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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 23 July 2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-17 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/26/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner agrees in part with Applicant’s arguments but disagrees overall. The claims as written are considered by Examiner to be broader in the broadest reasonable interpretation than what has been argued.
Applicant argues three main points:
1) markers 2a and 2b cannot be considered to be “two linear first guide markers arranged at positions ahead of a measurement position of the measurement unit in a scanning direction at predetermined intervals with the scanning position being interposed therebetween”
2) lines 6 and 7 cannot correspond to the claimed linear guide markers for a similar reason
3) the markers 2a and 2b do not “guide” the scanning position and thus are not linear guide markers.
Examiner partially agrees with 2), as the lines are formed by guide marker 2a and 2b, and so overlay each other. Either the marking 6 and 7 or the markers 2a and 2b can considered the guide marker, which as claimed has no physical structural requirements, but not both at the same time.
Examiner wholly disagrees with 3), as the device is designed to “trace” the path marked by the markers 2a and 2b using markers 3a/3b to follow markings 6 and 7, which controls the scanning movement (paragraph [0025]). The marked path created by the markers for performing the scans entirely falls within the definition of “guide” for either the markers or the markings.
With respect to argument 1), Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument as presently claimed. The scanning direction in the device is in both directions, and on each side, the marker is positioned ahead of the scanning position (where the flaw detector 8 is located) and are located at predetermined/set intervals around it, as both markers 3a and 3b are an equal distance from the detector 8.
As further claimed in [0031], the distance between the marking line 6 and the flaw detection sensor and the front and rear end detection sensor 4 in the traveling direction corresponds to a predetermined regular scanning pitch interval, and the interval between the self-written markers 2a and 2b may be the same as the width of the carriage 5 or may be wider (predetermined values).
Examiner agrees overall that the reference does not show both markers on the same side of the guiding unit, but that is not required of the claim, only that the markers are “ahead” in the scanning direction.
As noted in the previous Office Action and recited below, even if this were to be the case, having markers arranged around all four sides of the device has been shown for improved centering as taught by references such as Cheng et al., and it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious variant over the prior art.
The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112 rejection of claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagakura (Publication No.: JP 05296986 A, cited in the IDS on 4/23/2024, and a machine translation is provided with this Office Action, herein known as D1).
With respect to claim 1, D1 discloses a guiding device (Fig. 4) comprising:
a guiding unit (traveling carriage 5; [0024]) configured to guide a scanning position of a measurement unit (measurement device 8 such as a flaw detector and a recorder; [0025]) with respect to a measurement target (steel plate 1; [0024])) when the measurement unit configured to measure a physical quantity of the measurement target performs scanning (flaw detection; [0025]), wherein
the guiding unit includes at least two linear first guide markers configured to guide the scanning position, and the at least two linear first guide markers are arranged at positions ahead of a measurement position of the measurement unit in a scanning direction at predetermined intervals with the scanning position being interposed therebetween (2a and 2b are self-marking markers; [0027]; which are arranged corresponding to a predetermined regular scanning pitch interval; [0031]; and forms marking lines 6 [0030] which are then used to travel along by the carriage to perform flaw detection ([0027]-[0034]).
It is noted that the “at least two guide markers” is considered to be 2a in front of the scanning carriage and 2b at the rear of the carriage as seen in Fig. 4, and in the following limitation “the at least two linear guide markers” are “arranged at positions ahead of a measurement position of the measurement unit”, 2a would be considered the marker ahead of the two. If this claim is to be read that both markers are to be in front, it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious variant of the prior art and making two sets of guide markers in the front and back would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a full square/rectangular bracket around the scanning area. See for example, Cheng et al. (cited in the previous Office Action) which uses four markers surrounding a chip to assist in centering of a device along the four markers.
Alternatively, as seen in Figs. 1, 2 and 4, each of the marking lines 6 or 7 can be considered a linear guide marker which the traveling carriage 5 follows as described in [0031], all of which would be considered “arranged at positions ahead of a measurement position of the measurement unit”.
See the response to arguments above for additional clarity.
With respect to claim 2, D1 further discloses a guiding device wherein the guiding unit includes one or a plurality of linear second guide markers indicating the scanning position (as above, this can be considered to be inherent, by using the lines 7 marked by the self-markers 2a and 2b as the “next” set of scanning positions, or an obvious variant wherein an additional set of self-written markers can be used to form an additional guide line).
With respect to claim 3, D1 further discloses a device wherein the at least two linear first guide markers extend in the scanning direction (see Figs. 1, 2, and 4, and [0027]-[0034] where the carriage 5 moves along the guide markers).
With respect to claim 6, see the rejection of claim 1 above, which would be capable of performing the method as described above and in paragraphs [0027]-[0034].
With respect to claim 7, D1 further discloses a measurement device the measurement unit configured to measure the physical quantity of the measurement target; and the guiding device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above, in which the measurement unit measures flaws).
With respect to claim 9, D1 further discloses a measuring method comprising a step of measuring a physical quantity of an object by using the guiding method according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above, physical quantity is flaws detected by the flaw detector).
With respect to claim 11, D1 further discloses an object quality control method comprising a step of classifying the object based on the measured physical quantity by using the measuring method according to claim 9 (flawed or flawless would be inherent if not obvious classifications).
With respect to claim 12, see the rejection of claim 1 above (the working unit can be considered the measurement unit or the measurement unit and additional profiling rollers 9a/9b that work the surface of the plate, that is performing a predetermined work of “inspection” and “marking” on a surface of the object “steel plate”).
With respect to claim 13, see the rejection of claim 6 above (the working unit can be considered the measurement unit or the measurement unit and additional profiling rollers 9a/9b that work the surface of the plate, that is performing a predetermined work of “inspection” and “marking” on a surface of the object “steel plate”).
With respect to claim 15, see the rejection of claims 1 and 12 above, the work unit is just a combination of both the guiding means and the carriage, and as there is no structural limitations required to link the two together can be considered separate or integrated units.
With respect to claim 16, see the rejection of claim 6 above (the overall method of [0027]-[0034] is considered “performing the predetermined work”).
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Langlois et al. (Publication No.: US 2015/0039245 A1, herein known as D2).
With respect to claim 4, D1 does not disclose a device wherein the guiding unit includes: an imaging unit configured to shoot an image including the scanning position; and a display unit that displays the first guide markers in a manner of being superimposed on the image shot by the imaging unit.
D2 teaches using a laser projection guide system to guide a scanning module along a predetermined inspection line to look for flaws using a 3D camera and sending the images to paired glasses to allow wearers or inspectors to see where the probe is located with respect to the desired scanning path ([0008]-[0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of D1 with the guiding system of D2 to add an extra visual system to ensure the carriage is moving along the guide lines, and/or allow a user/inspector to visually see where the carriage is with respect to the desired scanning path.
With respect to claim 5, D1 does not disclose a device further comprising a monitoring unit configured to monitor a pressing amount of the measurement unit against the measurement target and/or an interval between the measurement target and the measurement unit, and give notification of predetermined information in a case where the pressing amount and/or the interval do not satisfy a predetermined condition.
D2 teaches using a laser projection guide system to guide a scanning module along a predetermined inspection line to look for flaws using a 3D camera and sending the images to paired glasses to allow wearers or inspectors to see where the probe is located with respect to the desired scanning path ([0008]-[0009]), and sending an alert (claim 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of D1 with the guiding system of D2 to add an extra visual system to ensure the carriage is moving along the guide lines, and/or allow a user/inspector to visually see where the carriage is with respect to the desired scanning path when alerted.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claims 1 and 6-7, 9, and 12, 13, and 16 above, and further in view of Publication No.: JP 6908195 B2, herein known as D3, cited in the IDS on 1/15/2025, and a machine translation is provided herewith.
With respect to claim 8, D1 discloses an object manufacturing facility comprising:
the measurement device according to claim 7 (see above), wherein
a physical quantity of the object is measured with the measurement device (flaws of the steel plates).
D3 teaches a full method of manufacturing a metal plate and having a step of inspecting a defect of the plate using a self-propelled inspection device (technical field: “The present invention relates to a self-propelled inspection device for a metal plate and an inspection method using a position measurement system. The present invention also relates to a method for manufacturing a metal plate, which comprises a step of inspecting a defect of the metal plate using the self-propelled inspection device for the metal plate.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to either modify the device of D1 to incorporate into a full production line means as taught by D3 to perform assembly and inspection all in one location, or alternatively utilize the scanning device of D1 in the specific inspection step of the manufacturing method of D3.
With respect to claim 10, see rejection of claim 8 above, the overall manufacturing facility and manufacturing process of D3 can be added to the device/method of D1, or alternatively the manufacturing facility and process of D3 can utilize the device/method of D1 in its inspection step.
With respect to claim 14, see rejection of claim 8 and 12 above, the overall manufacturing facility and manufacturing process of D3 can be added to the device/method of D1, or alternatively the manufacturing facility and process of D3 can utilize the device/method of D1 in its inspection step.
With respect to claim 17, see rejection of claim 6 and 13 above, the overall manufacturing facility and manufacturing process of D3 can be added to the device/method of D1, or alternatively the manufacturing facility and process of D3 can utilize the device/method of D1 in its inspection step.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. 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.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
10/2/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights