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 .
Response to Amendment
The objection to the specification, paragraph 002 is withdrawn. However, due to the amendments there is a new objection to claim 12.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 1-6, 8-10 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6 that Sakai relates to measurement of a person and does not disclose error correction.
Examiner’s position is that Sakai teaches the measurement of objects in general (col 1:39-42 “Accordingly, the present invention provides a linear measurement apparatus that can measure, in a noncontact manner, a dimension of a nonuniform object having a complicated contour.” and while the first embodiment of Sakai teaches measuring a body (col 8:7 “First Embodiment, and 8:13 “The measured object 15 is a human subject”), Sakai does not indicate that people are the only objects that can be measured, and teaches two embodiments (col 13:64 “Second Embodiment”, col 18:1 “Third Embodiment”) that do not mention people.
Examiner acknowledges that Sakai does not teach correction for measurement error, and accordingly introduced the Baba reference.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 that the global coordinate measuring device of Luthi is not related to the claimed reference point.
Examiner’s position is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date that if one is making distance measurements, one must have reference points from which to measure them. In this case, Sakai does not explicitly teach a reference point for making measurements and the Luthi reference was introduced to teach the concept of ‘here is an object (Figure 1a, object 5) and here are some reference points (Figure 1a, points G1, etc) that are used to coordinate measurements made on the object with the reference system’. In this case, Sakai and Baba make measurements on an object that moves relative to a frame holding the sensors, and it would obviously be beneficial to have a reference point to better know where you’re taking data.
Applicant argues on page 7 that Baba measures the flange angle relative to the web, not the inclination of the sensors.
Examiner’s understanding in that the instant invention measures an object by placing a sensor on a frame (Figure 1, sensor 4 on frame 3), by measuring the distance from the frame to the object (paragraph 027 “sensor 4, which in this exemplary embodiment is designed as an optical micrometer”) and correcting this measurement in the case of an angle between the frame and the object.
Instant Figure 2c
PNG
media_image1.png
296
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the case of a tilt, there exists an angle between ‘the sensor & frame assembly’ and ‘the distance to be measured through the object’, which creates an error in the measurement. That is, instead of measuring the thickness of the object perpendicular to the surface, you’re measuring a diagonal line through the object. The angle β is the angle between the object and the sensors, and the invention detects any such tilt and corrects the measured value.
Examiner’s position is that the invention of Sakai teaches an equivalent frame and distance sensor (Figure 2 with object 15 inside legs 3a, and sensors 6a-b take distance measurements to the object, see col 8:48-50 “Thus, each sensor measures the gap distance between the corresponding sensor and whatever in front of the sensor.”). These sensors can move along the legs and provide the claimed relative movement between the sensors and the object.
Sakai Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
475
205
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The invention of Baba teaches a similar assembly with distance sensors on each side of an object (Figure 1 has sensors 2a-b, paragraph 70 “The two dimensional laser distance sensors 2a and 2b measure the distances L 1 and L 2 to the flange end surface”), detects a tilt angle between the flange and the sensor assembly (paragraph 69 “Reference numeral 6 denotes a flange tilt angle calculation device that inputs a measurement signal from the outer surface shape sensor 5 and calculates a flange tilt angle.”) and corrects the distance measurement based on the tilt angle (paragraph 69 “Reference numeral 7 denotes a measurement dimension correction device, which corrects the cross-sectional dimension calculated by the dimension calculation device 4 with the flange tilt angle obtained by the flange tilt angle calculation device 6 to calculate an accurate cross-sectional size.”).
Annotated Baba Figure 1 modified by Figure 2a
PNG
media_image3.png
391
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
While in the case of Baba it is the object that is shown as tilted and in the instant invention it is the sensor that is tilted, for both there exists an angle between the line of the sensor’s measurement and the line through an object that is to be measured. This tilt creates a difference in the measured distance values in Baba (along the lines L1 & L2), and the desired measurement (the perpendicular distance between the two thick black lines). As with the instant invention it is the relative angle between them that is important, and Baba teaches to determine that angle and make corrections to the measurement based on that angle. As such, the combination of Sakai, Luthi and Baba is deemed to read on the instant claims.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim should end with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over at Sakai (United States Patent 7684057) in view of Luthi et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20200309515) in view of Baba (JP H08271226), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “SLB”.
As to claim 9, Sakai teaches a device for measuring a measurement object (Abstract “A linear measurement apparatus includes a measuring unit”), comprising:
a measuring system (Figure 2, column 8:38-39 “first and second sensors 6a and 6b”) movable along a linear axis (Figure 2, column 8:63-66 “Driving mechanisms 7a and 7b are respectively located at the legs 3a and 3b for respectively moving the first and second noncontact distance measuring sensors 6a and 6b to an extent vertically with respect to the frame 14.”),
wherein the measuring system has at least one sensor (Figure 2, column 8:38-39 “first and second sensors 6a and 6b”);
wherein at least one measured value of the measurement object is measurable using the sensor (Figure 2, column 9:36-38 “on the basis of the plurality of first and second gap distances DA and DB and the constant interval INT, it is possible to estimate a plurality of candidate object lengths L”).
Sakai does not teach means arranged to detect a position of a reference point of the measuring system. However, it is known in the art as taught by Luthi. Luthi teaches a surface measurement device (paragraph 0016 “the local coordinate measuring device is configured to coordinatively survey a surface of an object”) that comprises means arranged to detect a position of a reference point of the measuring system (Figure 1, paragraph 0017 “at least three reference points, the respective defined position of which is known to either the global or the local coordinate measuring device, are surveyed”, wherein Luthi uses optical sensors, paragraph 0021 “the markings are surveyed by means of a camera”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have means arranged to detect a position of a reference point of the measuring system, in order to more accurately know where on the surface you’re taking data.
Sakai as modified by Luthi above does not teach wherein a measurement error of the measured value caused by an inclination of the linear axis by a local angle of inclination β is determinable by an inclination sensor of the measurement system and wherein the measured value is correctable by the measurement error by a correction unit. However, it is known in the art as taught by Baba. Baba teaches a measurement device (Figure 1, Google translation Abstract “To accurately measure sectional dimensions”) wherein a measurement error of the measured value caused by an inclination of the linear axis by a local angle of inclination β is determinable by an inclination sensor of the measurement system and wherein the measured value is correctable by the measurement error by a correction unit (paragraph 61 “A cross-sectional dimension measuring method for H-section steel, comprising: measuring a shape of an outer surface of a flange, obtaining a tilt angle of the flange from the shape, and correcting a measured value of the cross-sectional dimension according to the tilt angle” where the tilt angle is interpreted to be the angle between the object and the sensor system, as shows in applicant’s Figures 2a-c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have wherein a measurement error of the measured value caused by an inclination of the linear axis by a local angle of inclination β is determinable by an inclination sensor of the measurement system and wherein the measured value is correctable by the measurement error by a correction unit, in order to accurately measure the object regardless of its orientation.
As to claim 1, the method would flow from claim 9.
As to claim 2, SLB teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Sakai teaches a horizontal measured value of the measurement object is detected, which indicates a position in the extension direction of the linear axis and/or in that a vertical measured value of the measurement object is detected, which indicates a position in the direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the linear axis (Figures 29 & 30 display outlines of the object comprising both horizontal and vertical data, see column 24:39-42 “After displaying the measurement result of the length, the microcomputer 8, as a display controller, makes the display 4 display measured positions as a two-dimensional image as shown in FIG. 29 or 30.” where both horizontal and vertical values are known).
As to claims 3-6, SLB teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, and while Sakai as modified by Luthi and Baba above does not explicitly teach the claimed equations of claims 3-6, Baba teaches the use of trigonometry (paragraph 72, equation 6 “W * = W / cos θ.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_image4.png
418
1600
media_image4.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.
As to claim 8, SLB teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Baba teaches the angle of inclination β of the linear axis is determined at defined measuring points (Figures 2a-d, the angles .theta.sub.1-6 are determined at the indicated points and the corners). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the angle of inclination β of the linear axis be determined at defined measuring points, in order to accurately correct for different types of deviations.
As to claim 10, SLB teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 9, in addition the invention of Sakai as modified by Baba teaches the inclination sensor for determining the local angle of inclination β of the linear axis is arranged on the measuring system (Sakai Figure 2 has the distance sensors 6a & 6b arranged on the C-frame of the system (Figure 2, elements 2, 3a-b) on opposite sides of an object 15, and the invention of Baba has sensors 2a-b & 3a-b on opposite sides of the object (Figure 1), and applying the teachings of Baba that one can take multiple distance measurements, calculate a tilt angle & correct a measurement (Baba paragraph 5) to the invention of Sakai would have the sensors involved in the tilt measurement be arranged on the system of Sakai, reading on the claimed limitation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have sensors that measure the same object at the same time be located as a unified system, in order to have more stable sensors and more reliable data.
As to claim 12, SLB teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 9, in addition Sakai teaches the position and/or distance of a measurement object is determined (Figure 2, col 1:45-47 “a measuring unit including at least one pair of noncontact distance measuring sensors supported at the frame”) for measuring a width and/or for measuring a flatness of the measurement object (col 2:6-10 “With such a structure, the linear measurement apparatus can measure dimensions of a nonuniform object to be measured having a complicated contour in a noncontact manner without deformation of the object to be measured.”).
As to claim 11, the method would flow from claim 12.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights