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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 12 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-12 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1 & 9 recite “means are arranged to detect a position of a reference point of the measuring system” and “means arranged to detect a position of a reference point of the measuring system” in lines 6 & 6 respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted according to the applicant’s specification paragraph 011 “Furthermore, the means for detecting a position of a reference point can be a position encoder of the linear axis. For example, the position of the reference point can be determined absolutely via an incremental magnetic tape.” and paragraph 027 “Other embodiments of the means 9 are conceivable, for example a sensor, in particular an optical sensor or a cable pull sensor.”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guarini (United States Patent 4782598).
As to claim 9, Guarini teaches a device for measuring a measurement object (Abstract “An error compensated, coordinate measuring machine”), comprising:
a measuring system (Figure 1, column 5:38-39 “This elongated member 20 is commonly referred to as a "ram"”) movable along a linear axis (Figure 1, column 6:28-30 “a scale, graduated bar 28 or other form of position indicator is mounted to the traveling bridge 10 along the horizontal cross-member 16”),
wherein the measuring system has at least one sensor (column 5:54-58 “An electronic probe 22 is mounted to the lower free end of the ram 20.”, see also column 5:65-66 “non-contacting probes may be used with the present invention”);
means arranged to detect a position of a reference point of the measuring system (column 15:36-38 “The zero reference point is first established. It is usually chosen as one corner of the base, and all measurements are made with respect thereto.”, see also Figure 5B and column 10:28-29 “During probe qualification, the ram 20 is lowered until the probe 22 contacts the qualification sphere 73.”);
wherein at least one measured value of the measurement object is measurable using the sensor (column 5:54-58 “An electronic probe 22 is mounted to the lower free end of the ram 20. The probe 22 can sense when it makes contact with an object 8 resting on the base of the machine. It generates an electronic signal to which the machine responds when contact is made.”, column 6:67-7:3 “the apparent position of the ram 20 and the probe 22 relative to a pre-selected zero reference point in the working area of the machine may be determined in all three coordinates by graduated bars 24, 28, 32 and their associated optical readers 26, 30, 34.” and column 1:37-39 “A computer in the machine derives the exact dimensions of the test part from the coordinate data.”) and
wherein a measurement error of the measured value caused by an inclination of the measuring system at a location on the linear axis (Figures 2 and 5B, column 10:14-18 “As illustrated by FIG. 5b, the Y carriage 18 may exhibit an angle of rotation .theta..sub.2 (referenced to a normal 71 to the base 4), which will affect the position of the probe tip relative to the X scale or graduated bar 24.”) by a local angle of inclination β (Figure 5B, angle .theta..sub.2) is determinable by an inclination sensor of the measurement system (Figure 5B, column 13:30-32 “the ram sensors 38, 40 can accurately determine the deviation of the ram 20 from true vertical”) and
wherein the measured value is correctable by the measurement error (column 16:1-7 “To make measurements in the X-Y plane, the probe 22 is affixed to the free end of the ram 20 so that it extends co-axially thereto as an extension of the ram. The ram 20 and probe 22 are maneuvered until the probe 22 contacts the object 8, at which point the coordinate axis measurements and the angle of tilt measurements are entered into the computer memory.”, see also the rest of the column) by a correction unit (Figure 9, column 15:34-36 “compensation unit 70 will adjust the positional data to compensate for the errors introduced by the machine”).
As to claim 10, Guarini teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 9, in addition the inclination sensor for determining the local angle of inclination β of the linear axis is arranged on the measuring system (Figure 1, column 13:27-32 “Two sensors 38, 40 are mounted on the ram 20 and preferably inside the ram.”).
As to claim 12, Guarini teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 9, in addition the position and/or distance of a measurement object is determined for measuring a width and/or for measuring a flatness of the measurement object (column 1:37-39 “A computer in the machine derives the exact dimensions of the test part from the coordinate data.”).
As to claim 11, the method would flow from claim 12.
As to claim 1, the method would flow from claim 9.
As to claim 2, Guarini teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition a horizontal measured value of the measurement object is detected (column 9:7-9 “the position of the ram 20 along the Y axis is measured remotely from where the probe contacts the object” and column 1:28-30 “The probe is positionable in different attitudes so that it has access to each exposed side of the part.”), which indicates a position in the extension direction of the linear axis (Figure 3, column 5:30-32 “A carriage 18 rides on a track 19 formed in the horizontal member 16 of the traveling bridge, and is movable in the Y coordinate direction”) and/or in that a vertical measured value of the measurement object is detected (column 5:43-44 “the ram 20 is movable in the Z direction” indicates top & bottom sides and therefore vertical measurements can be made), which indicates a position in the direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the linear axis (see Figure 3 that shows the z-axis as vertical).
As to claim 8, Guarini teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition the local angle of inclination β of the linear axis is determined at defined measuring points (Figure 5B, column 10:61-11:1 “The second hypothetical triangle II is illustrated by FIG. 5b as directly below the first triangle I. Triangle II represents the X component of error, X.sub.3, caused by the rotation of the Y carriage 18 and the variable distance the ram 20 and probe 22 further extend beyond the predetermined distance E in order to touch the object B. The second triangle II is a similar triangle of the first, and the component of error, X.sub.3, is opposite the same angle .theta..sub.2.”).
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guarini.
As to claims 3-6, Guarini teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, with the exception of the claimed formulas. However, Guarini teaches the use of trigonometry (column 10:8-12 “This X component of error is trigonometrically a function of angle .theta..sub.1, and is equal to the fixed distance C that the center of rotation of the Y-carriage 18 is vertically above X scale 24, multiplied by the sine of angle .theta..sub.1.”) and the calculation of the length of a side of a right triangle when an angle and the length of a side adjacent to that angle is known is well known:
PNG
media_image1.png
418
1600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have, use or determine the claimed equations, in order to more accurately calculate a correction value based on distance & angle measurements and produce a more precise measurement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
