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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specifically the document was filed on 12/04/2024.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: conversion unit; correction unit in claims 19 and 12. The examiner notes for compact prosecution that the only reason the corresponding structure in this case an algorithm is considered sufficient disclosed is due to the broad nature of the processing as claimed. If applicant at any subsequent time argues that the correction unit or conversion unit are not covered by the prior art it will likely trigger an written description rejection as applicant has failed to in any manner disclose a specific algorithm for the intended functions. Again it is merely being treated as adequate at this time due to the basic nature of the calculations being known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Crampton (U.S. PGP No. 2005/0166413 A1) in view of Pivac et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0206924 A1).
As to claims 13 and 22, Crampton discloses and shows in figures 1A-C, 2 and 4, a shape measurement device comprising:
a multi-joint robot (1, i.e. joints 21-27) having a plurality of drive shafts (as disclosed each shaft (6 or 42-48 in figure 2) is driven by corresponding joints with motors) ([0204], ll. 7-19; [0206]; [0207], ll. 11-13); and
a non-contact distance measuring sensor (3, 91) attached to the multi-joint robot ([0044], ll. 29-31; [0248], ll. 38-45; [0400]),
the predetermined single shaft is substantially parallel to the measurement light (explicitly shown in figure 1C and 4) and substantially perpendicular to an actual surface of the object or a reference surface assumed for the object (9) (also explicitly shown in figures 1C and 4) ([0206]; [0211]).
The examiner notes for compact prosecution that although the wherein clause does not distinguish the system claim from that of the prior art (as it is merely an intended use, please see MPEP 2114(II)), it is being interpreted merely for compact prosecution as being positively limiting for citations.
Crampton discloses wherein the multi-joint robot drives only a predetermined single shaft among the plurality of drive shafts to scan an object with measurement light emitted from the non-contact distance measuring sensor ([0263], ll. 1-19; as disclosed either a based joint or tip joint can be actuated independently to cause varying outcomes on the tip location, where the tip can be a point distance measuring probe as previously cited).
In the alternative if not inherent obviously Crampton as modified by Pivac discloses a multi-join robot that drives only a predetermined single shaft among the plurality of drive shafts to scan an object under measurement ([0276]-[0278]). Specifically Pivac explicitly teaches the basic concept of moving the robot base or arm based on desired positioning and deviation from said position. Obviously both Crampton and Pivac are both capable of and show clear evidence that it is merely a matter of design choice to move only a single shaft based on the necessity of where the probe/sensor is relative where it needs to be. Fundamentally in all multi-joint robotics it is predictable that within a limited number of degrees of freedom one moves only that which are necessary to achieve the desired location. As such, in cases where only small movements are needed as explicitly taught by Crampton, only a joint near the tip end depending on location would need to be actuated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crampton wherein the multi-joint robot drives only a predetermined single shaft among the plurality of drive shafts to scan an object with measurement light emitted from the non-contact distance measuring sensor in order to provide the advantage of expected results as predictably the most efficient means by which a robot with multiple joints can be used is that in which the least amount of them are used to provide the desired location change, as such obviously in cases where small movements are needed a single shaft can be moved amongst the plurality to predictably move the sensor to the desired scan position(s).
The subject matter of claims 13 and 22 relate in that the technical features of apparatus claim 13 are in each case suitable for implementing the method of claim 22, therefore the method is inherent/obvious in view of the above apparatus rejection.
As to claim 14, Crampton discloses a shape measurement device, wherein the multi-joint robot turns only the predetermined single shaft to perform scanning in an arc shape with the measurement light emitted from the non-contact distance measuring sensor ([0037], ll. 24-25; [0204]; the language “to perform” and everything that follows is clearly an intended use limitation, as such it is not interpreted as limiting beyond the fact that the prior art needs to be capable of the noted use, which this case via the rotating joints is clearly so. Please see MPEP 2114(II) for further clarification).
As to claim 15, Crampton discloses a shape measurement device, wherein the predetermined single shaft is determined based on angles between the plurality of drive shafts and an actual surface of the object or a reference surface assumed for the object (([0206]; [0211] the language “is determined” and everything that follows is clearly an intended use limitation, as such it is not interpreted as limiting beyond the fact that the prior art needs to be capable of the noted use, which this case via the simple choice by any user to use any of the shafts of the robot as “determined”. Please see MPEP 2114(II) for further clarification).
As to claim 16, Crampton discloses a shape measurement device, wherein the multi-joint robot is able to change both relative positions and orientations of the non-contact distance measuring sensor and the object (i.e. rolling the car as shown in figure 8E forward) by driving the plurality of drive shafts ([0676], clearly a multi-joint robot’s entire function is to change positions and orientations hence “multi-joint”).
As to claim 17, Crampton discloses a shape measurement device, comprising a sample stage (7) on which the object is placed, wherein the sample stage has a fixed relative positional relationship with the multi-joint robot ([0206], as clearly shown in figure 1C, the stage 7 is fixed relative to the moving robot 1).
As to claim 18, Crampton discloses a shape measurement device, wherein the non-contact distance measuring sensor is a laser distance measuring sensor that measures a distance to a point, or a laser beam cutting sensor that measures a distance to a point ([0400]; [0404]; as disclosed the point distance measurement probes can use lasers).
As to claim 19, Crampton discloses a shape measurement device, further comprising a conversion unit (151, where the examiner is interpreting the prior art as having the structural equivalent in performing the same function) that converts a profile corresponding to the arc-shaped scanning of the non-contact distance measuring sensor into a profile corresponding to linear scanning of the non-contact distance measuring sensor ([0261]; [0530], where implicitly in using a combination of linear and rotational/arc based movements for the robot both linear and arc based scanning pathing is required for the robot to scan as disclosed).
As to claim 20, Crampton discloses a shape measurement device, comprising a correction unit (151, where the examiner is interpreting the prior art as having the structural equivalent in performing the same function) that corrects distortion of a profile caused by an inclination of the predetermined single shaft with respect to the actual surface or the reference surface ([0521]; [0532], i.e. calibration correction as disclosed which can be a function of inclination mis-alignment).
As to claim 21, Crampton disclose and shows in figure 28, a shape measurement device, wherein the non-contact distance measuring sensor emits the measurement light in a direction inclined in a range from 0.5 degrees or more to 10 degrees or less from the turning axis of the predetermined single shaft ([0428], where the examiner is interpreting that the fanned out beam includes at least some light that ranges between .5 and 10 degrees and explicitly shown in the “end view” of figure 28, relative to the turning axis of the end shaft of the robot, which is more clearly shown in figure 2).
As to claim 23, Crampton does not explicitly disclose a shape measurement, wherein, in a case where there are a plurality of the drive shafts that are substantially parallel to the measurement light and substantially perpendicular to the actual surface of the object or the reference surface assumed for the object, the predetermined single shaft is a drive shaft closest to a tip.
In the alternative if not inherent obviously Crampton as modified by Pivac discloses a multi-join robot that drives only a predetermined single shaft among the plurality of drive shafts to scan an object under measurement ([0276]-[0278]). Specifically Pivac explicitly teaches the basic concept of moving the robot base or arm based on desired positioning and deviation from said position. Obviously both Crampton and Pivac are both capable of and show clear evidence that it is merely a matter of design choice to move only a single shaft based on the necessity of where the probe/sensor is relative where it needs to be. Fundamentally in all multi-joint robotics it is predictable that within a limited number of degrees of freedom one moves only that which are necessary to achieve the desired location. As such, in cases where only small movements are needed as explicitly taught by Crampton, only a joint near the tip end depending on location would need to be actuated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crampton a shape measurement, wherein, in a case where there are a plurality of the drive shafts that are substantially parallel to the measurement light and substantially perpendicular to the actual surface of the object or the reference surface assumed for the object, the predetermined single shaft is a drive shaft closest to a tip in order to provide the advantage of expected results as predictably the most efficient means by which a robot with multiple joints can be used is that in which the least amount of them are used to provide the desired location change, as such obviously in cases where small movements are needed a single shaft can be moved amongst the plurality to predictably move the sensor to the desired scan position(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 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 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights