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 .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended. New claims 10-13 have been added.
Response to Arguments
2- 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 have changed the scope of the invention and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action mailed 12/30/2025.
3- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4- 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.
5- Claims 1-9, 11-13 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, 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 subject (70, 80 or 90) defining reference surfaces (Figs. 9-11 15-16, 18-19), the reference surfaces being adapted to be crossed by the light plane (Fig. 11) wherein the calibration subject is connected to the support body via a pivoting coupling (92/30) adapted to allow adjustable orientation of the reference surfaces 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 subject to be at least two trihedrons; (Claim 2) wherein the at least two trihedrons comprise at least three trihedrons that are each connected to the support body via the pivoting coupling; (Claims 3, 5) wherein the at least two trihedrons comprise at least four trihedrons that are each connected to the support body via the pivoting coupling; (claim 13) wherein each pivoting coupling is configured to fix the orientation of the trihedron relative to the support body.
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.
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 subject to be at least two trihedrons; wherein the at least two trihedrons comprise at least three trihedrons that are each connected to the support body; wherein the at least two trihedrons comprise at least four trihedrons that are each connected to the support body; wherein each pivoting coupling is configured to fix the orientation of the 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 pivoting coupling 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 has a central axis and the pivoting part 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).
6- 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 pivoting coupling 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 pivoting coupling is a spherical joint, with the advantage of effectively reducing mechanical disturbance compared to the classical conventional rotating elements (¶ 62).
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).
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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED 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
Prosecution Insights