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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to Claim 11 in the submission filed 7/2/2026 are acknowledged and accepted.
New Claims 16-20 are acknowledged and accepted as the subject matter of the claims is similar to the subject matter of the originally filed claims.
In view of the amendments to the Claims, objections to Claims, are withdrawn.
Pending Claims are 1-20. Claims 6 and 14 were objected to previously as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, filed 7/2/2026) have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive.
a) The Office contends that object 7 to be measured corresponds to the recited
reference element. Haunreiter explicitly states that object 7 is an object that is "to be measured." The object 7 of Haunreiter is thus not analogous to the recited reference element, but instead to the recited object.
Haunreiter teaches object 5 to be measured by a carrier 4 (para 30) and other objects 7 to be measured by a clamping jaw 6. The position of other object 7 with respect to housing 1 is like the position of reference element 2 with respect to housing 12 of the current drawings. Hence Haunreiter’s other object 7 is considered to be a reference element.
b) Office broadly interprets the claimed object and reference element to be interchangeable; the Office has not articulated any basis for construing the claim as such. Nor would it be permissible for the Office to adopt such an interpretation under the standards set forth in the MPEP. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.
In the present instance, it would be impermissible to interpret object 7 of
Haunreiter as corresponding to a reference element. The published specification describes (with reference to FIG. 1) that the reference element "is disposed between the measuring graduation 4.1 of the measuring standard and the scanning unit 10" and "serves as a spacer element" by spacing the measuring standard apart from the scanning unit 10 at a defined distance.
No special definition of reference element is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “reference element”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant' s interpretation of, “reference element,” which states/seems to imply that reference element must be a spacer element with a specific structure as in fig 1. However, the specification is silent as to structure of the reference element; the specification does not prohibit such an interpretation; therefore, Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art.
Haunreiter states (fig 1, para 30-31)) that 7 is an “other object”, which is being measured by clamping jaw 6 and is for example the carriage of a machine tool. Haunreiter also teaches (fig 1) that housing 1 is attached to carrier 4 through which scanning unit is connected. In the current application, reference element 2 is an extension element which is part of a machine tool- measuring graduation 4.1. Housing 12 of scanning unit 10 rests against reference element 2 and is attached to the object. In Haunreiter, in a similar configuration, reference element (other object 7) is for example carriage of a machine tool and housing (housing 1) rests against the reference element (object 7) and is also attached to object (object 5) which is to be measured.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the reference element "is disposed between the measuring graduation 4.1 of the measuring standard and the scanning unit 10" and "serves as a spacer element" by spacing the measuring standard apart from the scanning unit 10 at a defined distance) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
c) A person of ordinary skill in art would not consider Haunreiter's object 7 a reference element within the context of the present specification. Haunreiter's object 7 does not function as a means for offsetting the measurement standard 3 from a scanning unit. No scanning unit faces object 7, as measurement standard 3 is arranged within housing 1. A scanning unit faces into a cavity of the housing 1 towards the measurement standard 3 to conduct measurements, so the spacing of the measurement standard 3 from a scanning unit is provided by the structure of the housing 1 as opposed to the thickness of any type of removable insert or similar reference element.
The opinion in In re Hiniker Co., 47 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1998) stated "...the name of the game is the claim. See Giles Sutherland Rich, Extent of Protection and Interpretation of Claims--American Perspectives , 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop.& Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990) (“The U.S. is strictly an examination country and the main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable. To coin a phrase, the name of the game is the claim.”)."
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. “reference element is a removable insert or spacer element which functions as a means for offsetting the measurement standard 3 from a scanning unit” and “the scanning unit faces the reference element”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also, scanning unit is connected with object 5 to be measured by carrier 4 (para 30). Haunreiter in fig 1 illustrates that scanning unit faces other object 7 which is considered as the reference element which is similar to configuration in current fig 1, even though the limitation that scanning unit faces reference element is not claimed.
Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider Haunreiter’s other object 7 as a reference element in rejecting the current claims.
d) Furthermore, object 7 cannot be removed while maintaining an assembled state of a scanning unit that permits measurement to be performed. Haunreiter's screws 10 and fitted pins 8 affix the housing 1 directly to the object 7 to be measured. Removing object 7 from housing 1 would thus make measurement with any degree of accuracy practically infeasible.
Other object 7 appears to be removable as the housing 1 is fastened on a mounting face M of the other object 7 by a clamping jaw 6 (para 31). A clamping jaw is unclampable and hence the other object 7 is removable.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. reference element cannot be removed while maintaining an assembled state of a scanning unit) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
e) Affa's elastic adhesive layer 10 is not "configured to press housing against a reference element”. The Office has only provided a piece-meal combination of features from Haunreiter and Affa without articulating how Affa's elastic adhesive layer 10 would press a housing against a reference element in the purported combination. Affa does not include a reference element.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Haunretiter teaches (fig 1) a reference element (other object 7) and one or more second elements (fitted pin 8) extending at least partially through respective one or more through-openings in the housing and the fitted pin is configured to press fit (para 35) the housing (housing 1, para 30) against a reference element (object 7, para 31) (“The housing 1 as the support of the scale 2 having the measuring graduation 3 is fastened on a mounting face M of the other objects 7”, para 31). Affa teaches second elements are flexible elements (elastic adhesive layer 10) extending through one or more through-openings (groove 11) Combined Haunreiter-Affa teach one or more flexible elements extending at least partially through respective one or more through-openings in the housing and configured to press fit (para 35) the housing (housing 1, para 30) against a reference element (object 7, para 31)
f) Furthermore, the Office has not indicated how the combination of Affa's elastic adhesive layer in Haunreiter's screw and pin 8 would lead to pressing Haunreiter's housing 1 against object 7.
Applicant’s arguments of the unworkability of the combination, due to Affa’s elastic adhesive layer not being able to press fit Haunreiter’s housing 1 against object 7, appear to be based on a literal application of the actual structure of Affa to the actual structure of Haunreiter. However, that is not the proper standard for the analysis required under 35 USC 103(a). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Keller at 881, goes on to revisit the long history of the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) regarding the nature of suggestion established by the combined teachings of the references rather than the actual results of a physical, bodily incorporation:
To justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in the other. In re Griver, 53 CCPA 815, 354, F.2d 377, 148 USPQ 197 (1966); In re Billingsley, 47 CCPA 1108, 279 F.2d 689, 126 USPQ 370 (1960). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 202 USPQ 171 (CCPA 1979); In re Passal, 57 CCPA 1151, 426 F.2d 828, 165 USPQ 720 (1970); In re Richman, 57 CCPA 1060, 424 F.2d 1388, 165 USPQ 509 (1970); In re Rosselet, 52 CCPA 1533, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (1965).
The structure taught in the combined teachings of the references, as set forth above, is a flexible element. Because the structure of the combined system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of a flexible element. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Haunreiter’s fitted pin 8 is configured to press fit (para 35) the housing (housing 1, para 30) against a reference element (object 7, para 31). Affa’s adhesive layer 10 extends through opening (groove 11) and hence has elastic or flexible adhering property and hence its within ordinary skill of a phosita in the art to be able to replace fitted pin 8 with adhesive layer 10 for press fitting housing 1 against object 7 easily.
g) Even if Affa's elastic adhesive layer 10 were to be combined with the features of Yamamuro and Haunreiter as proposed by the Office, it would not be configured to press a housing against Haunreiter's object 7 to be measured. If Affa's elastic adhesive layer 10 were arranged around Haunreiter's screw 10, it would impose radial forces between Haunreiter's screw 10 and housing 1 and axial forces between the screw 10 and object 7 but would not press Haunreiter's housing 1 against object 7.
Applicant's assertion that Affa’s elastic adhesive layer 10 would not press Haunreiter’s housing against object 7 and would impose radial and axial forces is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 2129, 2144.03, 716.01(c).
Haunreiter teaches (para 33-35, fig 2) fitted pin 8 projecting in a receptacle of a fitted bore 9 and constitutes a press fit. A force-exerting element in the form of a screw 10 has been screwed into the fitted pin 8 for producing the clamping force. With the screw 10 being tightened the fitted pin 8 would also exert radial and axial forces. Replacing Haunreiter’s fitted pin 8 with Affa’s elastic adhesive flexible layer press fit (para 35) the housing (housing 1, para 30) against a reference element (object 7, para 31) and the forces present in Haunreiter’s setup would be similar to the forces generated by Affa’s flexible layer.
Hence in view of the above arguments, rejection of claims is upheld.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5,7-13,15,18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamuro et al (US 2022/0252436 A1, of record) in view of Haunreiter et al (US 2007/0056156 A1, of record) and further in view of Affa et al (US 5,655,311 A, of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamuro teaches (fig 1-3) a scanning unit (detection head part 300, para 32, “The detection head part 300 includes a light source part, a lens optical system (310 and 320), a reception part 330, and a casing 340”, para 38) of a position-measuring device (“displacement measuring device 100”, para 31) comprising:
a housing (casing 340, para 38, fig 2),
one or more through-openings (openings for screws 422, fig 3) arranged in the housing (casing 340, para 38, fig 2) for fastening the scanning unit (detection head part 300, para 32) to an object (housing holder 400, para 44);
one or more fastening elements (fixing screws 22, para 48) extending in each case through a respective one of the one or more through-openings (openings for screws 422, fig 3) (“the detection head part 300 is fixed to the detector holding plates 421 with fixing screws 422”, para 48).
However, Yamamuro does not teach
one or more flexible elements extending in each case at least partially through a respective one of the one or more through-openings and being configured to press the housing against a reference element.
Yamamuro and Haunreiter are related as fixing components in optical measuring devices.
Haunreiter teaches (fig 1,2) a position-measuring device (“an encapsulated linear measuring device”, para 30), wherein
one or more fastening elements (screw 10, para 35, “A force-exerting element in the form of a screw 10”) extending in each case through a respective one of the one or more through-openings (fitted bore 9, para 30) and
one or more second elements (fitted pin 8, para 33) extending in each case at least partially through a respective one of the one or more through-openings (fitted bore 9, para 30) and being configured to press (“the fitted pin 8 constitutes a press fit”, para 35) the housing (housing 1, para 30) against a reference element (object 7, para 31) (“The housing 1 as the support of the scale 2 having the measuring graduation 3 is fastened on a mounting face M of the other objects 7”, para 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the through openings of Yamamuro to include the second elements of Haunreiter for the purpose of using a simple technique of fastening for unequivocal positioning and alignment of objects (para 10).
However, Yamamuro-Haunreiter do not teach
flexible elements extending through one or more through-openings.
. Yamamuro-Haunreiter and Affa are related as elements extending through through-openings in position measuring devices.
Affa teaches (fig 2),
flexible elements (elastic adhesive layer 10, col 3, lines 18-24) extending through one or more through-openings (groove 11, col 3, lines 18-24).
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the through openings of Yamamuro-Haunreiter to include the flexible elements of Affa for the purpose of translatory distance compensation (col 3, lines 14-17).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the scanning unit according to claim 1.
However, Yamamuro does not teach
wherein a pre-tensioning device is formed by the one or more flexible elements and the one or more fastening elements.
Yamamuro and Haunreiter are related as fixing components in optical measuring devices.
Haunreiter teaches (fig 1,2) a position-measuring device (“an encapsulated linear measuring device”, para 30), wherein
wherein a pre-tensioning device (“A force-exerting element in the form of a screw 10 has been screwed into the fitted pin 8 for producing the clamping force”, para 35) .is formed by the one or more second elements (fitted pin 8, para 33) and the one or more fastening elements (screw 10, para 35, “A force-exerting element in the form of a screw 10”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the through openings of Yamamuro to include the pre-tensioning device of Haunreiter for the purpose of using a simple technique of fastening for unequivocal positioning and alignment of objects (para 10).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the scanning unit according to claim 1.
However, Yamamuro does not teach
wherein the one or more flexible elements are configured to generate a predetermined pressing force by which the housing is pressed against the reference element.
Yamamuro and Haunreiter are related as fixing components in optical measuring devices.
Haunreiter teaches (fig 1,2) a position-measuring device (“an encapsulated linear measuring device”, para 30),
wherein the one or more second elements (fitted pin 8, para 33) are configured to generate a predetermined pressing force by which the housing (housing 1, para 30) is pressed (“the fitted pin 8 constitutes a press fit”, para 35) against the reference element (object 7, para 31) (“The housing 1 as the support of the scale 2 having the measuring graduation 3 is fastened on a mounting face M of the other objects 7”, para 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical device of Yamamuro to include the fastening elements of Haunreiter for the purpose of using a simple technique of fastening for unequivocal positioning and alignment of objects (para 10).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the scanning unit according to claim 1.
However, Yamamuro does not teach
wherein the one or more flexible elements are configured to press the housing against the reference element in a first direction perpendicular to a surface of the reference element.
Yamamuro and Haunreiter are related as fixing components in optical measuring devices.
Haunreiter teaches (fig 1,2) a position-measuring device (“an encapsulated linear measuring device”, para 30),
wherein the one or more second elements (fitted pin 8, para 33) are configured to press the housing (housing 1, para 30) (“the fitted pin 8 constitutes a press fit”, para 35) against the reference element (object 7, para 31) in a first direction perpendicular to a surface of the reference element (“A force-exerting element in the form of a screw 10 has been screwed into the fitted pin 8 for producing the clamping force”, para 35, “the clamping force K of the clamping jaw 6 acting on the housing 1 is divided into two force components K1 and K2, which extend perpendicularly to the longitudinal extension of the housing 1 in a plane which is perpendicular to the longitudinal extension of the housing 1, i.e the sectional plane II-II.”, para 32, the clamping force is transferred to the fitted plane 8 and hence the fitted pin constitutes the press fit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the components of Yamamuro to include pressing the housing against the reference element in a first direction perpendicular to its surface as of Haunreiter for the purpose of using a simple technique of fastening for unequivocal positioning and alignment of objects (para 10).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the scanning unit according to claim 1.
However, Yamamuro does not teach
wherein the one or more flexible elements extend within the one or more through-openings in a second direction perpendicular to a surface of the object, and wherein the one or more flexible elements are configured to be continuous in the second direction.
Yamamuro and Haunreiter are related as fixing components in optical measuring devices.
Haunreiter teaches (fig 1,2) a position-measuring device (“an encapsulated linear measuring device”, para 30),
wherein the one or more second elements (fitted pin 8, para 33) extend within the one or more through-openings (fitted bore 9, para 30) in a second direction perpendicular (direction along K2, fig 2 and hence perpendicular to the surface of object 7) to a surface of the object (object 7), and
wherein the one or more second elements (fitted pin 8, para 33) are configured to be continuous in the second direction (fitted pin 8 is continuous along K2 direction, fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixing components of Yamamuro to include pressing the housing against the reference element in a first direction perpendicular to its surface as of Haunreiter for the purpose of using a simple technique of fastening for unequivocal positioning and alignment of objects (para 10).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the scanning unit according to claim 1.
However, Yamamuro does not teach
wherein the one or more flexible elements are configured in a tubular manner.
Yamamuro and Haunreiter are related as fixing components in optical measuring devices.
Haunreiter teaches (fig 1,2) a position-measuring device (“an encapsulated linear measuring device”, para 30),
wherein the one or more second elements (fitted pin 8, para 33) are configured in a tubular manner (tubular as in fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring device of Yamamuro to include tubular flexible elements of Haunreiter for the purpose of using common shape in a simple technique of fastening for unequivocal positioning and alignment of objects (para 10).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the scanning unit according to claim 1.
However, Yamamuro-Haunreiter do not teach
wherein the one or more flexible elements are elastically deformable elements.
. Yamamuro-Haunreiter and Affa are related as elements extending through one or more through-openings in position measuring devices.
Affa teaches (fig 2),
wherein the one or more flexible elements (elastic adhesive layer 10, col 3, lines 18-24) are elastically deformable elements (elastic adhesive is deformable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elements of Yamamuro-Haunreiter to include the flexible elements of Affa for the purpose of translatory distance compensation (col 3, lines 14-17).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the scanning unit according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more flexible elements are made of silicone or rubber (Official Notice is taken that flexible elements are made of silicone or rubber. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have flexible elements are made of silicone or rubber for the purpose of using commonly known and available flexible material.)
Regarding Claim 10, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the scanning unit according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more fastening elements (fixing screws 22, para 48, Yamamuro) are configured as fastening screws (screws 22) or fastening bolts.
Regarding Claim 11, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the position-measuring device (“displacement measuring device 100”, para 31, Yamamuro) according to claim 1, comprising a measuring standard (scale 200, para 32) and the scanning unit (detection head part 300, para 32).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the position-measuring device according to claim 11,
further comprising the reference element (holder base part 450, para 45, Yamamuro), wherein the reference element (holder base part 450, para 45) is disposed between the measuring standard (scale 200, para 32) and the scanning unit (detection head part 300, para 32).
Regarding Claim 13, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the position-measuring device according to claim 12,
wherein the reference element (holder base part 450, para 45, Yamamuro) is a spacer (holder base part 450 acts a spacer) element configured to set a distance between the measuring standard (scale 200, para 32) and the scanning unit (detection head part 300, para 32).
Regarding Claim 15, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the position-measuring device according to claim 12,
wherein the reference element (holder base part 450, para 45) is removable from the measuring standard (scale 200, para 32) and the scanning unit (detection head part 300, para 32) in the assembled state of the scanning unit (detection head part 300, para 32) (“then the detection head part 300 is fixed to the detector holding plates 421 with fixing screws 422”, para 48, screws 422 are removable and hence the holder base plate 450 is removable after assembly).
Regarding Claim 18, Yamamuro-Haunreiter-Affa teaches the scanning unit according to claim 1.
However, Yamamuro does not teach
wherein the one or more flexible elements are each arranged non-concentrically with a respective fastening element of the one or more fastening elements.
Yamamuro and Haunreiter are related as fixing components in optical measuring devices.
Haunreiter teaches (fig 1,2) a position-measuring device (“an encapsulated linear measuring device”, para 30), wherein
wherein the one or more second elements (fitted pin 8, para 33) are each arranged non-concentrically (fitted pin 8 and screw 10 are arranged linearly as in fig 2) with a respective fastening element (screw 10, para 35, “A force-exerting element in the form of a screw 10”) of the one or more fastening elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the through openings of Yamamuro to include the second elements arranged non-concentrically with a respective fastening element of Haunreiter for the purpose of using a simple technique of fastening for unequivocal positioning and alignment of objects (para 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,14,16,17, 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.
Claim 6 is allowable for at least the reason:
”wherein the one or more flexible elements each comprise a first pair of partial sections and a second pair of partial sections, wherein the partial sections of the first pair and the partial sections of the second pair are each arranged at two ends of the one or more through-openings opposite to each other in a second direction perpendicular to a surface of the object.”
Claim 14 is allowable for at least the reason:
“wherein the reference element is a flexible film having a predetermined thickness.”
Claim 16 is allowable for at least the reason:
“wherein the one or more flexible elements are configured to press the housing against the reference element in a first direction, wherein one of the one or more fastening elements extends longitudinally along a second direction, and wherein the first direction and the second direction are mutually orthogonal directions relative to one another.”
Claim 17 is allowable for at least the reason:
“wherein the reference element is configured to be arranged between the housing and a measurement standard, and wherein the reference element is configured to be removed from between the housing and the measurement standard such that the housing remains offset relative to the measurement standard by a thickness of the reference element while the housing is attached to the object. has a predetermined curvature orthogonal to a direction of a pressing force configured to be applied by the one or more flexible elements.”
Claims 19,20 allowed.
Claim 19 is allowable for at least the reason:
”wherein the one or more flexible elements each comprise a first pair of partial sections and a second pair of partial sections, wherein the partial sections of the first pair and the partial sections of the second pair are each arranged at two ends of the one or more through-openings opposite to each other in a second direction perpendicular to a surface of the object.”
Claim 20 is allowable for at least the reason:
“wherein the reference element is a flexible film having a predetermined thickness.”
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 JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights