DETAILED ACTION
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
1- 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/03/2026 has been entered.
Amendment
2- The Request for Continued Examination amendment has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application, where the independent claim has been amended. New claims 14-16 have been added.
Response to Arguments
3- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments changed the scope of the invention, especially for the dependent claims.
4- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings/suggestions from the same references of the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5- 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 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
6- Claims 1-9, 11-16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al. (PGPUB No. 20020171847) in view of Shirley et al. (WO 02086420)
As to amended claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 13, 16, Fukumoto teaches a reference master assembly, and its method of use, for carrying out calibration operations of an equipment (Figs. 1-25, Abstract, ¶ 13-17, 80-92 for ex.; equipment 10) for checking a mechanical part (placed in 3), the equipment generating a three-dimensional numerical object corresponding to said mechanical part (although, this limitation is construed as a mere intended use since no tangible positive description of such generating is presented in the body of the claim, Abstract teaches the 3D measurement of the object) and comprising at least one optoelectronic sensor (11/12 and 21/22 for ex.) adapted to project a light plane on the mechanical part (Figs. 1-5 and equivalent), the reference master assembly comprising: a support body (frame of housing/base 40 or equivalent); and a calibration polyhedron subject (70, 80 or 90) defining reference outer surfaces (Figs. 9-11 15-16, 18-19), the reference outer surfaces being adapted to be crossed by the light plane (Fig. 11; geometrical light sheets cross transversally the polyhedron volume); and
at least two pivoting couplings (the two parts of the rotation 92/30 or 32/40), each of the at least two pivoting couplings connecting the calibration subject the support body (Figs. 9-11 15-16, 18-19),
wherein each of the at least two pivoting couplings has a part (similar to pivot 72 in Figs. 9-10) connected to the polyhedron subject, and wherein each of the at least two pivoting couplings is adapted to allow adjustable orientation of the reference outer surfaces of the polyhedron subject relative to the support body (Figs. 1, 18-19; ¶ 48-49, 62-63, 78, 145-146 for ex.); (Claims 2, 3, 5) wherein the calibration subject is connected to the support body via the pivoting coupling (Figs. 18-19 for ex.; 90 is connected to 40 via 30); (Claim 6) placing the mechanical part in a checking position (is necessary about placing the object 5 to be measured in the measuring position, i.e. checking position; in addition to the other limitations addressed in the rejection of claim 1 here above); (Claim 5) wherein the at least one optoelectronic sensor comprises two laser scanners (Figs. 1-5, ¶ 50-61 for ex); (Claim 8) wherein the mechanical part and the reference master assembly are arranged in the checking position on a rotating support (rotating support 3/30).
Fukumoto does not teach expressly the calibration polyhedron subject to be at least two trihedrons; each of the at least two trihedrons defining an inner cavity; and that the pivoting coupling a part is connected within the inner cavity of the one trihedron; (Claim 2) wherein the at least two trihedrons comprise at least three trihedrons and the at least two pivoting couplings comprise at least three pivoting couplings, wherein each of the at least three trihedrons is connected to the support body via one of the at least three pivoting couplings (see the rejection of claim 1 here above about the pivoting couplings); (Claims 3, 5) wherein the at least two trihedrons comprise at least four trihedrons and the at least two pivoting couplings comprise at least four pivoting couplings, wherein each of the at least four trihedrons is connected to the support body via one of the at least four pivoting couplings (see the rejection of claim 1 here above about the pivoting couplings); (claim 13) wherein each of the at least two pivoting couplings is configured to fix the orientation of the one trihedron relative to the support body; (claim 16) wherein fixing the orientation of the at least two trihedrons comprises gluing the at least two trihedrons.
However, subject 90 appears to have a description that corresponds to that of the trihedron presented in Figs. 2-3 of the instant Application, with a 3D configuration with multiple reference surfaces (¶ 141 for ex.). Moreover, and in a similar field of endeavor, Shirley teaches a calibration apparatus, system and method (Abstract, Figs. 1-24) which suggests using a calibration standard in a form of a plurality of optical targets with multiple faces (200), and each connected to the same support (Abstract, Figs. 2-4, 9 for ex.); and wherein each pivoting coupling is configured to fix the orientation of the trihedron relative to the support body, to efficiently calibrate an optical imaging system; the at least two trihedrons defining an inner cavity (Figs. 3A-D; the trihedrons present an inner cavity 310). In addition, the supporting member 72 of Fukumoto in Figs. 9-10 can easily be designed to be connected within the inner cavity of the one trihedron for more mechanical stability of the trihedron, and (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D), and fixing the orientation of the at least two trihedrons comprises gluing the at least two trihedrons, would be obvious to one PHOSITA as a way of adhesion and attachment among the limited genus of attachments (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Fukumoto in view of Shirley’s suggestions so that the calibration polyhedron subject to be at least two trihedrons; each of the at least two trihedrons defining an inner cavity; and that the pivoting coupling a part is connected within the inner cavity of the one trihedron; ) wherein the at least two trihedrons comprise at least three trihedrons and the at least two pivoting couplings comprise at least three pivoting couplings, wherein each of the at least three trihedrons is connected to the support body via one of the at least three pivoting couplings; wherein the at least two trihedrons comprise at least four trihedrons and the at least two pivoting couplings comprise at least four pivoting couplings, wherein each of the at least four trihedrons is connected to the support body via one of the at least four pivoting couplings; wherein each of the at least two pivoting couplings is configured to fix the orientation of the one trihedron relative to the support body, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the 3D calibrating of the optical imaging/mapping system.
Moreover, Fukumoto teaches:
(Claim 4) wherein the at least one optoelectronic sensor comprises a laser scanner (Figs. 1-5, ¶ 50-61 for ex.)
(Claim 7) further comprising, after fixing the orientation of the at least two trihedrons, taking the reference master assembly to a metrology room for certification of a configuration (necessary step in calibration, i.e. once calibration settings are determined, they need to be saved).
(Claim 9) further comprising identifying a rotation axis of the mechanical part with respect to a reference system of the at least one optoelectronic sensor (¶ 131-133, 146-149, 151-154 for ex; the predetermined rotation axis is used with respect to a necessary referential to determine the 3D of the object).
(Claims 11-12) wherein each of the at least two pivoting couplings comprises a stationary part (low part between 30 and 40 in Fig. 19 for ex.) connected to the support body (40) and a pivoting part (30) connected to the stationary part and the trihedron; wherein the stationary part of each of the at least two pivoting couplings has a central axis and the pivoting part of each of the at least two pivoting couplings is configured to pivot relative to the central axis of the stationary part (as pointed to in ¶ 120-124 for ex; obvious in a rotation stage, with the central axis being either a theoretical geometrical axis or a physical axle).
(Claims 14-15) wherein each of the at least two trihedrons defines three reference outer surfaces that are nominally and substantially perpendicular to one another; wherein the reference outer surfaces are planar (Figs. 18-19; top/front/side surfaces are planar and perpendicular to one another).
7- Claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto and Shirley in view of Meyer (PGPUB No. 20160041300)
As claim 10, the combination of Fukumoto and Shirley teaches the reference master assembly of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein each of the at least two pivoting couplings is a spherical joint.
However, in the field of mechanical rotational systems, Meyer, which teaches a system for gravimetry (Abstract, Figs. 1-7) proposes spherical bearing that provide three axes of rotation (¶ 62), as a mere replacement to the classical conventional rotating elements for less disturbance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Fukumoto and Shirley in view of Meyer’s suggestions so that each of the at least two pivoting couplings is a spherical joint, with the advantage of effectively reducing mechanical disturbance compared to the classical conventional rotating elements (¶ 62).
Relevant Prior art
US 5557410, US 5506683 appear relevant to the use of polyhedrons for optical measurements.
WO 2023083804, US 12710269 appear to teach most the elements of the claimed apparatus and its method of use but fail the claimed invention as a whole
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
