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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method of calibration for a coordinate-measuring system (see claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 11 (i.e., line 12 of page 27), “the coordinate measuring system: should be --the coordinate-measuring system-- for consistency.
In claim 1, lines 15-16, “the assembly” should be --an assembly-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 1, line 16, there should be --, and-- in the end of the line to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 5, line 2, “the measuring volume” should be --a measuring volume-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 6, line 3, “prior” should be --prior to-- to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 8, lines 2-3, “the fabrication site” should be --a fabrication site-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 8, lines 3-4, “at the installation or assembly site of the coordinate-measuring apparatus” should be --at an installation or assembly site of the coordinate-measuring system-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 12, lines 2-3, “the determination of coordinates of point on the workpiece's surface” should be --the measuring of coordinates of points on the workpiece's surface-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 14, line 2, “the position platform” should be --the positioning platform-- to refer to its antecedent basis in claim 1.
In claim 15, line 12, “the assembly” should be --an assembly-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 15, line 18, “the position of the positioning platform” should be --a position of the positioning platform-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 17, line 1, “configured to” should be --further configured to-- for better clarity.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 10, and 17 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.
Regarding claim 5, it recites “preferably said measuring apparatus being a laser scanner, a tracer or an interferometer” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether the limitation is required. For examination purpose, it is disregarded.
Regarding claim 10, it recites “preferably more than 500 configurations of the articulated probe head” in lines 2-3; “preferably less than 12 configurations of the articulated probe head” in lines 4-5; and “preferably fifty times, more configurations than the second set of configurations” in lines 7-8. It is unclear whether the limitations are required. For examination purpose, they are disregarded.
Regarding claim 17, it recites “preferably the coordinate-measuring system being configured to individual calibrate said third set of configurations of the articulated probe head for overriding or correcting the model of the assembly” in lines 3-5. It is unclear whether the limitation is required. For examination purpose, it is disregarded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Somerville et al. (US 20130090878 A1; hereinafter “Somerville”).
Regarding claim 1, Somerville teaches a method of calibration for a coordinate-measuring system (i.e., “A method and corresponding apparatus are described for recalibrating coordinate positioning apparatus”; see Abstract), wherein the coordinate-measuring system includes an articulated probe head (i.e., “indexing probe head 10”) connected to a positioning platform of the coordinate-measuring system (i.e., “The quill 8 carries an indexing probe head 10”) and a coordinate probe (i.e., probe 12 and stylus 14) removably connected to the articulated probe head (i.e., “a probe attachment portion that carries a scanning probe 12 having a deflectable stylus 14”; see [0045] and FIG. 1; note that the probe or stylus is removable, i.e., replaceable; see Abstract), whereby the articulated probe head can assume a plurality of configurations corresponding to diverse orientations of the coordinate probe (i.e., “the indexing probe head 10 allows the scanning probe 12 to be rotated, relative to the quill, about the orthogonal axes A and B and locked in any one of multiple indexed positions”; see [0045] and FIG. 1), the method including:
a first calibration, in which a first set of model parameters defining a model of the articulated probe head is determined while the probe head is caused to assume the configurations in a first set of configurations (i.e., “taking a calibration data set for the coordinate positioning apparatus that comprises datum data for a plurality of orientations of the measurement probe”; see [0009]),
a second calibration comprising measuring an artifact whose geometry is known with the coordinate measuring system and the coordinate probe mounted on the articulated probe head while the probe head is caused to assume all the configurations in a second set of configurations (i.e., “acquiring one or more position measurements using the coordinate positioning apparatus, calculating a first correction from the one or more position measurements that describes any change in the first datum data following the disturbance to the coordinate positioning apparatus”; see [0009]; “measuring the position of a calibration artefact or other feature”; see [0011]; “The calibration artefact may be of any known type. Advantageously, the calibration artefact comprises a sphere”; see [0024]),
based on the measurement of the artifact, determination of additional model parameters defining, with the first set of model parameters, a model of the assembly of the articulated probe head with the coordinate probe (i.e., “updating the calibration data set… updating the datum data for a plurality of different orientations of the measurement probe using the first correction”; see [0009]), and
measuring coordinates of points on a surface of a workpiece using the model of the assembly of the articulated probe head with the coordinate probe (i.e., “This calibration process provides a set of calibration data for use during subsequent position measurements”; see [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Somerville further teaches:
wherein the first set of configurations comprises more configurations than the second set of configurations (i.e., “it is not necessary to establish this offset for every indexed position of the probe head. Instead, it is has been found to be sufficient to establish the offset at one, or optionally a few, indexed positions”; see [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Somerville further teaches:
wherein the first calibration comprises mounting the articulated probe head on a position platform of a calibration coordinate measuring system, connecting a calibration coordinate probe to the articulated probe head (see FIG. 1; note that the calibration coordinate probe is the probe 12 or stylus 14 used in the initial calibration and it can be a new probe, i.e., calibration probe; see [0053]) and measuring a calibration artifact with the coordinate measuring system, the coordinate probe and the articulated probe head (i.e., The CMM is fully calibrated with the first stylus 14 attached to the stylus holder of the scanning probe 12.”; see [0056]).
Regarding claim 5, Somerville further teaches:
wherein the first calibration comprises mounting the articulated probe head in the measuring volume of a measuring apparatus (see FIG. 1) and acquiring position and/or orientation data of the articulated probe head with the measuring apparatus (i.e., A calibration process is thus usually performed, typically using a known reference artefact such as a calibration sphere, after a measurement probe is first mounted to coordinate positioning apparatus”; see [0004]; “The CMM is fully calibrated with the first stylus 14 attached to the stylus holder of the scanning probe 12. In other words, a set of calibration data is acquired using the first stylus 14 that comprises datum data and probe transformation matrices for each of the plurality of orientations of the measurement probe that are provided by the indexing probe head”; see [0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Somerville further teaches:
mounting the articulated probe head on a position platform of a coordinate measuring machine system and connecting a coordinate probe to the articulated probe head (see FIG. 1) prior the second calibration (i.e., “after a disturbance to the coordinate positioning apparatus, the method comprises a step of updating the calibration data set”; see [0009]; “the disturbance conveniently comprises replacing the stylus of the measurement probe”; see [0017]).
Regarding claim 7, Somerville further teaches:
wherein the articulated probe head has one, two, three or more than three rotation axes (i.e., “the indexing probe head 10 allows the scanning probe 12 to be rotated, relative to the quill, about the orthogonal axes A and B and locked in any one of multiple indexed positions”; see [0045] and FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Somerville further teaches:
wherein the first calibration and the second calibration are performed at a different locations, or the first calibration is performed at the fabrication site of the articulated probe head or at the installation or assembly site of the coordinate-measuring apparatus (i.e., “The disturbance may thus comprise the measurement probe unexpectedly crashing into a workpiece, the apparatus being transported or relocated, a change in operating environment etc.”; see [0017]).
Regarding claim 9, Somerville further teaches:
a change of coordinate probe between the first calibration and the second calibration (i.e., “The disturbance may also cause misalignment or movement (e.g. rotation or translation) of the articulating probe head relative to the platform on which it is mounted… the disturbance conveniently comprises replacing the stylus of the measurement probe”; see [0017]).
Regarding claim 12, Somerville further teaches:
a selective accurate calibration of a third set of configurations, wherein the determination of coordinates of point on the workpiece's surface includes overriding or correcting the model of the assembly when the configuration of the articulated probe head is in the third set of configurations (i.e., “acquiring one or more position measurements using the coordinate positioning apparatus, calculating a first correction from the one or more position measurements that describes any change in the first datum data following the disturbance to the coordinate positioning apparatus, and updating the datum data for a plurality of different orientations of the measurement probe using the first correction”; see [0009]; note that the correction can be repeated, i.e., for calibration of a third set of configuration, following another disturbance; see [0030]).
Regarding claim 15, Somerville teaches a coordinate-measuring system (i.e., “A method and corresponding apparatus are described for recalibrating coordinate positioning apparatus”; see Abstract) including: a positioning platform (i.e., quill 8), an articulated probe head connected to said positioning platform (i.e., “The quill 8 carries an indexing probe head 10”), and a coordinate probe removably connected to the articulated probe head (i.e., “a probe attachment portion that carries a scanning probe 12 having a deflectable stylus 14”; see [0045] and FIG. 1; note that the probe 12 or stylus 14 is removable, i.e., replaceable; see Abstract), whereby the articulated probe head can assume a plurality of configurations corresponding to diverse orientations of the coordinate probe (i.e., “the indexing probe head 10 allows the scanning probe 12 to be rotated, relative to the quill, about the orthogonal axes A and B and locked in any one of multiple indexed positions”; see [0045] and FIG. 1), the coordinate-measuring system being configured to:
retrieve a first set of model parameters defining a model of the articulated probe head based on a first calibration wherein the probe head is caused to assume all the configurations in a first set of configurations (i.e., “taking a calibration data set for the coordinate positioning apparatus that comprises datum data for a plurality of orientations of the measurement probe”; see [0009]);
measure an artifact whose geometry is known while the probe head is caused to assume all the configurations in a second set of configurations (i.e., “acquiring one or more position measurements using the coordinate positioning apparatus, calculating a first correction from the one or more position measurements that describes any change in the first datum data following the disturbance to the coordinate positioning apparatus”; see [0009]; “measuring the position of a calibration artefact or other feature”; see [0011]; “The calibration artefact may be of any known type. Advantageously, the calibration artefact comprises a sphere”; see [0024]);
based on the measure of the artifact, determine additional model parameters defining, with the first set of model parameters, a model of the assembly of the articulated probe head on the coordinate-measuring system with the coordinate probe (i.e., “updating the calibration data set… updating the datum data for a plurality of different orientations of the measurement probe using the first correction”; see [0009]); and
measure a workpiece by selecting a desired configuration of the articulated probe head, bringing the coordinate probe in contact with or in proximity to the workpiece (i.e., “bring the tip of the stylus into contact with the object to be measured”; see [0003]; “during subsequent position measurements”; see [0004]; “at any desired orientation of the probe head”; see [0094]) and determining coordinates of points on the workpiece's surface from a measure of the position of the positioning platform using the model of the assembly (i.e., “This calibration process provides a set of calibration data for use during subsequent position measurements”; see [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Somerville further teaches:
a non-volatile memory storing at least part of the first set of model parameters (i.e., “the set of calibration data may be retrieved from an electronic memory or other data storage area associated with the coordinate positioning apparatus”; see [0030]).
Regarding claim 17, Somerville further teaches:
configured to individual override or correct the model of the assembly (i.e., “This calibration process provides a set of calibration data for use during subsequent position measurements”; see [0004]) when the configuration of the articulated probe head is in a third set of configurations (i.e., “acquiring one or more position measurements using the coordinate positioning apparatus, calculating a first correction from the one or more position measurements that describes any change in the first datum data following the disturbance to the coordinate positioning apparatus, and updating the datum data for a plurality of different orientations of the measurement probe using the first correction”; see [0009]; note that the correct can be repeated, i.e., for calibration of a third set of configuration, following another disturbance; see [0030]).
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 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somerville.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Somerville does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first set of configurations comprises more than 200 configurations of the articulated probe head, and the second set of configurations comprises less than 24 configurations of the articulated probe head; and/or the first set of configurations comprises at least ten times more configurations than the second set of configurations.
However, Somerville teaches:
taking a first full calibration set for a plurality of orientations of the measurement probe and then a correction set for a few position measurements that describes any change in the first datum data following the disturbance (see [0009] and [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Somerville such that the first set of configurations comprises more than 200 configurations of the articulated probe head, and the second set of configurations comprises less than 24 configurations of the articulated probe head; and/or the first set of configurations comprises at least ten times more configurations than the second set of configurations, as claimed. The rationale would be to adjust the numbers of measurements that sufficiently characterize the full calibration set and the correction set.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Somerville does not explicitly disclose:
recording a table of correspondence between a position of the position platform and a position of a reference point of the coordinate probe for said third set of configurations.
But Somerville teaches:
establishing the positional relationship between a reference measurement point of the measurement probe relative to a known point in the machine coordinate system (i.e., “the first correction may describe the change or shift in the vector that describes the position of the reference measurement point of the measurement probe relative to a point in the machine coordinate system”; see [0015]; see also, [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Somerville by recording a table of correspondence between a position of the position platform and a position of a reference point of the coordinate probe for said third set of configurations, as claimed. The rationale would be to help keeping track of the relationship.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somerville in view of JENSEN et al. (US 20180112971 A1; hereinafter “JENSEN”).
Regarding claim 3, Somerville further teaches:
storing at least part of the first set of model parameters in a non-volatile memory (i.e., “the set of calibration data may be retrieved from an electronic memory or other data storage area associated with the coordinate positioning apparatus”; see [0030])
Somerville does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
storing at least part of the first set of model parameters in a non-volatile memory comprised in the articulated probe head.
But JENSEN teaches:
storing data in a non-volatile memory comprised in the articulated probe head or CMM controller (i.e., “the sensor can provide an active memory. Such memory can be configured to record, for example, time (hours) of operation of the sensor and other data which can be provided through the probe head or CMM controller”; see [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Somerville in view of JENSEN by incorporating a memory in the probe head and storing at least part of the first set of model parameters in a non-volatile memory comprised in the articulated probe head, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate storing data associated with the probe head.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13 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, provided all other pending issues being resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features: “wherein said determination of additional model parameters comprises defining a range or a minimum value or a maximum value for one or more of said additional model parameters,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Somerville and JENSEN are silent of the above indicated features. Somerville’s correction data are information of offset values for correcting measurements, and there is no suggest to define range or a minimum value or a maximum value in the correction data (i.e., additional model) as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features: “defining the third set of configurations based on a model of the workpiece,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Somerville and JENSEN are silent of the above indicated features. Somerville is about the correcting a full calibration set following a disturbance of the CMM. It does not concern about the model of the workpiece to be measured. MADLENER et al. (DE 10157174 A1) teaches calibrating selected measurement points according to expected workpiece profile. However, it does not require overriding or replacing a full calibration data set for the selected points (see linking claim 12). In fact, it does not need a full calibration data set at all.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pettersson (US 20090082986 A1) teaches a modular calibration method for a CMM, comprising preliminary calibration steps of several components prior to its mounting. The preliminary calibration steps yield specific mapping information for each calibrated component, which are then stored into map files generated and associated to the calibrated components. A final alignment takes place after once the CMM is mounted, which processes mapping information gathered during the preliminary calibration steps.
Ebara (US 20100206040 A1) teaches a parameter calibration method of an articulated coordinate measuring apparatus, involving a parameter calibration process of primary calibration parameters; and a parameter calibration process of secondary calibration parameters, using smaller number of arm positions than the primary calibration.
REES et al. (US 20200049498 A1) teaches a method of calibrating a contact probe having a deflectable stylus, involving determining a probe signal conversion model; and determining a model for modelling any apparent variation in the gain of the probe signals depending on orientation about an axis.
YANG et al. (CN 103630096 A) teaches a zero-position calibrating method for joint-arm type coordinate measuring machine, involving firstly determining a zero position calibration of a joint arm, and then determining a zero position of a REVO measuring head about a B-axis rotation according to the zero position of the joint arm, and finally determining a zero position of the REVO measuring head about the x-axis based on the two determined zero positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857