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 .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 4/16/2024, in which claims 1-9 are currently pending. The Application is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2022/081117, International Filing Date: 11/08/2022, and claims foreign priority to 102021000028412, filed 11/09/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 4/16/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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 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 claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 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 (40 or equivalent); and a calibration subject (70, 80 or 90) defining reference surfaces (Figs. 9-11 15-16, 18-19) and connected to the support body (30), the reference surfaces being adapted to be crossed by said light plane (Fig. 11) wherein said calibration subject is connected to the support body via a pivoting coupling (92/30) adapted to allow orienting the reference surfaces to be adjusted (Figs. 18-19); (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); (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 connected to the support body; (Claims 3, 5) wherein the at least two trihedrons comprise at least four trihedrons connected 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) (Abstract, Figs. 2-4, 9 for ex.) to 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 connected to the support body; wherein the at least two trihedrons comprise at least four trihedrons connected 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).
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