to engage the specimen after clamping of the specimen {shown in Fig. 3 and described in para. [0080]; it would be obvious to place a fixture 64 holding a specimen 62 on the CMM bed (Fig. 3) before measurements in order for a user to avoid coming into contact with moving machinery}.
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Ganser and Bollard as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, and 12-14 above, and further in view of Yang (US 20060267602 A1; cited in prior PTO-892).
In regard to claim 5, Hall teaches a variety of modular probes and probe tips {at least paras. [0080]-[0089]; para. [0080] stating a conventional surface contact probe 72}.
Hall in view of Ganser are not explicit that the measurement probe comprises a spring configured to apply a predetermined engagement force on the measurement probe toward the specimen.
However, Yang also teaches a measurement system [measurement probing system 20] with a measurement probe [signal acquisition probe 28, including probing tip assembly 32, described as having a double-cushioned probing tip (Abstract)], such that the measurement probe comprises a spring {compressible element 60, described as compression spring 102 in para. [0028]} configured to apply a predetermined engagement force {force F4, described in para. [0030] and shown in Fig. 4} on the measurement probe toward the specimen {para. [0030]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Yang’s probe with a spring cushioned tip as one of Hall’s modular probes, {such as the surface contact probe taught by Hall in para. [0119]}, in order to better protect the components of the probe, as taught by Yang {para. [0031]}.
9. Claims 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Ganser and further in view of King.
In regard to claim 15, Hall teaches a specimen measurement device [measuring machine 50], comprising: a specimen width meter configured to measure a width dimension of a specimen {paras. [0008]-[0009] describe the measuring machine positioning the probe such that the position sensor can measure features of a surface; Fig. 13(b) shows that the calibration block 400 was measured in three-dimensions, thus measuring a width, as described in para. [0124]}; a first measurement probe [probe 56]; a first clamp [fixture 64]; configured to clamp a specimen in alignment with the first measurement probe [shown in Fig. 3]; a first actuator {para. [0022] coordinate positioning apparatus, as known on coordinate measuring machines (CMM); paras. [0215]-[0218] and Figs. 31-32 describe an embodiment with a linear stage motor and a linear encoder}; a first position sensor configured to determine a location of the first measurement probe {ultrasound transducer, position sensing described in para. [0008]}; a specimen thickness meter configured to measure a thickness dimension of a specimen {paras. [0008]-[0009] describe the measuring machine positioning the probe such that the position sensor can measure features of a surface; Fig. 13(b) shows that the calibration block 400 was measured in three-dimensions, thus measuring a thickness, as described in para. [0124]; alternatively, an ultrasound transducer and probe are able to measure thickness as described at least in para. [0014]}; a second measurement probe {at least paras. [0081]-[0089] and [0119] describes using additional probes}; a second actuator configured to actuate the second measurement probe {paras. [0215]-[0218] and Figs. 31-32 describe an embodiment with a second motor and encoder that would be capable of moving both the first and second probes}; a second position sensor configured to determine a location of the second measurement probe {paras. [0005]-[0008] describes that each probe may have their own respective transducer}; processing circuitry [computer 70] configured to control the first actuator to engage the first measurement probe with the specimen {paras. [0008]-[0009] describe the measuring machine positioning the probe such that the position sensor can measure features of a surface; paras. [0215]-[0218] and Figs. 31-32 describe embodiments with the first probe coming into contact with a measurement surface}; control the second actuator to engage the second measurement probe with the specimen {paras. [0215]-[0218] and Figs. 31-32 describe an embodiment where the second motor could be used to engage the first or second probe with a measurement surface}; determine a width of the specimen based on the first position sensor and a thickness of the specimen based on the second position sensor {Fig. 13(b) shows that the calibration block 400 was measured in three-dimensions, thus measuring a width and a thickness, as described in para. [0124]; the measurements could be performed by either the first or second measurement probe}.
Although Hall does teach that the first and second measurement probes can be configured to be at any position [probe 56 can be in any direction or location of the test area as shown in Fig. 3], Hall is not explicit as to the first clamp interacting with the first actuator, and Hall does not teach a second clamp such that the first and second clamp are configured to, in response to actuation of at least one of the first clamp or the second clamp, clamp a specimen in alignment with the first measurement probe; that the first actuator is configured to actuate at least one of the first clamp or the second clamp; a third clamp and a fourth clamp configured to, in response to actuation of at least one of the third clamp or the fourth clamp, clamp the specimen in alignment with the second measurement probe; or that the processing circuitry is configured to control the first actuator to clamp the first and second clamps on the specimen, and to control the second actuator to clamp the third and fourth clamps on the specimen.
However, Ganser teaches a specimen holder {material testing machine 1/101/201/301; para. [0102] is explicit that any elements can be combined in a desired manner} configured to hold a material for testing during distance measurements {paras. [0005] and [0011], with a first, second, third, and fourth clamp {clamping jaws 307, 307’, 307’’, 307’’’ described in para. [0100]}, with the first and second clamp configured to clamp a specimen in response to an actuation of either clamp by a first actuator {para. [0100] states that the actuators could act at least as actuating units 10 or 110; actuating units 10 and 110 described in paras. [0081]-[0093] and [0094]-[0095], respectively; paras. [0023] and [0081] describe having one actuator} the third and fourth clamp configured to clamp a specimen in response to an actuation of either clamp by a second actuator {para. [0100] states that the actuators could act at least as actuating units 10 or 110; actuating units 10 and 110 described in paras. [0081]-[0093] and [0094]-[0095], respectively; paras. [0023] and [0081] describe having one actuator}, and that the processing circuity [control computer PC] is configured to the first actuator to clamp the first and second clamps on the specimen {described in para. [0094], shown in Fig. 2}, and to control the second actuator to clamp the third and fourth clamps on the specimen {described in para. [0094], shown in Fig. 2}. As such, since Ganser’s specimen holder would safely keep the specimen in a desired location {paras. [0023] and [0100]; closing positions 305 and 305’ corresponding with the paired first and second and the paired third and fourth clamps, respectively – as shown in Fig. 4}, Hall’s first and second probe could be configured to align with either closing position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ganser’s specimen holder as Hall’s clamping means in order to better safely hold a specimen during a test, as taught by Ganser {at least in paras. [0001]-[0002], [0023], [0081]-[0095], and [0100]}.
Although Hall teaches that the second probe [probe 56] can be in any direction or location of the test area [shown in Fig. 3], and that the probe could be a surface contact probe {para. [0119]}, Hall in view of Ganser is not explicit that the second measurement probe is oriented perpendicularly to the first measurement probe.
However, King also teaches a specimen measurement device [inspection tool assembly 100] for measuring specimens {shroud segment 40; described at least in the Abstract and para. [0024]} with a width and thickness measuring meter {snubber and racetrack probe 108, described in para. [0030] and best shown in Fig. 7] with a first measurement probe [second probe body tip 182] and a second fixture probe [first probe body tip 176], with the second measurement probe oriented perpendicularly to the first measurement probe {shown in Fig. 7, described in paras. [0030]-[0034]}, using the locations of both probe body tips to measure dimensions of the specimen {described in paras. [0030]-[0034]} via processing circuity {CMM gaging, described at least in paras. [0003] and [0034]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used King’s perpendicular contact probes as an option for Hall’s contact probes measuring a variety of surfaces in order to more accurately determine distance measurements, as taught by King {para. [0034] describes the measurement tool having an accuracy 0.0002 inches, or that of a CMM machine}.
In regard to claim 19, Hall does not teach that the specimen width meter is configured to constrain the specimen and clamp the specimen in a predetermined location with respect to the specimen thickness meter, for a range of specimen widths, using a single actuator.
However, Ganser teaches that the specimen holder is configured to constrain the specimen [shown in Fig. 4] and clamp the specimen in a predetermined location [closing position 305] with respect to a specimen thickness meter {described in para. [0011]}, for a range of specimen widths {para. [0100] describes that the closing position 305 can be at different predetermined locations, thus a variety of specimen widths or lengths}, using the first actuator {para. [0100] describes material testing machine 301 being configured with an actuation unit, paras. [0023] and [0081] describe having one actuator}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ganser’s method of clamps constraining a specimen in a predetermined location to a specimen thickness meter for a range of specimen widths in order to better safely accommodate a variety of workpieces during a test as taught by Ganser {paras. [0001]-[0002]}.
In regard to claim 20, Hall further teaches that the specimen width meter is configured to measure a width of the specimen in a horizontal direction {paras. [0008]-[0009] describe the measuring machine positioning the probe such that the position sensor can measure features of a surface; Fig. 13(b) shows that the calibration block 400 was measured in three-dimensions, thus measuring a width, as described in para. [0124]}.
10. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Ganser and King as applied to claims 15 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Ballard.
In regard to claim 16, Hall teaches that the first probe is configured to move via the first actuator in a first direction [Fig. 3 shows that the probe 56 can be moved in any three-dimensional direction on the CMM bed].
Hall is not explicit that the first clamp is configured to actuate in the same direction of the first probe and the second clamp is configured to move in a second direction opposite the first direction.
However, Ganser teaches that the specimen holding device having clamps moving in a second direction {para. [0100] describes the clamps 307 and 307’ closing to a closing position 305 – since Hall’s probe can be in any location, either of these direction could easily be in an opposite direction of the probing direction with Hall’s probe moving along the other clamp}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ganser’s method of having on of a clamp move in an opposite direction of another clamp and Hall’s measurement probe in order to better keep a probe clear of contact while a specimen is being clamped, such that no components are damaged by interference during a closing of clamps – a known engineering practice – such that a workpiece is more safely held during a test, especially during a clamp’s closing process, as taught by Ganser {paras. [0001]-[0002] and [0071]}.
Hall in view of Ganser and King are not explicit that the first actuator comprises a twin lead screw.
However, Ballard teaches a twin leadscrew [leadscrew 462], driven by a motor [motor 464], configured to drive a lower clamp 470 towards an upper clamp 468 [shown in Fig. 13, described on page 23 lines 15-33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Ballard’s twin leadscrew as an actuator for Hall in view of Ganser’s measuring machine because a motorized leadscrew is an obvious substitution of an actuator, as acknowledged by the Applicant {para. [0073] of the instant application states that the twin lead screws may be replaced with a variety of other types of actuators}.
In regard to claim 17, Hall in view of Ganser and Ballad teaches a motor configured to turn the twin lead screw [Ballad leadscrew 462 with motor 464, see above], and Hall further teaches a current sensor configured to detect a motor current to determine whether the probing force exceeds the first threshold force corresponding to engagement of the first measurement force {para. [0088] describes monitoring the torque load caused by the electrical current demand caused by the servo motor; paras. [0147]-[0149] describe comparing negligible movement signals to a detection threshold (threshold force) such that contact between probe and a solid body (probing force corresponding to engagement of the measurement probe) can be monitored}.
11. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Ganser and King as applied to claims 15 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Yang.
In regard to claim 18, Hall teaches a variety of modular probes and probe tips {at least paras. [0080]-[0089]; para. [0080] stating a conventional surface contact probe 72}.
Hall in view of Ganser and King is not explicit that the first measurement probe comprises a first spring configured to apply a predetermined engagement force on the first measurement probe toward the specimen.
However, Yang also teaches a measurement system [measurement probing system 20] with a measurement probe [signal acquisition probe 28, including probing tip assembly 32, described as having a double-cushioned probing tip (Abstract)], such that the measurement probe comprises a spring {compressible element 60, described as compression spring 102 in para. [0028]} configured to apply a predetermined engagement force {force F4, described in para. [0030] and shown in Fig. 4} on the measurement probe toward the specimen {para. [0030]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Yang’s probe with a spring cushioned tip as one of Hall’s modular probes, {such as the surface contact probe taught by Hall in para. [0119]}, in order to better protect the components of the probe, as taught by Yang {para. [0031]}.
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 DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached T-R 07:00-19:00, F 07:00-11:00.
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, 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.
/DANIEL M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights