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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/4/2026 and 6/12/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 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, 3, 5, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deferm (US 2018/0180557 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Deferm discloses a measuring device and method of operation (Figs.1B and 7-9), including:
a) a transceiver having a transmission apparatus 11 configured to emit THz radiation onto an object 100, the THz radiation is at least partially reflected by the object 100;
b) a receiving apparatus 21 configured to receive the THz radiation emitted by the transmission apparatus 11 onto the object 100;
c) a reflector 313 configured to reflect the THz radiation emitted by the transmission apparatus 11 after the THz radiation has passed through at least one portion of the object 100; and
d) a holder (Fig.9) configured to support the transceiver and the reflector, and to position the transceiver and the reflector opposite one another on different sides of the object 100 or on different sides of a wall of the object 100; where
e) the measuring device is portable for an operator (par.0148).
With respect to claim 3, Deferm further discloses that the holder further includes a stop which can be placed against an end face of the object 100 for placement of the measuring device (placing object 100 within cavity 10, Fig.9).
With respect to claim 5, Deferm further discloses at least one of the transceiver and the reflector are detachably arranged on the holder (held by screws, see at least Fig.9, also see at least pars.0147 and 0148).
With respect to claim 13, Deferm further discloses that the reflector 313 has a shape that is adapted to a geometry of the object 100 (flat dielectric sheet, parallel to the metal reflector: Fig.9 and par.0148).
With respect to claim 16, Deferm further discloses an evaluation apparatus configured to determine the geometric parameter of the object 100 based on the THz radiation received by the receiving apparatus 21 (pars.0139-0142).
With respect to claim 17, Deferm further discloses that the geometric parameter includes thickness (pars.0139-0142).
With respect to claim 19, Deferm further discloses a wireless transmission system configured to transmit measured values received by the receiving apparatus 21 to an evaluation apparatus that is separate from the measuring device (par.0118).
With respect to claim 20, Deferm further discloses the object 100.
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 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 2, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deferm in view of Knobel (US 2010/0141961 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Deferm does not specifically disclose that the holder is a C-arm. Deferm teaches that the holder is a box for inserting a test piece (Fig.9 and par.0148).
Knobel teaches an optical geometric measuring device having a transceiver 2 containing transmitters, receivers, and necessary electronics and power supplies, and a reflector 3, between which an object 9 for inspection is placed. The holder connects the reflector 3 to the transceiver 2 conforms to the general shape of a C-arm (Figs.3 and 4a), where, when not mounted on the arm 4, may be used in a handheld arrangement (par.0073). The C-arm arrangement allows for accommodating larger and/or differently shaped components to measure as desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Deferm to use a C-arm arrangement in order to accommodate a wider variety of test objects, as suggested by Knobel, in order to expand the usefulness of the device.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, Deferm does not specifically disclose at least one sensor configured to aid in orienting the measuring device with the holder for a measurement process without contacting the object. Deferm only teaches placing the test object within the box without any means of ensuring that the object is aligned with the transmitter 11 and receiver 21.
Knobel teaches the practice of providing an optical sensor (Figs.3 and 4a) for enabling an operator to properly position the measurement device relative to the object for a measurement process without contacting the object. In this manner, proper alignment is readily apparent to the operator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Deferm to have an optical sensor configured to aid in orienting the measuring device to the object without contacting the object, as taught by Knobel, in order to improve the ability for the operator to identify proper alignment for improved measurement accuracy and precision.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deferm in view of Thiel (US 2023/0288189 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Deferm does not specifically disclose determining the refractive index in order to determine the thickness of the object. The refractive index is presumed to be known when estimating the thickness of the material (pars.0137-0138).
Thiel teaches the practice of determining the refractive index of the object 8 from a comparison of a delay time of the terahertz radiation emitted by the transmission apparatus and received by the receiving apparatus without the radiation passing through the object 8 (Figs.1 and 2, see at least pars.0030-0039). In this manner, the accuracy as well as the precision of the dimensional measurements may be significantly improved. Since Deferm has the same physical arrangement (transceiver opposite a reflector), then the advantages may be readily available with an appropriate software upgrade.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Deferm to determine the refractive index of the object from a comparison of a delay time of the terahertz radiation emitted by the transmission apparatus and received by the receiving apparatus without the radiation passing through the object in order to substantially improve the accuracy and precision of the measurements, as taught by Thiel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-10, 14, 15 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 4, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation where at least one of the transceiver and the reflector is mounted in a longitudinally displaceable manner on the holder, as required by the combination of features as claimed. While such adjustability has ready advantages, the prior art does not teach or suggest such adjustability within portable systems.
With respect to claims 6 and 14, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation that some of the THz radiation passes through the reflector, as required by the combination of features as claimed in each claim. While the prior art acknowledges that reflectors may be partial reflectors (Thiel, US 2023/0288189 A1, par.0020), there is no motivation to make it so, absent the benefit of Applicant’s disclosure.
With respect to claim 7, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation that the holder includes at least one support structured to enable at least one of the transceiver and the reflector to rest on a surface of the object when the measuring device is placed against the object, as required by the combination of features as claimed. None of the portable devices in the prior art teach or reasonably suggest the ability for any portion of the portable device to rest on the object under test (support weight, not simply touch for physical alignment as taught by Knobel, Figs.7 and 10).
Claims 8-10 are objected to by virtue of their dependence upon claim 7, thus incorporating the combination of allowable features.
With respect to claim 15, while Knobel teaches a holding portion 21 configured to arrange the measurement device in a stationary manner (Fig.3, via arm 4), the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests that the holding portion is configured to be arranged in a stationary manner on a manufacturing apparatus for manufacturing the object, as required by the combination of features as claimed.
US patent documents to Unruh (see attached PTO-892) teach a stationary measurement device to measure the object during manufacturing, and two handheld units to measure test pieces that have been completed and cooled (pars.0008 and 0012 of the pre-grant publication). There is no teaching or suggestion to mount a portable measurement device in a stationary position on a manufacturing apparatus for measuring the object during manufacture, absent the benefit of Applicant’s disclosure.
With respect to claim 21, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of having a conveying apparatus configured to convey the object in a longitudinal direction through a measuring region of the measuring device, as required by the combination of features as claimed. Similar to the manufacturing environment noted in the objection to claim 15 above, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests using such a portable measuring device along a conveyance for the measurement object.
Response to Arguments
The present amendments to claim 22 overcome the outstanding 35 USC 112(b) rejections of record.
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claim 1 and 22 over Deferm have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Deferm does not disclose a portable apparatus (Remarks, p.8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the above rejection, Deferm discloses a portable embodiment (Figs.8-9 and corresponding descriptions, particularly par.0148).
Applicant also appears to argue that the independent claims require that the transceiver integrates both the transmitter and receiver (Remarks, p.8). This is not the case. Both claims only require that the transceiver includes the transmitter. The receiver is separately recited in claim 1 with no clause providing a physical integration with the transmitter. Claim 22 does not recite a receiver, nor any other structure for performing the “receiving” step. Regardless, Deferm teaches an integrated transceiver (Fig.7) having a transmitter 11 and receiver 21 that is used in the portable embodiment of Figs.8-9.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached on 571.272.2273. 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights